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

Reporting FreeatlastChitchat for edit waring and violating 1RR (2nd)

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

---

After FreeatlastChitchat was blocked (for the forth time!) by slakr for edit warring, he was manually unblocked provided that he adhere to WP:1RR and refrain from edit warring. Unfortunately, he kept on the disruptive behavior by violating 1RR and committing edit warring. This is his first violation of 1RR. And this one is the second time he violated it. After he opened a topic on the talk page, I tried to explain why he really could not have mass removed the article but without paying attention to the presented explanations he reverted for the second time (he reverted seyyed's revert!). Minutes after his second revert, he made a belated response (I mean he reverted for the second time without participating the TP discussion and helping to form a consensus. He reverted then he commented.) Note 1: He had been here some days ago, Although I doubt whether his major problems with civility are solved considering [1], [2] and [3]. Mhhossein (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Defense Statement from FLCC
• NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments and rearranging them again and again according to his wishes. An admin who reads this should stop this behavior please because it is getting damn irritating.

1. I asked my unblocking admin that if he required , I can ask editor to agree with my exact edit on Talk Pages, however he did not ask me to do so and unblocked me.
2. The article in question Tawassul has now been edited by another editor who accepted most of my deletions. He did keep a couple of websites, but commented on the TP saying that they appeared to be highly suspicious.
3. There is no official sanction on me enforcing me to adhere to 1PR. I told the blocking admin that I will try to adhere to 1PR on pages where edit warring may erupt and I have done so till now. Even now I have reverted Mhossein only once.
4. The template in question was edited by four editors, including me. I am the only one who took the matter to DRN, the other guys are plainly refusing to accept mediation, I was the one who asked for the page to be protected(Even though the protected version is not mine). I was the one who started TP discussion about the template, I am not sure what more I can do.
5. In my comment on the RS noticeboard I am commenting on a source, and have full right to call the source bad, commenting on sources and content is allowed ojn wikipedia. Furthermore my opinion is shared by an uninvolved editor on the RSN.

• Comments by a FLCC About this report

I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me. The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites. Someone had inserted a Hoax into the article I removed that. Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources. An admin who closes this should be kind enough to tell me for how long this nom will be hounding me. Secondly if removing unreliable sources and hoaxes is something I need permission for then why the hell should I be editing wikipedia?

• Comments from FLCC About this nom

This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding, and I have had ENOUGH of this crap. Is this guy going to revert everytime I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts). I want this nom to be sanctioned, and he should be prohibited from undoing my edits, while I shall refrain from undoing his edits. He should be sanctioned and prohibited from mentioning me on TP's or any other place in wiki, and I shall do the same. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• "I am not sure why this guy keeps hounding me"; Not only you failed to refer to a single diff fitting the criteria but also per WP:HOUND you hounded me [4], [5] and [6].
• "The article in question uses unreliable websites as sources. I removed those websites."; You even failed to notice that being merely a website is not the proper reason for deeming the source unreliable (seyyed evaluated the websites which you called unreliable.) As it appears you never check who the authors are!
• " Nowhere in the entire wikipedia will you find a talkpage discussion when someone has to Take permission for removing blatant hoaxes and unreliable sources"; No one objected your removing of unreliable materials (if there were any) you failed to say why you mass removed plenty of reliable sources without discussion and engaged in edit warring. Some of the reliable sources you removed two times without bothering to check their reliability:

"The Shi'ite Religion: A History of Islam in Persia and Irak" by Dwight M. Donaldson , "Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul)" by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, "Sharh al-Mawahib al-ladunniyah" by Muhammad al-Zurqani and "Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah" by Ibn Juzayy.

• "An admin who closes this ... should I be editing wikipedia?"; 99 percent the same as previous comments.
• "This is a clear case of boomerang and hounding."; Repeating "hounding" for the third time without a single diff, while I just provided three diffs which should be investigated.
• "Is this guy going to revert every time I edit one of his beloved pages (He is a shia and any Shia page I edit, he blindly reverts)."; You made a ad hominem comment per WP:PA (I revert because I'm Shia!). I never "blindly" reverted you. As I said above you'd removed many WP:RSs and you just refrain from explaining why!
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned."; I also want him to be Topic Banned and be prohibited from editing Islam related articles for the fact that his background shows that he fails to follow the MOS of Islam related articles.
• "I want this nom to be sanctioned." I also want him to be sanctioned for he promised by saying :" I will be trying to maintain 1revert per day on the articles I edit" and then he was unblocked after his promise. But his promise was broken two times. He also promised :"I can , from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing." Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note 2 (by Mhhossein) FreeatlastChitchat is trying to misleadingly paste a new comment above my comments. Considering the date of the comments recorded in history, I made my last comment on "11:48, 31 December 2015". To my surprise, 5 hours later he pasted a new comment (Defense Statement from FLCC) above all comments on "16:42, 31 December 2015"!!! Although I tried to reorder the comments based on the sequences two times, he reverted me each time and sent me a warning for vandalism. Clearly, users have the right to read the comments based on their chronological order to get the point. Mhhossein (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Moreover the "NOTE Mhhossein is editing MY comments ... " is another new comment which found its way up above all comments! It's really weird. Mhhossein (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat has been boldly editing a number of articles related to Islam (or at least has been trying to). I do not think these articles could be called controversial articles in the eyes of a normal editor and I do not think the majority of FreeatlastChitchat's edits could be considered controversial. However, for some religious fanatics everything is controversial and FreeatlastChitchat has suffered from considerable harassment (one need only look at his talk page to see that). I'd also like to say that Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a medresse for the training of fundamentalists. There is too much presentation of the obscure minutia of religious dogma presented as if there was verifiable truth to any of it. Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be thankful If you could speak in regard to this very discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, it's probably a good idea to stop making minor edits to this section just to prevent archiving. If an admin sees something worthy of action, they will act - otherwise it will be archived. While I'm here, I looked at the details briefly, and I see poor behaviour on both sides. You seem unable to drop a stick, FLCC seems unable to relate to other editors collaboratively. Both of those things could very easily come back to bite either of you, and likely will, so I recommend you both let it go.
FLCC, please stop being rude, to this user and others. You are often somewhat objectionable and insulting, and far too quick to anger. You should stop that, particularly now that people are watching.
Mhhossein, please learn to let arguments expire and move on. Begoon ^talk 14:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Begoon: If you assume my good faith I should tell you that the minor edits were never aimed to prevent archiving, rather it was done to facilitate following the thread. While I'm nice to hear that you "looked at the details briefly," I have some questions:

1. How did you find me "unable to drop a stick"? I welcome the criticisms which lead to being a better editor.
2. Just tell me why should he be allowed to mass delete lots of reliable sources and materials without trying to collaboratively participate TP discussions? (I've listed many of them and am ready to present an updated list of those mass deleted reliable sources by requests.)
3. Does he need the 10th caution of being civil to stop his behavior? (he was warned to be civil by an Admin in the last ANI report.)

Anyway, thanks for your attention. Mhhossein (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think I was fairly critical of FLCC in my comments. I don't approve of their rudeness, or lack of willingness to discuss. Certainly, if a talk page discussion is started, they should contribute to finding consensus, and refrain from edit-warring in the meantime. That's what we all should do. I also agree, in general terms, with the point made above: "Unless a religious concept had been commented on by external sources (i.e. sources or commentators external to that particular religion or sect), I think it has no place here." When I referred to "dropping the stick" I was referring to the pursuit of sanctions as a "solution" to an editing dispute. The lack of response here at ANI maybe indicates that this is perhaps not yet an ANI issue, and that WP:DR would be a better route if talk page discussion is not fruitful. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Begoon. He was warned for his major civility issues in the previous ANI. Unfortunately he has not take that seriously. SO, what would you do? Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd carry on editing, adhering to policy, and establish whether my edits had consensus with talkpage discussion. I'd understand that just the ability to point to a source didn't make it reliable, or necessarily worthy of inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:CHERRYPICKING. I'd pursue WP:DR before calling for sanctions, and I'd realise that I am not the only one who notices when editors don't behave well, so I don't need to fight battles when I see it happening. These things generally work out over time. Patience pays off. Begoon ^talk 12:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

All those policies are applicable only if there is a TP discussion and the editors actively participating it. In all cases coming to ANI, however, an editor should start the case and whether other editors are seeing those destruction can not justify refraining from reporting the case. I found it a proper place here per his background. By the way, I did not ask for sanctions until I saw that he asked for sanctions. Anyway, the thread is getting too long. Let's not make it longer. Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Tireless edit warring and BLP violations by FreeatlastChitChat

I am pretty sure, either there are issues with competence or IDIDNTHEAR that are leading FreeatlastChitChat to wikihound other editors and create unnecessary edit wars. He is violating BLP on Template:Criticism of religion sidebar by falsely claiming people like Sanal Edamaruku, Tarek Fatah, Amartya Sen, Meera Nanda and many more to be critic of religion. While the template had been protected because of his edit warring and rollback abuse,[7][8] he resumed edit warring without even sorting out the issues raised on talk page. He came to this template by wikihounding my edits and his only motive was to edit war with me. He also made personal attacks like "totally lying his ass off",[9] yet failing to justify his violation of WP:BLPCAT. I think that it is the time when multiple editors indeed have problem with the numerous policy violations of FreeatlastChitChat and I am supporting that another block is necessary. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 You have already been told by a Wikpedia administrator that to claim that H. L. Mencken and Sanal Edamaruku were not critics of religion was, frankly, absurd. You are the one obsessed with this article and your personal version of it which only you and one other person share as compared to almost 7 other editors who oppose you based on wikipedia policies of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BLP. You have refused to talk to anyone on the talkpage, and when I opened up a request at WP:DRN a week ago, you refused to accept that too. For you, only your view matters and you have decided not to accept any other view.

Even though a TALKPAGE is the right place to discuss this I will tell you what is wrong with your view of this template. I have already told you that We do not SOURCE ANYTHING in templates. Templates exist solely BASED on the articles which populate them. Just consider the article of Sanal Edamaruku who according to your reasoning is not a critic of religion. Just read his article. It says that

1. In 2012, he was charged by the Catholic Archdiocese of Mumbai with blasphemy. He moved to Finland to evade his arrest.
2. Edamaruku has carried out investigations and demonstrations which helped expose frauds, mystics and god men.
3. Edamaruku has been critical of India's blasphemy laws, describing them as "relics of colonial legislation" which have been abused to "hound and silence" intellectuals and artists who question religious beliefs.

ALL of these facts are well sourced in this persons article. How in the name of all that is good and pure can you exclude him from a template listing critics of religion. @User:Begoon this is the kind of behavior I am faced with every single day. A person who just wants to delete material from wikipedia because it hurts his religious ideas has refused to accept the advice of a Wikipedia admin, He refuses to engage in debate at the talkpage, and refuses to participate in DRN. Just what is a person supposed to do here? @User:Slakr you unbanned me when I said I will adhere to 1PR, when you come online just explain to me how am I supposed to work with this kind of hostility? A COMPLETE refusal to participate in any debate and a complete refusal to even look at the facts which are written right in front of his eyes. What am I supposed to do? And this is not on just one article, every religious article is like some kind of holy shrine to one or two fanatics who treat it like a religious artifact which should be revered by all, they do not give a single thought to wmf:Resolution:Controversial content and think that if something offends their religion, it should be just removed ALONG with the editor who dared to insert it in the wikipedia article And a person like me, who wants to put just a smidge of rationality back into these articles is either hounded until he is forced to leave the wiki or is pushed into a corner until I say something harsh which is at once reported to ANI. Perhaps it is high time the other side explains their actions as well. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out the hypocrisy of the above statement from FreeatlastChitchat wherein he states "A person who just wants to delete material from wikipedia because it hurts his religious ideas" which is EXACTLY what HE has been doing at the Racism_in_Italy, specifically the fact that he chooses to delete/revert all mentions of a racist author, Cesare Lombroso, being Jewish, when a) he self-identifies as Jewish b) he wrote an entire book on "anti-semitism" c) he contributed many articles to Jewish publications and d) he is referred to by most historians/academics/biographers as "Jewish-Italian" or "Jewish"...all of which have been heavily sourced and cited. So, in other words...pot meet kettle as they say.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet that admin failed to provide a source about Sanal Edamaruku.[10] By putting up this original WP:SYNTHESIS about only Sanal Edamaruku you are not proving how your WP:BLPCAT violation about these many people is justified. Many editors have asked you to "provide sources" on talk page that would support them to be a critic of religion and you have failed to do so because your biggest aim on this template as well as every other article that I edited and you joined in was to bother me. Your disruption is only wasting others time and not doing any good. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources are in the article . I just copy pasted them. Any other objections? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that every time you evade from saying why you had mass deleted those reliable books (some of which I listed on several occasions) is clear to all the editors. If there were no problem in your behaviour you would not be blocked four time in a year and I don't want you to list the sources here because they are just examples. The main issues are your civility problems and your not actively participating the TP discussions to reach consensus. You did of course broke your promise of "adhering to 1RR" as it is evidenced. Sentences such as "this is the kind of behavior I am faced with every single day" and "a person like me, who wants to put just a smidge of rationality back into these articles is either hounded ..." are called Victim playing. Mhhossein (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As an editor who has also experienced WP:HOUNDING and edit-warring at the hands of this user, I feel compelled to add my voice here. On the topic of Racism_in_Italy FreeatlastChitchat has reverted several edits without participating on the talk page (where there are EXTENSIVE discussions in place) and chosen to simply undo a vast amount of work compiled at the request/challenge of other participating editors with opposing views. I asked for mediation on this topic to gain a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Racism_in_Italy , to which he declined stating "I would like to [WP:DENY]] him this opportunity to waste the time of mediation committee and other editors." which speaks to the fact that he is not willing to compromise or engage in discussion to reach a consensus or have the real facts/timelines be known. This editor is a MAJOR POV-pusher who sides with other like-minded individuals (most likely sockpuppets as has been alleged here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RatatoskJones/Archive ) and his edits are absolutely contrary to scholarship and consensus-building. He constantly threatens others with denouncing them for "edit-warring" when he is in reality the one engaging in this behavior (as his previous blocks will attest). I would strongly encourage yet another block and possible ban from certain topics (anyone can take a quick scan through his history, and it will be very obvious upon which topics he constantly seeks to impose his POV).Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

And we have another editor who has a strong need to put his religious POV into articles. For editors who are just going through this discussion without following the links, The request for mediation has been declined as Trinacrialucente is undoing the edits of three users, yes gentlmen, my edits are endorsed by two other editors, with only one editor trying his best to push forth a religiuos POV. Furthermore, Trinacrialucente has displayed absolute bad faith by stating that I have sock puppets. The SPI archive clealry shows that when closing the SPI an admin noted the fact that the reporter was lying, he also said that "These are contentious issues and bound to generate a lot of disagreement and factionalization, meaning some editors agreeing with each other. Just because they do doesn't make them socks.". I am quite sure that before he posted this comment Trinacrialucente had already read the message about his request for mediation being denied, and his SPI going nowhere because he posted this comment at 22:40, 8 January 2016 while the mediation bot informed him about the rejection on 15:55, 8 January 2016, while the SPI clerk informed him about the futility of an SPI at 01:10, 8 January 2016. So it is obvious that he came here out of spite, being angry at me for having prevented his POV insertions. Even Though I have grown a highly durable and thick hide thanks to the various bad faith comments, threats and insults which seem to be the ammunition used by most POV pushers. I think I have the right to ask this guy one single question. So I would like to ask Trinacrialucente, 'DO ANY OTHER EDITORS AGREE WITH YOUR EDITS OR ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE REVERTING THE "POV PUSHING" OF THREE OTHER EDITORS?. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, two others have supported my edits. Feel free to take a look. : ) In fact you probably should have done so before you went on that...direction. All it really did was support our case against you.Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Umm,,, no, you are wrong. The most recent history clearly shows that UnequivocalAmbivalence and RatatoskJones are Reverting your edits, not supporting them. UnequivocalAmbivalence has clearly called you out saying "@Trinacrialucente: Your aggressive attitude and constant insults must stop. It is highly inappropriate and unnecessarily abusive. I have requested time and time again that you act in accordance to the civility policy, and yet you are still throwing insults at me even when I am communicating with other editors. This must stop." So my question still remains. If you feel that there are editors who have supported your edits just post a diff where these editors reverted the edits which removed your material. For if these editors who support your edits do really exist, they must have reverted me, or the other two users, when we "edit warred" to remove your "correct edits". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Support taking administrative action: The reported editor is unable to constructively participate discussions of the talk pages. Also, his/her behavior is not based on etiquette. In the summary edit of Nader Mahdavi page wrote: "‬SAFF V please stop your ridiculous reverting".Saff V. (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to Comment: Saff V. has failed to mention that he did not read WP:MOS when he was asked and had to be explained on the talkpage how the MOS works, he then admitted that he was wrong and changed the text according to my wording. His own words were @FreeatlastChitchat:Yes, It is right. So, I edit the titles based on your comment. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I never asked you to explain your reversion, I'm just focusing on your uncivil comments, a point mentioned by some other users.Saff V. (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

But you yourself accepted that your edits were ridiculous! FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you used again bad word in your answer.Saff V. (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Err... what 'bad word'...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Yeah bad word! 'Ridiculous' means "extremely silly or unreasonable" or "stupid or ​unreasonable and ​deserving to be ​laughed at." It's against WP:civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Mhhossein (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein Stuff and (*bad word alert*) nonsense. You are effectively trying to mute criticism by removing the language for doing so. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Mhhossein so when I see a ridiculous edit, what am I supposed to call it? you seem to be the owner of wikipedia whose permission I need to edit, and whose express fatwa is required in my vocabulary usage. So Herr Ayatollah what should I call a ridiculous edit from now onward? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't dig yourself deeper. You could of course simply use a more polite language. I'm just asking you to act based on WP:civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Mhhossein (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked you in very clear words. What, according to you, should be the word used when someone encounters a ridiculous edit?. Please do reply to this, you seem to be avoiding this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Rather than yet another block (they don't help, FreeatlastChitchat is blocked all the time and just continues) I would support a topic ban on all articles in some way connected to Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment He/She edited Little Satan article by POV terms and sentences without any summary or discussion in the talk page. I reverted his/her edits and opened new section in the talk page but he/she again reverted the article. I said to him first participate in the discussion and after conclusion we can edit. He think just to reverting the article to his/her version.Saff V. (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Saff V. the last edits to the TP are mine. I have explained my edits thoroughly, even made a list of your horrendously bad English which you inserted in the article, plus I have detailed the unreliable sources you used. Instead of answering my questions there or discussing there, you have made this comment. Bad faith editing much?

I reverted your edit and say to you participate in the talk page, but you reverted again and I reverted again and you reverted again and then wrote your reasons in the talk page. You must say your reasons before all reverting. Your style is first revert the article without any summary and discussion. If a user revert your work you revert again and write a short sentence in the summary box.Saff V. (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

then perhaps you should create the competence to understand what "bad grammar" means when it is written in edit summary? And you should create the competence to understand what "bad sources" means when it is written in the edit summary. For your kind information "bad grammar" written in the summary means that "I have changed sentences which were borderline gibberish and using very poor English" and you should take a look at WP:MOS before reverting me.And when it is written in edit summary "bad sources" it means that the sources I removed are unreliable, and you should see if they fall foul of WP:RS before reverting me. It is not my fault that your English grammar is poor and you want to insert poor English into articles, however it is my job as an editor to copy edit your mistakes, and I do that job regularly. Also it is my job to keep unreliably sourced fringe claims out of articles and I do that quite regularly as well. you should read WP:COMPETENCE before engaging in this kind of arguments. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Now I got that FreeatlastChitchat's edits are suitable examples for edit warring! You just don't understand that you have to collaboratively participate the talk page discussions before making such challengeable mass edits, but really why? After you encountered Saff V.'s revert, you made a revert at 07:40 without trying to act based on BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and helping to reach a consensus. After you got sure that the article is as you wish, you made your comment at 7:43. Saff V. reverted you alleging that you've inserted POV into the article, you again acted as if you are the only know-how of the project and kept one reverting. You went up to the red line of WP:3RR (you made 3 reverts in less than 3 hrs) which is very far from once again beyond your WP:1RR unblock promise. Note that you've shown enough disruptive behaviour so far (not only in this page) which makes you vulnerable to receive sanctions, in my view. Btw, while I'm not endorsing Saff v.'s reverts, I blame you as the one who refrained from BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Mhhossein (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC) (Edited Mhhossein (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC))
• Reply to comment Eventhough I can go into an explanation that I was reverting bad grammar I will just say this. Mhhossein says (you made 3 reverts in less than 3 hrs) . I say that he is lying his ass off Simple as that, he, is, lying. I challenge him to provide diffs to back up this claim. Simple as that, you said I made three reverts, show me the diffs and I will call it quits, otherwise you are the one lying his ass off. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did 2 reverts (which is still beyond 1RR) and I'm sorry for saying that, It was not intentional. I just did not notice that the first edit was not a revert. But this does not make us ignore your edit warring. What I see is not just a copy editing of the grammatical errors, that was a re-shape needing enough discussion! By the way, your language is very very irritating and although you were warned before by admins, you are clearly ignoring wp:civility. Mhhossein (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein you have the gal to say that It was not intentional? Just how much of this witch hunting thread have you posted unintentionally? I fail to see how you can write something, press preview, then press save, and still call it "unintentional". What clause of civility have I fallen foul of btw? You were lying, I told you outright that you were lying and challenged you to prove me wrong, what am I supposed to do when you lie through your teeth? say that you are the epitome of truthfulness? Anyway I have caught you spreading falsehood once I will do it again. You say that my edit was a reshape needing enough discussion. I challenge you to point out anything I added which was either from unreliable sources, or fringe, or against wiki policy. I have been telling you again and again, wikipedia is not your holy thing, I can edit it without your permission. Anyway, show me which parts of my edit "required discussion" and "why did they require discussion". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I was bold enough to accept my mistake and say sorry for that and I don't need to explain more as you apparently don't assume my and others good faith. What you called "spreading falsehood" and "witch hunting" are just some parts of your disruptive behavior which is well sourced. Your violation of WP:civility is well spread through out the project (no just this thread) and there's no need to over repeat them (you can follow this and the previous thread from the beginning). On your reshaping the article, I'll discuss it on the its talk page. Mhhossein (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

dude seriously? I mean WTH? You accuse me of something and the lie your ass off about it and I am supposed to Assume Good faith? Are you frigging kidding me? So when someone tries to shoot me, I should assume good faith? Have you been assuming good faith? Does spreading falsehood about someone mean that you are assuming good faith? How about this, you assume good faith for a change and stop editing this thread every time I make an edit on wikipedia? ANI threads are not forums, you post your report and wait for others to comment on it, and then an admin takes action if required. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I never need to lie. Why should I have lied when every thing was well recorded even by seconds? As I said it was a mistake which I corrected ASA I got it. The word "WTH" stands for "What The Hell" and/or "What The Heck", right? Mhhossein (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wikihounding and harassment by FreeatlastChitchat: Besides the links presented above for being checked against hounding ([11], [12] and [13]), I'd like to add this hounding by him which occurred just a bit ago. Mhhossein (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Nonsense and ridiculousness. here other people agree with me, no one disagrees with me, One editor is canvassing another, my comment saves the trouble of them ganging up on the article, ALL OTHER EDITORS agree with me, ALL OTHER editors AGREE WITH ME. I have told you many times, you are not the owner of wikipedia, nor is wikipedia your sacred temple. I have the right to edit and give my opinion, if my opinion is shared by all other editors in a particular discussion, it is not my fault. Perhaps you should start ANI reports about all the editors who have dared to disagree with you? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What you called "ridiculousness" is in fact your hounding! The matter is not whether the editors agree or disagree with you. The matter is your hounding and harassment. Mhhossein (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use that word. It is a BAD WORD ® _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

FreeatlastChitchat gaming the system

Even while this discussion above about the very frequent policy violations of FreeatlastChitchat is ongoing, the user engages in a new trick. Having been involved in repeated edit warring at Muhammad, FreeatlastChitchat takes advantage of a very new WP:SPA who has already sided with him to edit war against Trinacrialucente [14], [15], [16]. Now, first the SPA changes the lead three times [17], [18], [19] and is reverted by three different users who restore the consensus version. Then FreeatlastChitchat jumps in and reverts to "his" version [20] and then immediately requests page protection [21]. Frankly, I find this kind of behavior dishonest. First of all, there was no dispute except for the one created by FreeatlastChitchat at the SPA operating in sync with him. Second, if a user wants to request protection, I find it very bad form to first revert to their own version instead of the established consensus and then immediately request protection to make sure their own POV "wins". This is combination with all the edit warring discussed in the long sections above makes me suggest a topic ban on articles connect to Islam for FreeatlastChitchat. The user has been given more than enough WP:ROPE and taken up far too much of ANI's time already. This user is here to right great wrongs, not build an encyclopaedia. Jeppiz (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - on everything related to Islam or religion as whole. He is still edit warring by making pointless edits. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• More Religio-Political POV First of all this is bad faith level 9000+. Just take a look at my edits and those of the so called SPA here and marvel at the great difference. According to my count, there is a NINETY SIX POINT SEVEN FIVE PERCENT difference between the two version. Furthermore my actions stopped an edit-war, made the article better and restored stability. I will just post what a completely uninvolved user said about my changes and let the closing admin/other editors gauge what I actually did. User:UberCryxic says about my version "I'm more or less ok with the current version of the intro paragraph. I don't think there will be a version that satisfies a clear majority in the short term, so the controversies will continue. I do think the current version is at least substantially better than the one proposed by Neby, which is so hopelessly misguided with its bias and terrible linguistic construction that it's almost beyond repair. The intro sentence should be crisp and to the point; it doesn't need to hash out the nuances and controversies surrounding Muhammad. That's what the rest of the article is for" here is his statement. I think you should read what the first line in the protection notice reads "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version." I think every experienced editor knows this. Furthermore your statement that "This user is here to right great wrongs" is actually quite true to be frank. Removing POV from articles is something I have always done, and wish to continue doing. This is an encyclopedia, not some religious website where everything is "too holy" and "nothing can be touched". If you do not like my edits, talk about them as per policy. The entire time you have been accusing me of bad behavior, you have cited not a single policy which prevents me from doing what I did. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have accused you of bad behavior. So have a lot of other users, which might explain why you have been blocked repeatedly and why there are several ongoing threads about you. As for this incident, I think I stated it pretty clear. You had been edit warring heavily yourself on the article, then reverted to your own version and immediately requested that version to be protected. You may not like what I say or not agree with it, but don't pretend it's not clear. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Laughing Out Loud 😆😆😆! Can you please check the difference between revisions here to know why I am Laughing Out Loud! The version user:FreeatlastChitchat reverted to is actually itself the version of user:Jeppiz. I was surprised when I saw this report while checking the recent contributions of user:Jeppiz who seems to have a bad habit of fabricating & falsifying events. I actually intend to report user:Jeppiz for slandering and personal attacks.--Explorer999 (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Explorer999 is the WP:SPA I mentioned who already has a long history of personal attacks such as the one above. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What personal attack? He has clearly shown that you are the one lying here. My revert was to your version of the article and your complaint about it is the height of bad faith. To be frank you should strike your comments after such an egg in the face situation. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"What personal attack?" For starters, calling other users "liars" as he does [22], and as you do above, is a strong personal attack. However, this is not about him, nor about me. It's about you, but as usual your response to threads about your disruptive behavior is to try to deflect it by personal attacks against other users. If you have a problem with my behavior, start a thread about it but this thread (not started by me) is about your constant disruptions, evidenced by diffs provided by several users. It's rather revealing that you have nothing to say in defence of yourself and just continue to engage in the same behavior that got you here. However, what you fail to understand that even if your revert would be to my version (it wasn't, although very close), it wouldn't change a thing. My initial comment was about the behavior, not about being right or wrong, or agreeing with me or not. WP is not about winning, and I've reported users for violations even when I agreed with them. You seem to think it's a content dispute. It's not. Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying about someone who "is extensively lying" that "he is extensively lying" is not a personal attack. When you stop lying, people will stop saying that you are lying, but when you continue to lie, then what do you expect the others to say about you?! Do you expect them to say that you are telling truths when you are not! FreeatlastChitchat reverted to the same version which you yourself described here (in your edit summary) as the consensus version.--Explorer999 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat

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

---

This section was originally started by Trinacrialucente as a separate topic and then was moved to this thread by 日本穣 · 投稿 (Note by Mhhossein (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC))

Unfortunately we now have THREE separate threads about the disruptive behavior of FreeatlastChitchat. After his edit-warring behavior evidenced (yet again) on the Muhammad board, where I made a change, was challenged, showed my proof/citations on the Talk page, but was still reverted immediately after the change without the editor even looking, he began to accuse me of edit-warring as is his MO (evidenced in his history and on the two other ANI reports here). Rather than continue the discussion on the Talk page, he issued a warning on MY talk page to which I told him NOT to post on my page again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FreeatlastChitchat. He then immediately did so, simply to bother or disrupt our activity. If this was just one example, I think we could all just talk it out. But there are now THREE SEPARATE ANI incidents on this editor. It is time for all of us to deal with this issue as it is completely unscholarly and disruptive.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

100% Clear case of Boomerang. First of all I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics, however as the information added by this nom was 100% Or I reverted twice thinking that he will understand, but he did not understand, so I did not edit further, his changes were then removed by another uninvolved editor who called them Abuse of primary sources.

As The nom made a change where he used Primary sources to synthesis info. I used Twinkle to generate a warning for disruptive editing for OR and added me personal commentsso that the notice read "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Muhammad, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not abuse Primary sources to create content which suits your point of view. Please be kind enough to read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, wikipedia policy forbids using sources to synthesis content. Thanks you for editing, have a good day".

As this nom was constantly using abusive language against me like saying "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit", "You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish?", "As you have lied several times on the talk:Muhammad page", I posted a notice on his TP about ad hom attacks. I did not even include my personal comments this time, everything that was written had been generated by twinkle. Furthermore the nom has a long history of disruptive editing, almost every edit from his recent history has been reverted by consensus. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: There's already another open case for reporting FreeatlastChitchat. Regarding the accusations that FreeatlastChitchat is making I have to show how he himself has violated policies here; "I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." Here FreeatlastChitchat clearly went beyond 1RR ([23] and [24]) and this is another case where he went beyond 1RR. FreeatlastChitchat already himself made an "ad hom attack", as I showed in my report. I also would like to say that "You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here" is clearly a personal attack by the nominator. Mhhossein (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"I would like to say that I never go beyond 1 revert on controversial topics." not every topic is controversial. My 2 reverts on the topics you highlighted have been endorsed by other uninvolved editors, and in one case a wikipedia administrator has endorsed by edits. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. the title of this report is "WP:HARASSMENT by FreeatlastChitChat". Can you point out any harassment in my conduct? If yes, then provide diffs, if no, then why the offtopic comment? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you agree that you went beyond the promise which led to your unblock. Anyway, I can't see your violating 1RR being endorsed here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree that this should certainly boomerang. The nominator has engaged in extensive personal attacks and battleground mentality "You are bordering into idiocy" "given your utter lack of knowledge on this topic..." "FYI, despite you losing all credibility on this topic...(a statement that proved your absolute ignorance on this topic)... so...check and mate." "take it to the talk page as you so annoyingly say" despite being asked repeatedly to stop by me, as well as being warned by an uninvolved editor, a warning which was quickly deleted and followed by a very aggressive response. Also the nominator appears to have been engaging in WP:CANVASSING in an attempt to thwart consensus, which seems to include the assumptive labeling of several editors as "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA"here and here (roughly translates to "three Jewish editors WHO KNOW NOTHING"). I have tried to ignore it other than requesting that it cease, remain calm, and attempt discussions, but the editor has refused all such attempts, and now that they are pursuing cases against other editors for much less, I can no longer remain silent on this issue. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, as one of the "3 editori ebrei che NON SANNO NULLA", I am not Jewish. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as the above uninvolved editor, here are the diffs alluded to above: LOL, rest assured there is nothing you can make me feel other than pity for you. And not sure what "abuse of primary sources" means other than you don't like to see the truth You ready to sit down now or are you going to continue to squawk and look even more foolish? You are the only thing that is "highly laughable" here, since you just don't know when to quit... Are you going to now tell us you can find 100 examples in the ahadeeth to say Mohammed only dealt in credit cards now? For freeatlastchitchat who has proven himself wrong on this board more times than we can count at this point. OP warned them about this. I would, however, like to add in the important caveat that I do not purport to know about FreeatlastChitchat's behavior and will not comment as to that. GAB^Hello! 17:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment FreeatlastChitChat had many ANI posts against him in past days.

• Nonsense that's a completely irrelevant remark. And please have the balls to sign. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I think Future perfect snatched those off of him some time ago. This IP troll was actually trolling Future PErfect's topic and when I made a comment there, he decided to "exact revenge". I see that Bushranger has hatted his comments even there. lold at the hat line btw. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No wonder you came running to defend FPAS when his conduct came into the view of the community. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved this section to keep all about FreeatlastChitchat discussions together. It's ridiculous to have them spread all over. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, frankly, it's pretty bleeding ridiculous that you keep gnawing away at this bone. You must realise by now that nothing's going to happen due to the very fact that people are trying to piledrive a conviction. Well, carry on :D _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not gnawing on anything. I just noticed that this section was separate from all the others, so I moved it to make it easier to find everything. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Gaming the system by FreeatlastChitchat V2

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

---

Need I say more than this? Freeatlastchitchat pinged all his stoolies to win a RfD (and as you can see, he admitted it), for the Nikah Mut'ah article. Now he is doing an AfD for example (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debate_on_the_Hadith), where he used the same users he pinged before (namely User:HyperGaruda, his close mate and User:Eperoton, among many others). I strongly suspect he is using the same tactics for the RfD in Talk:Muhammad#RFC_for_opening_sentence_in_the_lede, a place where this time I called some of the Muslim editors above who protested, to create a balance (something that has been reported too he specially tries to avoid @YdhaW:), where he is using the same kind of insulting behavior that others reported here. I'm gonna ping some of the above protesters now (with whom I disagree on most edits they do, nevertheless), just so the section is kept updated. @Jeppiz: @Mhhossein: @Saff V.: Yeah, we all agree on the fact that Freeatlastchitchat has no manners at all, aside from these facts. --92slim (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reply from FLCC. A-K-A WHAT the F-U-*-K

CAVEAT LECTOR: SEEING THIS KIND OF ATTITUDE AND AGENDA TO JUST USE ANY DIRTY TRICK WHATSOEVER TO GET ME OFF ISLAM/RELIGION TOPICS I AM MIGHTILY PISSED OFF AND THE TIRADE BELOW WILL USE COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF PROFANITY. What the fuck? I have no other words to say, no other comment to make other than 'What the fuck?

1. A month old debate where each and every editor was one who had disagreed with me on past debates and I still pinged them. First of all why raise this now? Have you been living under a rock for the past month? and furthermore how the hell is pinging uninvolved guys a canvass? these guys routinely DISAGREE with me. and by routinely I mean 8 out of ten times we are at odds. Why don't you bring up my high school exam report and put that up here as well?
2. You say I am doing the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debate_on_the_Hadith. ARE YOU FRIGGING HIGH? Just read the goddamn debate, I did not even friggin start it. you want to fuck me over so bad, you don see that my name is in the damn comments , not as the nom. PLUS ALL PEOPLE AGREE WITH THE DELETION......INCLUDING YOUR OWN DAMN SELF.....WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? You agree with a discussion then say it is started in bad faith?
3. On the RFC at the Muhammad article you accused me of canvassing, and you said you have proof that I canvassed people to the RFC. I called you out. And I stick to my frigging words. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF I CANVASSED ANYONE TO THE MUHAMMAD RFC? IF NOT THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT I DID IT?

END NOTE: THIS GODDAMN THREAD HAS TURNED INTO A FUCKING WITCH HUNT AND A GODDAMN SALEM TRIAL. THESE GUYS HAVE SUCH A HARD ON TO GET ME BANNED, THEY WILL LIE AND CHEAT TO GET IT DONE. CAN SOME ADMIN READ THE THREAD FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM AND CLOSE IT? EVERY SINGLE DAY SOME IDIOT SEES THAT I HAVE INSULTED HIS BELOVED AYATOLLAH OR HIS SHRINE BY REMOVING SOME POV AND COMES HERE TO ADD TO THIS BULLSHIT.
FURTHERMORE I WANT EVERYONE WHO HAS LIED ON THIS THREAD TO BE SANCTIONED AND BANNED FROM OPENING NEW THREADS/OR RESPONDING TO OLD ONES IN ANI. I THINK THAT IS ALLOWED FOR ME TO ASK. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, you have no other words because you can't defend yourself from your past canvassing, which is now blatantly obvious. Of course, you can try to hide it with your big words and insults, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot hold a discussion normally either. It's a fact, pal. --92slim (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, I don't think CAPS ON shouting helps. Some admins like being admins solely because they like banning and having power over others, so this is just a gift horse to them. Other admins more than anything hate being "inconvenienced". This is all an "inconvenience" in their eyes, you are disrupting the "project" to use their cultish belief system lingo, requiring them to read lots of text and diffs and so on - so with the above you are just providing an easy way for them to avoid the inconvenience by issuing a block. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Can any one do something for such obscene comments? Mhhossein (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat would better simply strike out or reword the uncivil comments, per Wikipedia:Civility. Mhhossein (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What's obscene? He used fucking once and bullshit once. (and fuck a few more times! But not counting that, as you would have heard far worse than me if I'd been in his shoes! lol) I'm not surprised; this fucking thread is a total Mons. Nearly three weeks old with absolutely nothing to show for it. In fact, I'm tempted to go WP:SHOPPING and get it wrapped up. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: It really bothers me how difficult it is for you to behave; I think as long as you use caps lock like that you will not get anywhere. Remember it's not about your edits or opinions, it's about you. Behave normally, and no one will really bother opening a thread again. --92slim (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• @92slim: Wait what?! Me? pinged to an AfD, which FLCC did not start, nor for which FLCC "used" the same editors? For your information, I am watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam among others, so don't be surprised if you see me commenting on these AfDs voluntarily. I also do not see any canvassing at that AfD, given the lack of re/ping/u templates (except for a comment I wrote in reply to someone). - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is 92slim also seemingly "gaming the system" (by his own standards) by inviting editors he calls "editors who edit from a pro Muslim POV"[25] to a RfC: [26]; [27]; [28]. It suggest some insincerity behind this complaint. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And I was right Tiptoe, unlike you. The thread was being canvassed. --92slim (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@92slim I would like to ask again. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF I CANVASSED ANYONE TO THE MUHAMMAD RFC? IF NOT THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT I DID IT? By proof I mean a diff. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you've done it before, and you've said that you would do it again. Read Preemptive war, and you'll understand. @HyperGaruda: Are you trying to chitchat now? Because we are chatting about it already. You've been pinged before, and it was canvassing, and according to Freeatlastchitchat, you're his stoolie. Read again. --92slim (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: More on Freeatlastchitchat's insulting behaviour, which further undermines his credibility. Unbelievable, right. --92slim (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No, i am implying that your whole point about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate on the Hadith is flawed. Let me translate FLCC's three-point list into something less flowery:

1. You're bringing up a WP:DEADHORSE.
2. The whole idea of canvassing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debate on the Hadith is absent if one actually reads that discussion.
3. Again, I do not see any canvassing by FLCC in Talk:Muhammad#RFC for opening sentence in the lede. Instead, you have shown suspicious behaviour by notifying three particular editors of the RfC.

This particular ANI subsection seems more like a bad attempt at WP:BAIT, which FLCC unfortunately has taken. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Who should I believe, someone like you, or FreeatlastChitchat, the total disrupter of Wikipedia? I think my accusations are grounded in reality. He did canvass before many times, so it would be unsurprising to see it happen again. --92slim (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"The total disrupter of Wikipedia" - I'd like a badge with that on it! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Unwanted warnings by FreeatlastChitchat

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

---

  Y Merger complete. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This user comes to my talk page to warn me of disruptive editing. Some contents were being removed by Malik Shahabzz. I reverted two of his edits. I am not complaining against Malik Shahbazz in this report (It's a separate content dispute which I will engage afterwards). Malik Shabazz gave me a blue message about edit war. After that Freeatatlastchitchat warned me about disruptive editing. I find that, this user doesn't know what is disruptive editing. He has 3,869 edits on enwiki. Let him explain how these three edits sourced from reliable sites are disruptive. Revision as of 06:44, Revision as of 06:42, Revision as of 06:24. I didn't edit after Malik Shabazz left that message on my talk page. Then what tempted this user to warn me for edits that is not his version of POV?

And please don't group this ANI post with above Freeatlastchitchat reports where I am not involved. --Marvel Hero (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marvel Hero Written at the top of the page is a clear msg in ye olde lingo of Brittonic. Before Thou postest a grievance about a user here, thou should giveth some thought to discussing the issue with them on their user talk page. SO seeing you did not bother with that what exactly what are you proposing here? T-Ban? Hard block? I mean you opened up an ANI thread for some administrative action, please be kind enough to inform me what kind of sanction you have in mind for me. For if this is a simple matter of me leaving a so called harsh warning, you could have just settled it on my TP with some good old chitchat, or replied to the very same warning on your TP and I would have responded. So do enlighten the laity as to what sanctions you seek from this ANi report. (edited after edit conflict) FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any right to propose sanction. It's upto administrators.Marvel Hero (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@ but what are you proposing. The reporter usually proposes what remedy should be taken. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The warning for "disruptive editing" by FreeatlastChitchat seems like an obvious attempt to claim ownership of the article and push away other users. The reply above does not seems serious either, with its failed attempt at using Middle English and the hilarious mistake of thinking that Brittonic, a Celtic language, is a synonym for English. If FreeatlastChitchat wants to display their total lack of general knowledge, it's to them. Unfortunately, it fits the general pattern of bad behavior. Any time FreeatlastChitchat is brought to ANI, they make a concentrated attempt to turn the table. I find that disruptive, not Marvel Hero adding sourced content. FreeatlastChitchat requires to know what sanction, so I repeat what I proposed in one of the many other threads about the same user, a topic ban for anything related to Islam. It would seem that suggestions was supported, so I repeat it here. It amazes me that for all of 2016 this far, about half of ANI is about FreeatlastChitchat, half of ANI about all other users combined. Jeppiz (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Marvel Hero: You can remove the warnings without consequence. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated to my post

@Jeppiz but you lie in your reports. So should the word of a liar be believed? I do not think so. Liars should be punished for disrupting the due process of ANI. Your hilarious and Assuming bad faith comment that I am trying to WP:OWN the article is beyond belief. Just how many edits do I have in the article? And where have I warred to keep my pet version up? Unlike you ofc who is so caught up in owning articles that you do not even realize that someone is reverting to your version of an article. You see a revert and you scream, omg its my article I am going to ANI. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how FreeatlastChitchat seems to have some special pass to get away with anything. Calling other users "liar" is a strong WP:NPA violation, just on top of all the other violations. As for my "lying", WP:OWN is not just about reverting, it's also about trying to intimidate other users from editing an article. I don't see what the lie is, and I hope some admin will remind FreeatlastChitchat about WP:NPA. Jeppiz (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You fabricated an entire report against me. So what should such a person be called who fabricates a report. Do be kind enough to respond. I will never use this word again and will only use the word you prescribe. Just tell me what does is such a person called who fabricates an entire ANI report against another. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not write this report, though I did write another some time ago, and still open, in which I provided a number of diffs. This is not the place to discuss that report, as both have discussed it already in the proper place. The issue here is the report by Marvel Hero. Jeppiz (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Without getting too involved, I would like to point out to Jeppiz that they themselves were the ones who brought up the old report(s) when they suggested that the same sanctions they suggested before be imposed and commented on their view of how others felt about those sanctions. If this is not the place to discuss other reports, then they should not have brought them up in the first place. Now that they have brought them up, indeed offered them as evidence as to why sanctions should be imposed, this is absolutely the place to discuss them, and it seems very disingenuous to now say they cannot be discussed just because they don't like which part of it is being discussed. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz you say This is not the place to discuss that report. Yet your very first comment discusses that report. aside from some mental disease that makes you forget things I fail to see how such an action could have been involuntary. so if you are disabled please just thank me for this edit(click "history", find this edit,click "prev"iew, click thank, click yes) and I will have it RevDel'ed and I will apologize to you. However if you are an able minded individual then I would like to ask why are you posting this kind of contradictory bad faith stuff? If this is not the place to discuss an old report, just strike your comments discussing that, write that you apologize for writing that and we shall call it a day. Kinda hilarious that think you are are the only one who can bring in past reports but the minute anyone else discusses that very report he should be gagged. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-Admin Comment - I am uninvolved but this looks ridiculous as much of this page is being taken up with topics related to the same people. That is not the main reason I am leaving a comment, but personal attacks are. I would suggest that you follow your own rules and be more WP:CIVIL and refrain from personal attacks. Discuss the issue without attacking other editors. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

ENOUGH, ALREADY!

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

---

It is becoming increasingly obvious that either FreeatlastChitchat is actually disruptive OR all the people dragging him here over and over are. I do not know or care which is the case and have not researched the quagmire enough to even have a relative opinion, but only a blind man in a dark coal mine could be unable to see that SOMETHING needs to be done sooner, not later. John from Idegon (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, this is the 4th (I think) ANI thread related to him that I've come across. I think I've participated in one of them before but seeing their frequency I've come to avoid it. All of the discussions also happen to end up stale, with large bold and CAPS text standing out, which is technically my way of identifying that FreeatlastChitchat was the one to write them. He is certainly the perpetrator, if not the victim. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: @QEDK: It is obvious that he is disruptive, and there are too many diffs proving that, apart from the several violations he was involved in, which are of lesser importance to his actual behaviour. I don't think he is able to edit respecting the rules of Wikipedic behaviour, and he's proven to be incapable to do so, apart from the fact that he outright refuses to do so, as you can see from his past behaviour and userpage templates. --92slim (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon and QEDK(I may use a couple of caps again so Caveat Lector again lol). The best way and the only way is for an admin to read what was written against me and then was written by me, ignore the commentary etc because they are just clutter(there is even a blocked anon IP guy going against me just because I called him out on and was against his report to sanction User:Future Perfect at Sunrise . So read both statements, and the diffs attached. Then form a decision. If some one is accusing me of WP:CANVASS the admin should see if any diffs provided show that I canvassed people. If I have been accused of gaming then the admin should look to see if there are any diffs provided which show that I have been gaming the system. the Admin should look for PROOF. And then, seeing this kind of behavior the admin MUST make one of two decisions, If I am guilty of what has been alleged I should be blocked and or banned from Islam related articles. BUT if what was alleged is total fabrication then there MUST be some sort of penalty for the reporters. Just closing this thread and saying "Oh! FLCC was not guilty! nothing more to see here" should not be done again. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Admin intervention needed

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

---

@Nyttend:@Mike V:@Doug Weller:@Philg88:@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Pinging some more admins to deal with this. Rather light example of user's typical behaviour: [29]. --92slim (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin here. This can be called unfriendly but hardly rises to any blockable level. So yes, it's a rather "light" example, and appears then to be used in a tendentious manner, to help bury another editor. That is unacceptable behavior, 92slim, and I consider that blockable. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The User:FreeatlastChitchat curses people and uses caps lock for most of his contributions, refuses to discuss, resorting to behaviour such as canvassing and reverts endlessly (check history), acting in an intimidating manner to most users disregarding the rules of Wikipedic behaviour here constantly. He also blatantly defends his actions and endorses them. There are many other users above who complained too, but he actively sabotaged the discussion above. --92slim (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Avraham:@Zero0000:@Jehochman:@NeilN:@Trappist the monk: Pinging more admins so the issue is resolved quickly. --92slim (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Propose a one month block to all parties here (FALCC and everyone that reported him for something) for general lack of clue. One month because that is roughly how long all you children with your undies jammed up your cracks have wasted the communities time. You just don't know when to shut the hell up, and it is more than a little annoying. There has been no administrative action here because Y's won't shut up long enough to give them or the rest of the community a chance to speak. There was nothing either side of this so called debate needed to add to my above statement as it was not directed to you nor were any statements made directly about you...yet between the two of you you spewed forth 10,000 characters. Just shut up and let the community do its job for Petes sake. John from Idegon (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Proof provided above for disruptive behaviour of the accused who sabotaged the discussion all this time. As for your opinion @John from Idegon:, the way you just expressed yourself is not gonna count on your side, since we were all complaining about behaviour. Thanks. --92slim (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon So if someone accuses me wrongly and daily adds new accusations I am not even entitled to reply? However I will personally be ready for a 30 day ban if it is guaranteed that during that time admins will look at this thread and make a decision which will lead to definite sanctions. Simple as that. If no one is going to do anything then the 30 day ban is a slap in the face for me to be frank. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop disrupting all the time, and using caps lock, and insulting everyone. Thanks. --92slim (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Editor is not "disrupting all the time", does not seem to be using caps lock here, and does not insult everyone. Beware of the boomerang, 92slim--and stop pinging everyone. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Simple Proposal

I would like the following proposal be enacted seeing that this is a long thread with quite a lot of diffs. Please be kind enough to give your input. It is high time this was taken care of.

1. FLCC and the editors who reported FLCC and blamed him for disruption ( 92slim, SAFFV, Jeppiz, Mhhossein, Trinacrialucente and D4iNa4) are banned from editing wikipedia for one month via a community ban. Their talkpage access is revoked and they are considered to be retired.
2. After the participants have been banned this entire thread is moved to Arbitration section and an arbcom case is created. Arbcom members then look through the evidence presented to see what merit it holds. They are given one month
3. After one month is over a decision is handed down which gives a lengthy block(At Least 9 months)+Topic ban+Interaction Ban to either the accused or the accusers.
4. If the accused has been guilty he is also banned from ever replying to any community based forums such as noticeboards, AFD's and RFC's. If he is found guilty FLCC is sanctioned to limit his editing to articles and talkpages for one year.
5. If the accused is not guilty and it comes to light that he has been hounded and harassed on ANI multiple times, then FLCC is given the right to contact an admin whenever an ANI thread is opened up against them and request expedited action. This action on their part is excluded from WP:SHOPPING.
6. After the arbcom hands down their decision, the party found to be not-guilty is allowed to request that their ban is rev-delled and removed from logs through stewards.
7. All Bans and sanctions are appeal able after 2 years.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if the above is serious or not but I find it astonishing. A user who:

• has been blocked repeatedly for disruptions [30]
• was formally warned only yesterday by EdJohnston for disruptive editing [31]
• whose latest interactions with me just the last days include repeatedly calling me a "liar" [32] and speculating I have "a mental disease [33]
• tell other users to "shut the fuck up" [34]

now proposes that he can be banned if everybody who disagreed with him are also banned. Banned for what? For reporting a disruptive user? That would set a disastrous precedent: disruptive users could provoke serious users and then "accept" to be banned if the all users who disagreed are also banned. Our "offence" seems to be to have brought this highly disruptive user to ANI and provided ample diffs (please note that the ones in my list above are just from the last two days alone). So should anyone reporting a vandal or edit warrior be banned as well. I find the proposal ridiculous. We have now had three weeks of this already. Can anyone look at the list I provided here and tell me that FreeatlastChitchat isn't a disruptive user? Last but not least, knowing that FreeatlastChitchat's strategy is to goad other users into endless debates to turn the attention away from their own behavior, I don't envisage engaging in further discussion here. Jeppiz (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You would say that. It sounds like a bloody good idea actually. This thread is a total Mons and that is only 50% FCC's fault. Whatever he has done (and yes I'm sure there's something), you lot have repeatedly come back for another pound of flesh. You are all responsible for the current situation and should (as ironically FLCC proposes himself) be treated as equally culpable. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you have posted just as frequently in this discussion, so given that you think posting several times in this thread is enough for a one month ban, I take it you accept the ban to be extended to yourself as well, if this practice of randomly banning users for posting on this thread is put in place? Though I'd still be interested in knowing what the charge against me and others is. For the record, I provided diffs for each point I mentioned, each of which violates a policy. And yes, it's unfortunate that some discussions on ANI grow so long, but to blame users for that is questionable, especially coming from one of the most frequent posters. Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Posting seven times you mean, the maximum post being about three lines? 294 words out of >12,700??? <2.3 % of the text? Yeah righto :D that sounds mildly desparate! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

• I have neither the time nor the inclination to file the paperwork right now, but that "simple" proposal isn't so bad. If I may, I'd slim it down to a. six-month topic ban on Islam-related article; b. strict 1R policy for all involved--that is, just about everyone in this thread except for John from Idegon and Fortuna. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies provided that arbcom makes a decision during that time. Clearly one party is guilty. A decision should be made about that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as how I am an ArbCommie these days, I suppose I should refrain from pointing the finger this way or that. As it happens, by now I'm thinking that the blame should be spread equally. Incidentally, Jeppiz is also arguing that maybe they weren't at fault here, etc.--and maybe that is so. Before we adopt a simple solution we'll have to look carefully at which contributors here are disruptive enough--that's most of y'all.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter. You're all adults, or at least you should be, and you're all screwing around here like it's the Internet, like there aren't real articles in this encyclopedia that need work, that you can work on, articles where you might have conflicts in which you can use the typical ways of solving disputes that children and adults all around the world have used for years. I mean, what does it take? You all have a couple of choices, and so do we ("we" = those looking on, exasperatedly). Blocks might start flying around: some of you will get blocked for edit warring, some for POV editing, some for drive-by tagging, some just for being whiny jerks. Topic bans will be handed out, and for each and every one of you it will feel like you're the only one who gets blamed, since you're not allowed to edit anymore in your favorite area.

Your other choice is to sit around the f***ing peace table, hold on to the peace flower, discuss your feelings and your grievances without fighting and screaming, and then come back to the main room where you can play with the others again. (With thanks to Ms. Danielle, in Montessori's Blue Room.) Or you can let this escalate to ArbCom, and then no one will be happy. Your pick: yes, all of you, individually. Seacrest out. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies I stand by my edits. And would love to have a permanent decision. To be frank how long does it take? There are like five complaints. Read the complaint then look at the summary of complaint. Loot at the diffs provided. Then read the counter argument and then look at the diffs provided. I am sure an average English reader will not waste more than two hours on this. I don't get what these other guys are afraid of! I clearly suggested that if someone is found not guilty they should have the block removed even from their log. What is there to worry about? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Jsp722 and his campaign against the word "pagan"

Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Wikipedia articles. Most recently here. The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere. He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIron^IV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In that particular case it's OK. However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] Jsp722 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pursuing a campaign to eradicate the word “pagan” from various Wikipedia articles. Most recently here.

Dear Hebel, thank you for your interest in my humble edits.

I believe that you have improperly resorted to this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page.

Indeed, according to the Welcome Section above, “[b]efore posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page”.

However, no such discussion has ever taken place, as per your own weird choice.

Indeed, while it's true that you have posted a note on my own talkpage at 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC), no actual discussion could take place, since immediately thereafter you posted your grievance straight on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, at 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)!

You simply could not wait even 24 hours for an answer from my side! Please note as well that since you posted your note on my talkpage I have refrained from any edit you might perceive as offensive (or from any edit at all to that effect). It just happened that I was busy with something else.

Therefore, you behavior appears to be precipitous, to say the least.

As to the content of your complaint, any edit which replaces any given word with another, deemed to be more appropriate, in any number of Wikipedia articles (even if it is just one), could be alarmistically misrepresented as a “campaign to eradicate” such word from such article or articles, which is precisely what you did.

Such an exaggeration alone makes your complaint sound inadequate, if not a bit preposterous, just because those word replacements may, in principle, be perfectly adequate and well-warranted.

Therefore, what should be discussed is not the trivial fact that a word was replaced with another in any number of articles, which is the very essence of how Wikipedia works, but rather the worth, or lack thereof, of the replacement itself.

However, such discussion should take place on the modified articles' talkpage, or on the interested editors' talkpages, but not on this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page as though the mere act of editing were an infraction.

Apropos, may I point to the fact that all of my edits without any exception were offered together with a clear explaining summary, while all of your reverts (except for the last one, after my warning) were done without any summary explanation, which suggests an unwillingness to discuss the topic, if not a disruptive, vandalizing intention.

Add to this that all of your reverts (except for the first one) were done in articles on which you had shown no previous interest, but which you could only find as the result of a dubious, patrolling, wikistalking behavior. Add to this your systematic lack of edit summaries, and we have the reinforced picture of a disruptive, vandalizing intention and behavior.

Therefore, may I suggest that you review your own intentions, correct your own behavior, and wait for my opportune answer on my own talkpage, or for my inputs on any edited article's talkpage. Then you will be able to explain your reasons, and why you fear that referring to Norse religion as “Norse religion” rather than “paganism” is the ominous sign of the end of the world. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] The edit comment was: “Undid vandalizing edit which lacked any summary or justification and removed relevant information without any previous resort to talk, perpetrated by notorious wikistalker.” That last comment was directed at me. He has been told any offence he takes is his problem on more than one occasion by more users, and I don't see him engaging on talk pages anywhere.

For someone like you, who has never offered even a mere edit summary justifying your own relevant edits (except for the rather phobic threats accompanying your last edit), you are asking a lot. I believe that any user is entitled to decide by themselves if and when to engage in any talks, and should not be judged from how many talks they have engaged in.

In my case, I have consistently offered clear, meaningful edit summaries, and my edits have most often been accepted without discussion, except for the occasional “thanks”. When they were reverted, I have consistently accepted the revert, and refrained from edit wars, choosing instead to wait until the moment I may find it appropriate to engage in further talks. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] He only once reacted on his own talkpage saying: "Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes." Other gems from his edit comments are: “Replaced inaccurate, uninformative, religious-politically biased, propagandistic, Abrahamic-supremacist, pseudo-scientific, derogatory “pagan”, with accurate, informative, neutral, scientific, ethnoculturally appreciative “Norse religion” or “Replaced derogatory, politically motivated, inaccurate, terrorist hate-propaganda term “pagan” with neutral, informative, accurate, unbiased “followers of traditional religions”. Here, can be seen that this is a one issue account all about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Hebel for so extensively quoting my edit summaries and talks. I think that they offer abundant evidence of my own reasons about the inadequacy of the “pagan” word, and the appropriateness of phrases such as “Norse religion”.

However, I believe that the appropriate place to discuss the worth, or lack thereof, of such words and phrases are the relevant talkpages, not this Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents page, which should rather deal with users' editorial behavior -- a field by the way where your own behavior seems to be far from exemplary.

Still, it is interesting to remark that, although I have offered abundant reasons against the “pagan” usage, you have never refuted them, and while you have so passionately objected to phrases such as “Norse religion”, you have never offered any reason in support of your objection either -- and you have even explicitly accepted the same phrase when used by ScrapIronIV, as seen below, which discomfits your whole complaint!

Therefore, it seems that your inconformity is propelled by some personal, irrational phobia, rather than being based on any scientific, rational, equanimous assessment. Besides, your empty quotation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS sounds rather like a wikilawyering-motivated need to fill up an empty protest with some high-sounding law article, which if anything applies precisely to your own behavior.

For the sake of completeness, may I add that of course there are abundant scholarly references showing both the devious nature of the terminology “pagan”, and the appropriateness and scientific worth of phrases such as “Norse religion”, but I believe that such discussion hardly belongs here, and should be reserved to the appropriate talkpages -- to the chagrin of Hebel, of course, who would seemingly prefer the summary elimination of dissenting voices, à la Kim Jong-Un. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Iridescent says:] This has been going on for years (he also has an equally large bee in his bonnet about "Nazi Party",FWIW). I do note that while various people have told him to knock it off in the past, nobody's ever actually given any kind of warning. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent for your interest, and your deep research on my edits; it's always uplifting to know that someone has read what I wrote! Now, if my edits have been “going on for years” without “any kind of warning” they should not be that bad, eh?

As to your objection to name Hitler's National Socialist Party as such, rather than “Nazi Party”, the big bee seems to be in your own bonnet, as you have such a hard time to call things by their names.

Your logic is reminiscent of European dark ages, when it was thought to be dangerous to mention the Devil by name (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html).

However, since God too should not be mentioned by name, the doubt remains whether according to you Hitler and his party belong to the side of God or of the Devil (unless like Hitler you are an atheist as well)! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[ScrapIronIV says:] While I agree with the problem with the edit summaries, in the second case the replacement of "pagan" with "Norse religion" - and the addition of an appropriate wikilinks - seems entirely appropriate. In this instance, I have restored the change (with a more helpful edit summary) in the hopes of adding clarity to the article. Scr★pIronIV 19:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ScrapIronIV; I was almost despairing of my unpopular “Norse religion” theory, to the point of fearing that even Thor from now on would call himself a “pagan” as per Hebel wishes! Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] In that particular case it's OK.

That “particular case” is exactly the same as all other “cases”, except that the change was made by another editor. Your agreement here shows that your concern with my identical changes is purely personal, and that you lack any point at all.

Besides, accepting the change when made by another editor, but obsessively wikistalking and reverting my identical changes, just because they were authored by me, plus your virulent personal attacks, make it a hard job to assume your good faith WP:AGF. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[Hebel says:] However I think that replacing a perfectly understandable word as "pagan" with categories that are based on "feelgood"terms combined with linguistic categories like "ancestral Indo-European religion" or negative terms like "non-Abrahamic" is problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This you could have said in the appropriate talk page, which you miserably failed to do, instead inappropriately coming straight to vent your unresolved personal frustrations on this Administrators' noticeboard/Incident page. Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

[IJBall says:] I suggest a "final warning" from an Admin here. While they haven't necessarily been warned about this specifically, they've received plenty of other kinds of warnings from other unhappy editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no! Another Kim Jong-Un in the block! You dislike, plus someone else was unhappy, then... zap!, Final Solution on the poor target of your annihilating instincts! You might find yourself together with some self-help here: http://www.cracked.com/article_21834_5-realities-life-when-your-brain-wants-you-to-murder.html Jsp722 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I do see certain problems with Jsp722's style of expression, I note that quite a lot of his edits do indeed seem to replace "pagan" or "paganism" (and some other specific buzz-words) with descriptions that are in fact more nuanced and more exact. Also, while we aren't here to right great wrongs, for those who are bothered by the derogatory origins and occasional derogatory overtones of the word "pagan", his descriptions are definitely less of an un-necessary irritation and make for a better encyclopedia. I have no present intention to make any further comments on this thread, but I feel that all sides might benefit from some careful reconsideration, possibly some advice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I'd be happy to discuss this further with any editor. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree. This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all. Unrelated issue, but also problematic, appears here, as Jsp722 either takes offense to "precocious" or misunderstands it as some sort of derogatory term. All of his edits that I've checked involve removing or replacing useful terminology, and in every case the result is worse. Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword? It merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here. It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning, and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking Nyttend's points one by one, This edit removes the word "pagan" and leaves "Prussian mythology". I'd see that as an improvement. In most cultures the mythology is the religion, or, to put it another way, very few cultures have regarded religion as an entirely separate thing from mythology. The word "pagan" is at least superfluous here. At This edit we find "pagan" replaced by "followers of traditional religions", again possibly an improvement, though I personally would consider piping it to Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia. (I also don't have the reference so can't check whether Jewish Arabs made pilgrimage to Mecca or not.) And at this edit, Jsp722 removes the word "precocious" from the description of a man whose career achieved the École Normale Supérieure only at his third attempt and at the age of 21. The substituted word "persistent" is simply an improvement in accuracy, I suggest. Finally, the word "pagan" was indeed originally derogatory, meaning "country hick", and it still does carry pejorative overtones at times. I'm not hung up on avoiding offence, the word has indeed been widely used including by neo-pagans, and there are appropriate places to use it, but it's not something we should be insisting on at every place where it could possibly be used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

May I add, beside the already tired topic of derogatoriness, that the usage “pagan” reflects a Christian, or maybe Abrahamic, point-of-view, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, or as neutral as possible. Otherwise we might start to call followers of Abrahamic religions “mlechccha” (barbarians) which is how some Eastern traditions would refer to them. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are inaccurate, imprecise, confusing, and thus unscientific terms, because they may variously refer to different sets of religions, including or not Zoroastrianism (held by some as monotheistic and thus included among the “religions of the book”); including or not great religions such as Taoism, Hinduism, or Buddhism; including or not Catholicism, Anglicanism or Orthodox Christianity (viewed by some as polytheistic and idolater), and so forth, and one will never know which set of religions is meant by such terms, although one will always know that whoever is referred by such terms is or was supposed to be exterminated anyway. Besides, “pagan” and “paganism” are obscuring, uninformative terms, as one remains in the darkness as to which culture victim of Christian or Islamic physical and cultural genocide the reference is made, whether to those of the Anglo-Saxons, of the Frisians, of the Norse, of the Iberians, of the Lusitanians, of the Franks, of the Celts, of the Slavs, of the Mithraists, of the Arabs, of the Native Americans, of the Yazidis, of the Greeks, of the Romans, and so forth, all of them in the last two millenia dismissed, trivialized, and demonized by Christian propaganda as merely “pagans”. Therefore, lazily indulging in such blunt, gross, uninsightful, generalizing, defacing, dehumanizing, blanket terms as “pagan” and “paganism”, without any effort to identify, individualize, specify, and therefore humanize such a wealth of religious traditions together with their followers, whenever possible, kind of complements their programmed and systematic physical and psychological extermination with their intellectual extermination as well: a weird, uncomely role to be performed by Wikipedia. Jsp722 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

One extra remark: while the words “pagan” an “paganism” are seldom or never used in relation to ancient polytheistic religions, such as those of the Sumerians, of the Egyptians, of the Akkadians, of the Harappans, of the Hittites, and so forth, which were not subjected to the episodes of physical and cultural genocide called “Christianization”, these very same terms are systematically used to describe those other polytheistic religions which were subjected to such episodes of genocide, such as those of the Celts, Slavs, Norse, Saxons, Prussians, Balts, Native Americans, and so forth. Therefore, the conclusion is obvious that the terms “pagan” and “paganism” were created and have served strictly as a war propaganda jargon in support of physical and cultural genocide, not unlike “idolater”, “infidel”, “devil worshipper”, “heathen”, “satanist”, “apostate” etc., variously used by Abrahamic religionists from biblical times (whatever is the fact behind biblical mythology) to the Islamic State in our days. In other words, there are arguably more similarities than differences between the Islamic State terrorist razing Palmyra or decapitating a Yazidi “idolater”, and the Christian-biased Wikipedia editor trying to raze even the scientific names for non-Abrahamic religions exterminated by Christianity or trying to decapitate a co-editor just because they have objected to the obsessive, indiscriminate use of such Christian-terrorist jargons as “pagan” and “paganism”. Jsp722 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] This edit is a good example of why Jsp722 needs to be stopped: removing this word makes it unclear whether we're talking about their religious beliefs or something about cultural mythology comparable to George Washington and the cherry tree.

While I believe that every mythology is anyway cultural, from the article's context it is clear that the reference was the old Prussian religious belief system; among other reasons because the text explicitly say that it was something followed (unless you are used to follow anecdotes).

Besides, Webster clearly defines mythology as “A body of myths; esp., the collective myths which describe the gods of a heathen people; as, the mythology of the Greeks.” Add to this the context of the article, and it is quite obvious that the reference is a religious system, with or without the term “pagan”.

Personally, I think that the best wording would be something like “Prussian religious beliefs”, according to your own description above, rather than “Prussian mythology”, which is more restricted. Indeed, “religious beliefs” include many other factors beside mythology, such as ritual, cosmology, taboos, and so forth.

However, since “Prussian mythology” is the very title of the linked Wikipedia page, I found it more appropriate to leave the word “mythology” unchanged. Please note that the title of the Wikipedia linked page is “Prussian mythology”, not “Pagan Prussian mythology” as you would want, which would indeed sound rather ridiculous.

Indeed, “pagan mythology” is rather redundant, since in the current context mythology is anyway “pagan”, “heathen” or whatever you want to call it, as highlighted by the above quoted Webster's definition. Unless of course if you want to suggest that there is “Christian mythology”, “Jewish mythology”, or “Abrahamic mythology”, with which I would immediately agree.

That said, what strikes me is your slightly phobic proclamation of the “need to stop” Jsp722 just because of such a trivial disagreement. If you, like Hebel and probably others, want the “pagan” word in this phrase, just undo my edit. If I disagree, I can discuss the topic in the article's page, as I'm doing here. If there's still no agreement, anyone of us can still request a dispute resolution, and the issue will be settled by a neutral party.

Therefore, may I suggest that you cool down a little bit, review your motivations, and engage in discussions with a proper, constructive attitude, rather than trying to almost criminalize editors you may perceive as rivals just because of petty differences of opinion, and to impose your views, right or wrong, through the invocation of extreme, disciplinary means, all of which run completely against the very collaborative principles on which Wikipedia is based. Jsp722 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] This edit, likewise: Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, but that's not the meaning at all.

There the original text was like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or pagan, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”,

while after my edit it became like this:

“tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of traditional religions, would converge on Mecca to perform the Hajj”

While of course Judaism was a traditional religion of the region, Jewish tribes were not, according to my phrasing, necessarily included among the followers of traditional religions converging to Mecca, just because I did not say that “tribes from all around the Arabian peninsula, whether Christian or followers of all traditional religions, would converge to Mecca”.

Besides, if you insist on saying that beside Christian tribes only “pagan” tribes would converge to Mecca to perform the Hajj, you are adventuring the unwarranted, unreferenced, novel theory that absolutely no Jewish tribe was converging to Mecca to perform the Hajj!

Now, if you have a specific reference showing that no Jewish tribes were converging on Mecca to performing the Hajj, please feel free to enrich Wikipedia with it, which still does not imply that the useless “pagan” word has to be used at all, since Jewish tribes are not necessarily implied in my edit, and given the word's many already discussed shortcomings.

Bottom line, blinded by your inquisitorial frenzy to find petty faults in my humble edits, and by your furious obsession for punishments aiming solely at the summary elimination of a perceived rival, you have not only incurred primitive logic faults, but also tried to pass your own ahistorical, thoughtless guesses as though they were ultimate truths. Jsp722 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] Finally, Richard, what do you mean about the derogatory origins of the word, and how is it a buzzword?

When it comes to ignorance of the meaning of words, consulting dictionaries, or just reading in general, makes miracles (or pagan magic, if you wish). While any standard dictionary should do the job, try for instance the links below. Once you are in the linked webpage, press Ctrl + F to search for the word “derogatory.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan,

http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Also, a Google search gave 144.000 results for the search pagan+derogatory

Were you and others such as Hebel to spend with honest research 1% of the time and energy you spend with ridiculous wikistalking, petty nitpicking, and infantile bickering, strictly motivated by the base wish of eliminating from Wikipedia editors you might perceive as rivals, and you wouldn't need to ask this kind of primitive question.

However, just for the sake of illustration, and so that you may develop some minimal acquaintance with the topic, here follow some authoritative quotations from the above links:

“Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own, Judaism, or Islam–the three Abrahamic religions. Throughout Christendom, it continued to be used, typically in a derogatory sense.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

“Paganism has also been understood by some[who?] to include any non-Abrahamic religions, but this is generally[who?] seen as insulting by adherents of those religions.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

“Once monotheistic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, started to become more prominent (in processes known as Christianization and Islamization), names to encompass polytheistic worshipers started to develop; some of these include Hellene, pagan, and heathen, and at times these names were used as slurs.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

“Pagans were usually described within this worldly stereotype, especially among those drawing attention to what they perceived as the limitations of paganism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism#Perception

“Pagan, adjective”

1. If something (or someone) is pagan, it is from a kind of religion called paganism.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) Relating to a religion that is not a major religion; often anything non-Christian.

3. (by extension) Immoral, uncivilized, savage, heathen.”

“Pagan, noun

1. A pagan is someone who follows paganism or a polytheistic religion.

2. (often offensive or derogatory) A person who doesn't follow a major religion; often used to refer to non-Christians.

3. (by extension) Someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen.”

https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/pagan

“Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.” http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan

“'Pagan' is a word invented by early Christians to describe anyone who refused to recognize the Only True God, and no self-respecting pagan ever described himself as one.” http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

“...paganus, the root of 'pagan' as well as 'peasant,' is consistently pejorative.." (A Chronicle of the Last Pagans by Pierre Chuvin, 1990, Harvard University Press, p.7)” http://www.hellenicgods.org/pagan%3Aacontroversialterm

Jsp722 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

[Nyttend says:] It [pagan]] merely means "rural" in its etymology, and while I can imagine that being used derogatorily like "hick" or "redneck" are in the US, that's irrelevant to the issues at hand here.

You might want to elaborate a bit more in depth on your thoughts, and explain exactly why you say that the derogatoriness of a term is irrelevant within a discussion centered on... the derogatoriness of the same term!

Or maybe you want to say that the derogatoriness of the term “pagan” is irrelevant in the context of an article describing the extermination of a people and its religion just because they were, eh... “pagan”, is it?

[Nyttend says:] It's been used for millennia with essentially its current meaning,

For about two millenia, and always with the same derogatory meaning and purpose, as extensively shown elsewhere in this discussion, to wit, as the foremost war-propaganda enemy-bashing hate-jargon supporting the physical and cultural genocide globally perpetrated against countless non-Christian peoples, called “Christianization”, akin to the 1400 years old parallel physical and cultural genocide waged against non-Muslim peoples known as “Islamization”, both parts and continuation of a wider and older relentless war against humanity, civilization, and religious freedom, known as “Abrahamization”, which started when Hebrews invented the so-called “first Noahide commandment”, which commands and wants binding on all of humanity, Hebrews and non-Hebrews alike, full surrender and submission to the Hebrew tribal “god”, the cruel, murderous, genocidal, envious, narcissistic, exclusivistic, monomaniac, mythical creature of a sick imagination, known as “Yahveh”, as represented, of course, by “his” “chosen people”, the Hebrew, thus conveniently elevated by their own supremacistic mythology to the supreme rank among nations, with a little help from their Christian and Muslim ideological vassals.

[Nyttend says:] and most or all fluent speakers of English will easily understand what's being meant.

Of course. They will understand exactly what is meant, to wit, “someone who is immoral, uncivilized, savage, or a heathen”, a “devil worshipper”, an “idolater”, “someone worth being burned at the stake”, “someone from a worthless culture worth being destroyed and denied”, and so forth.

Jsp722 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jsp722, you need to knock it off with the "my humble edits" crap and the condescending attitude here; all editors are expected to edit collaboratively and collegially and treat other editors civilly and with respect. You also need to knock it off with the "politically motivated, religious-terrorist-propaganda coined term 'pagan'" etc. edit summaries and personal attack edit summaries. That said, in the instances I looked at and the instances mentioned above, the replacement of the word pagan with the more accurate specific, neutral, and correct terms has been an improvement. "Pagan" is not, and should never be used as, an antithesis of "Christian" or other 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-millennium religions, monotheistic religions, or Abrahamic religions. Where specificity is available and verifiable, specificity should be used. Of course in the end this is a content dispute, and content disputes should be worked out on talk pages using citations, discussions, and consensus. Softlavender (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

[SoftLavender says:] Jsp722, you need to knock it off with the "my humble edits" crap and the condescending attitude here;

Dear SoftLavender, thank you for your remarks. My usage of the phrase “my humble edits” is just a polite way of saying that I would be happy to listen to diverging opinions, or that I don't expect my edits to by accepted without question.

It is an expression akin to “in my humble opinion”, often initialized by IMHO, and described by Wiktionary as an expression “[u]sed to introduce or qualify a statement, as expressing one's own view, not one backed by external authority or to be accepted without question”, although in case my expressed views are even lavishly supported by external authority, which IMHO makes my usage of the word “humble” very humble indeed.

What makes you construe standard good manners and politeness as “crap” is beyond me, but is probably not my problem either, and therefore I'll let it go.

As to the supposed “condescending attitude” from my side, you might care to specify where did you find it, instead of just irresponsibly machine-gunning your subjective perceptions as though they were some sort of obvious truth.

Finally, as to your compulsive need to start sentences addressing others with the commandeering phrase “You need”, which is hardly a show of collaborative and collegial civility and respect, I'll leave the topic for you to discuss privately with a professional, if so you wish.

[SoftLavender says:] all editors are expected to edit collaboratively and collegially and treat other editors civilly and with respect.

As the old saying goes, “you teach best what you most need to learn.”

[SoftLavender says:] You also need

Did I say it was compulsive?

[SoftLavender says:] to knock it off with the "politically motivated, religious-terrorist-propaganda coined term 'pagan'" etc. edit summaries

I believe that expressions such as “pagan” and “paganism” are indeed politically motivated, and highly so to that effect; a well-documented genocide-supporting, religious-terrorist propaganda slur, to put it mildly, not unlike the “idolater” and “devil-worshiper” name-calling used by Islamic State terrorists in support of their own unspeakable mass-murderings. Besides, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Therefore, I wonder why a reference to the slurring-propagandistic nature of such terms as “pagan” and “paganism” should be excluded from edit summaries, since they are one among the many important reasons justifying the edit to start with!

[SoftLavender says:] and personal attack edit summaries.

Since you have failed to offer any evidence in support of your presumably subjective, impressionistic assessment, may I assume that your accusation is not serious, and therefore can be safely ignored.

[SoftLavender says:] Of course in the end this is a content dispute, and content disputes should be worked out on talk pages using citations, discussions, and consensus.

This has been my main, often repeated point from the very start, as you can see if you just care to read all of my posts on this thread.

However, for some unknown reason, some people, in a somewhat hysterical way, saw my humble objections against the usage of such terms as “pagan” and “paganism” as some sort of transcendental-disciplinary-issue-and-existential-threat-against-Wikipedia-urgently-necessitating-the-violator's-summary-crucifixion, which in turn necessitated my, er, humble subsequent responses together with explanations on my own views on the topic.

Jsp722 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Someone's threatened to crucify you? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) You are obviously a Crucifixion denier. Jsp722 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Is that your joke? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Anyone's. Jsp722 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Sorry, no. Not mine. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Did someone say everyone's? Jsp722 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Someone said "some people, in a somewhat hysterical way". 00:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Congratulations. Yawn. Jsp722 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Tired already? Why am I a "Crucifixion denier"? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC) You missed the opportunity to ask. Now you have to figure it out by yourself. Jsp722 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Ah yes, handy that. Struggling already, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC) I see. Just keep struggling, then send some news. Jsp722 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC) We can see why you're so popular here. Martinevans123 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Awesome. Are you two, or how many? Jsp722 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC) I sense the beginning of a bromance here! - theWOLFchild 21:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Rock on. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Martinevans, being a “we”, can easily “bromance” themselves self-sufficiently (assuming of course that the two or more “me” making up their “we” belong to the same gender). Jsp722 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC) We obviously can have no issue with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• At this point, I'd say Jsp722 does need some sort of wake-up call and an at-least temporary sanction, as his style of editing and interaction is incompatible with Wikipedia's pillars of civility and neutrality, and his contentiousness and tendentiousness are veering into WP:NOTHERE. There is far too much deliberate time-wasting going on here in this thread, rather than a willingness to actively resolve the issue. I think a six-month topic ban on "pagan" and "paganism", broadly construed, would probably be the best route. Anyone agree? The topic could be extended to include other areas if the behavior simply shifts. After the topic ban is over, some sort of mentoring might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. The central idea, that the word "pagan" is often misused, is probably a valid one. But Jsp722 seems to be more concerned with rubbishing the views of other editors and sneering at their supposed ignorance. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

My general feeling is that the discussion about the terms “pagan” and “paganism”, which gave rise to the current thread (please see its title), is for the moment rather exhausted, and reasonably settled, with general agreement on the shortcomings of the terms, which is arguably an asset for Wikipedia's future development. Clearly this Administrative noticeboard/Incidents page was not the appropriate place for such discussion, but that is the way it happened. There was some noise at the very end of the thread, by people who gave absolutely no contribution to it, and apparently more interested on provocative jesting, or on venting personal frustrations, than on actually contributing to the settlement of the topic — a settlement which has been reasonably achieved and was the only purpose of the current incident. Jsp722 (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There were two points. The first is the substantive one about the use of "pagan" and other words, which I hope we have indeed exhausted. The other is about interactive style, in particular Jsp722's, though a quick riffle through history does suggest that other editors have made some contribution to the problem. The paragraph immediately above is an example of an approach and style thoroughly inappropriate here. (In a college session of friends setting the world to rights it might be far more appropriate, context is key.) Jsp722, would you accept any sort of mentoring? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course! I'm here to learn. (Although your two sentences before the last remain a bit of a mystery to me). Jsp722 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the word "pagan" as commonly used is inappropriate for a world encyclopedia for the reasons noted. It would be far better to name the religion or culture the word "pagan" was intended to reference. I also agree that Jsp722 needs to learn some manners in order to be more effective at effecting the changes he'd like to see. Rklawton (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You might be my mentor, as proposed by Richard, if this is feasible. I'm ready to learn about manners, about effectiveness at change, and about just anything else from you, or from anyone else to that effect. Jsp722 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds much more encouraging. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually I can have many mentors! From Hebel I'll learn obsessively to wikistalk/wikihound editors for personal motives, to gratuitously mass-disrupt and vandalize their useful edits, and to still have the impudence to report my victim to an ANI page; from IJBall I'll learn to join the chorus frantically asking the summary elimination of disliked editors just for the fun of it; from Iridescent I'll learn to suggest that other editors are “Nazis” in the lack of any other arguments; from Nyttend I'll learn to find fault in the faultless, and bold-facely to pretend that I have never heard that “pagan” is a derogatory word; from SoftLavender I'll learn to start every sentence addressed to another editor with a domineering “You need to”, the joylessness to dismiss even standard collegial politeness as “crap”, and the exhilarating pleasure to be found in controlling and punishing; and from Martinevans I'll learn to refer to myself as “we”, and how to spend my night making witty remarks without falling asleep! Jsp722 (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Good job it's not a case of "us and them". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Here you come again with your “us” thing... But I have to agree, this is indeed a case where Pagan is wonderful! Jsp722 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I'm not quite so encouraged by Rklawton's mentorship, admin or no admin. Given the advice offered here, I don't feel that Rklawton is paying correct attention to the content of the article he has suggested has some form of 'redundant' information about who followed what religion. Given that the subject of the article (being Sviatoslav I of Kiev) is someone we don't know very much about, the length of the section on religious affiliations, and the context of a changing European politico-religious landscape, and the lack of any positive or negative connotations as to religious choices outside of an alliance-based predisposition, suggesting that any references to religion are redundant seems more like a WP:BADIDEA than a desire to improve the content of the article. Perhaps I have misunderstood Rklawton's reading of the article and he could enlighten me as to why "It's amazing to me that someone would link a person's religion to a generic article that essentially proves your assertion that its use is POV.". How is the article 'generic'? How is Sviatoslav I of Kiev's political and religious ideology a gratuitous use of mentions of his religion as opposed to that adopted by his mother and other political figures around him? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we have gone way too far discussing content on an ANI page. It is irrelevant here whether or not “in the context of changing European politico-religious landscape” or “outside of an alliance-based predisposition” it is a “WP:BADIDEA” to discuss “Sviatoslav I of Kiev's political and religious ideology”, let alone the “religion adopted by his mother”. Not only irrelevant, but preposterous. Please ladies and gentlemen, cast your votes below, so that we can put an end to this farce, and so that those willing seriously to collaborate can work. Thanks! Jsp722 (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Question: in your rebuttals above, you've linked twice to simple wikt, but not to ordinary wikt where the primary defintioins are in no way pejoratuve? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Answer: For whatever reason, the editor of the simplewiki used “derogatory”, whereas the editor of the ordinary wiki used “pejorative”, in both cases to define“pagan”. Therefore, “pejorative”, although not “derogatory”, is found on the ordinary wiki at least 4 times, as quoted below:

• “2. (by extension, pejorative) Savage, immoral, uncivilized, wild.”
• “(civilisation): barbarian, barbaric (pejorative).”
• “2. (by extension, pejorative, politically incorrect) An uncivilized or unsocialized person.”
• “3. (pejorative, politically incorrect) Especially an unruly, badly educated child.”
• Also, on the ordinary wiki, the word “pagan” appears precisely because it is an entry on the list of English pejoratives”.

As you can see, “pagan”, itself a demonized word, is used as a particularly perverse way of demonizing even “misbehaving” children; demon (Anc. Grk. “daimon”) itself being a satanized word; “Satan” (Hbr. “adversary”) itself being a devilized word; “Devil” (Sanskr. “deva”, “god”, “luminous being”) itself being an evilized word, and so forth.

The idea here is to make out of whoever does not toe the line of the Abrahamic “god” the very definition of “evil”, “evil” itself being defined in Abrahamic religions not as murdering and so forth, bit as opposing a murdering “god”. Jsp722 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

But those definitions are not the primary ones, are they. As you rightly point out, Jsp722, they are (2), (2) and (3) respectively. That doesn't make "pagan" necessarily a "demonized word." It depends on the context as to which meaning is intended, and thus whether or not it's inappropriate. I think that's why many people may see your crusade against use of this word as misguided. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is more or less like “shit”. Definition #1 is just feaces/feces, perfectly neutral; definition #2 is derogatory. The same applies to “ass”, and any number of slurs you can imagine. The devil is in definition #2. Besides, as already noted elsewhere, not only the word's overtones are derogatory, but its origin as well; it is a word meant from the start to be derogatory which became a name for those derogated. Therefore, in this case, the devil is in definition #1 as well. But, may I insist, this is a topic to be discussed on specific talkpages, maybe one day even on dispute resolution pages, but not here. Jsp722 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's just your interpretation. Insist all you like, but this is a general discussion based on the overall pattern of your contributions. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I was suspecting this; please don't tell anyone, and just pretend that we don't know anything. Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m not “just pretending that you don't know anything”. I’m suggesting that your comparison of the word “pagan” with the word “shit” is not a very good one. I’d say that “shit” is used more often than not in a derogatory way. It’s frequently used as an expletive, for example, which pagan never is. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You managed to miss your own point, which is that the derogation is most often in meaning #2, just this. And your lack of sources about the usage or not of 'pagan' as an expletive makes your already irrelevant remark even more useless. Jsp722 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not like “shit”. A word can only be disparaged as “derogatory” or as a "slur" when it is clearly and according to most and many sources, generally in such use. However, the word “pagan” is still used to describe something, even in fairly recent scholarly works about the subject. Your personal opinion about that word is therefore just that, when it comes to it’s use here on Wikipedia. That may change of course but that is not up to us as editors here. Maybe it’s not the most fortunate of words, but we can say that about some other words that are in general use as well. And for the time being it is in general use. Your offense may very well be, as derived from your above comments, just your personal opinion about the matter. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Many slurs are embedded in language and in people's thoughts, deformed as they often are by millenia-old massive slurring propaganda and bestial beliefs transvestite as “religion” (no offence intended to beasts, please) most people hardly even perceive that they are slurring, a fact well described by the Microaggression Theory;
• recency, laziness, carelessnes, and even claimed unawareness do not make a slur less of a slur, and unawareness is hardly a distinction for scholars;
• your views about the sacred mission of Wikipedia editors as perpetrators and perpetuators of slurs is fascinating, but hardlly fit a disciplinary page; and
• your noble view about the slur being the fault of the slurred brings tears to the eyes, and surely the world will be a better place when more people think like you!

Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You're now telling us that "many slurs are embedded ... in people's thoughts"? Yes, I think a discussion about such things probably belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In the end, everything boils down to thought and language, I think. I don't know where you think this discussion belongs, but I see its placement in a disciplinary page is a tragicomic excrescence in Wikipedia. Jsp722 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating myself. I have also put this comment as a comment in the section below which may not have been the right place to write it. I’ve kept myself quiet a little because I had other things on my list, but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go? Anyway, what I would like to stress here once again is that, apart from the objectionable reasoning in the edit comments and the modus operandum of this user, his alternatives for the wording in question remains part of the problem. Whatever may or may not be wrong with a word or with the origins thereof, doesn’t make the alternatives any better and I do think that using language pertaining to linguistic or ethnolinguistic categories to describe religions or religious practices we don’t know an awful lot about is problematic. As are “exclusive” terms that begin with “non”. A word cannot help how it came about and who thought of using it first. And while that can of course be debatable it doesn't need to be problematic as long as it’s meaning is clear and as long as it is in general accepted use in matters pertaining to what that word is about. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your objections, as also Irina Harpy's, perfectly legitimate, and worth careful scrutiny and discussion. Personally, I would be happy to scrutinize and discuss them. Besides, even though most people until now on this thread have indeed agreed on the inappropriateness of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism”, I concede that there is room for much more discussion, taking into consideration further objections such as those brought by both of you. However, this ANI is clearly not the place for such discussions, which should happen, at least initially, on specific articles' talkpages — which did never happen until now, at least as far as I am aware. In the extreme case of unresolvable disagreement there is still the possibility of starting one or several dispute resolutions. But anyway, this is definitely not the topic for a disciplinary page. Therefore, may I propose that from now on we all refrain from discussing the terms “pagan” and “paganism” on this thread, leaving such discussion to the talkpages of each specific article. And, as you asked, now that we have a votation, “Is that the way it’s supposed to go?” Jsp722 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your pattern of editing has led a number of other editors to think that a general discussion on the use of those words might be more efficient than leaving discussion "to the talkpages of each specific article". You seem to think that those words have no proper place in this encyclopedia at all? Where would a general discussion be best placed? At WP:DR perhaps? But then there are also editors who think your approach to editing itself warrants some kind of sanction. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely words such as “pagan” and “paganism” have a proper place in Wikipedia, for instance on Lists of pejorative terms for people. Otherwise such usage of words should be checked at each specific occurrence, in order to ascertain the best replacement. Since “pagan” and “paganism” are just generic, blanket, and on top of it indefinite words, and this another of their essential shortcomings, each occurrence may require a different replacement and rephrasing. There are many partially or entirely distinct religions and sets of religions indiscriminately labeled as “paganism”, and thus no room for a simplistic “one size fits all” here.

As to the best place for discussing the issue, while I believe it should be each article's specific talkpage or, in case of need, a dispute resolution page, but never a disciplinary page, others may indeed think otherwise. Since I am no administrator, this is actually not my problem; I just discuss the topic with whoever might be interested on it, wherever it is decided by administrators.

The unasked question, however, is whether or not this topic, rather than my “pattern of editing” is a disciplinary issue warranting some kind of sanction. Probably those favorable to the indiscriminate usage of the words “pagan” and “paganism” will tend to see any scrutiny as a disciplinary issue, while those favorable to scrutiny will tend to see the topic as something to be freely discussed on talkpages, and anyway no good reason for any kind of disciplinary action.

In general, however, I believe that treating any debatable topic as a disciplinary issue is an unhealthy sign for Wikipedia, but my contribution cannot go beyond just offering this remark.

Jsp722 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2016 (U TC)

I don't see anyone here advocating "indiscriminate usage of the words “pagan” and “paganism”". And I'd be very surprised if anyone ever would deliberately have such an agenda. I would suspect that misuse of those words, if that misuse can indeed be agreed by consensus, will probably have grown up incrementally and unnoticed over many years. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The very usage of the Christian slurs “pagan” and “paganism”, as already extensively shown and largely agreed upon, is itself indiscriminate by nature, which is by the way the very nature of slurs in general, specially of those intended to support genocides, such as those perpetrated by Christianity.

It would be very difficult to perpetrate relentless genocides against countless peoples and cultures throughout two millenia without an agenda. Surely a Ku Klux Klan member has an agenda when they call people perceived as dark-skinned “niggers”.

The bestiality of a behavior is often unnoticed, specially by perpetrators. Islamic State fanatics decapitating, drowning, burying, and burning alive a “kafir” (“disbeliever”, the Muslim word for “pagan”) probably do not realize the bestiality of their own behavior: rather, they think it is pure behavior recommended by their scriptures (which happens to be exactly the case).

The Christian usage of the terms “pagan” and “paganism” are in every respect similar and paralell to the Muslim usage of terms such as “kafir” and “shirk”; they are the derogatory epithets given to “disbelievers, in order to justify their physical and cultural elimination. And it is not less so just because it is “unnoticed” by some, or because the usage grew up incrementally over many years.

Another similar word is “apostate”, which was for centuries used by Christian hate-propagandizers, for instance, to name in a derogatory way the Roman emperor Julian, which they called “Julian the Apostate. After a long and heated debated, folks decided that 1700 years of slur were not enough to justify the continuation of such despicable usage on Wikipedia, and moved the page from “Julian the Apostate” to “Julian (emperor)”, and the world did not come to an end.

By the way, that fruitful debate happened in a civilized way, without any threat of disciplinary action against anyone, although it changed such a millenia-old usage. The same should apply to the current discussion about “pagan” and “paganism”, no matter how many pages might be potentially affected by refreshing views on the topic.

Indeed, on each page someone may raise objections, and this objections will have to be discussed, and if there is no agreement there will be a dispute resolution by a neutral party. And there are 1.150.000 Google results for the search “Wikipedia pagan”, plus 450.000 results for the search “Wikipedia paganism”.

Therefore, phobic reactions and accusations that my “modus operandi” is somehow disruptive make no sense at all, specially because my 5 or so edits (please check and correct if you have time) have all been largely found to be good and praised as better than the original “pagan” or “paganism”, even by experienced and learned editors, on this very page.

Therefore, dear Martinevans123, please cast your vote so that this ridiculous disciplinary incident, regretted even by its very initiator, comes to its deserved end.

Jsp722 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit on this place seems to have been inadvertently deleted by this edit I'm going to resore it here again. Sorry if there was any mistake. As far as I can see the word “pagan” is descriptive of some religions or religious practices we know of or know very little about in a historical sense. And it has been and is still used widely to describe that phenomenon or set of phenomena. Of course it has also been used in a negative sense, but I (and many others that still try to use in a purely descriptive sense) don’t think the word should be disparaged just for that. The word “Deva”, the Indian word for “God” may very well be the origin of the word “Devil” (and it wasn't an Abrahamic religion that made it so) but it is also a cognate of “Dieux” (French) and “Deity” (English). Revivalists of pre Christian religions call themselves Neopaganist! What I mean to say is that if a multitude of sources show that a word is clearly objectionable, we, here on Wikipedia, would seriously have to consider that. On the other hand we are dealing here with a word that, for now, is in general use to describe a particular phenomenon. We don’t get to judge that. Others might do so in the future, but that is not the task of an editor in Wikipedia. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for any inadvertent indeed deletion; now I'm afraid of reverting it and making things even more complicate, so I leave as it is. Now short answers, so that people may concentrate on all-important disciplinary issues without losing their time with unimportant content issues.

• The argument of “knowing little” about “paganism” is hardly a justification for the naming.
• Looks like Abrahamic religions have lots of Iranian roots, including the demonized “deva” thing, plus ressurrection, final judgment, militancy, and so forth.
• As words clearly show, “Dieux” is actually the “Devil”!
• Revivalist introjection of slurs is hardly an argument, specially because such a folk as Sviatoslav I was hardly a revivalist; please note that American Blacks proudly call themselves “Niggas”, adapted from the racist, derogatory ”Niggers”.
• Finally, your whole case for defining Wikipedia as a tool for perpetrating and perpetuating slur, while interesting, can be appreciated in other places, hardly on this ANI page.

Jsp722 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Temporary topic ban

At this point, I'd say Jsp722 does need some sort of wake-up call and an at-least temporary sanction, as his style of editing and interaction is incompatible with Wikipedia's pillars of civility and neutrality, and his contentiousness and tendentiousness (including this latest salvo [35]) are veering into WP:NOTHERE. There is far too much deliberate time-wasting and personal attacking going on here in this thread, rather than a willingness to actively resolve the issue. I think a six-month topic ban on "pagan" and "paganism", broadly construed, would probably be the best route. Anyone agree? The topic could be extended to include other areas if the behavior simply shifts. After the topic ban is over, some sort of mentoring might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support six-month topic ban, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This looks like a content dispute, unnecessarily brought to teh drama boards, in which the content issue has largely been resolved in favor of Jsp722's position. Good faith editing and failure to properly grovel in the face of the almighty power of the admins are not good reasons for any kind of disciplinary action. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons above. Jsp722 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Just for your information, the issue is already well-resolved for quite a while, thanks to the active contribution of many users, while your only contribution has been your persistent, disruptive bid to make a tempest in a teapot, demanding disciplinary measures on the basis of triffling issues, such as me referring to my own edits as “my humble edits”. Jsp722 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment it is not normally allowed for !votes from subjects of proposed bans, when the !vote is about them. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If so, the one proposing the ban should not be able to vote either, as the vote is about their proposal Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The discussion would sit far more comfortably at DR. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A topic ban is necessary when an editor refuses to budge on one particular issue. Jsp has shown a willingness to learn and has accepted at least one mentor. Wikipedia has several noted "single issue" editors who have helped Wikipedia move forward, and I'm confident that Jsp can successfully join their ranks. And, of course, Jsp has raised an excellent point about the use of the word Pagan in our articles. Many of our articles would be much better served if we could specify a subject's religion with reliable sources rather than label it with a term that could mean almost anything. Rklawton (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• His response seemed to cast the meaning of the term "mentor" in a new light?Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not new. Learning what not to do from the mistakes of others is surely a very old idea. Jsp722 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I’ve kept myself quiet a little because I had other things on my list, but I am a bit taken aback that we now get to vote on this. Is that the way it’s supposed to go? Anyway, what I would like to stress here once again is that, apart from the objectionable reasoning in the edit comments and the modus operandum of this user, his alternatives for the wording in question remains part of the problem. Whatever may or may not be wrong with a word or with the origins thereof, doesn’t make the alternatives any better and I do think that using language pertaining to linguistic or ethnolinguistic categories to describe religions or religious practices we don’t know an awful lot about is problematic. As are “exclusive” terms that begin with “non”. A word cannot help how it came about and who thought of using it first. And while that can of course be debatable it doesn't need to be problematic as long as it’s meaning is clear and as long as it is in general accepted use in matters pertaining to what that word is about. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I find your objections, as also Irina Harpy's, perfectly legitimate, and worth careful scrutiny and discussion. Personally, I would be happy to scrutinize and discuss them. Besides, even though most people until now on this thread have indeed agreed on the inappropriateness of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism”, I concede that there is room for much more discussion, taking into consideration further objections such as those brought by both of you. However, this ANI is clearly not the place for such discussions, which should happen, at least initially, on specific articles' talkpages — which did never happen until now, at least as far as I am aware. In the extreme case of unresolvable disagreement there is still the possibility of starting one or several dispute resolutions. But anyway, this is definitely not the topic for a disciplinary page. Therefore, may I propose that from now on we all refrain from discussing the terms “pagan” and “paganism” on this thread, leaving such discussion to the talkpages of each specific article. And, as you asked, now that we have a votation, “Is that the way it’s supposed to go?” Jsp722 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support six-month topic ban. Now it seems to be that their modus operandi is to go to every article where "pagan" appears (presumably excluding the article Paganism) and replace it with other words to that effect. The problem with this approach is that article descriptions of religions should be based on reliable sources, not POV pushing as to the suitability of the word. From the above walls of text I feel it is unlikely that consensus will be reached on these issues. Also, I simply don't believe in the real world that "pagan" is particularly pejorative, with organizations such as the Pagan Federation proud to use the term. Therefore I would support this restriction. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

According to a Google search, there are 1.150.000 occurrences of “Wikipedia + pagan”, plus 454.000 of “Wikipedia + paganism”. I have edited some 5 instances (you may go through my history and correct the number), all of them with detailed edit summaries. When my changes were opposed, I did not engage in any edit wars, rather waiting for the opportunity to engage in discussions on talkpages. All of my changes have been scrutinized on this thread and found to be good, despite some criticism to my edit summaries, which I have accepted. Therefore your attitude seems to be a bit exaggerated and alarmist, and actually tending dogmatically to impose wording to wikipedia without allowing for the possibility of discussion, which adds to the weakness of your argument in support of it, since, after all, people like Sviatoslav I were not “neopagans” anyway. Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If you've slowed down it may be due to this active thread. But it is clear from your above comments that you consider "pagan" a pejorative word, which you would like to see expunged from Wikipedia. I disagree with both of these points. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Which means that you want to impose a disciplinary sanction just because of a content disagreement. Like sending Galileo to burn at the the stake just because the Earth was flat. Congratulations. Maybe we rename Wikipedia to Inquipedia! Jsp722 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Jsp722 has useful contributions to make, but is making them in a way that disrupts the encyclopaedic project. I would suggest mentorship on discussion style, if Jsp722 will accept it, first. Would Rklawton be willing to lead this? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

From my side already gladly accepted; from Rklawton's side he is willing to lead and already effectively leading, as one can be see on my talkpage. Jsp722 (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I could ask if Rklawton has the time and inclination to take this on formally? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Richard, following your suggestion, I have accepted Rklawton's “mentorship” in an informal way, because I learned to appreciate his human qualities, learning, and skills. I see him, as I could see others, rather as a beneficial friend capable of helping making my contributions better. However, I'm not at all interested on accepting any “formal mentoring”, or anything which might restrict my legitimate freedom as an editor. If this means that you will vote for my ban, please vote for it by all means.

Me and other users such as David Eppstein and _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} obviously have different opinions from yours about what does it mean to be “disruptive” and what should be or not treated as a disciplinary issue, and anyway I am vastly used not to be on the “winning” side. Wikipedia has countless other topics of my interest, and even if I am banned from editing all of them I still enjoy the good fortune of having plenty of rewarding activities in life. Therefore, please cast your vote so that this tragicomic incident, which should never have started, and which was regretted with perplexity by its very own initiator, comes to its well-deserved end.

Jsp722 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have agreed to help mentor Jsp with the caveats he has noted above. This is not a "formal" relationship - just a collegial one between two editors who wish to see Wikipedia continually improved. Rklawton (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Medeis has some sort of vendetta against me on the Reference Desk: Science board, and keeps harassing me

I often peruse the reference desk to get some advice on how to perform organic chemistry reactions in the lab. They aren't homework questions, particularly as I have a bachelors' in biochemistry and I am pursuing these reactions on an amateur basis. User:Medeis puzzlingly keeps accusing me of using the reference desk to answer "homework questions" and "professional advice". As far as I know, the restriction on professional advice is for legal advice, medical advice, financial investing advice, the kind of advice you would actually hire a professional consultant for, rather than restrictions on advanced organic chemistry because the questions are advanced or practical in scope. He has made these accusations against me on this basis several times, making personal attacks, and the latest action involves removing a legitimate question outright. Medeis sent me a "final warning" a few days ago on my talk page, threatening to get me "indefinitely blocked" as a sockpuppet, or saying he would report me to ANI. [36] I thought I would pre-empt him on the matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Also until two minutes ago, until I further glanced up on the talk pages, I actually had no idea that User:Medeis has been topic-banned from the Reference Desk before. Could I ask for some advice or intervention on the matter, seeing as it is not his first time harassing other users on the Reference Desk? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

would pre-empt him on the matter. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I frequently disagree with Medeis in many area and some of their accusations seem IMO careless at times. E.g. the homework questions accusation already seemed bizzare as it never seemed like Yanping Nora Soong (YNS) was asking questions relating what would be considered "homework".

However it has became increasingly clear that YNS is asking questions relating to potentially dangerous chemistry work they apparently plan to try at home, in an effort to produce drugs for self medication. See in particular Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 January 4#Ground glass joints with 2.5 bar pressure relief valve?. While I have some sympathies for the situation YNS finds themselves in, I'm fairly sure from the comments I've seen that I'm not the only one incredibly uncomfortable with this line of question. I'm not sure if Medeis's unilateral deletion was the best move (particularly since for a variety of reasons, Medeis's deletions tend to cause controversy) but in this particular instance it's difficult to fault it.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As for the sock issue, while it appears to be true Yanping Nora Soong has used other accounts in the past, AFAIK these account were basically in good standing perhaps with some people suggesting they were asking a little too many questions and a few other issues which seem irrelevant to the current situation. While there may be some similarites of current with previous behaviour, considering the length of time and the fact there was never AFAIK any formal warning or restriction, I do not believe there is a credible case for sockpuppetry (i.e. misuse of multiple account such as avoiding scrunity). Particularly since it should be fairly obvious why YNS may not want to link their current account with previous accounts from what they've disclosed on their user page. If Medeis still feels there is an issue, they should approach arbcom about this to avoid WP:OUTING and other concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a grave issue. YNS shouldn't be doing what she's trying to do. It could have really devastating consequences. Although, Medeis has violated his sanction (and also given a bad rationale), I think the real issue at hand is that YNS is attempting to prepare unknown medications for herself. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been psychiatrically hospitalized over thirty times, I actually have been through over twenty to thirty different medications in the last four years (I've lost count), I've even had electroconvulsive therapy (which they won't give me anymore since my diagnosis was formally changed from MDD / bipolar spectrum disorder to complex PTSD and dissociative disorder NOS). I have attempted suicide several times in severely dissociated or dysphoric states (not a threat by any means, just saying how severe my disorder is). Bear in mind, there are currently no approved medications for the treatment of PTSD. Experimental treatments are risky, but untreated chronic suicidality and dissociation are even more so. Plus, targeting NMDA receptors and sigma receptors are really promising lines of treatment.

I am also not doing anything illegal (self-medication is a human right) and I'm actually only asking for organic chemistry advice, not medical advice. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, AFAIK Medeis is under no active sanction relating to the RD or removals. (I think none point blank.) The topic ban mentioned above happened 2 years ago but was quickly vacated as lacking consensus (i.e. it's considered to have never happened). Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked up some threads in ANI and it seems there's lots featuring him. I did find the thread containing the community sanction but not the one which overturned that outcome. I simply took YNS' word for it (I still don't know). Now, Medeis might not have a bad conduct but he certainly is a problem user. I'd like to see links to his hounding and personal attacks (if any) before I comment further (not that my comments matter). --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, a different named user asked the same question just a few days ago, and it was discussed ad nauseam at the ref desk talk page. In short, the ban was lifted 2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: Self-medication is not a human right, but it's just assumed to be one (just like self-euthanizing is not one but often supposed to be). Now, I'm no chemistry guy but as far as Wnt said on the Reference Desk, do not try it at home, you don't know what products your reaction might yield, hell, you could find the next big drug but there's no surety. Just saying, the consequences are too great. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not currently have any rule or guideline prohibiting the asking of "dangerous" questions. As always, the correct response upon observing a question which one would be uncomfortable answering is to ignore it. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how much social responsibility one feels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, you should know better. Where commas should be placed and eliminating blank lines that improve readability are important issues, because the almighty Manual of Style says they are, but being responsible for assisting another editor in potentially hurting themselves or producing their own drugs to self-medicate, that's not our problem, for, it turns out, every person is an island. BMK (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I've seen Medeis allege "homework" a few times lately in situations where I think it plainly was not. Now the Reference Desk may have a policy about homework questions, but it's important that we not let the policy be gamed in such a way that, if a person wanted to, he or she could levy a false "homework" accusation against any question and then expect the merits of the question to be debated as if it it were an issue. While I am definitely not fond of chemistry under pressure, I must emphasize the importance of keeping an open door for people to ask such questions. If we happen to talk someone out of trying something risky, this is a very good thing; it is a special case though of the general rule that if we can share useful information, we make people more informed and more informed people will do better, safer chemistry. Though I should note that Soong is actually a much better chemist than I am, which is why the suggestion of using improper vessels under pressure seemed so out of place! (It's a pity our Document Object Model doesn't allow better possibilities for citizen-scientists to embed real-time lab notebooks and coordinate their research through Wikipedia... but I digress)

Anyway, the ANI take-home here should be (a) the question isn't up for debate, (b) Medeis should knock off with the bogus homework allegations - whether you call them assuming bad faith, personal attack or whatever, they're not relevant or productive. Wnt (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a chemist but I've worked in an art foundry for over twenty years where we do all types of pressure casting and molding and I can't express to YNS enough how devastating the catastrophic failure of a pressure vessel can be. People don't realize how powerful even 10psi can be depending on the failure let alone truly high pressure systems. I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Failures that would be fatal if someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time. With chemical reactions you can have the production of gases spiral out of control incredibly quickly with no chance to intercede. Then you're talking the potential for glass shrapnel and the chemicals spraying everywhere. Capeo (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe that's the intention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was good advice. I guess I didn't think of 1.4 atm (gauge pressure; 2.4 atm absolute) as potentially being catastrophic. After all, 1.4 atm * 100 mL = 14 joules. The K.E. of a typical bullet is >500J (in hunting, ~>2500 J -- seeing from Muzzle energy#Legal_requirements_on_muzzle_energy), but an airsoft gun produces an output more on the order of 7.5J, and no one thinks of those things as lethal. My other consideration is that a a litre of water freezing into ice exerts wayyy more pressure on a tight container -- but I guess it doesn't do that explosively. But, after the heads-up, I ordered a specially-designed pressure vessel rated at 10 atm (tested at 15 atm) instead. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, 1.4 atm = 1.4 * 101325 Pa = 141855 kg m-1 s-2. Multiply by 100 cm3 = 1E-4 m3 = 14 joules... that seems to check out. Also, on looking it up just now [37] I should admit that I had a misconception in my mind -- it might actually be possible to use X-rays to find slivers of glass in someone's eye and avoid prospecting for it with forceps, though borosilicate is more difficult than soda lime glass. Even so, I'm not enthusiastic about exploding glassware, even before we get into the toxicity/flammability of whatever is in it. And buying a stronger container just seems like doubling down on the risk to me. You weren't very clear on whether you had any sort of fume hood or blast shield set up at all, which was one of the reasons for concern. Wnt (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am going to refrain from answering at this point at length. But I asked YNS whether her questions were homework questions for the simple reason that I did such syntheses in Organic Chem Lab to get my bachelor's degree; i.e., as homework. If it wasn't homework, it was a request for professional advice, both of which the Ref Desk disallows.

Based on YNS's talk page and contribution history, I think it is clear this user has a very long history soapboxing and of resorting to ANI, rather than editting mainspace. Her recent attacks on User:Snow Rise as a patriarchical cisnormative heterosexist (I paraphrase) started by a third person show a focus on using WP as a homepage and forum, rather than an encyclopedia. Likewise there's the request for speculation about how to get executed for a capital crime where no capital punishment exists, which degenerated into a discussion of assisted suicide show a wide divergence from the project's goals.

As a queer myself I can see the temptation to "speak out", but WP is defined as WP:NOTAFORUM. I don't think YNS has ever once asked for a reference at the ref desk. The sole problem I see on my account is that I did not notify YNS yesterday when I reverted her latest WP:NOTHOWTO question. But she has never engaged with me, except to revert a warning of mine on her talkpage to follow the guidelines with a revert and the edit summary "LOLZ".

I have nothing against this user, have not pursued her across mainspace, and suggest this be closed. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing really attacky about deeming someone a member of the patriarchy; most cis males who aren't feminists are by default, members of the patriarchy**, and I wasn't trying to make an attack. I was simply pointing out to him that, "your viewpoint is convenient for you to have, but not convenient for people who belong to more disadvantaged groups". Anyway, the whole issue sprung up up around what it meant for a doctor to make an "error" while sexing a baby, and it turned out we misinterpreted each other to begin with, and I don't think the discussion is antithetical to the project or to the reference desk when it makes evaluate more clearly what sex and gender mean. I wasn't even trying to have a debate, I was simply responding to what seemed like an unintentional microaggression. As Wnt put it succinctly : I've noticed most methods of classifying people that seem convenient to me eventually seem annoying to someone being classified.

**from the lead from our article on patriarchy: "Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property..."

Also what's wrong with asking a hypothetical question about seeking the death penalty when you've been imprisoned for life? It wasn't a request for legal advice -- I've never been in prison and do not think I ever might be, certainly not for life (tho if I were black I could not say this with as much certainty), it was more of a burning curiosity especially as I kind of saw it as a deep injustice to be imprisoned for life but not to be allowed the option to die. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's standard, yes, "deeming someone" in that matter is indeed a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

YNS, Please simply read the Ref Desk guildelines at the top of the RD pages, as well as Wikipedia:General disclaimer:

Not professional advice: If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.

We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.

We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point.

And abide by them without interposing yourself in discussions where people innocently use terms such as "transgender" by attempting to shame them. I am certainly on no vendetta against you, and did not file an ANI, or a complaint at the talk page. You may find that engaging with people who've been openly queer since the early 80's, or simply other editors who don't start from the same premises as you, to be informative. And I do still maintain you should only ask for references, and not how-to questions, on how to synthesize bioactive substances. You are looking at matters that require hoods, vents, wash-stations, and so forth by law. We're simply not qualified, and I can quote plenty of other editors who've told you the same thing, if you insist. Please ping me here for further attention if needed. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, WP:NPA, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:NOTHOWTO would also be extremely helpful. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: It looks like there you started discussing the "cishet patriarchy" impersonally, but got drawn into what seemed like more direct argument. I don't want to confuse personal political opinion with personal attack. Nonetheless, be very careful about the "deeming people", i.e. making or appearing to make ad hominem statements or assumptions about other users. I know there's a rigged game here, that often people use policy as a way to attack people personally and then if they gripe back they get slammed; so don't let yourself become a victim of it. Wnt (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOWTO AFAIK applies to article space. It doesn't apply to the Reference Desk. I'm also not asking for professional advice -- if I had more chemist friends I spoke to on a regular basis, I'd be asking them in a non-professional capacity. I don't think you also know the difference between "transgender" (a term I identify with) and transgendered (a misuse at best, a slur at worst). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The OP has made 336 edits to Wikipedia in about 4 1/2 months. Of these, only 74 were to articles, while a whopping 125 (37.2%) were to Wikipedia space. Edits to their own user page and to the photographs they uploaded account for another 69. To be frank, YNS is showing very strong signs of not being here to improve the encyclopedia, but for reasons of their own. However valid those reasons are to themselves, personally, it is not what we are here for. I very strongly urge YNS to refocus their efforts into editing articles and otherwise contributing to the project in a positive way, as I am afraid that the failure to do so will otherwise eventually end up in a sanction. That's not something that's desirable: clearly YNS has much to offer to the project, but we're not here for any other purpose than to help improve an online encyclopedia, and if they cannot put the vast majority of their energy into doing that, then there is no place for them here. That would be regrettable. BMK (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief as I may, under the circumstances. I just want to point out YNS that they really have no idea whether I am male or female or indeed whether I am cis, and they very well might never know, since one of the most compelling facets of Wikipedia is that participation is not predicated on who you are, but what you bring to the table as a contributor. I've always found that aspect of Wikipedia to be virtually unique in my personal experiences. However, I will state unequivocally that I am a feminist and consider it a defining feature of my life and general morale outlook. And I very much take offense to YNS's unfounded and repetitive accusations and presumptions about myself (and Graeme), which, at this point, I very much consider to have passed into the territory of WP:personal attacks, made as a part of a massive WP:SOAPBOX effort to divert discussions into territories they wish to zealously engage on. In an effort to create one or more foil for their stances, they have made numerous assumptions about the character and beliefs of others (myself primarily) which are not in evidence anywhere in the discussion and from which they will not be dissuaded in asserting. I like to think I have skin about as thick as any editor, but I admit, my patience begins to wear thin for being essentially called a bigot on no more basis than that it provides a convenient rhetorical argument for the insinuating party. I urge anyone who has questions about how tortured their logic is in reaching these conclusions to read the thread in question. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perspective or background of the contributor does matter somewhat (in certain cases), see Wikipedia:Systemic bias.

Also, BMK, I'm not sure if you're saying that photographs do not improve the encyclopedia? I'm a photographer to begin with, so I find this sentiment puzzling. I actually didn't wish to soapbox at all. Graeme simply mentioned a hypothetical situation of a doctor "being incorrect" in the matter of sexing a baby, and this whole notion of "correctness" with regards to assessing a baby's sex (or correcting their sex) is actually a cause of a lot of suffering. This is not just personal opinion -- actually there are entire communities of individuals whose quality of life has been diminished because of the whole notion of whether a baby's sex is correct/incorrect.

I didn't call anyone a bigot, I am unaware of when unfeminist became a slur. If for you, "transgender'ed is not a slur, then neither is "unfeminist". Honestly -- I'm not trying to be a smartass -- but the whole idea of "sex is biological but gender is constructed," though historically important, has become frequently challenged. In fact, these challenges are well-sourced. See Sex and gender distinction#Criticism of the "sex_difference" vs. "gender difference" distinction. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also for the sake of the flying spaghetti monster, I have never said that the word "transgender" was a slur. I am transgender.

You've misread WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS (or not read it at all): it doesn't give you free license to speculate about another user's identity, motives, or beliefs. It concerns only our content and how we apply the sources to determine the shape that content will take. It does not concern our contributors at all, except insofar as it informs how they should approach article content. I'll leave it to others to read that thread and come to their own conclusions about what you were implying about my beliefs and the leaps in logic you made to do so. As far as I am concerned, painting me as an "unsympathetic cisnormative oppressor" and the various other terms you've used, ad nauseum, are quite inflammatory, especially in light of my repeated efforts to get you to stop speculating about what manner of person I am, off-wiki. You've stopped now and that's good enough for me to assume it is a turning point in your involvement there (for which I am grateful) but you do need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies on arguing the point, not the user, if you want to get on civilly here. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sure how this discussion actually influenced article content, as opposed to a Reference Desk answer, and secondly, I apologize if you actually aren't cis. However, it seemed reasonable to assume a cisgender background based on rather absolutist** arguments you were making (**I don't think it's out of line to call this so?) -- that there are only two human sexes, and that all humans can be categorized or assigned membership to only one of them. Most trans or nonbinary people who have faced oppression from cisnormativity in society wouldn't make an argument like that. Also, it was not apparent to me that cisnormativity has ever adversely affected you. I was not making a bad faith accusation, or trying to impugn or insult you in any way. The majority of the people I interact with in everyday life, outside my closest friends, hold cisnormative beliefs. Cisnormativity is something I deal with on a daily basis. The same applies to white privilege: most white people in Western countries (or even East Asia) enjoy white privilege whether they realize it or not, unless they have faced societal oppression for not being white enough. I myself, enjoy certain kinds of privilege due to my education and upbringing, that many other people do not. It's not a personal attack to say that someone has cis privilege, it's just an attempt to get a person to try to re-examine the points of view held by those who don't have similar privileges. I don't think it is in violation of policy to note that an absolutist position on sex membership (or categorization) is very convenient to cis people, but not to others.

That aside, I apologize for not introducing references earlier. I was not as rigorous in my answer seeing as our answers weren't a discussion of article content. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're still missing the big picture here. It doesn't matter whether I (or any editor) is cis or trans (or Caucasian or Asian or Catholic or Muslim, or a member of another broad category of person). Nor is any editor obliged to confirm, deny, or in any way clarify their relationship to one of those categories in order to provide a factual, source, or content opinion on the topic. Our personal relation to demographics do not matter in this place--or at least, aren't meant to, if we don't bring them into the mix ourselves. Further, you don't get to yourself say "I am X, therefor, my opinion is more valid for X, and I am going to act as Arbiter and Gatekeeper of X". Those kinds of arguments from authority just won't fly here. Actually, quite the opposite is true on this project: it can be considered very problematic for an editor (especially a new contributor) to work in areas where they have strong emotional or ideological attachments for which they feel inclined to advocate, as this can be a significant bar to exercising WP:Neutral point of view, one of the pillar concepts of activity here. In any event, you definetly are not allowed to say "I think you're probably Y, therefore I can reach the following conclusions on what you think of X." You might very well get that impression about another contributor from time to time (we all do). But keep it to yourself and don't let it influence how you interact with others or how your arguments are presented.

So, using the discussion in question as an example, it's perfectly acceptable to mention theories or data or cisnormative privilege (and especially useful if you provide sources to support these concepts), but if someone has a different take on those concepts, don't accuse them of having blinders on because of factors that you can't know about and which aren't meant to be part of the discourse here in any event. And although you aren't forbidden from bringing your own background into discussion, it's probably best to avoid that too: in discussions on article content, your perspective won't matter much if you don't have WP:reliable sources to back up and WP:verify your position, and your arguments will carry more weight if you seem to be making them on their merits as a dispassionate observer. And indeed these principles of good argumentation and neutral stance generally apply to the ref desks as well, though the nuances are a little different. Approaching these topics from a stance of indifference is not always easy or consistent with how we intuitively treat the underlying issues when they arise in other areas of our life, I know, but it has advantages when we are working on an encyclopedia. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, BMK, I'm not sure if you're saying that photographs do not improve the encyclopedia?

• (1) You focus on one small aspect of what I said, ignoring the larger point: your edits have, by and large, not been focused on improving the encyclopedia.
• (2) It depends on the content of the photographs, and their appropriateness for use on en.Wiki (since you actively reject uploading them to Commons, which they're more likely to be used by other language WPs and be seen and used by non-Wikimedians).
• (3) In your case, 3 self-portraits and 14 other photos [38] do not constitute such an improvement to the encyclopedia as to invalidate my point.

BMK (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually have been constructing references to upload to chemistry articles on article space, I just haven't actually written them to articlespace yet -- User:Yanping_Nora_Soong/literature. Also, I'll just say right here -- of course I want to improve the encyclopedia, but the Ref Desk space is very different from the rest of the Wikipedia space. Do you wish that I stop contributing because less than half of my edits are to article space? Self-portraits aside, quantity and quality of photographs are different metrics -- actually that should apply to edit counts as well.

I would also like to point out that I haven't been blocked half a dozen times for edit-warring. Are you sure you actually want to improve the encylopedia, BMK? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Yanping Nora Soong, I am absolutely certain that I am here to improve the encyclopedia, and for not other reason. I'll also note that, in what appears to be the type of action which others have described above, you turned my attempt to advise you about how to avoid what would seem to be an inevitable sanction in your future into an attack on me. I would suggest that such behavior is not productive, and you should consider that not everything which is addressed to you is a provocation which requires responding in that manner. Clearly, I can talk to you, but there's no way I can make you listen, so good luck to you. BMK (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would encourage you to edit some chemistry articles too. I enjoy answering the chemistry questions by supplying references, but really you are not going to get serious professional chemistry advice on the reference desk! Also I am not upset about your interpretation of the genealogical record sex error. We just have to WP:assume good faith all around. There is no need to complain here about the issues raised above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: There is a very big problem with your complaint about Soong's edit counts. Soong has a high edit count at Wikipedia:Reference desks because she had several very technical questions to ask, and encountered substantial naysaying and requests for further information from several people including myself. For months, several people at the Refdesk (you can see them there on the talk page now) have been saying that people who seriously ask questions should consider registering accounts to avoid the anti-vandal semi-protection applied to many of the desks for much of the time. Now you come along and say that if an editor's edit counts are invested in Refdesk questions, they're not serving any purpose and there's something wrong with them. We can't have it both ways. My opinion is that asking and answering questions on the Refdesk is a useful encyclopedia building activity, which sometimes suggests direct improvements to articles and in any case is building up a database of raw Q-and-A material that we could use to develop better resources either here or at Wikiversity. I bet those gadgets they advertise on TV that answer questions use our material as part of their database also. In any case, whether or not you think the Refdesk is worthwhile activity, that issue should not be debated just for her alone simply because someone decided to call her question a homework question. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is an accurate evaluation of the situation at all. If YNS asks a certain kind of question at the Ref Desk, and gets the kind of response that indicates that it's not an appropriate question for that venue, and then asks another of the same type of questions, the problem does not lie in the fact that YNS got the same kind of response, the problem lies in the fact that YNS did not take on board that questions of that type are not appropriate. Repeating one's actions and expecting a different kind of result is not a reasonable behavior pattern. BMK (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: When YNS talked about trying to do something under pressure and we said it didn't sound like a good idea, that was not inappropriate. That was the Refdesk doing what it was supposed to do, namely, giving people a chance to share information. (more or less -- to the degree that it was just personal opinions/advice with too few sources, we did let him down, but we're not the ones you're blaming) A question does not become "not appropriate" just because someone thinks something is a bad idea; they were within policy and remain so. Wnt (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

A question to RefDesk is "not appropriate" when it does not lie within the rules quoted above by Medeis. As far as I can tell, all of YNS's questions (or at least the majority of them) have been inappropriate for that reason. Further, your apologia for YNS fails to take into account that the editor has been, essentially, a non-contributor to articles, but a serial questioner at RefDesk, which is an ancilliary aspect of Wikipedia - it could be closed down tomorrow (not a bad idea) and the encyclopedia, which is our primary project, would not be affected at all. I reiterate, YNS is best advised to stop acting as if every comment directed her way is a criticism, stop responding to comments with personalized attacks, stop filing essentially frivolous ANI complaints, stop using Ref Desk in ways it is not intended to be used, and to start making contributions to the encyclopedia her primary activity here. Any other course of sction is almost certain to end up in a sanction. You are not helping this editor by abetting their behavior. BMK (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Your dislike for the Refdesk is not a widely shared sentiment and is not policy. My point is that we are encouraging new users to ask questions at the Refdesk, we are encouraging them to register accounts to do so, and thus logically we should not be going around and condemning them for doing what we encouraged them to do. Anyone in the world has been welcome to ask questions they think are interesting and non-trivial to answer under an IP address, and that behavior does not suddenly become wrong because they registered an account. Her ANI complaint was frivolous only in the sense that most of the interaction here is frivolous - unlike the Refdesk, the encyclopedia could do as well without this forum for non-encyclopedic content - it tied into previous discussions of problem behavior by Medeis; I think that if we end up deciding to tell him, as was proposed below, to stop playing policeman, that would be as reasonable an outcome as any. And if a sanction could be reasonable, asking for it is not frivolous. I have indeed criticized her responses a few times, and my purpose is not to defend her right or wrong; in any case, had I been asked, I certainly would never have advised her to venture into this snake pit. However, as my primary interest regarding the Refdesk is in seeing that people are free to consult it without that being treated like it's some kind of offense, I have been a bit careless of your potentially hostile reaction toward her. Wnt (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that I don't much like the blanket and poorly-nuanced dispersion which BMK made with regard to the RefDesks, but I think I can understand their concern in this instance. As a long-time contributor to the desks, who has often found it to be one of the more rewarding areas of the project to contribute in and who regards it as (in principle) very useful to the project as a whole, I still have deep misgivings about the liberties certain users take in that space--and this includes a number of those who ask questions and (more concerning) three or four who answer questions. There is far, far, far too much discussion that is unreferenced, including a great deal of wild speculation that cannot be referenced or includes winding digressions into original research. The rules concerning banned topic matters are also inconsistently applied, despite consensus on the Ref Desk talk page and broader Wikipedia/WMF principles telling us that they need to be strictly applied. And please, you can dispense with your response that we do not have community guidelines banning/discouraging offering advice in these areas; I know from TP discussions that we do not have the same view of the wording and weight of those principles, and I think it suffices for our purposes here to say we are not on the same page.

In any event, with regard to the rampant speculation in particular, I've been saying for years that if we do not crack down on this kind of behaviour (which flies in the face of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTAFORUM and other policies which the desks are not explictly exempted from), then the larger community will probably do it for us sooner or later. But I admit, in the last year, I've begun to feel like leading the charge to restrict unsourcceable speculation, fishing expeditions and other activities that attempt to make a part of the encyclopedia's process into an almost completely open forum. Which it is not meant to be. It's a reference desk, not a mid-90's online bulletin board for anyone to share any kind of information they choose, regardless of whether it improves the encyclopedia or conforms to broader community rules. Mind you, I'd much rather we started to give temporary topic bans to the worst offenders than that we lay down blanket restrictions on the desks--given that most of our contributors violate the principles of sourcing only intermittently and know where the line between sourceable commentary and wild speculation. But if the choice is between A) laying down some new rules that may complicate our process and B) allowing a general downslide of the desks into subreddit clones because of the activity of a few editors who number less than half a dozen but write literally thousands upon thousands of speculative, unsourced, and frankly often misleading answers to questions, every year--or worse, hijack threads to open discussion into unrelated matters they want to talk about--....well, I know which side I will come down on, alas.

Anyway, putting the issues of the value of the desks and broad violations of their principles aside, BMK is unambigously correct about YNS showing every sign of being WP:NOTHERE. So far. YNS has a long way to go to understanding this project and in internalizing its values. If they stay, I feel this will probably not be the last time the community discusses their behaviour, given their propensity towards a certain kind of paranoia and seeing enemies in people who simply question their approach, activities, and perspectives here, even though they (YNS) are barely familiar with our policies. But, other editors have come here with similar motivations, issues, and difficulties in understanding our process and have eventually become full converts. And all BMK seems to be saying (to my interpretation) is that YNS will be best-served by all of us not treating them with kid gloves and making it clear what is expected of them if they wish to continue to participate here. That's my reading of BMK's comments anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Yes, you've got it right. BMK (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: There's only one person I know for sure is on your list of the 3-4 posters, due to a certain unfortunate tendency to shoot from the holster. I honestly don't know, for example, whether I'm on it, or any other editor who tries to look into a question without fully settling it. I don't know which discussions you think go too far off track and which don't, or why it is wrong to "hijack" a discussion by looking into a related issue when you could just post a new header with the issue if it seemed more appropriate (or anyone could move it there). But your take-home message seems to be the same as BMK's: it has been a mistake for me to tell people like Soong to register an account to ask a Refdesk question. As IP's, they can ask questions on the Refdesk Talk Page or such other page as may eventually be designated in some back corner of Wikipedia, and (provided they're not from Australia, in which case they'll probably be blocked as a troll) they can get answers without being dragged through the mud as "NOTHERE" for taking advantage of what we say we offer. True, they can't get pingbacks, but I suppose it's a small price to pay. In Soong's case, it looks like she registered an account to answer a question. Then she decided to upload some photos she had accumulated, and immediately started getting speedy-deletion notices because she'd already had them on the web; from there she must have followed some information about 3RR to end up in an ANI debate, and posting here is definitely a turn for the worse that increases anyone's "NOTHERE" count. Unfortunately, one thing the instructions don't warn new users about is that ANI is not actually useful for anything good, and that raising an issue about someone (as she did with BMK last October over some woman killed on Putin's birthday) creates a long-term adversary in every future proceeding. Well, anyway, you can count it as a step forward that I'll try to remember not to encourage IP's to register to ask Refdesk questions in the future. Wnt (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: On the contrary, I never have a problem with encouraging anyone to register. It makes for easier continuity of discussion and increases the likelihood of recruiting someone to work on the project longterm (2015 was the first year in several where our recruitment trends moved upwards, and I'd like to see that continue). I'm not sure if that's what BMK is saying either. I haven't seen him suggest as much anywhere above, but I may have missed it. Anyway, where I definitely do agree with him is that, having registered, YNS still needs to familiarize themselves with our community standards if they wish to be involved here. Wikipedia may have been founded on the principle of (and should remain) "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but competency is required. The fact of the matter is, there has evolved a little bit of a discontinuity there as our processes for establishing and maintaining the quality of our content have become ever more complicated and nuanced. I imagine it's even more difficult for someone who comes to the project via the refdesks, where principles like WP:V, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:NOR are flouted regularly with (frankly reckless) abandon. A contributor who first comes to the project through article space probably sees a much better example of how facts and sourcing are meant to be handled here, and how to keep one's personal impressions separate from the subject at hand (which is the root issue that YNS is struggling with in each of the threads that have been raised here). So where I especially agree with BMK is that no one is doing YNS (or any new editor) a favour by not being blunt about what constitutes good editorial procedure here.

As to the other matter, yes, we all know who "the one" is, unfortunately. But until such time as we have the collective will to address these issues, I see no point in singling anyone out by name. But something definitely needs to be done to remind everyone in that space that it is a reference desk. A forum for providing references, plain and simple--not an open forum for unsourced speculation, soapboxing personal views, advocating a stance, or trying to prove that one is the most knowledgeable person in the world by answering every single last question with whatever they can cobble/synth together from their superficial understanding of the topic and their best intuitions/inductive assumptions about what the answer to the question might be. Reddit awaits for those who wish to pursue these topics in an open fashion in a large, vibrant community with many people (capable experts among them) who want to discuss these things at length and are willing to tolerate some speculation and spit-balling to get there. That's not what we are WP:HERE for, however. RD threads need to be at least potentially valuable to the project. Which means the information in them needs to be sourced. At this point, I think its clear (and more's the pity), that there's always going to be that one guy (and I don't mean our current one guy--there's always going to be one, I fear) who just cannot walk that line without firm rules keeping him/her in check. I think it's time we establish a firm, non-flexible language at the top of the RefDesk that points out that WP:V applies there (same as any other area on the project) and that all information/assertions provided need to be thoroughly sourced (and without WP:SYNTH), at least if there is any reasonable chance they will be challenged. If you think a given claim is so manifestly obvious it doesn't require it, fine. But if you go out on that limb and someone challenges you for the source and you can't provide it, you strike your statement and sit back and be quiet. At this point, I fear that's the only way the space can be brought under control and made to conform with the original intention for which it was established and which reference desks actually serve. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that sourcing is important, but I think usually people are pretty good about it. Showing up to a Refdesk thread without a source, or at least a wikilink or three, is like coming to a party without a cake or a bottle of booze. It should be a matter of social embarrassment, but we don't need the law on them; when people get hungry they'll figure it out. In any case, I don't think that Soong, asking questions, had these obligations; the questions are generally sincere and interesting, which is all I would expect of them. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about executions and suicide referred to by Medeis is here [39].

Firstly while there was some limited request for speculation in that question but most of it could be answered with refs without speculation. (Some speculation may have been necessary by the OP from these refs, but that is fairly common since a lot of the time there isn't a ref which answers such a specific question. For that reason there may also be some speculation based on refs by respondents.)

The claim it "degenerated" is missing the point, suicide was a part of the question from the beginning and the YNS later specifically asked "Are there routes for a life-sentenced convict to seek official routes to death that wouldn't be classified as a traditional execution". So the possibility of assisted suicide for life-sentence convicts was explicitly related to what the OP was asking about, despite what Medeis or others in the discussion suggested.

Note that the discussion was about avenues under law, it did not venture in to methods or anything of that sort. While some may be uncomfortable with the topic of assisted suicide and I agree we have to be very careful how we handle such questions (in particular why the OP is asking), there's no reason why "what circumstances is assisted suicide a legal avenue" should be disallowed but "what circumstances is the death penalty a legal avenue" is allowed.

The question of when something is crossing in to the territory of legal advice is a tricky one, but IMO that discussion didn't do. Questions about the law can and are asked and answered on the RD. And frankly if you take it to an extreme, I think many would agree it's silly to say we can't discuss with references whether someone who doesn't belong to the Church of England can become the British monarch because we risk providing legal advice. Which is probably why no one has done that.

Actually I considered reverting Medeis, but since they removed it under Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, I decided to wait and see whether the WMF did anything(*). Nothing seemed to happen from the WMF as I expected. But I didn't end up reverting. Even though the discussion there didn't seem to apply to YNS's current circumstances, I was uncomfortable enough with some of the things YNS said elsewhere that I felt it best to let the issue drop.

(*) I presume Medeis did email the WMF as that is a key part of how we respond to people who may be considering self-harm as evidenced by the advice they cited. Deleting comments because you feel they suggest the person could be considering self-half, but not doing any followup would be a very serious breach of protocol as there's a strong risk you could make things worse.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that we have two separate issues here:

1. Is User:Medies gaming and/or violating the rules in an effort to prevent User:Yanping Nora Soong's question(s) from being answered? IMHO, yes - clearly. These are really obviously not homework or professional-advice kinds of questions - they don't violate any rules - so this is clearly a misuse of WP:RD - and that should stop. It's a well-meaning, somewhat mild misuse - but Medies needs to be clear that no one user is judge, jury and executioner. A slap on the wrist as a reminder of that would be a welcome outcome - but nothing too heavy-handed.
2. Are User:Yanping Nora Soong's questions acceptable at the reference desks? Well, there are no rules, policies or guidelines saying you can't ask questions about very dangerous chemistry experiments - and Wikipedia is not censored...so, yeah, they are acceptable. Should we step in and informally request that similar questions not be asked in the future? Well, maybe - but it can only be a polite request, we have no rules to make this a strong demand or a block or ban or anything of the kind.

That's really as far as ANI needs to rule here.

HOWEVER there is a case for having a debate - absent the issues surrounding misbehavior from Medies or really terrible (but "acceptable") questions from Yanping. I don't think that debate should happen here - this is not a place for the formulation of guidelines. There should be a discussion over on the WP:RD talk page.

Meanwhile, absent some new rule/guideline/policy - I'd encourage everyone to remember that while it is currently OK to ask questions of this sort - we're not required to give answers to them! I'd strongly recommend that if someone asks a question on a topic for which you think an answer might pose some sort of grave risk - then DON'T ANSWER IT!. Feel free to explain the dangers.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies to articles only. Please re-read it. BMK (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also see WP:Reference desk/Guidelines#What the reference desk is not. BMK (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Two wrong answers that have been tried and failed vs. one right answer that hasn't been tried

While purposely not commenting on the actions of Yanping Nora Soong (others are handling that just fine), and assuming for the sake of argument that everything Medeis/μηδείς did was right this time, it is a demonstrable fact that Medeis/μηδείς keeps ending up here at ANI, and a certainty that she will be back here again and again, all because of deleting or collapsing other people's comments on the help desks.

Wrong answer #1: Block and/or topic ban Medeis/μηδείς. This is the wrong answer because she does a lot of good work, and because the community does not have a consensus to do either.

Wrong answer #2: Do nothing and let this go on forever. This is the wrong answer because many of the Medeis/μηδείς removals are highly contentious and controversial, and are really disruptive.

Right Answer: Restrict Medeis/μηδείς from one activity -- editing what other editors post. There are plenty of other help desk regulars who have proven themselves able to identify what needs removing and take action without any drama or controversy. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty torn on that issue. On the one hand, you're right--this has been a problem area for Medeis. On the other hand, that's a bitter pill to hand an editor--getting restricted from an activity on one of the occasions that said activity was really probably called for and did the project a favour... I'm also concerned about the message that this will send to YNS, who so far has had some real issues with conforming themselves to our policies and is, at best, only partially WP:HERE. I have serious concerns that restricting Medeis at this juncture will play into the somewhat disruptive behaviours of YNS, as these behaviours seem to me to be partially rooted in a victim-complex attitude that I fear validating here.

Given that Medeis' actions in this instance were not unambigously improper/disruptive and the party opening this thread has put their foot wrong in several places (and only opened this thread to "preempt" Medeis raising their own concerns), I'm leaning towards giving Medeis one more chance on this issue, but advising her that she would be best advised to build consensus for such a move on the red-desk talk page next time, rather than acting unilaterally. I don't make this suggestion lightly; I was 100% prepared to support that Medeis receive just the restriction you are recommending now the last time that I saw this issue come up. But this just seems the entirely wrong context. I'd rather risk one more iteration of this (admittedly recurrent) issue than penalize a contributor for doing the right thing and risk encouraging an editor who shows signs of being much more disruptive on the balance if their recent behaviours were to persist. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Point well taken. I see no harm in waiting until the next time Medeis/μηδείς gets reported at ANI, or even waiting for an example of an unambiguously bad deletion. It's not like she is going to stop her disruptive editing of other people's comments, and it's not like people are going to stop complaining about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Reference Desks are tailored to serve all readers, even unregistered readers, and are regulated by guidlelines (e.g. no homework, no spamming, no trolling, etc) thus questions do get occasionally get censored thus I view the disputed actions between Medeis and Yanping Nora Soong as part of these pages' content disputes which are more properly raised on the reference desk talkpages and which are not the purpose of ANI to settle. Regarding alleged gross misbehavior which is well-meaning advice that can be seen as bordering on bullying above, (in the form of do more editing to mainspace or else (things will end badly)), I'll add WP:VOLUNTEER due to the contributors' worthwhile voluntary contributions. From what I've read thus far, many of the arguments aimed directly at the alleged misbehavior of other editors have not risen to the level of anything actionable, so I suggest closing this without prejudice. --Modocc (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Telling someone that the purpose of an online encyclopedia project is to build an online encyclopedia, and advising them to do more of that and less of other, unproductive, stuff is "bordering on bullying"? I think not, unless the definition of "bullying" has become "telling someone something that is mildly critical or that they otherwise don't want to hear," which I do not believe is the case. BMK (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusing someone of not being here to build the encyclopedia, and hitting them over the head with the metaphorical stick of WP:NOTHERE, is indeed abusive obnoxiously aggressive if they are not doing anything against policy and not even doing anything which WP:NOTHERE lists as problematic.

Wikipedia has a Reference Desk. You can't blame people (registered or not) for using it to ask questions they're interested in.

If the concern is that the user is asking questions about doing something medically inadvisable that we don't want to be even indirectly helping him with, let's deal with that as a separate question. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your evaluation of the situation in regard to my comment was inaccurate. What I said was, after giving the statistics for the various spaces in which YNS has edited, in which Wikipedia space predominates, that "YNS is showing very strong signs of not being here to improve the encyclopedia." That is not at all what you have accused me of, and it it is not bullying. It is not "bullying" to let someone know that they're on the edge of danger and warn them back from it. Such a warped definition does a grave disservice to those suffering from actual bullying. If you disagree, and feel that I have been "bullying", then I suggest you open a thread here to deal with it, but in the meantime, accusing editors of violating Wikipedia policies without providing evidence of such is considered a Personal attack, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I"m sure you and Modocc had no intent on breaking that rule, so I expect that no further accusations of this kind will be forthcoming from you or Modocc unless a formal charge against me is lodged. BMK (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not formally accusing you of bullying and I will not be starting a thread elsewhere at this time. I did use the word "abusive" which was a tad too harsh and I have retracted it. However, the reason there are controversial debates currently running about topics related to bullying is that behavior such as yours -- although it has a long and storied history and is not (in its self-righteously aggressive defense of Wikipedia policy) actually against any current Wikipedia policy -- is nevertheless unnecessarily and negatively aggressive. People don't like it. It's annoying. It makes Wikipedia a less pleasant place to visit. It drives some people away who would otherwise be valuable contributors.

In terms of the statistics you cited, you did not merely accuse the user of not being here to build the encyclopedia, you also linked to WP:NOTHERE. Yet a perusal of the text of Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia shows no overlap between this user's behavior and the list of indications of Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia, and rather more overlap with What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I see, so I'm a bully, but I'm not an abusive bully, so you feel it's OK to call me a bully without actually formally accusing me of being a bully. How about this: if you link my name and the words "bully" or "bullying" again anywhere on Wikipedia except on AN/I in a formal accusation of violating Wikipedia policy, I will bring a complaint against you on AN/I for making a personal attack on me. I hope that's quite clear. BMK (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to say: "Sure, whatever." BMK (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hear, Hear. Yes, User:Medeis gets called out for bad behavior far more often than any other regular ref desk user. At least in the top 3. I keep thinking they might realize eventually that it is not the case that everyone is out to get them, but rather that they are acting problematically. I would support banning Medeis from editing/removing others' posts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) It's not true it hasn't been tried. Or at least it's tried the same way a topic ban or block or Medeis from the reference desk has been tried, i.e it's been proposed and failed. (Note as I said above, Medeis has never really been topic banned from the RD. The brief topic ban was removed after it was found to lack consensus.) See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#Medeis hatting and deletions on the ref desks for at least one discussion with a similar proposal.

I can't recall and can't be bothered searching if there were ever any other serious proposals. There was definitely talk on the WT:RD, and it was probably mentioned in some discussions at ANI but there may have never been any other proper proposals. Then again, I only recall perhaps 1 or 2 actual topic ban discussions for Medeis anyway. (There were other discussions, but many of them never seemed to have solid proposals for action.)

Incidentally I agree with Snow Rise that it doesn't seem a good idea to use this as an example. Actually I would go as far as to suggest it would be a very bad idea. While there has been very little commentary from people who don't edit the RD at least on occasion, what comments there have been concur with my view that if we do get some real discussion, it's likely there would be a fair amount of support at least for the deletion which started this thread. (Even if not necessarily all aspects of how it was handled.) So using it an example is likely to significantly damage the chance of success of any topic ban.

Incidentally, I've long believed one of the reasons we never got consensus for any action was because there never a good proposal i.e. with good examples (in the form of diffs) of the harm/problems. While I still partially believe that, I think Medeis has reduce their deletion frequency and doesn't edit war of deletions much which has made the need and likelihood of action less. (There still seem to be some problematic deletions, including some with weird rationales even some where the deletion was okay, often it just seems sloppy.)

Anyway I mostly wanting to say I've also been wondering for a while now if a big problem is we've lacked any real consensus on what to delete on the RD for a while now. And what balance we do have may be different from how wikipedians outside the RD or at least those wikipedians outside the RD active at AN/ANI would feel about it.

In particular presuming I'm correct about how the deletion which started this is perceived, it highlights the problem. Most of those regulars on the RD who feel the deletion was fine (like me) prefer not to open that can of worms, so we just let it slide. And this isn't the first example. This means it's quite easy to come up with examples which make people think we should continue to let Medeis delete. Even I can see the temptation despite supporting a topic ban on deletions and having seen the mess that can result.

BTW, just to be clear, I'm not claiming I'm any better at avoiding stuff which will make the community outside the RD got WTF. In fact, I'm fairly sure it'll be easy to find examples.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, just so, for all of us, I dare wager. The problem is that we've all, over the years, gotten comfortable with the notion that the usual community policies need to be applied to the RefDesks in a very nuanced fashion, owing to its unique format and role on the project. That's a fair position, but the problem is that we all have very idiosyncratic notions of what these nuances mean and just what is permitted--and we've developed them largely in isolation from broader community input. I think we're probably long overdue to take these issues to WP:VPP or WP:CD for serious discussion, both because we have no special mandate to go on our merry way when it comes to policy and broad community consensus and also because positions on the RefDesk talk page long ago grew entrenched, to the point where no meaningful reform of our approach ever occurs, even for issues that have been evident for years now. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Medeis has long been one of the most disruptive editors on the RefDesk, she has been known to tell direct lies about other editors (including myself) to "support" her unilateral and highly idiosyncratic interpretations of guidelines and policies. She seems to view the desks as her personal domain, and the rest of us with contempt. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the underlying problems is that there's a pretty significant mismatch between the de jure list of topics that are prohibited on the Reference Desks, versus the de facto set that we end up arguing about. Right now, the formal list is:

• Medical advice
• Legal advice
• Requests for opinions or debate
• Homework questions (discouraged if not prohibited)

People also tend to be concerned about (and occasionally formally sanction, i.e. by hatting or deleting):

• Requests involving professional advice of any kind
• Requests involving illegal behavior
• Requests involving dangerous behavior

Now, I'm sorry to sound snide, but as of today, with no sanctions against Medeis, there's one more item on the de facto list:

• Anything Medeis doesn't like

If you post a question or an answer that Medeis doesn't like, she will hat it or delete it as she sees fit, and argue about it without reference to actual policy, more or less indefinitely. Most people don't have as much patience as she does for these arguments, so she often gets what she wants. This tends to end up being pretty disruptive. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve, but what I "like" or "don't like" is of no importance to my editing. I spend very little time posting about Watership Down and Servalan and tend not to disagree with suchlike which has nothing to do with me. You can always post actual diffs that show otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion of YNS' refdesk questions

Quite apart from the question of Medeis' behavior, I'm concerned about YNS' numerous questions to the ref desk as I have understood them in general from the above reports. (1) It seems that YNS is using the questions to aid in self-medicating or self-treating; (2) It seems the experiments queried are or can/could possibly be dangerous. My concern is that should something untoward ensue to YNS as a result of answers or advice given at the ref desk, her relatives could sue WMF. So I'm worried that we (Wikipedia/WMF) are getting into potentially problematic territory by answering these numerous questions. Lastly, as some people have opined above, I think repeatedly asking such types of questions at the ref desk may be in violation of the ref desks policies, guidelines, rules, and intentions. I can see asking one or a small handful of questions for personal use, but asking numerous questions for the same personal purpose, and potentially dangerous ones at that, probably is in violation of the guidelines, and if so should be discouraged or even stopped. Softlavender (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a valid question, but it is indeed quite apart from the question of Medeis's behavior, so I would suggest discussing it in a separate thread. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the right place. Anytime someone files a report about another editor on a noticeboard, the filer's actions will be under scrutiny as well, especially in the specific area the reported activities are within. The details are in WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I suggested on YNS's user talk that she try the Reddit chemistry forum for her questions (I got no response). I do think certain Refdesk contributors freak out too often about topics that would be considered perfectly fine in other venues like Stack Exchange (SE). In this case though, the discomfort is understandable, and I'd be up for a discussion with YNS about what she's trying to do (in terms of the Refdesk posts--I don't know anything about chemistry) if she's willing. I'd be up for a similar discussion with Medeis if that could help as well.

  Medeis is a good refdesk contributor whose interventions are in good faith but are legitimately seen as unnecessary a lot of the time. This time, more editors see the concern as justified so I wouldn't support taking action against her regarding this particular incident. But in general, I'd ask that she dial it back some. The other RD contributors aren't idiots, and it's reasonable to look to other examples (other established sites like SE as well as Wikipedia) to get a sense of what can be within our comfort zone, vs. where we're likely to have realistic concrete reasons to worry about stuff. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think IP 173's comments are accurate, in so far as users like SemanticMantis, and StuRat often disagree with my judgments; they want all questions to be answered. But so far no one has posted a single case where I have violated BRD with YNS, and the recent consensus on the talk page at the ref desk has been to avoid protracted debate on the desk itself or the talk page, I see no other issue than that I am a strict constructionist while others think the ref desks are an open forum, plain and simple.

If the editors against me above want to post diffs, they should do so. But when I see things like Guy Macon's attacks an example, I tend to discount them.

Under the current guidelines, we don't deal with speculation or professional advice or do homework. I think the real question is, "Is the Ref Desk a free-for-all?" which I can deal with, or, "Do the existing guidelines apply?" which I can deal with, or, "Should there be new guidelines?" which I can deal with. None of these questions has been answered. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Medeis: If those italicized phrases are supposed to have anything to do with Soong, then I feel like you're still using the same thought process that got you mentioned here in the first place -- you're taking the available policies and testing them out like a ring of skeleton keys on a lock, hoping that with enough wiggling and enough force you can get it to turn. Soong's questions are usually quite answerable ... for someone who can answer them, and we're not representing ourselves as professional chemists and so far I think we've avoided giving him "do it this way" advice about his reactions, though we certainly did give him some "no don't do that" advice, and are you still trying to claim this is a homework problem? I should add that Soong's questions did remind me of some policy worries, but ANI is not the place to make policy, nor is it even the place to come to consensus whether a specific question should be removed from the Refdesk (only whether someone did so wrongly and unilaterally), and even if we did decide to remove questions, there is still no policy saying that any action be taken against the person who posted them. So this isn't the place to discuss Soong's behavior but you're making it sound like we need to continue thinking about yours. Wnt (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm and How I Met Your Mother articles

In mid-2015, Koavf edited some How I Met Your Mother articles en masse, without leaving an edit summary, performing edits which did things along the lines of removing sections under the headings "Trivia", "Cultural references" and "Music", and adding tags to indicate plot sections were too long or lead paragraphs too short (e.g. [40]). I initially disagreed with him, and even reverted one of his edits ([41]), but after beginning a discussion on his user talk page (archive link), I came to agree with him.

Eaglestorm, before this discussion, was reverting many of Koavf's edits, and has been doing so intermittently ever since. Eaglestorm's edits usually have one of the following edit summaries: "nonsense pogrom", "culling", "revert driveby deletion", "pogrom by converted", or something similar. ([42][43][44][45][46] and many more.) Today, he reverted three of Koavf's edits and wrote this message on his talk page before quickly archiving. Every time I've seen Eaglestorm doing this, I've reverted him/her, leaving edit summaries linking to the discussion mentioned above, citing relevant policies and trying to start discussion ([47][48]). Eaglestorm has refused to open up discussion, ignoring messages left on his/her user talk ([49], until his response today). I believe there have been some other issues involving Eaglestorm's conduct in the past ([50][51]), particularly with their lack of communication. I have avoided bringing them to ANI in the past as their edits were erratic, but this message was probably the clearest indication that Eaglestorm has no intent of editing constructive in this topic ("FU both"). This is not a simple content dispute issue as there have been no objections to the actions of Koavf or I, other than Eaglestorm, who has never started a discussion or (as far as I can remember) cited policy in an edit summary when editing this topic. I'm unfamiliar with ANI so I don't know how things usually work here, but I feel a topic ban from HIMYM articles, or a block would deter this action by Eaglestorm. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a subject that should be discussed on the article talk pages. I know that when this series was on the air, the pages were heavily edited and I think a consensus should be attempted because I'm not sure whether either editor has consensus on their side. I remember that it was standard for this series to have Trivia sections for each episode so removing them from certain episodes could be seen as disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not like Eaglestorm is a newbie. He has almost 13,000 edits compared to 8,000 for Bilorv. I guess that could cut either way. H. Humbert (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, Liz, we have WP:FANCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:V, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE; on the other, we have... resistance to change. Have you read some of the content Eaglestorm is fighting to include here? Cultural references such as "Robin's "vice" bag is compared to Mary Poppins' magical bag." ([52] For context in the show, this is one character making a joke about another's bag in a 5-second portion of a ~21-minute episode, and should not be mentioned any more than anyone would ever think of listing all the jokes in the episode. This isn't cherry-picking: this is essentially the gist of every bullet point under every "Cultural reference" section there ever has been on a HIMYM article.) Now I know several Wikia where lists of allusions to any work of media in the real world is standard, but that's not the case on Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Eaglestorm is continuing to violate WP:CIVILITY with this obvious attempt at provoking me ("ugly stains by butthurt people"). If this was a new editor, admins would have no problem blocking him. Because Eaglestorm has 13,000 edits, as H. Humbert points out, no one but Liz can even bother to reply here. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have placed a temporary block on this account for the personal attack noted above, which should show that such comments are not acceptable here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Liz here, in that this is clearly progressing into much more than a mere content issue. If it were that simple, I'd suffice it to say that Bilorv and Koavf clearly have the right of this, according to all policy and community consensus on this kind of fancruft. The disputed material (in-so-far as has been presented here), clearly falls under WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and the other policies cited above. This kind of content is, broadly speaking, not important to an an encyclopaedic summary of the subject of those articles and constitutes a kind of bloat upon which the community has very clear standards. I can't see the removal of this content as being very contentious in any consensus discussion amongst experienced editors, though I'm curious nonetheless to know how many editors have been involved in the relevant discussions thus far.

But these content issues are quite beside the point, insofar as ANI-relevant complaints are concerned. The behavioural issues are quite another matter. Edit-warring under any circumstances is problematic, but all the worse when one of the parties is using inflammatory, hyperbolic language like "pogrom" and "conspiracy", which is clearly a violation of WP:AGF and general common sense when it comes to measured discussion between contributors. There's also a pretty significant implication of WP:OWN and lack of perspective and understanding of the collaborative process of WP anytime an editor invokes the kind "things were just right until you came along" sentiments that can be seen here. As if that were not enough, the "FU" comment blows by the bright line with regard to WP:CIVILITY and is not to be tolerated on this project. This is all superfluous commentary, given Martin has taken the action clearly warranted in these circumstances, but I thought I would add my voice to those urging the editor in question to learn to be less attached to his content and better internalize Wikipedia principles and procedure, or at least to understand that civility is the best route around even those you think are trampling on good content. Bear in mind, all I know of this dispute is what has been presented here, but in light of that evidence, I rather suspect Bilorv and Koavf are to commended for keeping their cool and for pursuing the issue through proper procedure. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input, Snow Rise. I'm afraid I feel that Eaglestorm is not going to change, following their presumably intentional choice to refuse to discuss this even at ANI, the edit summary "illegal block by conspirators", this rant and rude comments to IPs like this (although to be fair, the IP was wrong to make this revert). I understand that Eaglestorm has been around for a while and made a lot of edits, and while I'm sure many of the ones he/she makes today are still constructive (e.g. this and this, although I'm not familiar with the subject matter), if they were a new editor solely reverting edits to HIMYM articles and writing these overly intense rants, I would probably be quoting WP:CIR. They've been blocked five times and they still don't get the message. I don't wish them any ill will, but I do feel that this discussion has been in vain. However, I still hope Eaglestorm will take your comments on board and try to react less angrily and defensively in the future. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Propose indef block. While this thread does look to be a masquerading content dispute, what we really have here is a user with a long history of blocks for edit warring, refusing to discuss anything in any venue, and personal attacks. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; any one of these would be unacceptable behaviour as isolated incidents, but together and in a pattern they show an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Their response to the NPA block above was to post a screed disguised as an unblock request railing against the "deletionist alliance" (paraphrased) working against them, which after their block expired they removed immediately with a note decrying the "illegal block by conspirators" (removing a personal attacks block notice with another personal attack), followed by a nasty note ("Get lost and mind your own business, loser!") to an IP with three edits. We don't need any more of this kind of editor around here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I'm afraid I have to agree. Unfortunately, this user appears to unambigously lack even basic competency with regard to our most minimal standards for civility and the collaborative process. Indeed, despite more than eight years on the project, they seem to be lack familiarity with many of our most straight-forward content and behavioural guidelines. At this point, it is pretty obvious that they will not desist in outright harassing any editor which they perceive to be members of the "conspiracy" that exists in their head; they cannot disengage from said editors because "these assholes" are "RUINING EVERYTHING!". Frankly, at this juncture, the diatribes have devolved to the point where I honestly don't think they can be described accurately as anything but meltdowns and temper-tantrums. Even putting aside the paranoid suggestion of conspiracies, I just don't think this user has the social maturity required to participate on this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Snow rise has summed it up nicely. For an editor to have been here as long as Eaglestorm, this really is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The user consistently makes disruptive edits and his contribution to Wikipedia on the talk pages of the applicable articles is normally nothing constructive but him unreasonably claiming everything is too promotional. If you search for the word "promotional" within his edits, you'll see a large amount of those cases. One of the last incidents involved him trying to completely remove the occupations of those on the list of vegans, where his actions had already led to a large portion of the useful information being removed, such as the band names for musicians that aren't known for their solo work.
He has been warned yet continued to make numerous disruptive edits ([53][54][55]). Not only that, but he appears to be extremely biased when it comes to editing articles about animal rights and such, which falls under the definition of "Bias-based" from WP:COMPETENCE. An admin already put a link to that page on Martin's talk page. --Rose (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Even after I started this discussion and Martin was made aware of it, he continued being disruptive and made an edit asking to "find [him] some reliable sources" to support the commodity status of animals. As Sammy mentions below, this subject was discussed at length and put to rest back in June-July and Martin was among the people involved; as SarahSV summarized back then: "Martin, you've been offered sources, from the United Nations to commodity markets to academic sources, including several in the article. The onus is on you now to provide sources to support what you're saying.". The bottom line is that this is exactly the pattern of his behavior that almost everyone talked about below. --Rose (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing actionable here My interactions with Martin may be found primarily at Talk:Carnism (where I was usually agreeing with him) and Talk:Veganism (where I sometimes was). He is not exceptionally good at building consensus in controversial areas, but I don't think there's any fair case to be made that he edits in bad faith. He is consistently civil, even when others are less so (e.g. User talk:Martin Hogbin#Final warning). His contributions are almost always from the same POV, "disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda" [56], but they are generally reasonable. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points (are livestock "commodities"?, etc), but that's no grounds for admin action.

Do I think it would usually be easier to reach consensus without his input? Regrettably, yes. Does that imply the articles would be better without him? Not at all. FourViolas (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that at one point he expressed the view that there should be no positive information about veganism in that article. That was the definition of neutrality to him. Just because some of his (reverted) edits lead to people paying more attention to some sentences doesn't mean that he's the reason it happens. It's just like some inexperienced vandal putting insults on a page about someone, another user reverting those yet noticing some other issues while doing so and making changes to improve the article. Should we thank the vandal for that and take no action? I don't think so. The problem with Martin is even worse as he's not new here so he deliberately makes those disruptive edits and starts practically pointless conversations repeating the same words ("too promotional") over and over again for months if not years now. --Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, to add to the above and respond to you saying "He has a tendency to spend a lot of time on frustratingly subjective points, but that's no grounds for admin action."; I disagree with that. His behavior forces other editors to dedicate a lot of their time just to try to make a case to him because otherwise he would (as the past has shown) make the same kind of unacceptable edits that would have to stay in the article. After days of multiple users proving something to him, as it was in the discussion about whether animals are treated as commodities, he may lay low but then he comes back and brings up the same subjects. This is the very definition of disruptive editing. --Rose (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient. Martin has a long history of strong views on green topics broadly construed, dating back years (see e.g. his global warming skepticism [57],[58],[59]) and several editors have mentioned his disruption on articles such as BP. He argues at tremendous length and frequently raises the same issue over and over. Notably, I have almost never seen him support his views with sources of any kind. To mention just one recent example pertinent to veganism, he attempted to present the fact that animals are commodities as a "vegan opinion" here, and then argued this at length at Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. Despite being offered high quality non-vegan sources showing that animals are regarded as commodities, including with the specific phrase "commodity status" which he insisted on, he maintained that there was something implicit in "commodity" which implied that animals are mistreated, or treated exactly the same as inanimate objects. As always, he never provided a source for the idea that the word has this connotation, or that this was intended. When an editor arrived who wanted the UK-based Vegan Society's definition, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals", to be given priority in the lede, Martin endorsed this - blatantly contradicting his view that the lede should not contain vegan "opinions" as noted by SlimVirgin. He then suggested several sources which he presumably knew could not be used - several primary sources from other vegan societies [60] and a couple dictionary definitions [61] including a disparaging joke from Urban Dictionary. This is literally the only time I have ever witnessed him cite a reference for anything. And this is just one of many episodes - generally speaking, he argues at tremendous length without familiarizing himself with the topic or supporting his views. As in this comment where (in the course of dredging up another discussion which had gone on ad nauseam) he suggests that other editors "could find (an RS) somewhere to support what (my acquaintances) say", he does not seriously engage with the project, and makes never-ending demands on other editors' time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There isn't a competence or civility issue IMO. My interactions with Martin Hogbin are limited to articles involving veganism and I do not regard him as having a destructive influence on these articles, even in cases where I disagree with him (and there have been several occasions over the last couple of years). In regards to him removing the occupations from the image captions at List of vegans I actually disagreed with this action but I found it well-intentioned and he did not edit-war when challenged. Animal rights are an emotive issue at the best of times and there will always be regular disputes on these articles. I would be more concerned if these articles were exclusively edited by editors all of the same mindset. The example raised above about "whether animals are treated as commodities" is a good example of this: some editors—I being one of them—expressed some concerns about what we felt was "broad" language used to define "Veganism" in the lead of the article. Some editors may have disagreed with those concerns, or even consider then unfounded—and it's perfectly fine to adopt a different position in a debate—but ultimately disagreement is not disruption. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for sure but this isn't about him simply disagreeing with some editors. Pretty much all the editors that have made comments in the Final warning section on his page have different views within the so-called "green" subjects but currently nobody's trying to say they take it over the top and act in a manner that is very disruptive. --Rose (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The problems are long-term and wide-ranging, not only to do with environmental issues. Martin arrives at articles about which he has strong views but no knowledge, and proceeds to equate his personal opinions with NPOV. He often appears not to have read the key sources even when someone else has typed up what they say; or he misinterprets them or suggests inappropriate sources and edits; and he misunderstands policy. This continues for months or even years. It stymies article development because editors spend so much time dealing with it, and people become unwilling to develop the article because new material will give him more ammunition.
  For an example, see Talk:Battle of Britain, where in June 2015 Martin wants to add some counterfactual history, [62] having already suggested it at great length in 2014. [63] See Trekphiler's responses, e.g. "More to the point, this has been already (fairly exhaustively) hashed out, yet Martin Hogbin refuses to let it die," and "Have you just ignored everything I've written on this subject?" and "the dead horse comes to life again." Those exchanges illustrate the problem well (WP:TENDENTIOUS, particularly WP:REHASH). Pinging Binksternet and Coretheapple, who I believe have also encountered it. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• My own interactions with Martin Hogbin have been limited to the Battle of Britain page. I can't say if it rises to the level of disruptive, but I sense a strong strain of refusal to acknowledge views other than his own. I'm not immune to strong views, nor really inclined to change them, so I appreciate it's not exactly easy; I get the sense it approaches willful ignorance, a "don't confuse me with evidence" attitude. That said, I should say I've seen his edits on other pages, & they don't seem contentious or controversial; it may be this only arises with "pet projects". That may be trouble enough... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Immediate action needed. I sincerely appreciate the opinion of FourViolas up above. Since he has rarely encountered Mr. Hogbin, I suspect his opinion is typical for those not familiar with the long-term problem. However, for those of us who are aware of this problem, particularly editors who focus on content building like SlimVirgin, it is frustrating that Mr. Hogbin has spent 57% of his contributions,[64] the majority of his long Wikipedia career, using talk pages to push unusual, often contradictory POV that keeps editors running around in circles wasting time. It is difficult to determine if he is consciously doing this on purpose or if there is something else at work. Although I have encountered him in many places, it was my experience with him on March Against Monsanto (especially on the talk page, likely archived now) that led me to believe we have a serious problem. I would like to first propose limits on his talk page interaction. For example, "Martin Hogbin is limited to one talk page comment per day per article." That would go a long way towards mitigating the immediate issue. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Just saw the ping. I agree with Viriditas above in all respects, based upon experiences at Talk:BP. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I worked with Martin on the BP article. He seems like a very nice person but as an editor he was the type that constantly made me feel like I wanted to tear my hair out. Same issues as discussed above. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope you still have some hair left Gandydancer. We have to accept that people may have fundamentally different opinions on a subject. The way to deal with that in WP is by civil discussion. I can assure you that I understand how frustrating it can be when someone else does not seem to understand what is perfectly obvious to you but there is never any need to resort to personal attacks, insults, or threats like some editors (not you) are doing here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, the problem isn't that you have an opinion. The problem is that you are engaging in explicit civil POV pushing and ignoring talk page discussion by keeping a discussion open in perpetuity and constantly changing the framework of the discussion to allow it to continue indefinitely until you get your way. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't seen diffs of bad behavior on talk pages. I also don't understand people's wishes to limit other's participation on talk page of all the places. In addition I also don't understand accusations of POV pushing because whenever someone accuses of that I guarantee you they push their own POV all the time. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Martin Hogbin

I am involved in a content dispute in the Veganism article with the editors who are making this unpleaseant personal attack on me. Unlike some here, who have resorted to persistent personal attacks, my contibutions there have conformed to the normal standards of discussion and will continue to do so. Through civil discussion we are now beginning to make some progress on that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The section where you said "now we seem to be working better together" and that you're now referring to didn't even involve any contributions by you. The only comment you made there was irrelevant and didn't lead to any progress in that regard whatsoever. --Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that. It actually begged the suggestion that people were working better together because of your your lack of participation, rather than in spite of it... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I support the suggestion to begin with restricting/curtailing Martin Hogbin's article talk page privileges. It appears he has good intentions but his behavior is disruptive to the project. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This now seems to have turned into a vendetta against me by every user that I have ever disgreed with. My editing and talk page comments are based on the fundamental principles that: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, editors should treat each other with respect and civility, and that what we write in article should be supported by reliable sources rather than an expression of our personal opinions. I believe that disputes are better resolved by civil discussion than by edit warring, threats or personal attacks. That is what I am doing and it is what will continue to do. We either stick to the original principles of Wikipedia or we give in to mob rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have repeatedly and quite openly expressed a POV bordering on an agenda, and you've repeatedly misused the article talk page to push your agenda. By limiting your participation on article talk pages to one comment a day, we can begin to restore normalcy and consensus building. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Having a problem with an editor

This is over the Drake Bell article. Now, this could go under Dispute Resolution, but I think otherwise. The editor in question, User:Winkelvi is placing "citation needed" tags all of a sudden after I edited the article, and we've had a bad history. He ignores any means of me contacting him from his talk page, he will just delete the messages. Or replying to him on mine, yet will get on my talk page whenever. Even when I try to place sources in the article, according to him, it is counted as a revert, to remove the tags. So, there is not really anything I can do to help the article even if I try. Also, he thinks Facebook, Twitter, etc., are unreliable, but according to WP:SELFSOURCE, that premise is wrong. Like I said, tried to address that, ignored it, removed the message and removed those sources anyway. I am slightly starting to think this is spite of previous history, but he said he isn't. I would really think he was, as any hint of me sockpuppeting took place (while I admit, I did during my block), there were certain situations where I was considered a sock when I wasn't, as shown in the Transphobic error section of the article's talk page, whenever I was in any sort of trouble, he called me out, and reported me. He never responded to a single talk page discussion I have formed on there. Also, this is my top edited article with 600+ edits on it.

Note: If I placed this in the wrong place, tell me. I feel I have nowhere else to turn and I don't use the noticeboards much. Update: He is still removing and deeming sources unreliable (self-published sources) and placing the tags. Looks like he may ignore this report as well. Also, to point out, the article had 150+ sources before his source deleting. Now it stands at 116. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Joseph Prasad - I'm sorry to hear that you have a bad history with another editor. Can you provide me with diffs where he placed "citation needed" after your edits? Has he been doing this outside that article and on other articles? Or just in this article? Diffs will help a lot here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, he first started off with this, which then, I told him the source was there in the article (I didn't fix the source as I added that information during a class and didn't have time), which then, he reverted. It seems like he wants to place the tags then have everyone else do the sourcing. I admit some of the sources in the article are unreliable, but as I'm obviously the main contributor to the article (like I said, with my amount of edits), it was a work in progress that I intended to help since I joined in April of 2014. There would be too many diffs to show his tag adding, it's easy enough just to see the page history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Prasad (talk • contribs) 07:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) If this is over problems with an article, it's unlikely to be that urgent to contact Winkelvi personally (i.e. on their talkpage) over this. While editor talk pages are the right place for dealing with personal clashes, issues and discussions and can sometimes be useful when you feel the issue you're discussing about the article isn't going to benefit anyone else or you think a more personal approach is needed (particularly with new editors); it's not an alternative to discussion on the article talk page. If you have disagreements over the article (whether sourcing, content or whatever), the discussion should be on the article talk page. Even if you think the editor's talk page would be a better location, if there editor doesn't seem to disagree you need to take it to the article talk page.

I see a few comments by you on the article talk page which is good, but many of these are questions or suggestions. If you've left an explanation relating to what you planned to do or had done on the article on the article talk page or contesting what was done by others, and Winkelvi has reverted you but never commented on the article talk page then there would probably be a problem for ANI to look at. If they didn't respond but also didn't revert the changes you implemented, then it not so easy to call it a problem regardless whether they are also reverting other things you do. If Winkelvi does respond on the article talk page and you two can't come to an agreement, then you have a WP:Content dispute so look at WP:Dispute Resolution. Notably, if there is dispute over what counts as a RS, try WP:RSN. Note that bringing disagreements about who should have initiated the discussion on the article talk page to ANI is rarely productive.

Ultimately, even if some behaviour isn't ideal, there's a fair chance nothing is going be done about it based on disputes in one article. You'd need to demonstrate the problems are severe enough to warrant it, e.g. WP:diffs where you've initiated discussion on the article talk page but had no response and still been reverted over that particular issue. Personally, if you've raised the issue on the editors talk page (regardless of whether you should have) and they deleted your comments but continued anyway and didn't initiate a discussion on the article talk, I would definitely fault them. But it can get complicated so I always recommend you initiate discussion on the article talk page first before saying there's a problem.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

N.B. I am seeing signs of tagging overkill on the article. While it is a BLP, unless there's some reason why you feel it's untrue, I have to question the utility of tagging simple uncontroversial appearances like "small role in the Seinfeld episode "The Frogger" in 1998" or "guest appearance on the series The Nightmare Room" or "guest appearance as himself on Nickelodeon's Zoey 101" or "cast as Spider-Man in the animated TV series: Ultimate Spider-Man". Particularly when Drake Bell is mention in our articles on these (even if generally also not sourced). For that matter stuff like "released the lead single, "I Know", on October 17, 2006" or "On April 22, 2014, Bell released his third studio album, his first rockabilly album, Ready Steady Go!, under Surfdog Records, with which he signed in 2012". And that's from ~ the first quarter of the article. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, he first started off with this, which then, I told him the source was there in the article (I didn't fix the source as I added that information during a class and didn't have time), which then, he reverted. It seems like he wants to place the tags then have everyone else do the sourcing. I admit some of the sources in the article are unreliable, but as I'm obviously the main contributor to the article (like I said, with my amount of edits), it was a work in progress that I intended to help since I joined in April of 2014. There would be too many diffs to show his tag adding, it's easy enough just to see the page history. And if you look at the page history's time stamps, Nil Einne, and this, yes, he removed my comments and continued. I would try to add something to see if he would revert it (I'm sure if I tried to re-add a Facebook source, he would remove it since he deems it unreliable), but ≥I'm already at three reverts in 24 hours on the page, so I can't remove any tags as he sees it as a revert. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Prasad (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to reply to Oshwah with identing, you should leave your comments above mine, not change my indenting. Take a read of WP:Indent. My indenting was intentional as neither of my comments were a reply to Oshwah, in fact I didn't even see Oshwah's comment when composing my first reply. And I felt my second comment was better stand alone as it largely dealt with seperate issues. BTW you should feel free to move this comment and change it's indenting if you move your comments to but please leave all the others. Also in case you misunderstood my comment, you need to discuss on the article talk page not on Winkelvi's user page. Even if you've already left comments on Winkelvi talk page, you should take it to the article talk page before complaining about lack of discussion since anything else tends to be too unclear for ANI to deal with. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Another concerning thing which I noticed from the discussion at SNUGGUMS talk page is that it sounds like Winkelvi is removing dead links even if these were the only sources for the claim and so they were replaced with a cn tag. That's generally wrong, dead links should not be removed, simply tagged using {{deadlink}}, so that other people can try to find a backup of them. It's possible that some of these links weren't reliable sources anyway, but the justification then would be they are unreliable not dead links. And that seems to be the given justification for some, but not all cases. In cases where the info is already sufficiently source removing a dead link even if it is an RS is probably acceptable but again that only seems to be the justification in some cases.

I don't think removing deadlinks for no reason other than being dead is acceptable even if an effort was made to recover the link (see Wikipedia:Link rot), but in any case I'm not seeing any signs any effort was made here. Also some of the links had citation details, making recovery easier.

Notably, I don't see the need to remove the dead link here [65]. While it's a primary source and only supports one of the claims (when the deal was signed), the claim isn't particularly contentious and the source itself was trivial to recover via Wayback Machine [66]. If it was replace with a good RS supporting all claims made in the sentence then sure. But replacing it with a cn tag just seems wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay I looked a bit more. I only found 2 or 3 other cases where Winkelvi didn't give a reason besides it being a dead link. (I didn't examine the cases where an additional reason like unreliable source or already sourced was given.) The sources are all trivially recoverable.

[67] Disnology.com doesn't exactly sound like a good source, which was confirmed when I recovered it [68]. Also it seems the sort of thing which will be easy to source and which having an existing unreliable source isn't going to help much in finding a reliable source. However the claim isn't exactly contentious and the source does include an alleged direct quote. (Not particularly surprisingly when taken in context, it was also supported by the next source which looks even less reliable and was later removed.) So while it's less obvious a problem than the signing one, I question whether replacing it with a {{cn}} tag was really the best course of action instead of {{dead link}} or {{unreliable source}}.

In [69] the website name sort of makes me think it's unreliable but actually it's a radio station. However the entire URL (with the part about event) does make you wonder whether it's a good source even if a radio station. Recovery confirms it isn't a great source [70], a listing for an event Drake Bell was at. It also doesn't properly confirm the statement, it confirms he was in the movie and he won the award, but it doesn't actually connect the two. Of course this would only have been known if the source was recovered. Personally despite the misgivings the URL text suggest, I still question whether replacing it with a cn without I presume checking the dead source first was the best course. Or instead tagging it as {{unreliable source}} with explanation if you didn't want to check.

It's unclear to me if invalid source means unreliable or dead [71]. I wouldn't consider a real estate agent blog (using public property records [72]) a good source for this sort of thing though, although if that was the reason, greater clarity would help. It seems to me the big possible problem here is this info simply isn't significant enough to be included in the article which could be countered by finding a good non tabloid non blog reliable secondary source discussing it. So even here, I'm not certain simply replacing it with a cn tag is the best solution. It seems to me {{unreliable source}} with a brief explanation would be a better one.

P.S. Winkelvi did tag some links with {{dead link}} early on, so I'm a bit confused why they removed others without giving another reason like unreliable or superflorous.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne, because this is a BLP, the truth is, without adequate sources, much of this content is eligible to be deleted (per BLP guidelines). Since this was meant to be a housecleaning, and I know a few editors have put time into the article, I felt it better to delete references that weren't needed as well as some from the same source (which was a primary, self-published website of the article subject) stating "invalid" since it was not a good source to begin with and, surely, a better one could be found. The CN tags were, if you take BLP policy seriously, a gift that will allow the content to stand and editors to find sources rather than outright deleting the content. This article has been inadequately referenced for a while. Some sources I left even though they looked arguably dubious to me (a couple were spotted and mentioned above). BLP policy is clear and CN tags seemed the best, reasonable course, rather than cleaning out the article of unsourced content and legitimately pissing off those interested in the article. I'm sure that editors who want to see the article content remain intact can find good sources to replace those CN tags as needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe he is starting again, Nil Einne and Oshwah - reverting even while a discussion is taking place, and stating he will remove it again tomorrow. He also is telling a user to "talk him down off the ledge and help him start seeing sense" as apparently "You know who is exhibiting the same, stubborn, battleground mentality" at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Your help is needed. And another thing to add on to it being spite of me - if you look at the page history, I am the main person who added substantial contributions to the article in a while. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Identification of Cecil Rhodes as a "white supremacist" in opening sentence

IP 158.143.212.121 and I have been having a disagreement at Cecil Rhodes and Rhodes Scholarship. He thinks Rhodes should be identified in the opening sentence as a "white supremacist". I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and asked him to discuss rather than edit warring, but he has in my view chosen to continue in the former vein, repeatedly restoring the epithet in the opening sentence. I think administrator intervention is necessary to find a solution here. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that referring to someone as a "white supremacist" in the leading paragraph of an article is an NPOV issue (especially if it's a BLP). Repeated restoration of edits such as this is not constructive, and the IP can be blocked on those grounds. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes is a BLP??? EEng (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Noooooooo. This is just more of the activism related to the recent Rhodes controversies around the world. Clearly attempting to make the article as negative as possible. But since he has been dead for quite awhile, BLP isnt an issue. NPOV is the main issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. I was discussing the principle in general when I referenced BLPs - it obviously doesn't apply to this situation, as the article is not a BLP. The issue here is WP:NPOV - and that description absolutely does not conform to that policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Mark Twain did not have a very high opinion. Although that source also claims that L. Ron Hubbard thought himself to be Rhodes' reincarnation. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't belong in lede. It's well-established that Rhodes is known for being a strong advocate of Colonialism, which seems appropriate for the lede, but he's not a self-described "white supremacist" or primarily known as such. His views on race are certainly worth discussing in the article, though. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's completely fine; this can certainly be a section of the article (provided that it's done appropriately... lol ;-)) - but when you put those kinds of words in the lead paragraph (especially in the first sentence that describes who or what the article subject even is), it implies a very biased viewpoint. The adjective "white supremacist" (when describing a person) is very controversial and it puts the article out of the neutral zone if used to describe someone in your opening statement. This is the issue, and it is the primary cause of the focus in this ANI. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Having it in the lede definitely violates NPOV and also UNDUE. All of the three citations provided thus far are from the past 10 months. I therefore don't think it merits being in the lede (or possibly even in the article at all). It seems like a recent flare-up. If there is nothing substantiating this characterization from the 20th century, this stuff should probably be relegated to something at the end of the article that mentions recent criticism (or omitted altogether). In the lede it has way too much weight (WP:UNDUE), which is not justified by a few items from merely the past year. (Not to mention the fact the lede is only for a summary of the major points discussed in the body text.) Softlavender (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is turning into something of a campaign, not necessarily involving a specific group of people but popping up anywhere the present real-world campaign against these figures is likely to touch. We've just been through a round of this on South of the Border (attraction), a South Carolina tourist trap with, shall we say, a decidedly dated Mexican shtick. Given the current attack on Woodrow Wilson's reputation I would expect the campaign to show up there as well. The problem I'm seeing in all of these is indeed WP:UNDUE: they are trying to make one category of objectionable opinions/acts the salient characteristic of the subject by shame-tagging them. Rhodes's racial views were objectionable, no doubt about it, but his colonialism is what is primary. Wilson's racism is secondary to his presidencies. SotB is a tacky ethnic caricature, but being offensive is not its point. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah one of the three citations is about Wilson (and only minutely about Rhodes). Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• His weel known racist views should have the same weighting in the lead as they have in the body of the article. If there is a section on it in the article then a sentence in the lead seems warranted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is, there isn't one. Softlavender (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a section on his political views and the main content of that section is his racism. Indeed if there werent such a section it would have to be added, since his racist and imperialist views are widely written about and have characterized the subsequent political development of the region.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me like the lede already covers that in recap form. It also looks to me like Rhodes' attitudes and beliefs were no different from any other Englishperson or even Afrikaaner of his generation (or even later), at the height of the Empire. We don't vilify Rudyard Kipling, for instance, for having those beliefs. We can't apply 2015 judgments to Victorian people, which is exactly what is happening with these 2015 flare-ups. I'm not saying his attitudes were equitable, but they were in step with his time, and should not be labeled with 2015 terms by Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• • The point is phrasing, not content; as of the moment I looked at the article, the lead is fine without the inflammatory language and does not whitewash his views. Rhodes was a person who held beliefs we find objectionable today, but he was in many respects a man of his times with his belief in the "white man's burden". It is entirely appropriate to discuss his views and to have an appropriate summary of those views in the lead. However, a phrase such as "white supremacist" is a "loaded" polemic term of art that fits more appropriately on people of more recent times who hold assorted neo-nazi or KKK viewpoints. If you look at the ngram, the phrase was virtually unused until after WWII. Montanabw^(talk) 19:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

From a content side, this idea came up relatively recently when dealing with how a scene in Revenge of the Nerds should be presented in light of modern sensibilities, and that lead to refinement of Wikipedia:Presentism, which I believe should also be applied here. Modern-day critical takes on Rhodes should be a section in the article but if that wasn't the case during their life, it shouldn't be in the lede. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's the reality then it can be stated plainly in the opening sentence or in the lede in general, if it's well supported by reliable sources. It is not necessarily a violation of NPOV to do so, as someone else said above. NPOV is about representing sources neutrally and with due weight. It does not prohibit stating a harsh truth plainly if that is supported by reliable sources. I also don't see any policy that is about not using modern-day takes to define an article's subject. If information later comes out that changes the general perception of a subject, then this is indeed used. For instance, Monsanto did knowingly sell PCBs long after they knew of their dangers, and they hid those dangers. That was in the 1960s and the 1970s. The knowledge of this came out in the year 2000 with a legal proceeding that revealed internal memos showing their culpability and knowledge at the time. This knowledge would be fair to use to define what happened in the 1960s and 1970s, with good sourcing. History is often revised with further knowledge and with further interpretation. In fact many people were white supremacists while they may not have explicitly called it that at the time. The degree to which that was a notable ideological principle in a person might be the measure of whether it should be a primary label for them. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

While I don't want to take this discussion to far since it belongs somewhere else, I think there's an obvious difference between information about a historic situation (regardless of when that information became available) and modern intepretations of events and behaviour based not on new information but modern beliefs, values etc. To give a made up example, if someone finds a letter from some BC/BCE individual where this person calls for the elimination of race X via force, that would be new information. If someone says that person was calling for genocide, that would be to some extent a modern intepretation. This doesn't mean I'm saying we shouldn't include the information in the lead. (Actually I'm somewhat symphathetic to including the information in the lead here, although I do question whether it would make sense if we were talking about a BC/BCE individual. And to go back to my earlier example, I also support the current or a similar wording in the Genghis Khan article.) Rather all I'm saying is we should make a distinction between how our understanding of events change based on new facts or information that emerges of what was going on; how our understanding of events changes based on our modern day values, ethics, beliefs etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i do agree with this distinction very much, and i hold that both are valid. SageRad (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Rigel Squadron 2 violating WP:NFCC#9

User:Rigel Squadron 2 continues violating WP:NFCC#9 on the page User:Rigel Squadron 2 despite warnings at User talk:Rigel Squadron 2#January 2016. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor's user page looks like a bit of a WP:FAKEARTICLE as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed a WP:FAKEARTICLE/WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, and after checking about, it has been G3'd and the user indef'd as WP:NOTHERE, as said fakearticle was their sole reason for being here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: User:Rigel Squadron 3 looks like the same thing. User:Rigel Squadron did until it was blanked, while Special:contribs/Rigel Squadron 4 hasn't made any edits. I will be opening an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rigel Squadron. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

...aaaand looking at those I think we have an even larger potential sockfarm here. I'll post at the SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

User:ErikvanB interwiki VANDALISM

It is about the renaming of a page: Portobuffolé. This page was originally written like this, not only in en.wikipedia but also in other Wikis with different languages. And it is the right name, as I am going to show below. A pair of Dutch admins (one is User:ErikvanB) started changing the name to Portobuffolè in ALL Wiki pages when I dared to correct the name in nl.wikipedia. So I thought to deal with the problem following the rules: I requested a renaming of the pages in Talk:Portobuffolé and in it:Discussione:Portobuffolé (since the name belongs to an Italian town). You can read my reasons there, but here they are summarised up too: in Italian there is a lot of confusion about accents, especially about accented E, the only vowel which can have both grave and acute accent. This is why pronunciation and orthography guides exist, guides like the DOP (the most important pronunciation/ortography dictionary of Italian language), the DiPI (another big shot, even more complete), Sapere.it (the main on-line Italian encyclopedia) and Treccani (the most authoritative Italian encyclopedia). It was established both in English and in Italian Wiki to use this spelling, so the admins have corrected the name also in the other languages. But yesterday one of the Dutch admins who were the origin of all this unnecessary mess decided arbitrarily and without consulting anyone that "Portobuffolé" is wrong and started over again renaming a lot of Wiki pages; so far they are: Dutch, French, German, Portuguese, and... English! This is vandalism. If it was when I changed the pages "without" consent, then again it is now when this admin, abusing his power, is changing the pages "against" consent. Not only in his own language Wiki, but also in others among the which there is this one, the main and international Wiki and the first one where it was decided to use the correct spelling with acute accent. Let's remember that, if it is true the municipal site of the town uses (mostly) the grave accent, it is as true that: it uses also the other and more correct spelling; it uses also a spelling where there is an apostrophe in place of the accent; it makes orthographic errors about accents such as "perchè" (instead of "perché"); it is not an orthograpic guide and on the contrary it contradicts them all; a lot of other municipal sites of Italian towns ending with accented E have wrong spellings in their home-pages (I am not making examples because the aforecited admin would probably go and modify immediately them too); who is not Italian cannot know the confusion we Italians make with accents, at school we are not even taught to distinguish grave from acute accent, and the fact that even in a municipal statute ([73]) is used an apostrophe in place of the accent and when the accent is used it is found in some articles grave and in some others acute, well, this speaks volumes about its reliability... So: please, make this admin stop vandalising the Wiki project just for personal feelings, and restore the consensus spelling in all the articles that have been vandalised by him/her. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is with IPs bandying about vandalism accusations in the last couple days? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with them. But how would you define the behaviour I have described above? 151.20.4.197 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

But how would you define the behaviour I have described above? "A content dispute". Although I note that (as you yourself concede) "Portobuffolè" is what the comune itself uses consistently on their website, and they presumably know how to spell their own name. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent: "...and they presumably know how to spell their own name..." and that is one of the clarified issues in the Italian and English talk pages; your statement is uncorrect. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Iridescent, you're uncorrect about the speling. EEng (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

May I kindly refer you all to this page on nl-wiki? ErikvanB is no sysop on nl-wiki (albeit many wished he will one day apply) but one of our most valued vandalism fighters and controllers. Also I was harrassed by this person everytime logging in with another dynamic IP-adress. Regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There: the other Dutch admin I talked about above. The reasonement (s)he makes in the Dutch talk page is the following: I don't care about your sources, no matter how strong and reliable; I don't care about the inconsistency of the official site, where you find not only both Portobuffolè and Portobuffolé but also Portobuffole' (with apostrophe!) and where you find several accent/apostrophe spelling errors (such as "perchè" and "Mansue'"); I don't care about what was established both on en.wikipedia, the international WIki, and in it.wikipedia, the one which should worry the most about its towns spellings; I've, pardon, we've decided that "Portobuffolè" is totally correct and "Portobuffolé" is completely wrong and, since it's personal with the Italian IP who wants to change the name, I don't even care if this behaviour of mine harms the Wiki project itself. That is what (s)he is meaning in the linked talk page. I would like to remind this Dutch admin that at the beginning, when (s)he was starting reverting my edits on nl.wikipedia, I came on this admin's talk page asking civilly to discuss about the issue and explaining my point of view... Just to read answers in Dutch and a not well hidden refuse of any chance to talk. When (s)he went out of nl.wikipedia and moved every single article named "Portobuffolé" to "Portobuffolè", even the ones that had the right spelling before (such as the one in en.wikipedia), well, you can imagine how I felt and reacted badly. But is my one-month-ago reaction a valid reason to invalidate the correctness of Wiki-pedia itself, acting also against the English, Italian and other languages admins who moved the pages respecting the decision and according to the provided sources? 151.20.4.197 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND. Whether or not this is appropriate it is not vandalism, and continued accusations vandalism over something that is not can be considered a personal attack. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bushranger: then I have a question for you. Why, when I had first moved the pages across the Wikis linking the sources I have provided above, "that" was called "vandalism", "I" was called "vandal" (and blocked), my edits were reverted in all Wikis and in all Wikis it was witten in the summary that I was an inter-Wiki vandal globally blocked? Or, better: why was this right while now the fact I am doing the same is wrong? And remember that this time it was English admins, Italian admins, other languages admins who moved the pages, and also remember that this time both in en.wikipedia and in it.wikipedia we agreed that the correct spelling, according to sources, was Portobuffolé and that renaming the pages was correct, it was not my personal initiative. I hope you answer me and clarify this doubt of mine. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 9:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. Firstly, I noticed there wasn't any consensus about the spelling, and yet, the spelling was changed on every wiki, so I reverted the moves on a few wikis and gave five random reasons why Portobuffolé may not be the correct spelling (or not the only correct spelling): Comune di Portobuffolè (TV), a city poster, Google Earth, the regional website, and the provincial website. That's all. I received a friendly message from Lucas, an Italian admin, on my Dutch discussion page, but then IP-address 151.*** suddenly appeared, and I don't know who he is. There are now long discussions everywhere, for example on this page, here, here and here, where 'vandal' admin MoiraMoira refutes accusations of vandalism. It is best that everyone agrees before pages are moved. I am certainly not a vandal. ErikvanB (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You like to be precise. Let's be then. I made a move request on en.wikipedia and it was accepted. The sources I brought were strong and reliable and they establish clearly that the correct spelling is Portobuffolé. When I showed such sources on it.wikipedia where the discussion was stalling they were considered the turning point of the issue. I may understand that on nl.wikipedia, "your" Wiki, you might allow no foreign users to change pages even if he or she is being right, but the fact you came to en.wikipedia to rename a page without consulting anyone and without asking anything just on the basis of your personal opinion "IS" vandalism. Or, if it is not, it was not my similar behaviour when I tried moving the page on nl.wikipedia either. I have already spoken about the other Dutch admin, I would like to speak, again, about "your" sources and their reliability, even if this is not the right place. The municipal site: the same site where you read 4 (four) times just in the home-page "Portobuffole'" with APOSTROPHE? The same site where you can find the official statute ([74]) where you read Portobuffole', Portobuffolè and Portobuffolé (3 different versions in the same document, an official and the most important document of the "comune")? Next: Google Images? I am able to use it too: [75]. Next: Google Maps? Where did they take the name from? From the official site, obviously, whose reliability I have already shown. Regional site? Boomerang effect: I read "votiamo portobuffole’ borgo dei borghi italiani". With apostrophe, again. Reliability, again. Provincial site? I read 4 times the apostrophe version, even in the coat-of-arms, and just 2 "Portobuffolè"s. Boomerang effect, again. You are just searching the web for anything which can prove your statement is correct, while I have brought since the very beginning authoritative encyclopedias and pronunciation/orthography guides which ALL say the same: the correct spelling is Portobuffolé. Period. Let's be precise. 151.20.4.197 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy reported by NewsAndEventsGuy

Earlier today, I started at a thread at the talk page for the occupation now underway in Oregon. Afterwards, with WP:APPNOTE in mind and intentionally selecting a wide array of pages with eds who may or may not agree with me but might be interested in the thread, I posted pointers to the thread. I was cognizant of the WP:CANVASSING and WP:SPAM rule and tried to follow both while pulling in more interested parties from a wide range of perspectives to the discussion. Here they are....

10:32, January 16, 2016 Talk:Sierra Club 10:31, January 16, 2016 Talk:National Cattlemen's Beef Association ‎ 10:29, January 16, 2016 Talk:Sagebrush Rebellion ‎ 10:26, January 16, 2016 Talk:Federal lands 10:26, January 16, 2016 Talk:Harney County, Oregon ‎ 10:24, January 16, 2016 Talk:Burns, Oregon 10:22, January 16, 2016 Talk:Malheur National Wildlife Refuge ‎ 10:21, January 16, 2016 Talk:Bundy standoff 10:19, January 16, 2016 Talk:Sovereign citizen movement

I started with the Sovereign Cit Movement, and ended at Sierra Club which hopefully shows my effort at NOT soliciting one sided views.

Later, an admin interacted with me briefly at one of the talk pages. I did not know they were an admin, and I explained that I thought WP:APPNOTE applied. With no substantive reply, the admin then deleted all those postings citing SPAM. I have no beef with the admin.By not mentioning their name I'm trying to demonstrate that I'm not pissed at them and am not complaining about them. Since I have started this here, I will privately ping them about this filing and they can comment here if they wish, or not, it's all good, as long as somebody explains.

At first, when I thought they were a regular ed vandalizing my talk page comments I challenged them at their talk page. When I learned of my identification error, I then realized I must have screwed up and asked for an education. They declined. That conversation is here.

So here I am still ignorant. Would someone please explain why this identical message sent to those pages was a WP:SPAM violation, rather than an WP:APPNOTE?

==Bundy's Militia's demands == :Regarding our article about the [[Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge]] please consider commenting at that article's talk page on the question [[Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#Should_we_say_anything_more_about_Public_Lands_Privatization_and_demand_feds_cede_ownership?|"Should we say anything more about Public Lands Privatization and demand feds cede ownership?"]]

Thanks for enlightening me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Lava

:::I'm happy to answer your complaint on the merits. I need 24 hr. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC) with Lava's retraction of seeking a Tban against me, this is now moot. I'd still like some admins who apply the guidelines to teach me about SPAM and APPNOTE in this context, and for that matter, if I should have pursued admin opinion on the question via some other process. I'd be glad to hat, and go there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh? What complaint? (And if "I need 24 hr." means that you're typing up another wall of text, please, don't. No one has time for anymore autobiographical novels. No one has made a complaint against you, ergo no response is necessary. For the sake of us all, please just leave it at that.) LavaBaron (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm not an admin, but here's the explanation I think you're looking for. Firstly, I think the link to WP:SPAM is incorrect, I believe LavaBaron was referring to the proper link is the canvassing guideline by a similar name. The problem is that you were excessively cross posting. From your post it seems that you posted this on 9 different pages. That's a lot, especially on article pages. I'd say for notifying multiple people, either use WP:RFC which would get a good number of people or post on the page of one or two WikiProjects or article talk pages with a large number of watchers. Notice that the section right beneath WP:APPNOTE shows that "Mass posting" is inappropriate notification. LavaBaronThe admin you mention (and myself for what its worth) probably believed that you were posting on too many articles in violation of WP:APPNOTE and WP:CANVASS more broadly. Wugapodes (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: - I agree with you but, in point of clarification, I didn't raise this issue about cross-posting to NewsAndEventsGuy, @Valfontis: apparently did. I only chimed-in here as I thought it was an unusual thing for him to report himself (I've been watching NewsAndEventsGuy's contribution history as it often requires editors engage in a bit of clean-up after he hurricanes through an article, as noted in my diffs below; other than some furious first-shaking from him it's never really a big deal and he never edit wars or anything - so certainly not block or ban-worthy, just a little tedious [I have a suspicion I know what the specific issue with his unusual edit style is which is the reason I have intentionally not brought this to ANI as I think he deserves some slack - of course, my best efforts were for naught when he decided to report himself]). LavaBaron (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I've struck above. Wugapodes (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's no problem, these interactions vis a vis NewsAndEventsGuy often devolve into a high level of confusion all around. LavaBaron (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Trout Support 7-Day TBAN - The enthusiasm and exuberance you've shown for editing WP is commendable. However, your current ... unusual ... style of editing is causing (unintentional) disruption. Reporting yourself at ANI is a prime example of this. Relentlessly posting to my Talk page with demands I self-revert some gentle guidance I've given you similar to what Valfontis offered or you'll report me is another example. "Guerilla deleting" articles by blank/revert citing the "precedent" of unrelated AfD discussions [76] is another example. Unexpectedly introducing a staggering Wall of Text into a relatively calm and good-mannered page [77] is another example. The examples you, yourself, have cited above are more examples. You've become a bit of a bull in a china shop. Again, I think this is not intentional and if you had the opportunity to observe from a distance for a few days you could be a very fine editor. LavaBaron (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Trout and move on NewsAndEventsGuy has apparently been a rather consistent editor since 2011. He's not new and I think just needs a clue adjustment. I feel like an admonishment that his actions have been disruptive is enough, a don't see a topic ban as effective as it's not intentional disruption. If he's aware of the disruption being caused that LavaBaron is citing, I believe he's a mature enough editor to adjust. Perhaps I have too much faith in people, but I think a topic ban is too much. Wugapodes (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Great points, Wugapodes, you have me convinced that a clue adjustment is all NewsAndEventsGuy needs. Changing my opinion to admonish only. LavaBaron (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thanks for your comments. Yes I am aware of the allegations. If he believes them, he should probably file at AE. We're both on notice that DS-AP applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Note the second half of my suggestion was "and move on". You already reported yourself at AN/I which is disruptive in itself (see WP:POINT) and opens you up to community sanctions whether you like it or not. I recommended a trouting over sanctions because I think you'd be better served learning from your mistakes, but part of that is recognizing you've made some, and not asking people to report you at AE. LavaBaron provided a good explanation as to why the edits you made were disruptive (with links to specific instances). My recommendation for trouting is contingent upon you learning from your mistakes and working to not make them again. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Understand the mistakes you've made, learn from them, and move on. Wugapodes (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's easy... I'm eager to learn from mistakes, and I make plenty.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I don't care if anybody is pissed at me or not. Especially since as far as I can tell, there is no reason for anybody to be pissed at me. I cleaned up some talk pages and maybe I was hasty. Enjoy the debate. Valfontis (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll also note that the fact I am an admin has no bearing on my actions, I would have done the same without the bit. I had no idea about any sanctions against anybody, I just watch a lot of Oregon pages. And yes, the cross-posting seemed excessive. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, @Valfontis:. Subjective minds can differ on these IAR type things. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (Later) Elsewhere I just saw your link to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. Given the context (and the care I know I took in deciding) I don't believe the list was "indiscriminate". But IAR works too. Whatever. Thanks again for the response. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bain

There is an on-going battle over details of content which should be on the David Bain page. This has now been going on for some weeks. Although there have been a number of editors involved, the one who has been the most disruptive is Mr Maggoo. Others who have been constructive are Akldguy, Moriori and Gadfium.

Mr Maggoo is the self published author of a book titled The Bain Killings Whodunnit? written under the pseudonym Michael Sharp. He outed himself in correspondence with Akld guy here. He seems to have very strong opinions that David Bain is guilty of the murders for which he has been acquitted. Although there has been much discussion on the David Bain talk page about the various issues, Mr Maggoo has shown himself to be incapable of "hearing" what other editors are saying. In response, he has often taken a hostile approach when communicating on the talk page. He frequently adds or deletes material without giving a reason on the main page and his justifications on the Talk page make little sense. There are so many examples of his disruptive behaviour, it is hard to know where to begin. Turtletop (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that when I edit the David Bain Wikipedia page citing reliable sources such as newspaper articles and books [not my own] Turtletop deletes them. Mr Maggoo (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not the problem. Maggoo has a history of quoting unreliable sources, especially the David Bain:Counterspin website. He also repeatedly tries to add material from a lawyer who has been disbarred for lying. Even when he does quote a reliable source, he seems to have little understanding of whether the information he wishes to include is relevant. His edits all support the view that David Bain is guilty even though the privy Council declared a miscarriage of justice and his convictions have been overturned. Turtletop (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Bain article has had ongoing disputes mostly between SPA accounts for some time. A sockpuppet investigation on some of the accounts found them to be unrelated. I semi-protected the article to prevent new SPAs getting involved, and have tried to keep all parties discussing on the talk page.-gadfium 22:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The David Bain murder case has been highly controversial in New Zealand. Mr Maggoo is a novice editor who began editing on 11 December 2015, and has edited nothing but DB-related pages since. He became frustrated at being asked to provide reliable sources and indent his posts correctly. He initially ignored advice that he was not permitted to cite from his own work or from a highly NPOV website, Counterspin. Nevertheless, he has learned much, albeit slowly. He is now competently adding information to the DB article which the OP objects to. This is essentially a content dispute and I note that the OP has not asked for any particular action here. Akld guy (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is partly a content dispute. But it is also about Mr Magoo's attitude and disruptive editing. Some of the edits he says he will make on the talk page are reflective of taking revenge rather than being constructive. I would like to see Mr Maggoo blocked from editing OR the page completely protected from editing by anyone except administrators. Turtletop (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You yourself removed highly relevant material that was correctly cited and pertained to the alleged pregnancy or childbirth of one of the victims. You did that, despite knowing that your removal of it would be controversial. Mr Maggoo should absolutely not be blocked. He has learned much and has now become a threat to the NPOV editing of the page by Turtletop. Both Mr Maggoo and Turtletop have edited contentiously, but there has been no bad behaviour, insults, or abuse that would justify a block on either, and certainly not on Mr Maggoo. Akld guy (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? Mr Maggoo made an edit about you in which he told you to stop being a girl. You have also seem to have allied yourself with Mr Maggoo by reposting a link to his self-published book and made insulting comments to Moriori accusing him of a conflict of interst with no evidence whatsoever. You have also made insulting comments about David Bain's sister in this post: "Laniet told so many people so many stories about pregnancy, childbirth, or abortion, that she must have been a flake. And if she was a flake on that score, she may have been a flake on her father's alleged illicit relationship with her. That is why Turtletop does not want the evidence of NEVER PREGNANT by the pathologist and hospital records, because it PROVES she was a flake and therefore tends to discredit the incest claim. The pathologist and hospital reports should be in the article. There is no reason to keep them out except censorship. Akld guy (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)"

Your neutrality and your personal judgement are highly questionable. Turtletop (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Akld guy has played a valuable role in mediating between the conflicting parties.-gadfium 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He has also contributed to the conflict and has started his own one with Moriori.Turtletop (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Don't make this about me. I have not aligned myself with Mr Maggoo. I came down on him hard in his early edits for not sourcing appropriately, and reverted many of them, but now that he has learned, he is posting material that you don't want in the article. I believe that some of that material he's adding should justifiably be in it. I did not accuse Moriori of having a conflict of interest, but asked him whether he had one, asking for a yes/no, not his identity. I note that he has not yet answered the question despite the elapse of more than two hours, prior to which he was active on the Talk page. He has to be given time to answer of course. Akld guy (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Asking is equivalent to accusing. Why did you ask/accuse him in the first place? You appear to have done this to divert attention away from your posting of a link to Mr Maggoo's COI self-published book. Turtletop (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Gadfium, he may have played a mediation role, but he undid that with other behaviour, and I am quite surprised you didn't give him a little nudge for his insults to me. At the Bain talk page I have left the following reply to his latest insult -- "You continue with offensive insult. The Wikipedia article you have edited the most is David Bain with 58 edits and 100 to its talk page. I have made 4 edits to David Bain and 14 to the talk page. You = 158. Me = 18. I have edited more than 7,000 unique Wikipedia articles so I guess to you that suggests obvious COI." Moriori (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't make this about me. The question asked by the OP was to the effect, "should Mr Maggoo be blocked?" Akld guy (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I also suggested that a total block could be put on the page. It's about all of us - and you seem to be avoiding taking any responsibility for your offensive behaviour towards other editors. If you don't want it to be about you, then I suggest you withdraw your insults to Moriori and apologise.

It would also help if you stopped accusing me of not being neutral. Bain was found not guilty and my contributions generally support that outcome. When you and Mr Maggoo add material which undermines that reality, you are not being neutral - and that's what leads to the content dispute. Turtletop (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The question asked by the OP was to the effect, "should Mr Maggoo be blocked?" Akld guy (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Akld guy (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to reply to a number of false allegations made about me by Turtletop. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

First he accuses me of citing the Counterspin website. I have not cited the Counterspin website. I asked if I could cite the Counterspin website as a reference and was told I could not. Turtletop himself has cited the Counterspin website. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Second he accuses me repeatedly trying to add material from a lawyer who has been disbarred. This is not correct. When I first started editing on Wikipedia I set up a paragraph heading Response by Michael Guest. At that time I wasn't aware I had to cite a source. That paragraph was removed for that reason. I then asked if I could cite two different sources as a reference and was told that neither of those sources were reliable. I have not been able to find a reliable source I can site re that paragraph, so I have not tried to set it up again. Once is not repeatedly. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Third, he says all my edits support the view that David Bain is guilty. I resent that insinuation. I just find an article pertaining to the subject and cite it. I could just as easily say that all Turtletops edits support the view that David Bain is innocent. Mr Maggoo (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Fourthly, he says I have little understanding as to whether the information I am including is relevant. Let me assure Turtletop that I have no problem deciding what is relevant and what is not. And might I add I always endeavour to quote verbatim from the article I am citing. For example I don't say "some academics" when the article cited only refers to one academic. Turtletop would have us believe that a number of academics support the suggestion made by Justice Binnie that the Government was "shopping around" . From what I have read one law professor supports Binnie and three law professors disagree with that suggestion. [User:Mr Maggoo|Mr Maggoo]] (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This post is directed to Turtletop You are definitely not neutral. You are trying to keep the insinuation that Laniet may have been pregnant/given birth/aborted as a result of incest by her father, despite the fact that not one witness has ever stepped forward to say that they saw Laniet with a baby, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet had given birth, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet had had an abortion, not one witness has ever stated that they KNEW Laniet gave away a baby for adoption. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a pregnancy/baby/abortion. Mr Maggoo and I are attempting to corroborate that with highly relevant pathology and hospital record material that shows that there was almost certainly never any pregnancy. You have on several occasions disruptively attempted to censor that pathology and medical material from the article. Akld guy (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Edited Akld guy (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hardly anyone KNEW anything about this case. That’s why it has been controversial for 20 years. And of course there are no witnesses who KNEW Robin Bain raped Laniet or committed incest with her. But multiple witnesses testified that Laniet told them her father was sexually abusing her. On that basis the Privy Council obviously concluded that where there is smoke (and there was a lot of it), there may well be fire - so they declared there had been a miscarriage of justice. If you still think you need to include material that you think proves she wasn’t pregnant, can I suggest you read the following. Under the heading Due and undue weight, WP says:

“While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence”… “Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects”.

If you insist on including testimony that Laniet was NOT pregnant, you are giving undue weight to a minority aspect which was of no relevance to the Privy Council or to the jury at the retrial. The topic is David Bain (and perhaps whether or not he is guilty). Whether or not Laniet was pregnant is not the topic.Turtletop (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not Laniet was pregnant is germane to two issues: 1. that she was pregnant to her father, which you are trying to insinuate is a motive for him killing the members of his family, 2. the issue of Laniet's credibility, since if she was given to fantasies about a pregnancy/childbirth/abortion/white baby versus black baby, then there exists the possibility that the alleged incest with her father was also a fantasy. You are trying to censor from the article medical evidence that refutes a pregnancy because it counters your insinuation that there was a pregnancy/baby. Akld guy (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Laniet's credibility is not the topic. David Bain's is - or was. Your allegation of censorship is offensive. I don't control anything on WP so I can't possibly censor it. Please use more moderate language. Your allegation that I am insinuating that Laniet was pregnant to her father is also offensive. You have now said this a number of times. I have never said any such thing and your insinuations are a breach of WP:assume good faith

You have refused to apologise to Moriori over your insinuation that he had a COI so I don't expect you will apologize to me for your behaviour either. It would go a long way towards resolving this if you did. Turtletop (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Instead of trying to communicate with other editors via edit summaries - would you consider using the talkpage first, and holding off on reverting other editors as an absolute last resort? SQL^{Query me!} 07:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Already tried the Talk page. It didn't work. Turtletop (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am still trying to master the correct procedure when using Wikipedia. Could I just say in my defence [ though age is no excuse] that it is hard for an old dog to learn new tricks specially when that old dog is in his eighties. Mr Maggoo (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of us come out of this scrap looking good. I ask that some uninvolved people add the article to their watchlists, and crack down on any poor behaviour.-gadfium 04:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest cross-posting this to the BLP noticeboard. They generally have zero tolerance towards this sort of thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• ...I find this Mr Maggoo's choice of name interesting to say the least? 😨 --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Messina Sockpuppets on enwiki

While Messina did make only one edit on enwiki [78], Messina for sure has used socketpuppets on enwiki. I don´t know how many socks were used on enwiki, most of them to hide article-versions of deleted or articles discussed for deletion on dewiki or old versions and drafts worked on during blocks on dewiki. I identified some socks on enwiki, that are not blocked today This includes this accounts

1. User:Messina111
2. User:30ax.93
3. User:Abwe
4. User:Loew17
5. User:Loew14
6. User:Loew13
7. User:Loew26
8. User:Mikel bradley

These accounts ar for sure Messina sockpuppets beyond reasonable doubts.

How to identify articles by Messina socks? This are frequent issues:

• drafts can contain more than one subject at a time, sometimes they are a collection of many articles stiched together
• the subject of the page can change immediately into something very different between the versions
• title might not match with the content of the page
• lots of copy an paste actions
• lots of pictures, often red links because the files have been deleted on Commons.
• use of pictures uploaded by Messina socks on Commons
• some unusal topics like unimportant buildings or street in Heilbronn, Dresden or elsewhere
• Language German or Hebrew at least in part or in older versions.
• Another complex is articles of unimportant Israeli politicians or artists you might never have heard of.
• this kind of articles usualy have more or less hebrew words/phrases/sentences, also in the last versions.
• extensive citations untranslated or in several different languages
• other topics with jewish background like jewish prayers or synagoges
• very frequent unneccessary empty lines
• layout ist generally a total mess, mix of languages, mix of topics, lots of offtopics
• overreferenced: several footnotes linked to the same sources on one sentence. Multiple footnotes, frequently footnotes after each significant word. One sentence can have 6 footnotes or more.
• at phases many small or minimal changes within a short passage but no substancial change in the content. Unser migt use over 30 edits to set up three sentences.
• overuse of formatting tags, bold, italic, big, small tags also in combination scattered all over the article.
• overuse of links, same things are linked repeatedly in each an every sentence
• mixture of different spellings of the same word
• little content but lots of literature. Most of it uncited and with little connection to the topic
• lots of redundancies

Now do as you like with this information. This socks and edits are about two years old, so its too late for CU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftzwerg 88 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User Messina is now globally banned [79] --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac's persistent bullying

Moved from AN — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Again – after his cursing and threatening me in November 2014 – Legacypac (LP) wants to bully and threaten me. In a November2014 ANI discussion, colleague Serialjoepsycho concluded (24Nov2014,20:42 and 27Nov,01:38) that LP should not have threatened me the way he did and no one stuck up there for LP’s threatening and cursing; yet LP this month threatened/tyrannized me again.

If he can’t stop bullying me, there’s a good chance he does that to a lot more editors. In that mentioned 2014 ANI discussion, editors DocumentError and Skookum1 indeed seem to have attested of similar problems they experienced with LP. I’m not in the position to verify and judge all their complaints about LP, but for me, LP now surely starts to have appearances against him. Perhaps, therefore, it is time now for a real tough warning for Legacypac to stop his bullying and bossing of others?

The occasion this time was a posting from me on Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 where I criticized LP and two others for posting comments in a discussion section that seemed to be not addressing the issue there under debate. LP quickly accused me (5Jan,14:34) of having made a “personal attack” there by being not civil, impolite and/or disrespectful. I asked him (6Jan,14:02) how he meant that.

LP then replied/repeated/explained/threatened/accused/bullied (6Jan,14:36):
- “your rude comments…”
- “[do] not comment on other editors”
- “you have been warned”
and (14:50):
- “[you] insult and belittle…an experienced editor”
- “your behaviour is disruptive”
- “stay off this talk page…”
- “…(for a while) and I’ll not pursue this”
and (14:56):
- “quite inappropriate to do that”
- “… Your comments and behaviour are quite offensive…”
- “… and could easily result in sanctions like a topic ban or block”
- “If you stay off Talk Syrian War for a while I'll save myself the effort of reporting you”
- “…but if you continue acting inappropriately…”
- “… all this will become evidence”
- “ [you are] warned again”.

Apparently, according to LP’s explanation, the whole blow up is about LP reproving me for criticizing specific edits of specific editors including himself which he considers “commenting on other editors” which he fiercely denounces as not “civil”, “rude”, “impolite/disrespectful” and “personal attack” and – (partly) perhaps bearing on my later edit TalkSCW6Jan,14:23 but in that case in my opinion equally unjustified: there, too, a simple disagreement on content is no ground for such incriminating and bullying – reproving me for being “insulting”, “belittling”, “disruptive”, “inappropriate” and “offensive”; reason(s) for LP to try to extirpate all that with threats/injunctions like “you are warned” (2x), “...pursue this” , “reporting you” , “all this…evidence”, “sanctions like…”, and “stay off this talk page” (2x).
Since when is criticism on actions/edits of Wiki colleagues off-limits? Why does LP call criticism/comment on an edit “comment on an editor”? (‘Edit’ is not ‘editor’.) If my criticism would have been unjust LP could simply have said so or have reproven the criticism – but even a refuted or refutable criticism isn’t automatically a disrespectful or impolite criticism nor automatically an unacceptable personal attack – but Legacypac never even tried to rebut that criticism, he straight resorted to his threatening and cowing habit.

Meanwhile, editor Knowledgekid87 seems to have been enticed to join in that LP’s game of groundlessly accusing me (6Jan,14:31-32): of wittingly “reviving” a debate that “has died” and of being uncivil – ofcourse also without specifying my incivility – just to have me (and you) wondering and intimidated – safe behind Legacypac’s back and at the same time covering LP’s back: another reason perhaps why it is high time now to call an end to that (presumably contagious) harassing/intimidating/bullying mentality of Legacypac’s? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to provide diffs of the problematic behavior I warned , Corriebertus about but he kindly provided them himself. So here Corriebertus is Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion and here he removes a close [80] by User:Knowledgekid87 to continue discussing changing the name of the Syrian Civil War to "The Early 21st Century War in Syria". Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death and clearly is not going to happen. Last formal request [81] plus the archives are littered with informal move requests. Admins should also look at [82], and soliciting an editor into this discussion I have no interest in interacting with [83] [84]

As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized and the user needs to get over it. The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted. The allegation that I cursed is not true. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I fail to see any incivility by Corriebertus. I'm becoming annoyed with your sensitive skin. I'm not addressing the move requests here – that's not the issue that was brought to us. The issue is your conduct, and it has been brought to ANI over and over again. Corriebertus is being completely civil and your outrage over his tone is uncalled for. People are allowed to discuss issues, and disagreeing with you is not a license to get all bowed up and ruffled. He is allowed on any talk page unless he has been topic banned, and he is allowed to ask questions of editors whom you don't like. What is your problem, and why shouldn't we consider your behavior to be chronic disruption? Katie^talk 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just read this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Is_the_title_correct.2C_.22Civil_War.22.3F and WP:CANVASSING an editor who was banned specifically for his interactions with me is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I already read that discussion. Now answer my question. Katie^talk 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor did not like the answers given after they continue to push a rename that is never going to happen, told other editor to get out of the discussion and accussed them of not discussing, and reverted a discussion close 2x. I warned the editor and moved on. Several weeks later they start this thread. That's it. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I understand the frustration with the constant move discussions; but, I think Katie's points are well taken. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, have been on the receiving end of Legacypac's bullying, thin-skin hyperbolic reactivity, personal attacks, and groundless accusations recently and in the past. Why he hasn't been dealt with more severely by now for his behavior is beyond my understanding. KrakatoaKatie's assessment of "chronic disruption" is wholly on the mark, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Several days ago WV removed my talk comments and when I restored them used that dif to accuse me of breaking 3RR. I can dig up difs but it was in an unrelated 3RR report I filed. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If the comments were on WV's talk page, theyhave every right to remove them at will, and you were in the wrong to restore them. This is standard practice, and it's probably enshrined in a guideline somewhere as well. If your comments were on an article's talk page, then WV should not have removed them unless they satisfied one of the criteria outlined in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• While it is on my watchlist, I have been uninvolved with the Syrian Civil War article nor have I met or had any contact with Corriebertus before. I agreed with Legacypac that this edit was not civil: [85], what does it even mean "Seriously discussing"? Corriebertus points out my edit here [86] but never explained what he got out of all the past discussions that were held already on the matter. Given the past consensus I suggested to wait a month or two [87] which in my mind seemed reasonable. What I am seeing now is more of a WP:POINTy attitude that the discussion MUST be held now despite ones that had already taken place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know what this is about, don't care, and am uninvolved in all of this. That said, while I don't spend much time at ANI, every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search [88] seems to indicate I'm not imagining this. That's all. LavaBaron (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WV conduct

@BMK to answer your question WV removed my comments on an AfD [89] which I restored [90]. He then calls for a boomarang at a related 3RR.[91] (sorry not sure how to link to diffs in a closed 3RR) and when I ask "why the heck are you deleting my comments?" he "votes" again with "Another Support for boomerang following this[92] revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV"

I'm a little frustrated that WV has

• Deleted my comment at AfD, and when this is questioned...,

• Called restoring my own comment on an AfD breaching 3RR,

• Wording his comments in such a way to look like there are two editors calling for a boomarang - leading his second comment with "Another Support"

• then coming here saying I'm using "personal attacks, and groundless accusations"? He sure likes to call for Boomerangs... Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Administrators and editors please take note that Legacypac opened this subsection as a complaint regarding my conduct 3 1/2 hours ago [93], but I was never notified by him that he had done so. When Chesnaught555 kindly informed me of this on my talk page just a short while ago [94], Legacypac immediately responded to Chesnaught's comments here with a very lame excuse: "I responded to allegations he made in the thread, so notification is fine but I don't believe it is required." While I do believe Legacypac is trying to distract by starting an entire sub-section about me, I don't believe his reason for the non-notification. If he were merely "responding to allegations", he would have just responded, not started a sub-thread calling for a boomerang and looking for someone he views as an enemy be blocked. This, clearly, is retaliation for my comments above. It's obvious bullying. Further, he's been here long enough to know that something like this requires a notification. The strange creation of sub-thread, the attempt to distract, the suggestion of a boomerang being appropriate when it's not, the retaliation, and the non-notification only further prove Legacypac's disruptive behavior and battleground mentality, making the initial report by Corriebertus to be a legitimate and necessary filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor doth protest too much, methinks. This is an active discussion already involving you, the section name contains the abbreviation of your username that you show in your signature, I suspect you have this page watchlisted. The odds you would have been discussed here without your knowledge are slim to none. Failing to notify you might have been a minor faux pas but it didn't warrant the above arm-waving. And, WV, your use of "battleground mentality" to refer to another editor is pot-kettle in spades. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been too busy today researching sources for an article and working on it to take time to notice or care what Legacypac has been doing here or anywhere. Moreover, if I knew about his mention of me here (as you are trying to claim), why would I ignore it? In spite of your ridiculous allegations, Mandruss, this filing is not about me, regardless of how you are trying to spin it and as much as Legacypac wishes his behavior and editing style were not under scrutiny right now. Congratulations on doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia but doing everything to further the distraction created by Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A wall of text with no answer to my diff substantiated allegations or diffs to support WV's serious allegations against me. I was recently blocked for failing to convince admins to sanction (what I later realized was) an Admin and Lugnuts about editor misconduct. Can we expect the same for WV here? Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I'm not here to pile on to a witch-hunt (no, really), but I think there's possibly some WP:CIR issues with Legacypac. I'd like to believe he's editing in good faith, esp. as he's been here since 2007, but some of his recent activity is akin to someone who doesn't really understand the basics. Aside from the misguided enforcement request against me, there have been some bizarre deletion rationales at AfD of late. For example, one and two. I hope that future AfD rationales can be built on policy, as other users might see it as being disruptive. Unless anyone else has anything of substance to add, I recommend this is closed as I don't think it's going anywhere. Obviously bring back concerns to ANI if issues are continuing AND there's clear evidence of no improvement. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We did have an issue recently in which Legacypac AFD-ed a discretionary sanctions article, the AfD failed, and he went ahead and did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) of the article five hours after his AfD failed [95], then undid other editors attempts to repair it. Some of us asked him on his Talk page to self-revert and he basically told us to drop dead. An admin finally had to intervene to undo the blanking [96]. It caused more than a minor inconvenience as we were trying to settle the article for the DYK queue at the time. LavaBaron (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use your content dispute to try to paint me as bad. The close was keep, but with explicit direction "The result was keep. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)" which I had already done on Oct 28 (7 days before).[97] and only LavaBaron opposed. Given the other comments on the AfD including a Delete, and a "Keep and Merge" I decided to be bold. There is an open merge proposal on the proposed target [98] which shows I continued to seek consensus. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) Do not characterize this as a "content dispute" unless you have some diffs. I had no involvement in the page, or the topic range at all, other than some minor copyediting to conduct a QPQ for DYK. This is not a topic area, nor article, on which I edit. (2) Do not start firing smoke round diffs to make this look like something more complicated than it was. You AfD'ed an article, your AfD failed [99], you did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) less than five hours after your AfD failed [100]. Polite attempts to reach-out to you by multiple editors were rebuffed in aggressive fashion and an admin ultimately had to intervene to undo your damage [[101]. That this was an article under discretionary sanctions should have landed you a 30-day block right then, but everyone involved in this (myself included) were coming from DYK Review and had no interest in the topic area to pursue it. LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac has a clear track record of disruptive and deceptive behavior to force their own preferences over established policy and practice. Less than two months ago, they ended up here because they were NAC-ing articles as delete, sometimes not even acknowledging NAC closes, then applying speedy tags to try and trick admins into thinking that these were just deletions that had fallen through the cracks. Their anti-Neelix jihad has been a long-term disruption. It's astonishing what some editors are allowed to get away with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To this I can only say hogwash to this "disruptive and deceptive " characterization. This issue was extensively discussed at ANi, DRV, and various talk pages with zero action taken against me. There is clear policy arguments for and against my one NAC delete close which BTW survived a DRV. I've not done a NAC close since - too much grief. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, I don't spend much time at ANI but every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search of the archives of this noticeboard seems to indicate I'm not imagining this, that the last couple of years has been a parade of warning after warning he's been given. This is not the track record one would expect of a normal, content-focused WP editor. He seems to know how to push just far enough with his edits and how to be just nasty enough with other editors to only get yellow cards. My limited interaction with him just in this thread has left less than a good taste in my mouth - instead of offering explanation or reasonable rebuttal for questions about his edits his first inclination is to unsheathe the knives and start swinging. He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl. LavaBaron (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting an IP block

I am requesting an indefinite IP block for following two users which are created to insult me personally. Both of them are obscene and mean really bad in Urdu:

1. User:Jinnah ka lund choos (means "Suck Jinnah's dick"
2. User:SheriffIsInTown apni ammi ki choot mein peshab kiya (Don't want to tell the meaning, just block it please)

These users were created after I had weeks of edit conflicts on Bangladesh articles with User:Akbar the Great along with heated conversations.

I was thanked by these two user accounts after I replied to User:Vinegarymass911's oppose vote on move request which I am supporting at Talk:2016 Ouagadougou attacks. I thanked this user earlier for an edit on that same page. I have also interacted with this user on Bangladesh articles and we kind of have opposing views but User:Akbar the Great did not seem very happy with User:Vinegarymass911's edits and he expressed that during talk discussions so it might be a ploy.

I have an ongoing conflict with User:Vaibhav.times at Adnan Sami and earlier today he left me a kind of nasty message on my talk page.

Not sure who created those two accounts but if someone can find out their relative location and see who that matches with. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 06:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be sober discussing about some topics and don't blame someone without any proof, i said some relevant things and for your information i haven't created these accounts .. Please stop bullying people on your behalf . Anyone can check the messages which were in discussion on his page rather than going so low and blaming someone. Vaibhav.times (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2nd name is something on the order of "SherrifIsInTown to piss in your mother's [something]" (Google Translate's translation was "discount" but that doesn't seem to make sense, nor do the alternates it provides). Both names appear to be flagrant violations of WP:USERNAME and should be username blocked, if not indef blocked as sockpuppets. BMK (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@BMK [something] means le arse. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks, I can put that problem behind me now. BMK (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

These two ids should be blocked at once because they are insult to religion as well as personal attack and whosoever involved should be punished too by blocking his/her ip too. Only my two cents that why MR Sheriff is always in conflict with most of the editors? And even for reason he is it doesn't give him any right to point fingers on others without any valid proof. It is some sort of name shame and getting so low to prove his point Vaibhav.times (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He most certainly has the right to bring their usernames to the community's attention, since, as you agree, they are flagrantly insulting. BMK (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

True but only conflicting usernames, not of the editors whom he differ in views on some topics. It is just relating them to the conflicting usernames and it is sort of name shame for them without any intention and reason. Once you have proper proof you can bring in anyone's name but not just basis of your useless and pointless imagination. Vaibhav.times (talk)vaibhavthedestroyer--- 07:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@BMK I think @User:SheriffIsInTown should open a sockpuppet investigation on these two. Although it is not fully through the "red tape" but no one can deny this kind of blatant sock puppetry. a simple checkuser will show which accounts are connected to these guys. I am quite sure it will be a nasty surprise for the person who did this.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: beat me to blocking both. I'd open a SSP regarding these. SQL^{Query me!} 07:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I blocked both of those accounts. I hard blocked them so any account on the same IPs will be autoblocked. HighInBC 07:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:SheriffIsInTown so proof is infront of you, please don't blame people randomly Vaibhav.times (talk)

@Vaibhav.times: You can't edit your comment like that to ping someone. You have to have the ping template, and sig in the same edit. @SheriffIsInTown: SQL^{Query me!} 08:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why have I been dragged into this? Sheriff, if you thought I had something to do with this, I would consider you paranoid.

A few weeks back I saw this. Isn't there a way for Wikipedia to block certain words being used as a username? Who has pig as a username? I'm sure these two accounts will be similarly blocked. I also condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the attacks on Sheriff.--Akbar the Great (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well there's Pigsonthewing, just to name one right off the top of my head. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with "pig" in a username - it's all about context. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Bushranger and User:HighInBC this seems to be a serial offender who uses some Ip other than his to do his dirty work. The pattern of "thanking for edits" is telltale. My 24 november notifications show that this occurred against me with the stupidly named User:FreeatlastChitchat watched his sister taking bath and User:FreeatlastChitchat is a madarchod. Perhaps there can be some work done to unmask the real guy behind this? not sure how though. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've suggested a request so that the words maybe added to DQBot's blacklist. Feel free to vet it here. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Urgent range block and page protections needed

Unfortunately our 'old friend', the sick IP troll operation out of UAE who caused a month of extensive disruption and some fifty thousand ranged block IPs is back. As usual, he targets articles about both Christianity [102], [103], [104], myself [105], and Islam [106], [107], [108]. As well learned far too well in November, the only thing that works against this extremely persistent troll is extensive range blocks and temporary protection of his targets. So I propose a range block on the appropriate IP range and a page protection of the following articles. No doubt it will be expanded; in November this same troll moved on to new pages but the extensive range blocks combined with extensive protections eventually got rid of him, but apparently the blocks have expired.

• List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
• User:Jeppiz
• Paul the Apostle
• Talk:Jesus
• Talk:Christianity

Jeppiz (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have never been blocked at all.--31.219.124.159 (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You have now. Do we have a link to previous discussions? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The history of my page, and the page of DeCausa show how this troll harassed us continuously in November, often with up to 10 different IPs per day and using the very same insults. I'll check for the links from NovemberJeppiz (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it is the same one as the various UAE IPs, that kept reverting my CopyVio nominations at The Great Mosque of Algiers. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, yes both of them. I've personally blocked him/her before as 176.204.186.17 (talk · contribs · block log). I think we just need to determine which ranges would be appropriate at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• The background Here's a discussion from November about the same user [109], involving myself, DeCausa, Cliftonian, Diannaa, Blackmane, Harrias and others. As I said, only a combination of protection and range blocks (not limited to just 24 hours) seem to work. Jeppiz (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Islamist terrorist attacks is full-protected until the 24th. I have added semi-protection (1 year) to Paul the Apostle. User:Jeppiz is already semi'd indefinitely. Edits to Talk:Christianity and Talk:Jesus will be taken care of by range block of 31.219.96.0/19, which we can do with minimal collateral damage. Looking at the previous ANI and the above info, there's three ranges this time. I have checked checked back to the beginning of December for collateral damage on these three ranges, which I have range-blocked for one month:

• 31.219.96.0/19 (covers 65536 IPs) - little collateral damage
• 176.204.0.0/16 (65536 IPs) - there looks to be more people using the range this time, but there's little useful work coming from there
• 2.48.0.0/16 (65536 IPs) - A few useful edits, but mostly not. — Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

User:SWASTIK 25 violating WP:NFCC#9

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

---

The user continues violating WP:NFCC#9 on the page User:SWASTIK 25/Sports Statistics & Trivias and removes the warning from his talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've not violated WP:NFCC#9 more than once (though mistakenly). And Stefan2 doesn't have the authority to decide what to keep or remove from my personal talk page. Thank you. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 14:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically you are encouraged to archive, not remove, but ya, you can remove it if you want as long as you at least listen to the warning. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not correct. You have reposted the non-free content three times today. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Stefan2, SWASTIK 25 reverted your removal of the image here, but then after you commented it out again, SWASTIK 25 changed it to not actually have the image in it - see here. You then mistakenly reverted that. So I see nothing that needs doing here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Echo reported that my edit had been reverted, and this confused me. Then it seems that there is nothing to do. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, users are allowed to removed warnings from their talk page - it's usually taken as a sign that they've read them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Boing! said Zebedee :) — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Swastik Chakraborty. We do not own our user pages any more than the articles we edit or create. Although a user page can technically be edited by anyone, it is generally considered inappropriate to edit another's user page. Most experienced editors will refrain from editing another's user page, unless they have a good policy based reason, such as the things listed in WP:UPNOT, for doing so. In this particular case, Stefan2 was removing a non-free image from your user page per WP:UP#Non-free images because such images are only allowed to be used (i.e., "displayed") in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. In order to avoid NFCC#9 in the future, I recommend you verify the licensing of any images you wish to add to your user page or user subpages before actually doing so. Freely licensed images may be added to sandboxes, drafts, etc., but non-free images should not. If you're not sure whether an image is freely licensed, then feel free to ask for assistance at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

Elvey was indefinitely topic banned from COI matters by the community per this. The topic ban started Aug 7 2015 and runs 6 months. Elvey has violated this ban many times, and has been warned once by admin JamesBWatson here and was reminded of the TB last week by me here.

My warning came due to his TB violations in the past month:

• Here
• here
• here
• here
• further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1., mentioned above. I didn't go further back in time than that.

After my warning, Elvey made the following edits just this morning:

this

this to a section he started claiming COI-driven editing in an article about a drug.

These three edits to the article about David Healy (who writes about COI in the pharma industry), to its section on Conflicts of Interest in the pharma industry, here and here about a "bombshell" and here and went on to add content about the "bombshell" to a drug article, here.

More broadly, he has been pursuing an SPI case about an editor he believes has a COI with regard to drug articles (per this already-presented dif and any others. His pursuit of that SPI case became so disruptive that admin Vanjagenije wrote this: "I now officially ask you to stop participating in WP:SPI. You are not welcome here any more. Your comments are full of insults towards other users who just wanted to understand you and to help This is a huge waste of time."

Elvey has disregarded the community-imposed topic ban. He seems to be unable to deal with COI matters in WP without being disruptive and he has a substantial blog log.

I suggest a 48 block to stop his current run of TB-violating edits, and an extension of his topic ban on COI matters to indefinite, with the standard offer to lift it. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (striking per note below Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC))

As I understand, his topic ban is already indefinite, and "may be appealed to the community in six months". This does not mean that it expires in six months, but that It may be appealed in six months. So, your second proposal is redundant. And, with respect to your first proposal, I have no idea what is a "48 block". Vanjagenije (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Vanjagenije for pointing that out - I have corrected my posting above. I thought the community had been more lenient than it had been. (I meant 48 hours btw) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand the topic ban to be with respect to COI as defined here at wikipedia:COI, broadly construed. I will hold off on any further related editing 'till this is clarified. As I am under the ban, I am almost entirely unable to defend myself without violating it, so I will not comment further unless asked. I am proud that opened an SPI on a user who has since been banned for confirmed sockpuppetry and who has no respect for WP:NPOV, though of course Jytdog routinely defends him to the hilt. Jytdog and this user have on occasion done good work. I have attempted to avoided mentioning whether the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI as much as possible. Even assuming I have said that I think the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI, which I believe I have not, should that immunize the user from my opening the obviously well-deserved SPI on them? I think not. Jytdog fanatically defends this user, who has oft defended him in the past and this ANI is part of a defense strategy that others have noted.

Jytdog's diffs do not show what he says they show, by and large. And, it's difficult to avoid the occasional unintentional slip. And, I've slipped on occasion; and I apologize for that and am trying not to.

Jytdog is currently edit warring to re-introduce material to support his extremely non-NPOV. This material is unacceptable and in violation of Jytdog's own expressed views on what content is acceptable WRT WP:MEDRS that he has espoused when removing material supported by equally topical sources of equal quality, but which opppose his extremely non-NPOV. (Diffs upon request.)

Recently, I have twice asked Jytdog,"Do you have any alternative accounts?" but he vaguely states, "I have nothing to say" and shut down the thread instead of responding. A sentence in WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... , and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Jytdog, in being unresponsive to this good-faith question, stands in violation our WP:CIVIL policy until he responds.

I have respected Vanjagenije's ban, as much as I disagree with the basis for it. It served to let Vanjagenije get away thus far with being unresponsive to good-faith questions. It is unfounded; I insulted no one; I posed probing, reasonable questions, and commented on behavior, as our policies encourage us to do, but I could have been even more civil, I'm sure.

I would like to get back to editing.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: As you probably noticed, this is administrators' noticeboard, not your own. If you edit other people's comments just once more, I will block you immediately. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I don't know everything that has happened at that SPI, but it seems to have angered you, so I think you should consider yourself involved as far as Elvey is concerned. He's frustrated because of the way the SPI has been handled, you're frustrated because he's not doing as you ask, and things are escalating. Now Jytdog wants a ban. Please look up how often Jytdog has asked for blocks and bans in the last two years. We need de-escalation. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We need Elvey to abide by his topic ban until he properly appeals it. He never expressed an understanding of why he was topic banned; he makes no acknowledgement here that he understands he has violated the topic ban. We don't de-escalate in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• In light of my incorrect understanding of Elvey's topic ban I struck my original recommendation above. I think it is important to make a proposal, so I will make a new one. I am asking for a 6 month block for Elvey in light of the above, and his continued disruption here in order to prevent further disruption (e.g editing my post as Vanjagenije mentions above, in this dif. Making it appear that I edited Vanjagenije's quote and called it an "unfounded personal attack" is really out of bounds.) Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support some sort of block. I'm not sure what the appropriate length of the block should be, but there are serious issues here. I am going to provide some further specific evidence below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang?

Jytdog is currently under an ArbCom-imposed topic ban for matters related to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted

ArbCom found

1. that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.
2. Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility.

In discussing Formerly 98, Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban, as Formerly 98 edited in these areas, logically, if I'm in violation of my TB for discussing his edits. (Evidence: diff shows extensive GMO discussion with Jytdog)

Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?

Oh, and that's an interesting diff for other reasons too - look HOW Pharmacia & Élan are mentioned! Perhaps some users can edit in alignment with WP:NPOV even despite such employment relationships. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nonsense I'm afraid your log is much longer than any boomerang you could possess. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about me. When it comes to Boomerang, it's about Jytdog' violation of an ArbCom-imposed topic ban. Nice try deflecting the discussion tho.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think it's an automatic right that everyone has at AN/I. This is not the case, and it is patently clear that in fact you are trying to deflect axamination and discussion of your actions; this will, of course, fail. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's entirely possible for the boomerang to hit and take both of them out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldnt that just be a stick? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah... the prototype Mk I? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see any violation by Jytdog here of the topic ban concerning GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions

Does Elvey's ban indeed extend to anything related to User:Formerly 98, including any articles he edited?
Does it extend to a ban on to any editor ever accused by anyone of CoI?--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• No. If he does not discuss CoI, articles edited by and issues relating to sockpupptery by User:Formerly 98 are open to Elvey. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, can somebody PLEASE show this editor how to format properly?! That seems to have ben sorted- by everyone else anyway! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Related problems

Separately from anything that Jytdog has, or can, present here, Elvey has also shown some very belligerent conduct recently, that violates both the community topic ban over COI [110] (note that the ban covers "COI, broadly construed"), and discretionary sanctions recently issued by ArbCom. The DS are enacted here, and include this principle prohibiting editors from casting aspersions of other editors having COIs on behalf of GMO companies on pages subject to the DS. The page on Glyphosate and its talkpage are in the scope of the DS.

Very recently, Elvey posted this: [111], at that talk page; note the middle paragraph. Elvey clearly raises an aspersion that another editor is editing with a COI on behalf of GMO companies "with deep pockets". Subsequent discussion: [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], and [118]. Elvey adopts the fantastical position that he is not at all mentioning COI, and that anyone who disagrees with him lacks reading comprehension skills. He is shrill and battleground-y, continuing the behavior that led to his existing topic ban. All of this conduct over time is of a single piece, and it needs to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as a COI allegation. He wrote: "We MUST NOT WP:IAR in order to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets, no matter how shrilly or repetitively [User:X] demands that we do so."

He's expressing the view that an editor is being repetitive and shrill in the defence of a big company that can look after itself, and that we ought not to ignore our policies to suit that company. (I haven't looked at the dispute, so I have no idea whether I'd agree; I'm saying only how I would understand that sentence.) SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And he clarified that here and here, at the time, when you wrote that you had understood it as a COI allegation. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not credible, in context. No one just comes along "to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets" simply out of editorial judgment. It's part and parcel with what the ArbCom case found in other editors. And there was nothing shrill about the other editor, nor, for that matter, do I have a lack of English reading comprehension. Those are not clarifications. They are continuations of the same conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I point out that the problem with Elvey is not just his fixation on COI or SPI (where topic bans might have some use), but in his characteristic behaviour of belligerence – "shrill and battleground-y" – towards other editors when he feels crossed. As Tryptofish says: "All of this conduct over time is of a single piece....". In addition to the examples from Talk:Glyphosate cited above, note the very similar behavior at Talk:Levofloxacin#Pictures_of_text, which went on to WP:Files for discussion/2016 January_5#File:Levofloxacin-black-box.png, then spilled over to User_talk:Steel1943#January_2016.

Curiously, "fantastical" is the same word that came to me last night as I tried to characterize Elvey's statements. His understanding of other editors' comments, even of his own behavior, often seems quite skewed (as well as asymmetric). And I suspect he does not understand just how wide of the bases he runs. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been a while since I sat for an examination of my reading comprehension skills, but I got a perfect score. When an editor (this is fairly common practice, it just happens to be Elvey today) repeatedly makes allusions to opponents that support "companies with big pockets" in the context of a content dispute, they're making a COI accusation. They are aware of this or else they wouldn't couch their wording so. When the same editor then denies it, they are insulting our collective intelligence, such as it is. Here we can find out if we have any. Geogene (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

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

---

Hi. Castanea dentata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account that used to edit exclusively in the area of English ecclesiastical history, and went dark in 2009. It's now suddenly reappeared purely to add a comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Californias accusing another user of being a sockpuppet. I suspect that it's compromised. The comment immediately following it is from an obvious sockpuppet account, WCCCasey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with a name impersonating the editor being accused by the other account. Could someone with experience in handling this sort of thing please investigate? Thank you.  — Scott • talk 17:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

{{inprogress}} Mike V • Talk 18:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Confirmed:

Castanea dentata (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

WCCCasey (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Wighson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It appears to me to be a good hand, bad hand situation. I've blocked the 3 accounts indefinitely. Mike V • Talk 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Very peculiar since Wighson and Castanea denata both had been editing since 2005! Simultaneous compromising, perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible threat of self-harm?

Any available Admins in the house:

Advised to post here in case not seen on IRC. Link: [119] Seems to be calling it a 'warning.'

Posted as per Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm#Contact_administrators. Cheers _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

On it. I'll email the WMF. Mike V • Talk 18:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I just emailed the WMF as well, didn't see your post. BethNaught (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both. Better too many cooks than too few in this situation. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Long-term low-frequency blanking on Talk:Perry Hall High School.

Since July 2015 IPs have consistently removed a valid comment on said Talk page. Today's repetitive blanking resulted in a (currently already challenged [120]) 31 hrs block for the IP involved today, for vandalism [121].

The Article Talk page History [122] shows persistent blanking of (the only) comment on that page, every, say, 3 weeks or so since July 2015, untill now. Today, January 17th the involved IP was more persistent and blanked various times in a row, and even accused others - in his/her edit summary - of fabricating his (nazi) comment at someone's User page [123].

My question is, are all these listed IPs to be considered SPs? And, how can this page be protected from this blanking, since it concerns a Talk page, which is usually only semi-protected for a short time, so I have a hunch that would not help very long (given the edit History of the Article)? Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC).

In the unusual case, which this is, of vandalism of a talk page, I would advise requesting semi-protection of the talk page for a longer time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP tends to be fairly stable, one or two repeatedly for a while, not lots of them all at once. And they typically make bad edits to multiple other pages too. I've taken to giving longer-term blocks to the IPs as they pop up. DMacks (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the talk page for 3 days. You can make an argument for longer protection at WP:RPP. It does appear looking at the different IPs that they originate in the same town. The current IP account who was reverting was given a six month block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why only 3 days? We should place a much longer semi-protection on the talk page. It is clear, the talk page is just being used for vandalism from the IPs. Meatsgains (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Range block needed

Hello,

Upon recommendation of HJ Mitchell, as he's very busy, I'm linking this here. Could some admin that is able to please perform a range block on this? Its some very nasty disruptive IP hopping that involves numerous articles, and its going like this for quite a time. Not only is this IP hopping being highly disruptive as foremost and obvious duh.. reason, its also very annoying for many users here. Furthermore, he's often warring, adding factually incorrect info, and what not. Its basically sockpuppeting through an extensive number of IP's. Therefore, this range should be blocked as its not only a violation of Wikipedia's policies, it furthermore also hurts Wikipedia's content and integrity. (Page protections have been made for a few articles, but it won't help given the large scale of articles he edits). I suggest that if the user genuinely wants to contribute to this place, he should create an account, and not resort to extensive IP hopping.

• 2600:1001:B108:5C2A:4147:4DD3:DCA:3D1B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B010:9EEE:1D6B:8EBB:FB63:F963 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B028:C7BF:B1F3:3AA9:79C:4502 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B11D:977D:A517:5FBA:AAD3:D458 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B009:A831:A5EF:A130:C8E:4CAC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B005:DBE2:C981:22C3:A25C:6F3F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B120:119B:1C59:B5D3:F248:81E7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B02A:FD5E:956E:BC34:6CBD:6CCC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B00F:5E95:C906:C2C7:7DA1:7557 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B02F:340:809B:4820:B1B5:818B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1001:B125:7270:8127:5D7F:CAF6:604E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Bests (excuse me if this wasn't the right ANI page for this to be placed) - LouisAragon (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on a module to calculate IP ranges and have put a demo of what it does with the above here (permalink). It's not very helpful, I'm afraid. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Base range is 2600:1001:b000::/39. MediaWiki only allows /64 blocks for a reason, of course. RangeContribs seems to give only a handful edits. (Also, why does the tool not support IPv6 CIDR ranges.) I think, a softblock for the range is safe, of course the blocking admin will have to block several /64 blocks. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 07:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Returning troll

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

---

A troll that used to hound me has has returned after 6 years under the new IP 31.55.82.48 and started to revert my edits with with the simple edit sumamry "rv v" that they used back then as well. This is the only way the user communicates, and they continuously come back under new IP addresses. All the user's previous IPs have resolved to the UK, and all to the ISP "BT". This new one does as well. When this started way back, I tried to report the user to their ISP back then but ran into a roadblock: The ISP was cooperative, but I was told to produce "server logs", which I'm unsure how to obtain from Wikipedia, so I would appreciate it if someone here could aid in this process if this user is indeed back to their nonsense. The furthest I got back then was trying to contact one of the wikipedia Bureaucrats. In light of all of this, I'm not going to leave an ANI notice on the IP's talk page to avoid giving them recognition.

Here is an example of the user's edits. Search for "rv v" to find them. Going back over the WHOIS information for the IPs, two names stand out: "preston.dialip@bt.com" "steve.r.wright@bt.com"; they show up for all the IPs the troll has used for the edits on the aforementioned article, but the new IP mentions "mark.a.barrett@bt.com". I don't have much experience with IP addresses so I could be way off thinking this is current or reliable information, but I figured I need to give you guys something to work with. Eik Corell (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I see four edits for that user, all of which are constructive. Can you link to specific instances?142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

They're not. They're just blind reverts of the last 4 edits in my history at the time. Same pattern: Edit summary "rv v"(reverting vandalism) just like they did on the article I mentioned above. Here is a list of the contributions of one of their many, many previous IPs from over 6 years back, doing the same thing to other articles. They had a "favorite" set of articles, including the two I've mentioned, but they eventually started attacking my contributions to other articles that they themselves were not involved in. Here is a specific example of that. Eik Corell (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Erik, I was about to do something, but I see Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Predictably, the user is back under a new IP: 86.187.217.30, so I'm going to need you guys' help here with the technical stuff~above; Apart from the links that I included, what else am I capable of getting my hands on as far as server logs go? Also, is it actually the bureaucrats I need to go to? Tried that last time, but the one I was able to find told me that for all intents and purposes, the history page IS the server logs, in which case, do I just send them a link to the article's history? Doesn't seem like that's gonna cut it. Eik Corell (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Returned again

Adding to this, several other IPs involved in this long term, generally focused on undoing all edits by WP:VG members who are making edits based on WP:VGSCOPE. The currently active IP is 86.187.173.156 (talk · contribs), who is currently reverting the same edits of @Eik Corell.

Other IPs that have been involved in the last week: 31.51.232.222 (talk · contribs), 31.55.82.48 (talk · contribs), 86.187.217.30 (talk · contribs). I know of older IPs with the same behavior but they were active in December. -- ferret (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

86.187.173.156 blocked for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks/vandalism only account

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

---

A new user called Wikipedia page damager just vandalised an article and used highly inappropriate insults aimed at the living person that the article is about and the bot that originally reverted the user. Is there any way we can get this user blocked and his/her edits removed from being visible, per RD2? ([124] [125]) The user's username pretty much says it all. DarkKnight2149 07:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I indef'ed the user. The edits themselves seem too much like garden-variety vandalism, doesn't rise to the level of requiring action beyond reversion IMO. Other admins are welcome to take stronger action to hide them further. DMacks (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Uservk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removing notices on Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital (SMVMCH) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

---

This user keeps removing a speedy deletion notice, despite being asked not to do so and despite the issues not being resolved.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

I deleted the page and left him a warning on his talk page. If he continues similar behavior, please contact me. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

National Society of Collegiate Scholars edited repeatedly by user Nscs in clear violation of WP:CORPNAME and WP:COI; other users potential COI

User Nscs (contribs) has exclusively edited pages relating to NSCS (National Society of Collegiate Scholars), and has claimed to be an NSCS employee. In addition to minor edits they have added the long list of NSCS sponsors to its page which is now in need of cleanup, and I have marked with WP:Advert. Several other users and IPs editing National_Society_of_Collegiate_Scholars are suspect, removing content that negatively portrays NSCS (example) and adding advertisement-like content. The article needs cleanup and further investigation (perhaps to be kicked downstairs to regular users), and action should be taken against user NSCS for clear policy violations. Saposhiente (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not obvious to me that a mostly lower case rendition of the acronym of a rather obscure organization screams WP:CORPNAME at me "unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Their last edit to that page was in February 2014 and several other editors have changed the page since - don't see an issue here. Mike1901 (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I ripped out the list of sponsors as well as some other content-guideline ripping-outing (all unrelated to who contributed it, but thanks for brining that mess to my attention even if not admin-ish). DMacks (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Just slightly curious that- with the exception of today's edits- the nominator has made one edit since 2011. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit war regarding List of top international association football goal scorers by country

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

---

Recently, I've been engaged in edit wars several times with User:GoalsGalore while editing the List of top international association football goal scorers by country regarding the counting of official caps and goals of the soccer players. You can check it in the article's revision history. The user states that, the caps & goals that aren't officially acknowledged or counted by FIFA but by the football association or federation of the respective players' country, should also be included in the list. Should those be counted as fully official statistics, though not counted as official ones by FIFA? Please help me find a solution to it. Thank you. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 10:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything on the page is in line with reliable sources which I've provided. The only thing wrong here is User:SWASTIK25 being disruptive. GoalsGalore (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Then this is a content dispute, but one in which you both made a half-hearted attempt at TP discussion. That has now fizzled out, and you have both resorted to templating each other. That is why I suggest 36 hours... 24 for edit warring and 12 because both of you have clearly shown you know the way to resolve the dispute, but have chosen not to... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Both editors are as bad as each other, as ironically the OP seems to recognise. So, the solution he requests: I recommend 36 hours to cool their heels away from such thorny subjects as lists of international footballl scores, etc. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked GoalsGalore for 48 hours and SWASTIK 25 for 1 week (as he has been blocked for this before). GiantSnowman 13:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Request old versions for naked article

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

---

Jet Naked Airlines is a real airline. People hate sex and nakedness so several versions have been deleted.

Wikipedia is a joint effort. You cannot expect one editor to completely write an article. Besides that would be article ownership.

• • • • • • • • • • Please provide me with earlier deleted versions or add them to the talk page so I can build upon those earlier efforts of others.

Why help Wikipedia when peple try to delete your work? That is vandalism and harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tough sailor ouch (talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point on Jet Naked Airlines - unacceptable. Yes, it's funny, haha it's got the word naked in it, but maybe you should just write the article without the disruptive disclaimers. Chesnaught (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added five references, far more than billions of people on earth. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted versions may have more info which is why they are useful to see. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's besides the point. You have written disclaimers at the top, which isn't how we work here. Just write the article normally. I think maybe it would be a good idea if someone with rollback could revert it back to its original version. Is that what you are asking? Chesnaught (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This editor is most likely a sockpuppet of the editor who previously created this article. I won't list the reasons here per WP:BEANS, but any admin who digs a little deeper should be able to figure it out, and I would certainly recommend an SPI or CU. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ponyo, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The edits are coming from the same geolocation as Stephanie Bowman socks and contain the same hyperbole as previous socks ("Kill me now" "please don't murder me") etc.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

They're also using Tofino Hospital for Sheep as a  Confirmed sock. I'll be blocking both accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Typical wikipedia passive aggressive. Want to rob or bully someone, claim they are a sock. The previous versions are from TWO years ago. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have both declined the request for speedy deletion and rewritten the article based on the CBC story. I'm going to look at the old version and see if it has (a) salvageable content or (b) history that needs restored for attribution purposes.

That said, there are probably many reasons not to have an article yet (WP:TOOSOON, for one), but I think we need to evaluate the situation more. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Deleted versions date to 2014. Last version was mostly a complaint about the article keeping getting deleted, but I see a couple links to news stories. I'll scrape those to the talk page, but I don't think the history needs restored. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

major bias and error on the main page

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

---

On the main page is in the news. There is a woman's picture and says she is the President of Taiwan. This is a major erro. Look at the article. She is the president of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Big difference. Wikipedia is neutral, not siding with one side or another. Use of Taiwan alone plays favor to one side of the debate. There has been major discussion that WP is neutral.

Correction needed: "President of the Republic of China (Taiwan), not just Taiwan or not just China.Person 905 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no discussion to use Taiwan in this case. Most likely, it was a sloppy error. Person 905 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Is it time to semiprotect this page?

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

---

The United States Pony Clubs page is constantly being edited by vandals and well-meaning but not helpful newbies, often within hours of account creation. [126] [127] [128] As you can see from the diffs, these edits range from unnecessary trying-to-help to blatant vandalism. As you can see from the page history, the article has a long history of such edits, and it's a waste of many editors' time to keep reverting them every couple of days (I just reverted the latest less than 30 minutes ago). Is it time to semiprotect it from IPs and brand-new editors? White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is now semiprotected. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Joobo is harassing other editors and making personal attacks

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

Joobo, a single-purpose account, is harassing other editors and making personal attacks, primarily on Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks but also at User talk:Bastun and User talk:Malik Shabazz. I'd like to see them blocked, because this has been going on for more than a month.

Here are a few recent diffs:

• [129]
• [130]
• [131]
• [132]
• [133]

For dozens more, look at Special:Contributions/Joobo. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Joobo has been warned about their personal attacks repeatedly. Here are a few examples:

• May 14, 2015
• January 8, 2016
• January 9, 2016
• January 18, 2016
• January 18, 2016

And even those are just from their talk page. There have been more at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Joobo is definitely engaged in personal attacks, but how is the editor single purpose account? Out of 575 edits, he made 91 edits on List of Islamist terrorist attacks and 28 edits in Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. He has extensively edited Immigration to Germany and List of major home appliance manufacturers‎. Marvel Hero (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Joobo is an SPA because (a) 91 of their 202 mainspace edits have been to List of Islamist terrorist attacks. They made only 41 edits to Immigration to Germany (their second most popular article), only 34 to List of major home appliance manufacturers (their third most popular article), and no more than 10 edits to any other article. Of Joobo's 40 edits to talk pages, 34 have been to Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. See here. That's what makes them a single-purpose account. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Joobo's 575 edits include 286 to en.wiki and 289 to de.wiki. See here. I don't know anything about their behavior on de.wiki; only his behavior on en.wiki is relevant here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I expect that their edits to Immigration to Germany and List of Islamist terrorist attacks might share some common ground... Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. This is indicative enough of their...well, everything that could be wrong is. Personal attacks, playing the ball and not the man, total bias, you name it. For a forum post, see this. This--well, I think we all get the point. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you Drmies. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Close to a legal threat

This comment comes pretty close to making a legal threat. At the very least the user should be warned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I left a suggestion that SoIntSa may want to make it clear that they're not the one considering legal action. My interpretation is that they are implying RT may consider the allegation, that they are a propaganda mouthpiece for the Russian government, slanderous or libelous. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad behavior from User:Mona778

This user wrote to Jimbo Wales, referring to me and Yeza as "gang of Users...from the third world Latin American countries" because a situation in Spanish Wikipedia. We're sysops from that Wikipedia, and Mona778 had a local block because always erased his messages in the User talk page in Spanish Wikipedia. Also, we saw the same pattern in English Wikipedia and Commons. Seeing the history page he constantly erased the messages from ClueBot NG, Ponyo, AKS.9955 and me. So I reinstated the warnings because the user maybe don't want see warnings in his userpage. But, he uses Jimbo Wales as shield for any problem, maybe seeking a more powerful protection, and he accuses to us and the Spanish sysops as a possible "vendetta", and uses the misinformation pointing us as stalkers.

Mona778 created a Archive, but is empty, all the previous messages are missed. Now, recieved a warning message from a new user MPS1992, without any idea about me. I'm user from 2005, and 10 years old sysop from Spanish Wikipedia and another projects, also I was Meta sysop. So, I deduce that MPS1992 was manipulated because the misinformation of Mona778. Also, I demand an apologize from MPS1992, for this negligent response.

I won't revert the blankings of Mona778, also I won't revert the warning of MPS1992, but I need to reply this distorted situation. --Taichi (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)