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

User:NMMGG. Persistent refusal to stop suggesting my editing at Ezra Nawi has personal motives.

At Ezra Nawi, I thought on a WP:BLP article, it was obligatory to get the precise nature of the conviction clear as given in reports of Israeli court records which judged the relationship ‘consensual’. Every attempt to explain this necessity has been met by personal innuendoes as to my putative motivations. In repeating these innuendoes User:Bad Dryer was indeffed (see here).

The author of the innuendo, User:No More Mr Nice Guy persists in alluding to this, and suggests I am embarrassed by what I have written, embarrassed to the point of backpedalling, and too embarrassed to report him. The record is:

• (1) Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?
• (2) Considering you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind. 20:35, 29 January 2016
• (3) That's not what you said on the Ezra Nawi talk page, but kudos for feeling embarrassed enough to try to backpedal 21:31, 31 January 2016‎
• (4)Duly registered, meaning you won't report it because you're too embarrassed that what you said will get a wider audience.

WP:NPA Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. . . Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks.

These insinuations, fishing expeditions, challenges, and suggestions that on the topic of statutory rape I am 'embarrassed' or 'backtracking' and 'justify' it are as repetitive as those made by Bad Dryer. The editor some years ago tried to put it over I was an anti-Semite, and the case led to his banning from WP:AE. In both cases, the behavior is the same, language crafted to provoke some personal exchange by insinuating I have some dubious personal fixations. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the statement I was responding to. The discussion is about a minor who was the the cause of a statutory rape conviction against the topic of the article. I think the statement speaks for itself. I will only note that there's not a single source that makes this argument (unsurprisingly) or that puts the word "victim" in quotes (again, unsurprisingly).

As for the AE case, if someone wants to look into how a single admin closed an harassment case within 24 hours based on an assumption of bad faith, I would welcome that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• NMMGG's diff shows Nishidani adding a comment, but let's start from the beginning of that section, namely the first post at Talk:Ezra Nawi#NMMGG WP:OR. That post shows this diff of NMMNG editing the article to insert "statutory rape" at the beginning of a list of reasons for the BLP subject being convicted. Problem: the source does not mention "rape", statutory or otherwise. The source (nytimes.com) uses Nishidani's text that NMMNG replaced with rape in primary position. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

NMMGG construed (a) as personal advocacy (b)and said I repeatedly asserted this (putative)personal advocacy when I was, on the talk page, justifying an edit by citing what the sources stated (not my views). He then furthered suggested my position was identical to that of NAMBLA, an organization I'd never heard of.

The text he cites for my views is a patchwork of paraphrases and quotations.

'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him. And it was consensual, as his minimal sentence indicated. A victim is 'person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else. : a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else. : someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)', which, from the sources does not appear to be how the Palestinian saw this. In five years he never laid a complaint.

I let this pass, but leaving it go, has only lead to a follow-up train of nudging insinuations about what he fantasies to be my personal views. I can't see how this is not talking about the editor, rather than focusing on the content, as is required under WP:NPA. I am not calling for a ban. I am asking the board to get him to drop his puerile attempt to be a psychologist, which is proving disruptive to editing that page.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A. Those are indeed your views. Not a single source says the minor was not a victim or puts quotes around the word "victim", not to mention argues about the dictionary definition of "victim". B. Anyone following the diffs above can clearly see that every single time I was responding to you bringing the subject up. All you have to do is drop it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'?Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't have consensual sex with a minor, so regardless if it was "consensual" and the victim allowed it, and there was not enough evidence in the court of law to convict, just because the victim didn't testify doesn't mean there was no victim. What is the age of consent? Victims often times don't testify because they are scared or because they don't want to relive the rape. That doesn't mean that there was no victim. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not the point. It is obvious Nawi broke the law and deserved a prison sentence of at least 6 months (unlike the 30 IDF soldiers who had 'consensual' sex with a 12-13 year old Israeli girl for 2 years, and got 3-6 weeks camp detention. They got off lightly, being neither homosexual or human rights activists.)

NMMGG said I repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old (sic=37-8 year old) having sex with a 15 year old.All we have is a link to my summary of sources. He is obliged to document where I (suppoadly) repeatedly did this. If he can prove his claim is validated by several remarks I made, fine. If he can't then he has been engaged with a decidedly serious piece of calumny, which he repeated above, in the face of my objections ('Those are indeed your views.').Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That could be because you still say you should put victim in quotes. Just because the kid didn't testify doesn't make him not a victim. That is all I'm saying. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh good grief. I made an argument for that proposition. When the consensus said no, I didn't engage in a revert war or persist ('still'). I think the word 'victim' contradicts the word 'consensual', since it implies 'violence'. But, nota bene, I did not erase it, or substitute it with another term. It was a WP:BLP fine line call. Everyone in this area should know I am extremely finicky about niceties of usage. If, we have only Nawi's word for it, the 15 year old persisted in phoning him and wanting to stay at his home, then that doesn't fit the normal sense of 'victim'. Massie for one says there was 'no real victim'. John Costello and Dearbhail McDonald instead say the minor was a victim. You have a split in opinion in the sources, and when that occurs one has a simple choice, battle over 'victim' to keep or excise it according to a POV, or, as I did retain 'victim' in inverted commas, to signal the controversy. It's as simple as that, so simple NMMGG, convinced he has some specialist insight into my personal outlook, thinks he can smear me as pushing some NAMBLA agenda, when I am simply trying to edit a difficult article according to commonsense. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bad Dryer was blocked indefinitely by Drmies, and the block upheld by both Liz and HighInBC, for insinuating that Nishidani's BLP concerns at Ezra Nawi are motivated by some kind of paedophilic tendency.

Sir Joseph maintains the blocks result from Wikipedia's "shameful" bias against "pro-Israeli" editors [1], and No More Mr Nice Guy agrees. Despite this, NMMNG has themselves, at talk:Ezra Nawi, three times repeated the gross and insulting ad hominem that insinuates Nishidani's somehow pro-NAMBLA editing. NMMNG also defended Bad Dryer's insinuations before that user was indeff'd - which isn't surprising since they've repeated this themselves.

If NMMNG can't accept how disruptive it is to approach this topic while accusing other editors of some kind of paedophilia, they should not be editing here. -Darouet (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am coming here in response to the ping. In my opinion trying to gain advantage of a content dispute by accusing someone of child abuse is about the most egregious violation of WP:NPA that I can think of off the topic of my head. This includes hinting at it and slyly(or not so slyly) insinuating it. It was an easy decision to decline that unblock request.

I find it difficult to imagine a context where this would be appropriate, however as I have not looked into the context I will leave it for others to decide. HighInBC 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA when someone is using scare quotes around 'victim' in order to whitewash someones criminal acts. That last diff you posted was in response to this comment - "'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him." - that is straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A good example of what happens when persistent loose insinuations by one established editor feed in to our work, and set up a whispering campaign. Now I am accused of 'whitewashing' a criminal act for using an orthographic device to bring people's attention to an issue requiring discussion.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

'Scare quotes'?!! Oh dear me, look I'm a philologist. One of the primary functions of inverted commas is 'to mark off a word or phrase that is being discussed' My edit suggestion was accompanied by opening a discussion on the talk page, for which I was insulted. Has the precise instruction on grammatical and verbal niceties been wholly lost in the past decades? It looks like it, and one of the consequences is that, not reading closely, editors tend to read into innocent words or devices all sorts of weird psychological conjectures, as here.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In an isolated environment you would probably be correct. When you follow it up with arguments that seek to deny victimhood and excuse rape of a minor, I am more skeptical of the motives involved. "They didnt make the complaint" is not an argument you want to be making when talking about rape victims. Oh and "Its a philogical matter" is also equally suspect. When you fall back on grammatical technicalities in order to advance an argument, it generally indicates the actual position has very little weight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

'Fall back' (i.e. NMMGG's 'backpedal').In a WP:BLP article. I used no arguments to excuse the rape of a minor, and I would ask you to retract that. I cited sources that state the minor, throughout the case, was 'reluctant' to testify against the man with whom he had a 'consensual' relationship. Nawi himself admitted immediately he was guilty, apparently, so it would be absurd for someone like me to deny what sources confirm. You, like NMMGG, are attributing to me positions in the source literature which I cite, which is slipshod reading and, worse still, damaging. You are not helping clarify this issue by making frivolous and offensive quips that pretend to 'read' into my remarks some private bias in favour of abuses of this kind.Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to maintain to make arguments that because a minor didnt make the complaint and was reluctant to testify it means their victimhood is in "discussion", feel free. You will however be judged accordingly. You have a preferred content version, you have made arguments as to why it should be that version, if it wasnt your opinion you are either playing a devil's advocate or you are misusing sources to push a POV. Since none of the sources deny he was a victim of a crime, using sources that indicate he was unwilling to testify to imply he wasnt a victim is OR. Either way muttering about orthographic devices just makes you look like you are making excuses to distance yourself from your previous remarks. I suggest if you dont want to be seen to be a rape apologist, stop making arguments rape apologists make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

'stop making arguments rape apologists make.' That makes you at least the fourth person to take up the slur introduced by NMMGG, and further evidence as to why he should retract an insinuation that questions my integrity. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should listen. Generally if multiple people have an issue with you, the problem is not always with them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I knew this kind of mudslinging against Nishidani would occur. This is why I suggested that these things be not treated with a sledgehammer. This is a delicate matter, and discussion should be focused on content, which was mostly what was happening on the talk page. In such an issue, it is hard to separate out personal feelings from the issue, some of which happened.

I have opened a block review of Bad Dryer on WP:AN as well. In my opinion, the block was unfair and harsh and only serves the drama god.

In contrast, in this discussion, Only in death has stated multiple times that Nishidani is a "rape apologist", or is simply mouthing arguments that "rape apologists" make, and cast aspersions on Nishidani's motives. This is much more of an NPA that Bad Dryer has engaged in. And more importantly, it only inflames the issue. Only in death is free to think whatever they like of Nishidani, but commenting at ANI does not give one a license to engage in serious personal attacks with abandon. There are many people I don't like here, and there are others who don't like me.

No More Mr Nice Guy should be warned (at the very least) about personalizing disputes with Nishidani. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It is well known that NMMNG does not like Nishidani (some of the background has been given by Nishidani above), but there is no reason to be needlessly inflammatory, especially in a delicate matter like this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"NMMNG does not like Nishidani." It would be interesting to see whether NMMNG could provide the name of a single ARBPIA "political opponent" whom he doesn't treat contemptuously.     ←   ZScarpia   23:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable. Just because Nishidani supposedly has more integrity, does not excuse him when he makes the same sympathetic arguments. Like I said, dont want to be accused of being sympathetic to a point of view? Dont make shitty arguments that proponents of that POV make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Have you heard of the term "guilt by association"? You can address the argument without associating people with organizations they have never heard of, who happen to make the argument for their own reasons. If I oppose smoking due to cigarettes causing cancer, are you going to associate me with Nazis because they were among the first to make the argument? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Guilt by association is not the same as sharing a sympathetic viewpoint. If you started editing articles in a manner that suggested Jews were not victims because of <insert Nazi argument> I would expect you to be called out as being sympathetic to the Nazis. Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments. If they didnt expect to get grief over that they are either unaware of what NAMBLA advocates (in which case they shouldnt be touching content that involves sex with minors) or they are just incredible naive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For the third time you have asserted:' Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments.' Retract it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I tell you what, I won't say you are using NAMBLA arguments and in return you stop trying to justify a minor wasn't a victim because he didn't complain about it, deal? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

After being warned multiple times by multiple people, Only in death refuses to comply. Admin action is needed, this is WP:ANI after all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it's clear that both No More Mr Nice Guy and Only in death need to stop their aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks immediately (including here and on that article and talk page and anywhere else on Wikipedia), or face immediate blocks, topic bans, or IBans. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC); edited 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am still asking for a reply from NMMGG to a legitimate query. He said:

Not a single source says the minor was not a victim. No More Mr Nice Guy 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

He was implying that many sources used in the article state the minor was a victim, and that I was evidently in flagrant defiance of that source consensus.

I therefore requested him to clarify:

'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'? Nishidani 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Apart from clearing my record of an ugly insinuation that has gathered some converts to the calumny, the point is that whatever language goes into a text must reflect the balance of sources.

So NMMGG. Please address this query, and possibly explain why, in a compromise edit when I reintroduced the word victim without inverted commas, your next edit erased it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This is why people are questions things. A minor can't be not a victim. There's no such thing as consensual sex under the age of consent. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Are people expected to believe that the likes of NMMNG and the person who operates the Bad Dryer account or the kind of right wing Israel supporters who are attracted to Wikipedia, editors with long histories of advocacy and patently biased editing, are showing concern for the well being of a Palestinian child, their treatment in the real world and here on Wikipedia? I hope not because that notion is absurd as anyone familiar with these editors should know by now. None of this drama would have happened if Nawi had been an Israeli soldier and shot and killed the boy. What we have here is faux concern for the way Wikipedia treats a Palestinian child used as cover for the cynical exploitation of an opportunity to target a BLP of a perceived enemy of the State of Israel and harass Nishidani in a vindictive and cowardly way, all done behind masks of anonymity. Genuine issues with the content will not get sorted out in a drama-free way by collaborating with people whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That's right. Only Palestinians should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I am not right wing, or an Israel supporter and have no history of advocacy (or even editing in any meaningful way in the IP area), so I guess I'm exhibiting faux concern too? I assure you if Nawi had shot and killed a boy and editors started scare quoting 'Victim' in Nawi's biography we would be having a very similar conversation about their motives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know you or your editing so there is no reason to think you are exhibiting faux concern. Maybe you can help improve the article since your priority is not to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. If Nawi had been an IDF soldier and shot the boy there would be no biography. But if there were, it would be nominated for deletion by an editor whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony of Sean's statement above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This is drifting. Stay focused, and kindly reply to my request above. Chat just buries a serious issue.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Which request? For sources that call the minor a victim? Here you go: victim, victim, Nawi's friend Norris calling him a victim, and a Norris supporter calling him a victim. That took one google search to find, and some of those are already in the article.

The reason I thought you were discussing your opinion rather than that of sources in this edit is because of the fact the only source you reference is a dictionary, your use of "ostensible victim", and your claim that it doesn't "appear" the minor saw himself as a victim, when no source whatsoever brings any kind of statement from the minor, only the fact he didn't testify. Rape victims often don't want to testify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That's replying to something I did not ask. You wrote:Not a single source says the minor was not a victim.

You can't see the equivocation in your sentence. This place is the despair of grammarians or precisians. You sentence implies:'every source says the minor was a victim', which is obviously untrue.3 small circulation Irish sources (in a country whose press never breathed a word for several decades of their own dirty linen, the widespread abuse of children by priests and Christian brothers) and one by an Irish correspondent for the English tabloid The Daily Mail, limited to the period of one week in 2011 when the aim was to shipwreck Norris's bid for the Presidency of Ireland use 'victim'. The numerous English-language Israeli sources for Nawi we use do not adopt 'victim' as the default term. They say:'statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy/minor'. Sources say the Israeli court found the relationship 'consensual', correct or not, and I stand by my point that, however morally contemptuous sex by an older man with a 15 year old may be, using from a short list of sources the word victim, when the indication so far is that it was consensual, is improper. You of course never explained why, when I reintroduced, after talk page discussion, the word 'victim', you immediately elided it from the lead.

It is true that Palestinian minors sexually abused or sodomised by Israeli soldiers while the latter hold them in detention are reluctant to denounce the fact for fear of retribution. In 1990 the boys' parents had no qualms about reporting it to Israeli courts, but the boy wouldn't apparently testify against him. When S.Hoyland talked of editors' nationalism, I presume he means that when an Israeli civil rights activist has a dark mark in his distant past, it is played up by many editors with a nationalist POV agenda for all its worth as they express outrage. But when the same kind of abuse (mass rape of a minor) is reported in army bases, of eminent diplomats, the same editors keep mum: it is not for our Wikipedia. They don't rush to edit in the scandal, as they do if the issue touches an activist for Palestinian rights, even if it occurred 25 years ago, and, since then thousands of Palestinians have trusted him not to molest their children as he takes them on those summer camps which the Israeli army would otherwise forbid them to enjoy. Unlike Sean, I think it both inevitable and not necessarily all bad, that many editors will defend their own countries' image and interests, and don't object if they have sharp eyes and high standards for sources and texts. I object when their concern spills over into patent smears, niggling, jabbing away, trying to play on the nerves (pointless at my age, when most of them are dead) which is the case here.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I'm required to engage with that long SOAPBOX. You asked for sources. I provided them. I explained why I said what I said. At least one person who has no connection to the IP topic has also said he found your comments, shall we say, outside the mainstream, so all these attempts to claim there's some kind of nationalistic background for this fall flat. If any uninvolved editor has any questions for me, please ping me. Otherwise I'm done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay you refuse to listen. All I am asking for is that NMMGG be asked to strike out or retract the personal insinuations he invented from his fantasy about my ostensible ulterior motives. The adoption of the calumny he started led to one indeff, because the person kept repeating it until well past the brink. Two other editors here have taken it up. He is responsible for this crap, and he should shut up and focus, and do useful editing, like finding this source which I found to be deadlinked. It's worth reading. The man who wrote it lost his bid for the Presidency of Ireland, just for expressing an informed clemency for Nawi. That smear was big time, and NMMGG's is peanuts. But I have to work here, with him, and this means he must learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos every other time we encounter each other,Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos" like the time you told a group of editors that we lack "capacity for pity and horror" that is not "ethnic-exclusive"?[2] That's a fine thing for one editor to say to another. Not sleazy at all. Would you like to elaborate on what ethnicity you were referring to, before you take the beam out of your own eye? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Content issues are not usually discussed on WP:ANI - the article talkpage should be used. Regardless of who is right, stop saying that Nishidani justified child abuse or use guilt by association with NAMBLA. That is the bottom line. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What's a content issue? My capacity for pity and horror that is not "ethnic exclusive"? Was that a joke? The bottom line in this case is that your concern about NPA seems to be quite selective. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

We're under an obligation to edit in such a manner that both sides are duly represented. Thus, I, for one, am obliged to edit in tragic material not only re Palestinians but Israelis as attested in RS. I've done that everyday for years, i.e.,here,here,and here. It may be a defect of cursory knowledge but I only see you editing to minutely control material deleterious to Israel or editing articles re Palestinians when there is something negative to be showcased (Ezra Nawi, 2000 Ramallah lynching. You're not alone, and it reflects the fact that mainstream Israeli papers focus intensely on whatever violence affects Israelis or settlers, but generally ignore what happens to Palestinians. This exclusively negative or defensive focus in editors breaks no rule. But the pattern of refusing to consider that there are two sides to any question and accept that one must strive to see both perspectives, is obvious.

In the present case, you made an extraordinary set of claims about my bias.You stated:

• Not a single source says the minor was not a victim.
• I came forth with a disproof of this:Alex Massie in The Spectator specifically wrote:

• though in a technical sense a crime had been committed there was no malice involved and no real victim.

You asserted a claim re sources which I showed was false. What was your reaction?

Excise;revert out;delete;erase

No real argument. Just repeated removal of information that contradicted your assertion. In an empirical world, one adjusts one's ideas as new information shows them to be inexact. In a partisan mindset, one suppresses any information which contradicts one's beliefs. At least do me the courtesy of retracting your assertion that I repeatedly justify sex with minors and the insinuation I act as a proxy for an obnoxious paedophile organization. Two people who took this up have since retracted. You ran that hare and ought to do the same. There is no evidence for it. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I had a good laugh when you said you strive to see both perspectives, considering I caught you more than once falsifying sources to push your POV. As I said above, I'm not going to engage with your soapboxing, and you can add strawmen and self-righteous bullshit to that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That tone and misrepresentation only serves to underline my point that some admin should sum up the general community comments here, take notice of the fact that you refuse to withdraw a remark one person was indeffed for, and 2 others withdrew or dropped from repeating, and ask you to simply retract it. That done, one can get back to serious things, like editing. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Any admin can read the discussion that resulted in your personal attack against me here and see if what I said above is a misrepresentation. It includes two quite straightforward examples of source falsification to push a POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course there's a content dispute involved, but Nishidani should not be expected to have to continue participating with respect and patience when doing so means being repeatedly slandered with allegations of support for paedophilia, and a generally sneering attitude. That is the cheapest and most egregious form of ad hominem, obviously contrary to WP:NPA, and it rightfully got Bad Dryer banned. Kingsindian, HighInBC and others have requested that you quit it, No More Mr Nice Guy, and you refuse. Unfortunately your conduct is living up to your chosen user name. This kind of behavior is rare among regular editors but when it appears makes Wikipedia a toxic, unpleasant and unproductive place. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you look up where Nishidani quoted someone who wrote that there was no real victim. That is the issue, that while it was consensual, there is still a victim becasue the kid was underage, even if it was consensual. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My attitude towards Nishidani reflects his attitude towards me. I can give dozens of examples like the personal attack I mentioned just above, which you for some reason are completely ignoring. Also nobody said he's supporting pedophilia. That's ridiculous. Pedophilia involves prepubescent children, not 15 year olds. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact my point is not about personal attacks, which are a dime a dozen in I/P area. I know that, you know that and Nishidani knows that. But there is a world of difference between different kinds of personal attacks. It is routine to have personal attacks accusing that someone is biased to one side, people just shrug it off. What is not acceptable is to use guilt by association with a pedophile advocacy organization and saying that X tried to justify having sex with a minor. That is a low blow. Please don't give me any stuff about pre-pubescent children. NAMBLA advocates pedophilia in general. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you think telling another editor they are incapable of human emotion towards anyone who is not of their ethnicity is an accusation of bias rather than an outright accusation of racism (with some pedigree, but never mind), then you may need to step back a little. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be digging up a single one of Nishidani's edits from 8 months ago to justify your repeated, unrepentant, ad hominem slurs against them now. And if nobody is particularly convinced by your invocation of WP:BLP to slander an Israeli anti-settlement activist, or your loud indignation on behalf of the Palestinian boy who refused to testify against him, your own tone and editing history speak for themselves. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify. This is an Aristotelian distinction, as I recall noting at the time, related to the intensity of affect caused by kinship bonds (and all mankind is prone to the bias). That you are still twisting this into an accusation I was being 'racist' (your gloss, 'with some pedigree' in context means 'the history of anti-Semitism) is another example of misreading and your apparently obsessive conviction about my putative ulterior motives. Your accusation in this regard was examined and dismissed. Your continual returning to this, and insinuations I am pushing an agenda of sexual license with minors, suggests to me you have a problem in editing with me, and need to be told to retract the statement, and focus on editing.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal so that we can move on

This over-lengthy thread has merely devolved into content disputes and further aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks (and self-justification thereof).

I propose that No More Mr Nice Guy now strike all of the aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks noted by Nishidani on Talk:Ezra Nawi. And that both No More Mr Nice Guy and Only in death immediately desist in making any further such aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks, either here on this thread, on any talk page, in any edit summary, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Failure to abide by both of these proposals will result in immediate blocks, topic bans, or IBans. I also propose that content discussions cease on this thread and instead, if necessary, be resumed (without the aforementioned PAs and aspersions) on Talk:Ezra Nawi. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support striking and admonishment to desist, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how would you respond to someone putting victim in quotes because the sex was "consensual" (even though the kid was 15)? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support. -- IjonTichy (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a rather one sided proposal. It is as if Softlavendar has not read anything up above, nor anything of how Nishidani treats any of his interlocutors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose But largely irrelevant since its unenforceable. Personally I dont edit in the IP area so topic bans are an empty threat and if *any* editor makes edits on a BLP and uses justifications like these, they will be reverted and called out for the immoral and unethical arguments they are making, regardless of who they are (BLP violations take precendence remember). Lastly attempts to muzzle comments on editing behaviour (and motives for such) doesnt work when you have policies like NPOV at work. If no one felt free to call out disgusting comments like the above (he literally says a rape victim is not a victim because they didnt complain about it, which is not only wrong, but morally objectionable) we would end up in the situation where those with less ethics skew content towards their own POV with no ability to call them out on it. So, SoftLavender's 'proposal' is rejected in its entirety. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out that Only in death is continuing the PAs and aspersions here: "immoral", "unethical", "disgusting", "he literally says a rape victim is not a victim because they didnt complain about it", "not only wrong, but morally objectionable", "those with less ethics". I'm not inviting a whole new discussion here (and I'm not going to comment further); I'm merely pointing out that the behaviors are continuing. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, the problem is that I believe putting victim in quotes for a child who is 15 just because the kid says the sex is consensual is a problem. Do you not see the issue with that? That is the problem. On a side note, are you working on running for administrator in the near future? My ESP says you are. Personally, I think this thread should just close with no action on both sides. Nishidani should just realize that he should be careful with his words. Both in terms of this, and also in terms of putting people down who disagree with him, or when he tries to show how better he is with English, or when he thinks he's better at English than everyone else. At a certain point we need to move on. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Suffice to say I have zero hesitation about about pointing out objectionable arguments and attempted victim blaming. But glad we are clear where you stand on minors not being rape victims because they didnt complain. Also you might need to read WP:Aspersions again and note the part about evidence. I have provided evidence as did NMMNG as to why we take offence at their rationale for editing. That you seem to be ignoring it is your problem.

Actually wasting my time responding here, last time an editor made a fuss about issues related to minors on wikipedia they ended up banned by ARBCOM and the person they complained about ended up SanFranBanned(tm) by the the WMF. I will just forward any complaints to the WMF, since they at least take this stuff seriously. This place has the bad habit of not only shooting the messenger, but also his horse and then setting fire to the message. In future you can expect zero comments regarding this on-wiki. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Your efforts to slyly label another editor a pedophile-sympathizer in a content dispute is viewed by others here as a disruptive personal attack, not as a defense of minors on Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to point out that Bad Dryer was indef blocked a week ago for making the exact kinds of comments that No More Mr Nice Guy is and has been making in this same case; only Bad Dryer made them fewer times and in less degree. I therefore see no reason why Bad Dryer should be indef blocked while No More Mr Nice Guy remains unsanctioned. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Softlavender's comment. In my view the behavior of both Only in death and No More Mr Nice Guy is highly disruptive, and both should be blocked from further editing. IjonTichy (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support: For reasons I already gave in the discussion above. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging No More Mr Nice Guy since they asked to be pinged if they were being discussed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• SNOW Support for No More Mr Nice Guy at least. Only in Death's case is a little more ambiguous, but there is nothing ambiguous about the nature of NMMNG's behaviour, the community's position with regard to that particular behaviour, nor indeed what he should have expected the likely community response to be, Brad Dyer was indeffed immediately for making the exact same comments [3], by Drmies, who noted how indefensible the comments had been. Then two more broadly respected admins (Liz, HighInBC) then upheld that block ([4], [5]). Finally, a review of the block at AN led to a unanimous decision to uphold that block. NMMNG was fully aware of how the community had decided to classify these comments--most of the diffs which Nishandi provided in their complaint above come from Brad dyer's talk page--and his decision to pick those comments up where Brad Dyer's block forced him to lay them down is WP:Disruptive in the extreme. Indeed, this "go ahead, make my day"-style comment seems to give every indication that NMMNG is actively baiting this discord as a means of registering his dislike of Nishandi and displeasure with how the personal dispute between Nishandi and Brad Dyer unfolded.

I support this proposal only because it is the one that was tabled. I'd have supported an indef block without reservation if that had been put forth, as an editor who has no singificant prior experience (that I can recall) with the parties/combatants involved here; I fully expect most editors coming to this situation with similar "fresh" eyes would view these PA's in the same light. NMMNG should himself embrace this proposal with both hands and consider himself lucky that he got off so lucky for behaviour which resulted in a swift indef for another editor. But if he instead persists in acting like he is in a defamation relay event with a blocked user, echoing the very comments that lead to the user's block, he should share that user's sanction--for the sake of equal application of our policies and the best interests of the project alike. Honestly, I think it's hard to know what Brad Dyer thinks of all of this--whether he is happy that someone is pressing forward with his aspersions or if he gobbsmacked that someone else is getting away with saying exactly what he did, over and over. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't unanimous, just those in bold and drive by were noted. But again, regardless, you as well, fail to read Nishidani's comments, as well as his behavior and tone when dealing with other editors. As I posted earlier, I think both editors need to take a chill pill, but Nishidani should also realize that when he posts that "there is no real victim" he should expect blowback. Do you think a 15 year old boy having sex with a man is not a victim? That is also an issue. Nobody called him a pedophile, at least to my recollection. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"It wasn't unanimous, just those in bold and drive by were noted."

I encourage anyone who has doubts as to my characterization to read the thread themselves. The consensus was pretty overwhelming to my eyes.

"But again, regardless, you as well, fail to read Nishidani's comments, as well as his behavior and tone when dealing with other editors."

Why do you feel comfortable assuming that I did not look into Nishandi's behaviour as well? In any event, your argument is a complete non-sequitor. If any party feels Nishandi's has also failed to comport themselves appropriately, then that party can present evidence to that effect and make an argument for sanctions for Nishandi as well. But Nishandi's conduct, no matter what it consists of, does not alleviate NMMNG of a responsibility to conduct himself within community expectations with regard to our civility standards. Nor is there any question as to where the community has decided that line is in this instance; NMMNG is parroting, part and parcel, the comments which just got another party indeffed--with multiple admins and a community review validating the action. The community has already decided, regardless of the present context, that is not acceptable behaviour. If NMMNG wants to act as a proxy for Brad Dyer in reasserting the exact same comments, it should come as no surprise to him when the same community inevitably hands him the same sanction. And it certainly is inevitable if he can't back down here.

"Nishidani should also realize that when he posts that "there is no real victim" he should expect blowback. Do you think a 15 year old boy having sex with a man is not a victim? That is also an issue."

Yes, that is an issue. It's a content issue. See here's the problem with the position that Brad Dyer and NMMNG have forwarded as justifying their incivility: those personal attacks are unnecessary to undermining Nishandi's position on these issues. Point in fact they are counter-productive to that aim specifically because they shift focus toward a battle of personalities and away from the actual policies that govern content. Nishandi putting scare-quotes around "victim" was inappropriate because the WP:WEIGHT of our sources will obviously never support that position. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and our own personal moral evaluations are not meant to be a platform upon which we argue here. You and I may have views on what consent consists of which are drastically different from what Nishandi has espoused--even so completely different that we find them objectionable. But the reason he was wrong to try to implement those changes on this encyclopdia has nothing to do with our differing outlooks and everything to do with the fact that Nishandi's perspective is a fringe one that, being so far removed from modern social consensus, cannot be substantiated by sourcing which reflects those morays. This was a perfectly solid and unassailable platform upon which to tear down Nashandi's position. On this project, we argue the point, not the "opposition".

But that is not what Brad Dyer and No More Mr. Nice Guy have done. Instead they decided to launch repeated WP:ad hominem attacks at Nishandi himself, rather than his arguments. That is a violation of our WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA and WP:AGF policies under any circumstances. It is absolutely unacceptable when those comments take the form of the kind of implication they are leveling in this intance. And I'm sorry, but I am utterly unmoved by your "they technically didn't call him X or Y" argument; it is beyond any doubt what they meant to imply (see line 153), and I don't feel compelled to split hairs over exactly which terms relating to violent sexual pathology they used in relation to Nishandi. This is really simple: all of us who are not sociopaths have strong feelings about this topic area, some of us very strong feelings because we have special reason to know the human cost. But if one cannot control their conduct in a given content area such that they keep their comments concentrated on the content and instead feel compelled to denigrate the character of others because they view the issue differently, they simply should not contribute in that area. And if they can't show the self-control necessary to either A) keep their impressions of another editor's character to themselves or B) leave the discussion altogether, they have to accept the consequences when their behaviour becomes disruptive to the project. Especially when that behaviour takes the form of casting these kinds of allegations, no matter how certain said editor is that they reflect "reality" and not just the product of their own animosity. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the first post that actually addresses the issue rather than repeating "bad words are bad", so I would like to respond to it.

First of all, Brad Dyer has a whole lot of extra baggage as can be seen both by the explanations for why his unblock requests were rejected and the AN thread. So that comparison doesn't work here. I also after it came to my attention he was indeffed I did not repeat what I said to Nishidani.

Second, the scare quotes around "victim" was not a matter of WEIGHT, it was a matter of V since Nishidani at the time did not supply a single source supporting that kind of language. So he did that as WP:OR. But that's not even what triggered my response which brought us here. The trigger for that was this. Please read it carefully. This is quite obviously Nishidani stating his opinion rather than relying on what sources explicitly say. He is using his opinion to try to convince other editors to support the scare quotes around "victim", which again, had no source. Notice he does not refer to any sources except a dictionary. He calls the minor the "ostensible victim" (again, not referring to any source that makes this claim) and he ends by saying the fact the minor did not complain and was not willing to testify makes it "appear" he doesn't see himself as a victim.

That is the evidence (per WP:NPA and WP:Aspersions) for why I made an accusation (it was more of a "really?! Is that the line you're taking?" before he replied with "Why yes, yes I am"). Not a single editor has addressed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop it. Repeating that my use of inverted commas was an example of 'scare quotes' and not, as I stated a week back, a means of drawing attention to a word I thought problematical, is absurd. It has nothing to do with 'my personal views'.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

All of which are reasons why Nishandi should have (and did) lose the content dispute, but not in any sense a blank check for the disruptive and defamatory conduct you then engaged in. You are entitled to challenge Nishandi's reasoning for the purposes of the content dispute. You are not allowed to go further to attack his character. You made repeated and loud attempts to associate his name with an organization which promotes an ideology of violent sexual exploitation of minors. That behaviour could serve no legitimate purpose in the content discussion, except to defame, raise acrimony and needlessly personalize an issue which could only be decided on the sources and our policies alone, not the outlook and motives of editors--which is why Bad Dryer was instantly indeffed for that behaviour and why you are super lucky to have avoided that consequence thus far.

Furthermore, you then took those accusations to other spaces--including the talk page of another editor. When Nashandi decided to make a statement to assert his moral opposition to statutory rape, you accused him of lying to save face. That's a personal attack under any circumstances, even if you weren't implicating that another editor was possessed of the kind of reprehensible associations you were unambiguously suggesting; no matter how certain you are of your "evidence" of his "true" disposition, you can't look into his mind to know his true outlook, and speculation about it isn't relevant to any matter at hand, even if you were still in the space for a content discussion, which you weren't. There's not even a hint of any productive purpose to this comment--you were just continuing to register your low esteem for another editor as part of a personal dispute, by way of comments which the community regards as way over the line into unacceptable territory.

Nor is ignorance any defense here--you had just watched Bad Dryer banned for the very same comments, so you knew at the very least that these comments were not considered appropriate by your fellow contributors (including numerous admins) who had weighed in on the matter. You didn't just refuse to WP:Drop the stick, you picked up the stick exactly where it was left by another editor who had to be indeffed for refusal to drop that very same stick! How to your mind can that possibly not constitute WP:disruptive behaviour at the very least?

Look, you seem to have suggested above that I'm the only editor here who has spoken to what you view as the core issues of the dispute. So I maybe I can avail of that position to convince you that I'm giving you my honest, best assessment as an uninvolved party when I say you don't look good here, and the situation isn't improving. The only position you've advocated above which does make an argument that you shouldn't suffer the same consequence as Bad Dryer is that you don't have his history of sanctions. But that's not going to be enough here if you can't back down on whether those comments were appropriate. Remember, Bad Dryer wasn't indfeffed for his block history; Drmies blocked him for the comments (the same comments you are repeating now) alone. His past history only came into play when his unblock request was denied. If the outcome of this is that you get indeffed, but then are allowed back on, is that price really worth sticking by those comments. Why not just apologize to Nishandi for going to far. No one expects you to pretend to like him, to approve of his editorial approach or share his perspectives. But your fellow Wikipedians (even the ones who agree with you on the content issue) are telling you, under no uncertain terms, that you crossed a line here, and a serious one. Don't you think it's worth re-examining your conduct in that regard before you run the risk of ending up with a block history like that which you have compared your own record against? Snow ^{let's rap} 03:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have never encountered you before so have no reason to doubt you're giving me anything other than your honest opinion. Doesn't mean I have to agree.

I think you are mistaken about Bad Dryer and his history. I doubt Drmies would have handed such a fast indef to someone else in similar circumstances. You are also mistaken if you think I'm trying to read Nishidani's mind or whatever. I told him he made an argument that resembles those made by a certain organization. Is that a false statement? If it's not false, then there's no personal attack. Is it false? Yes or no?

Do editors have some kind of right to incessantly SOAPBOX and treat Wikipedia like a FORUM and not be called out on it because it might make them look bad? Do you want to see some more examples just from that one talkpage? Stuff I let slide just because I don't usually feel like getting into this ridiculous drama? But when someone suggests that in a exploitative relationship between an adult and a minor, the minor was not a victim because he consented or wouldn't testify, that just sticks in my craw. And this without even the pretense of a single source. Am I the only one here who has kids?

Anyway, I hope any admin who closes this is familiar with the IP topic area. They will see that other than you, Softlavender, and Only in death, every single person who commented here is knee deep in the topic area. It's not like there's an overwhelming consensus of uninvolved editors here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"I think you are mistaken about Bad Dryer and his history. I doubt Drmies would have handed such a fast indef to someone else in similar circumstances."

Well, we can certainly ask him; @Drmies:. In any event, is that really the standard you want to adopt here, to be spared a sanction on the technicality that you haven't got as disruptive a history even though you absolutely shared this disruptive act with someone who does?

"You are also mistaken if you think I'm trying to read Nishidani's mind or whatever. I told him he made an argument that resembles those made by a certain organization. Is that a false statement? If it's not false, then there's no personal attack. Is it false? Yes or no?"

Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly, and I'm not sure how many more ways I can explain this, but here goes: On this project, it doesn't matter what group his comments remind you of; that's not relevant to a content discussion in any shape, manner, or form. Again, you are allowed to assess whether his arguments are consistent with the sources or policy. You are not allowed to imply he has solidarity with a group of organized sex offenders as such defamatory comments have no value to the content dispute process and can only serve to inflame and disrupt discussion and the project at large. Your argument is non-sequitor; a statement doesn't have to be untrue to be disruptive. So his comments reminded you of that group--that doesn't mean it was a WP:CIVIL or a smart thing to say, and it certainly doesn't mean that this community can't find it utterly unacceptable--which it clearly does, since another editor just received our highest sanction for saying the exact same thing.

"Do editors have some kind of right to incessantly SOAPBOX and treat Wikipedia like a FORUM and not be called out on it because it might make them look bad? Do you want to see some more examples just from that one talkpage?"

As far as I can tell, Nishandi was not soapboxing. They were making what they viewed as a legitimate content argument. You and I may find that argument completely untenable, even absurd, but that doesn't mean Nishandi is barred from making it, so long as they try to form consensus and then abide by the decision, which it seems they have here. Anyway, even if Nashandi acted improperly, that would be another topic for the community to consider, for which anyone can present evidence, if it comes to that. But their actions do not alleviate you of your responsibility to follow our behavioural guidelines, certainly not with regard to the comments you made, which go too far beyond what we can set aside as a mere consequence of a mundane clash of personalities.

"But when someone suggests that in a exploitative relationship between an adult and a minor, the minor was not a victim because he consented or wouldn't testify, that just sticks in my craw."

That's fine. You're allowed to be bothered. You're not allowed to say just whatever you want because you are bothered. You certainly aren't allowed to call anyone names, no matter how attenuated you make that name calling by way of talk of "resemblance", the meaning of which we all obviously see. Bad Dryer used that same intermediary and he still got blocked, why do you think you should be immune to the same community sanction for the exact same device directed at the exact same editor in the exact same context?

Look, I understand. Believe me, sexual assault is a topic that presents me with difficulties in discussing dispassionately, and I'd be lying if I said there weren't times when my blood has boiled. There was one occasion when, as part of a strategic attempt to dodge their attacks on another contributor, a particularly incivil editor repeatedly accused me of indifference to the topic of rape; my partner had to physically take my laptop away from me and get me into some fresh air--I was almost in tears, I was so angry. So, yeah, I get it--some of us don't ever care to hear these acts or their consequences minimized. But I also know that Wikipedia demands something more from me than that I let my passions completely govern how I approach my fellow editors on a topic--that it's my responsibility to control my response to the presentation of ideas I don't like, because it's a critical part of our important mission to share the sum total of human knowledge that we be able to discuss and vet things at length, without resorting to personal recriminations against those we disagree with.

Nishandi is allowed to hold an unpopular opinion or one you and I disagree with. Nothing in our project's community consensus prohibits that in any way. You are not allowed to associate them with criminals and sociopaths because you disagree with them about the nature of consent in this case. You just aren't. And again, this isn't just me talking subjectively here. The community has already spoken by banning another editor for making these exact same comments in the exact same context. You're not in a position to overturn that community consensus just because you feel differently about it. The only question here is whether you will be handed the same sanction for the same act directed against the same person. And that is going to turn in great part on whether you can show an understanding of why that act stepped outside our community's perspective on this matter. Again, I am urging you to try to re-evaluate this situation in the light of what others are saying here. In my opinion, sometimes there are circumstances wherein nothing will show your clarity of mind on a matter like owning up to a misstep to someone whose broader perspective you deeply dislike. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

For the last time - Brad Dyer and I have vastly different history. He was on the community's radar already. He had previous blocks. He was widely suspected as being an sock of a blocked editor. He pissed a lot of admins off. The fact I'm still editing while he got an indef 20 minutes after being reported should be enough evidence of that.

Nothing in our project's community consensus prohibits people from holding unpopular opinions. That's true. But it does prohibit them SOAPBOXing and using Wikipedia as a FORUM and inflicting their unpopular opinions gratuitously on other editors, and that's exactly what an editor who states an opinion without relying on reliable sources is doing. If you think people can make content related arguments without relying on a single source that makes the argument, we have a vastly different understanding of WP:OR.

What do you think the Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence part in NPA is about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you want to predicate your assumption that you won't be given a sanction for making those comments (in the context of a discretionary sanctions topic area, no less) on the fact that your co-commentator had a more extensive history of blocks than you, then it's clear at this point that there is nothing we can say to disabuse you of that notion. Nor indeed does there seem to be good reason to try any further if your disposition is that the behaviour in question represents a civil editing mindset, since (if that is genuinely your belief), further such disruption is probably inevitable--more's the pity for everyone involved, yourself included. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit unfair. All I said is that I disagree with your statement that it is inevitable that I would get a sanction because Brad Dryer got one. But I think we've reached the point where we should agree to disagree and move on. Thanks again for being the only editor to actually engage with the issues.

As I mentioned above, NPA explicitly allows for accusations about personal behavior if evidence is supplied, which I believe I have provided. As I also mentioned, other than yourself, Softlavender and Only in death, the other editors who commented here are all very much involved, so there doesn't seem to be a consensus of uninvolved editors supporting your position. I have thousands of edits in a very contentious topic area and have been able to maintain a clean record so far, so I think my reading of policy and guidelines is usually fairly within the community consensus here, but I am open to being told otherwise. Let's see if more uninvolved editors comment or what a closing admin might say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support admonishment not ANI mandated striking or Support blocking I support the admonishment and moving on but I can't support the ANI mandated striking. It's almost like a forced apology. Seems more like a great effort to make it look something big has been done while nothing has been done. Would also support a block -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, given that Bad Dryer was indef blocked a week ago for making only a couple of the exact same comments that No More Mr Nice Guy has made multiple times and in multiple places, it seems logical (to me personally, at least) that the only way No More Mr Nice Guy can or should avoid a similar block, even an indef one, is to strike all of the sorts of comments that Bad Dryer was indeffed for. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, I can't support an ANI mandated striking. It's utter and incomprehensible nonsense. Much like a forced apology. ANI is not here to appease offended editors but to end disruption. An ANI mandated striking or redaction serves only to appease offended parties. An official admonishment from the community serves an actual purpose. In the event that they fail to take this warning and do the behavior again they can be blocked, banned, or etc. We can either give leniency or not, but I disagree that we should only grant leniency here if they kiss the communities proverbial bottom when mandated to do so. This is some Mickey Mouse bullshit better suited for saturday morning cartoons.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Joe, I'm not asking to be "appeased". I have a strong record for not running to A/I or AE to whinge over a decade. I dislike it. NMMGG implied that if I didn't report him, as he implied I should, it was because I would be embarrassed. He wanted this, not I.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to like my choice of words. Choose another word to replace that reflects your word preference. Here is the proposal, admonish them and mandate they strike the offending comments. The admonishment serves a purpose. Mandated striking does not. I'm not for a court mandated ass kissing that serves no purpose. If you or someone on your behalf wants to collapse those comments, I think there's policy on your side to do so. If you want to seek more than admonishment, have at it. I do not support an ANI mandated striking.If you wish to push for and support an admonishment I think that's fine. If you want a mandated striking you are going to need to justify it and the above rant about Brad Dwyer is not a justification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support temporary blocks of some kind for both No More Mr Nice Guy and Only in death because instead of apologizing, they have repeatedly only redoubled their insulting personal attacks against Nishidani, even after criticism and/or admonishment from Softlavender, Snow Rise, HighInBC, Liz, Sean.hoyland, IjonTichyIjonTichy, and others. Per Serialjoepsycho, I think that asking for them to strike the insults is useless, since they've had plenty of chances to recognize their behavior and apologize, and have used those chances to repeat the attacks. Attacks which, as Softlavender points out, led Drmies to indeff Bad Dryer. The discussion reviewing Bad Dryer's block applies equally well to this situation, and as Snow Rise writes, resulted in a near unanimous upholding of the block. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  Kindly quote me "redoubled their insulting personal attacks against Nishidani, even after criticism and/or admonishment". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

For your part, you have not "redoubled the insults," but originally wrote the following to Nishidani: "Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?", and What's in the sources? That's it's not so bad for a 45 year old to have sex with a 15 year old if there's no coercion involved? That's exactly NAMBLA territory. Show me a source that puts victim in quotes", and "Considering you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind". While it' true that you haven't repeated these personal insults since Nishidani filed this complaint, you've also not apologized and accepted that this was a low and insulting editing tactic. If you do acknowledge it sincerely, without in any way needing to give ground on the content dispute, I would change my opinion here.

Only in Death by contrast has repeatedly tried to justify the slur, e.g. "Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA... straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'," and "Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable". -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

So when you said that stuff about me, you were lying. Not for the first time in this thread I might add, I just didn't bother to point the other ones out.

You have not addressed any of the evidence I provided per Wikipedia policy, so any admin closing this should ignore your !vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

For a moment I thought you might approach something resembling contrition. My comment referenced both of you, I gave you your WP:ROPE, and see you'd rather hang on your original statements. Plus ça change. -Darouet (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I supplied evidence per WP:NPA for why I said what I said. Not a single editor addressed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a recap. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because people have responded to it doesn't mean they have seen it. "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." -WP:IDHT.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with Sir Joseph. It looks to me like some bad behavior and personal attacks have occurred from all sides. Rather than taking sides, an admin should warn all participants to refrain from personal attacks and should monitor the discussion henceforth to enforce the warning.Homemade Pencils (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How do you go from having 105 edits adding or removing commas to making a pronouncement at AN/I? -Darouet (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't wait to reach the 500 edits required by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 by adding or removing commas before getting involved in an WP:ARBPIA related issue would be my guess. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems like there was a recent block for "gaming the system" for someone who had sped thru making menial edits so that they could edit there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Serialjoepsycho is right. I believe it was User:HistoryWrite who was blocked for gaming the sys. I think this is the link to the discussion and the decision to block (scroll down, or up, to Case #5 on HistoryWrite). IjonTichy (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support imposing the same sanction for NMMNG and anyone else -- i.e., the same that was imposed on Bad Dryer. Giving a green light for this sort of behaviour is really not to the benefit of Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: What I would judge most useful is something such as a probation period during which NMMNG has to be at least as polite as the editors he is interacting with. In my experience, it is not solely Nishidani that he has a problem with, but any editor who does not share his, obviously deeply held, political beliefs. It must take either real dedication or a patholigical level of animus to be so relentlessly obnoxious. Pleasant it would be to have relief from NMMNG's stock-in-trade snide remarks and tone of contempt.     ←   ZScarpia   13:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Incident with user Mona778

Hi. This message is offensive for me, and for other users. I explained to Mona that I was offended, and I demanded he/she delete his/her comment, but the only answer I received is that Mona778 deleted my comment. Is it correct that Mona deletes comments of other users in a third person's talk page? I think my comment wasn't impolite or a violation of WP:ETIQ. I think we can't accept that an user is belittling another editor or group of editors. I remember that WP:ETIQ says: "Do not label or personally attack people or their edits." Then I can't accept someone says that my edits in other projects are anarchic or an example of how eswiki is a "jungle".

I'm asking for intervention of an admin to settle this incident, Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra talk 13:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC).

That is my talk page that you are talking about. But not my edits.

Your representation of the situation is wrong. Mona778 did actually delete her own comment that you said had offended you.

Mona778 has certain opinions about the Spanish Wikipedia that may be right and may be wrong. Mona778 providing an example of why she feels that way is not a personal attack. Although it is not very relevant to English Wikipedia either.

Mona778 should re-read the English Wikipedia talk page guidelines, and be aware that here on English Wikipedia it is not generally considered acceptable to blank others' comments on others' talk pages or on noticeboards. Mona778 may not be aware of this because people on English Wikipedia and other projects have repeatedly edit warred with her on her own talk page about what she may and may not have there. For example on her talk page here on English Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to what MPS1992 already said. So I suggest to you not to look for trouble, or stir up hatred. This community is based on cooperation, and friendship, don't try to tarnish it for some questionable purposes. I wish you luck in life and goodbye. ( Mona778 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC) )

MPS, I’ not talking about your edits. See the diffs, and read again.

Mona778. Then, I was trying to tarnish it for some questionable purposes? Prove it! These kind of implied purposes are inacceptable. Prove it or delete it!

I understand that Mona is a new user, and I understand that this person still has not read all the policies of Wikipedia, and therefore I'm not asking for locking him/her account, but all I want is that he/she stops using the pages of enwiki to speak ill of other Wikipedians and other projects. I want intervention from a sysop to decide whether the messages she has left are appropriate or not. Maybe Mona has partially deleted the message in MPS’ talk page, but the message above is not better, and my message is still deleted.

Criticism of another's edit, of phrasing and choice of terminology, or any criticism of, or critical response to, talk page commentary and participation ought to be made clearly, directly, and explicitly in a manner that may be easily understood and replied to, out of respect for other editors. WP:ETIQ

I understand that someone does not agree or do not appreciate eswiki, it's normal. It is normal to say that I disagree with something or everything that happens in this project, but it is not normal to go out there, speaking ill of others. If Mona thinks my edits or actions in other projects are wrong, he/she can write me directly.

But not… Mona comes to offend me a second time, here in this page, and a third time here. “The same people”? After that he/she says I wish you luck in life and goodbye What? Mona expects I’ll be rest in silence?

Sorry, I'm on the road, and I can't edit often like I want. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra talk 20:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC).

I think that if you and others spent less time engaging with Mona778 on English Wikipedia, and on Commons and on other projects, then Mona778 would probably spend less time "using the pages of enwiki to speak ill of other Wikipedians and other projects".

Which brings me to wonder, how is it that you ended up seeing Mona778's comment about jungles on my talkpage, so that you could be offended by it? Have you and I worked on content on English Wikipedia together before now, so that you had my talkpage watchlisted? Or did you end up on my talkpage some other way?

I do not think that any administrator intervention is required, other than the thoughts already kindly offered by User:Drmies. Also I do not think it is useful for Mona778 to write to you "directly". Or to try to "prove" anything that you are arguing about. Bye. MPS1992 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ah yes. Great. Mona should have struck through the "jungle" comment, rather than deleting it. And she shouldn't have deleted Jmvkrecords comment. And Jmvkrecords, and all those other cats, should stop complaining. After all, the comment about a user having been blocked for socking was correct. What a waste of time and electrons--MPS, do they really want us to think there's a posse out to hound and hunt down Mona? Drmies (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

MPS1992, I can only talk about me. I’m not “the others”, and I never contacted Mona in eswiki, Commons, nor other Wikimedia Projects. If you think I’ m implicated in a wikihounding group, maybe you are nor assuming good faith. However, your point about how I was arrived to your talk page is important. Then, I will send a mail to Drmies with non public information about this. I think Drmies is a trusted user in enwiki, he/she has the confidence of Mona778, and he/she has my confidence too to solve this incident in unbiased terms.

Drmies, it is not a “comment about a user having been blocked for socking”. It was a comment about sysops allowing flags in other project. Maybe for you it is a correct comment, but not for me. The same critic in other spaces like here, here or here can be positive or constructive, but here isn’t the case, because it didn’t help to build a better encyclopaedia and it with other Mona messages are a lack of respect. It’s not a question of complaining, but a question of respect our local policies. Otherwise, our policies are dead letters, and ambiance here will be unbreathable.

Anyway, I said I have confidence in you, and you can close this thread in the way you consider appropriate. I will agree with this. Please consider the message I was send you. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra talk 19:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make it any clearer. Spanish disputes should stay on the Spanish wiki. What policy has to say about Mona's behavior and that of others, is already outlined above. That some place would be described as a "jungle" isn't an insult at any particular person, and the email actually suggests that the Spanish wiki is more jungly than ours. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

User:HassanKhan95 is engaged in edit-warring and disruptive editing on Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He is engaged in removal of sourced content, citation tags, better source tags and addition of unsourced content. He has also broken 3RR on Pakistan after being warned by User:Kautilya3 at User talk:HassanKhan95. He has Pashtun nationalistic agenda and tries to bump up figures related to Pahtun ethnicity and Pashto language. He accuses other of nationalistic agenda when his unsourced edits are reverted, i tried to engage him at Talk:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but instead of talking, he keeps reverting. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

First to of All I'll say sorry for my weak English but anyways I'll try to explain the situation. In Pakisan there are four provinces each province has a dominant recognised language i.e Punjabi is provincial in Punjab,Pashto in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,Sindhi in Sindh and Balochi in Balochistan whereas Urdu is national and English is official in all Pakistan.If u read the articles about Pakistan other provinces like Punjab,Sindh,etc in every each Proncial language is mention in Infobox so similarly i also added in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa article that Pashto is Provincial,Urdu is National and English is Official same as it is mention in other provinces articles (see here i added Pashto,Urdu and English as Provincial,National and official language respectively and added other minor languages (which are spoken by less than 30% population in collapsible list).But ShriffIsInTown (a punjabi) who want to add Punjabi on the top and he always try to bump up figures related to Punjabi ethnicity and Punjabi language. His edit can be seen here.Let me also clearify that SheriffIsInTown is also engaged in edit-warring and disruptive editing on Pakistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.--HassanKhan95 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, understanding of English language should be a basic requirement on English Wikipedia. If his English is that bad then he should refrain from editing English Wikipedia because he is never going to understand the policies thus never going to abide by them. Moreover he made my job easier by providing those diffs, it can be clearly seen especially in second diff that he is trying to add name of a governor who resigned and he is trying to remove cn tags and better source needed tags. I don't know how i got into these languages issue but i have a bad habit of trying to improve things and i am pretty sure some kind of edit conflict got me into it and i found a scholarly source and started improving all Pakistan related articles with language information since this editor's focus is on Pashtun articles, he saw my edits and started adding unsourced content to prove his point then things got escalated to the point that he is keeping his unsourced and removing my sourced edits. He is preferring WP:PRIMARY sources over secondary or tertiary sources. His point of view that other pages are wrongly formatted thus these should be wrongly formatted is beyond my comprehension. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

SherrifIsInTown! I don't have objection if you improve articles , I'll apreciate if do so. But Try to undersatand what i m saying.In article Pakistan you added that sindhi is spoken more than that of Pashto and you gave references of BBC report,But actually that report is based on census of 1951,1961 and 1981 ( see here that figures).I was trying to add latest figures that are of 1998 census ( here).Once again i would say that u should observe the figures given by BBC repory , that are actually the figures of old censuses. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa article you can change info about governor but please do not change info about languages because they are most accurate. Hope you will understand.Thanks--HassanKhan95 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Here you go, I got the permission to change the governor but no permission to change the languages even if I have a source and he is adding unsourced because he thinks that they are most accurate. HassanKhan95, here we are discussing your violation of 3RR at Pakistan after being warned by User:Kautilya3, we are not discussing the content dispute which you can discuss at talk pages which you should have done before violating that rule. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I m not saying to not change if u have source,You can but the sources you were talking about are based on Old census see the reports of 1951,1961 and 1981, you'll find the same figures there.My purpose is not to Show Pashto a large language,What will I get by doing this?I just wanted to put the most accurate info.BBC report is published in 2015 but doesn't means that it is based on latest sources.Did report mention that these figures are latest?or Did they told how they got those figures.

You said that I have voilated 3R rule,let me say that you have also voilated itnseveral times and it can be seen in histories of those articles--HassanKhan95 (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss the content dispute at Talk:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Talk:Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:HassanKhan95 has started to canvass other editors and he is also vandalizing talk pages. Please see his canvass attempt to User:Massagetae at User talk:Massagetae#Pakistan, diff, please note the IPv6 address and then see vandalism at Talk:Pakistan where he removed an admin's message, see diff, same IPv6 address. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sheriff you said an IP address is canvasing other editors, Let me say that A relevant editor is invited to participate in discussion as a neutral person, and not to give one sided view. Secondly you said the IP removed Admin message (here) but see carefully that the same IP restored back the Message (see here), it means the message was removed by mistake.--HassanKhan95 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, i made a mistake too, i thought RegentsPark restored the edit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown stated on his user page that he's ethnic Punjabi and HassanKhan95 appears to be ethnic Pashtun (Pathan). Both are Pakistanis by nationality so why is one calling the other a nationalist? That could amount to a WP:personal attack. This also gives an ugly image to Pakistan. I suggest both of you think about the rest of the world who can see all of this before calling each other names, you may not like each other based on ethnicity but try to keep that to the side when you're here in Wikipedia.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Brian Martin professor" BLP, DR ongoing

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

---

Brian Martin (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Had no access to account so put in BLPN 4 Feb 2015 Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Brian_Martin Inaccurate denigrating material remains 5 days later. Have not ID'd editors involved. 4 instances of misrepresentation of source contents found and then I stopped counting. Maybe this time adminstrators can come through on serial inaccurate material in a BLP? Though I thought a BLPN would get some involvement already. But what do I know how this place actually works? Good luck and edit safely. SmithBlue (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is being actively edited and the only material identified as an inaccurate representation of the sources has been fixed. Martin is the subject of legitimate and well-sourced criticism for his support of a PhD that failed every conceivable test of valid research work, that is not our problem to fix. I note that much of your history relates to defending Hooper's discredited advocacy of the OPV-AIDS hypothesis, a common anti-vax trope. I suspect that the "inaccuracy" you identify may in fact be accuracy that you just don't like. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Class act. I find 4 misrepresentation of sources in 10 minutes, all negative to Martin, I explicitly list 3 of them but you are confident that there are none. Multiple problems continue with misrepresentation of the subject of a BLP article. To be clear I am not fixing them. If WP community is prepared to let BLP's be turned into misrepresentations then I ain't the boy with his finger in the dyke. If admins can't be bothered to intervene then why not just call the whole thing off and find something less destructive to do? 124.171.129.170 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually only one of the statements was fixed (the other remains unfixed), and that was fixed after about 5 days from the IP's original complaint highlighting the problem. I'm sure Martin is the subject of criticism, but we still need to properly source any statements in our articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Martin has supervised and supported Michael Primero whose PhD thesis alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards" -- this is Lyndon LaRouche stuff. EEng 19:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin seems disposed to believe any crackpot whose beliefs have been mocked by the reality-based community. Are you suggesting that this should come under the LaRouche arbitration scope? Guy (Help!) 18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the weird thing: I just thought this sounded like Larouche-type stuff. To my astonishment, this actually is one of Larouches' crackpot ideas: Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement#Music_and_science. So yes, I think this would come under the Larouche arb umbrella. EEng 16:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

all concerns now attended to Prof Opvaids, no need to list in many wiki forums Jewjoo (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A lot of rubbish claims being made above. Here is a link to Martin being discussed on the talk page. Note this is negative opinions about Martin being traded not a discussion on the content of RS.

The second paragraph of Martin article has 2 non-RS cites being used for negative misrepresentation.

Next para has non-RS "Science Blogs" being used as source for "has defended Wakefield publicly.[7]".

"In a 2010 paper of his, Martin disregarded previous scholarly peer reviews of a vaccine theory ..." is a whole paragraph of misrepresentation of the source.

"He has also been criticised for his role in the Judith Wilyman PhD controversy", is a misrepresentation of source.

" ... a strong opinion on whether people should or should not be vaccinated", does not appear to be from RS.

"In June 2013 Martin gave evidential support to AVN (AVSN) in their ..." uses a non-RS blog as a source.

"Scientist critics of Martin claim that he is an example of postmodernism at its worst ..." does not appear to be from RS.

"Martin supervised a PhD thesis that alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards" is a blatant misrepresentation of the source.

"In support of the thesis Martin was dismissive, saying c..." misrepresents source.

"In 2014 and 2015, Brian Martin published s..." and the rest of the first paragraph of "Publications" is OR.

Note that all of these edits portray Martin in a negative manner. I suggest that this makes mere incompetance and ignorance a very unlikely scenario. Add in the opinions expressed about Martin and I find it an unbelievable scenario.

There is very little that remains in the article that meets WP guideline and policies.

In view of plague proportion of POV editing I suggest that admin revert to version 05:29, 9 December 2015‎ Jamessmithpage and wipe all the rubbish from the article. 124.171.129.170 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I put in a BLPN and then a AN/I for massive ongoing DE on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Martin_%28professor%29 Now I find one of the editors involved is actually an admin. Here is a list of breaches of WP policies and guidelines for a BLP that I have found in a scan of the article. All this appears to have been added since Guy's arrival on the page 2 months ago. Note this is a short article and very little remains once this material is removed. It is disappointing that an admin should be involved in editting of this standard.

START OF LIST Here is a link to Martin being discussed on the talk page. Note this is negative opinions about Martin being traded not a discussion on the content of RS.

The second paragraph of Martin article has 2 non-RS cites being used for negative misrepresentation.

Next para has non-RS "Science Blogs" being used as source for "has defended Wakefield publicly.[7]".

"In a 2010 paper of his, Martin disregarded previous scholarly peer reviews of a vaccine theory ..." is a whole paragraph of misrepresentation of the source.

"He has also been criticised for his role in the Judith Wilyman PhD controversy", is a misrepresentation of source.

" ... a strong opinion on whether people should or should not be vaccinated", does not appear to be from RS.

"In June 2013 Martin gave evidential support to AVN (AVSN) in their ..." uses a non-RS blog as a source.

"Scientist critics of Martin claim that he is an example of postmodernism at its worst ..." does not appear to be from RS.

"Martin supervised a PhD thesis that alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards" is a blatant misrepresentation of the source.

"In support of the thesis Martin was dismissive, saying c..." misrepresents source.

"In 2014 and 2015, Brian Martin published s..." and the rest of the first paragraph of "Publications" is OR.

END OF LIST I have used up my WP allowance for the next decade and have no intention of devoting much time to this matter. If this notice of incompetence is ignored I care not two hoots. It's your nest not mine. Good Luck and Edit Safely. 124.171.129.170 (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

References

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

Main page breakage

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

---

Main page is only showing about one-third of its normal content for me at the moment; nothing in the history so possible one of the just-edited transcluded templates broke something. —Sladen (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

…and after a few minutes outage it's back. Kudos to whomsoever repaired it! —Sladen (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that should be "whoever"--subject of the clause. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, no. It's the object ~ you'd say "Kudos to him", right? Just so, it's "whom", because the kudos are being given to, not received by; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 22:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Lindsay, "x who repaired it" is the phrase that is the object of the preposition. The phrase should be in the dative (but we don't do that in English), but x is the subject of that phrase--compare "he who repaired it is a wonderful person". Drmies (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we're playing More-Grammatical-than-Thou, kudos is actually singular. Just sayin'. EEng 09:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Hi, Drmies, how are things at the cabal?

(edit conflict) But repaired needs a subject, which role whomever cannot perform; the object of to is the entire following clause, not who(m}ever alone. Compare Kudos to the user whom repaired it! So I agree with Drmies (and EEng).—Odysseus1479 09:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Using "what" would have solved it, but nooooo, you had to go and get all anthrocentric! DMacks (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The word you're all looking for is "whomsoever". Mjroots (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mjroots. Thank you! —Sladen (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the word I was looking for was excessively pedantic (except, of course, that's not a word). EEng 01:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

That might be didactic.—Odysseus1479 05:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the teachable moment. EEng 07:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Minor back-and-forth

There's a minor back-and-forth over at List of video games notable for speedrunning, where I just can't get the attention of the IP editing against the sources. Diff examples: [6]; [7]

Admin assistance request: Removing a duplicate thread from an archive

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 91#Spacious and others
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Spacious and others

The former was unarchived, responded to, and then archived in its modified form by a bot as the latter. It no longer serves any purpose and should be pruned from the archive as per common practice to prevent clutter. I did it but my edit was reverted, which I believe to have been an honest mistake by an editor unfamiliar with how the unarchival procedure works; I've attempted to resolve the issue through discussing it with the reverting editor but to no avail; the discussion can be found here. I'd appreciate it if some reasonable administrator could remove the obsolete version of the thread from the archive; it can be done by clicking on this link and then saving the page. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Behavior of Slawekb at WP:RD/Math

Slawekb is responsible for my question posted at the Maths Reference Desk being hatted with accusation of trolling. Here is my summary of his posts to the discussion where 7-8 users participated today (all times are on 10 Feb.).

Slawekb - participates in answering clearly 01:04 - re-enters to make a point, using an example equation 12:10/12:17 (This was adding text to the point made.) - re-enters with an unsigned pair of posts 18:09/18:10 (This was a quick edit of an equals sign to a "less than" sign.) - hatted entire question 20:16 under the cryptic text "trolling" using summary "hatted trolling, which has now become very obvious" - re-enters 20:38 with a post that repeatedly designates me the OP as "our troll", "the trolls[sic] latest objection", "our troll".

As to the content of Slawekb's posts: 01:04 Short and encyclopedic. Immediately supported as correct by another user. 12:10/12:17 Objects to a phrase "smallest quantised approximation" and presents an equation for "a decent computer". 18:09/18:10 Echoes my call that the equals sign in his equation is incorrect, which he dismisses as "missing the point" and posts a second equation, followed by comments about "accuracy that is achievable my human activities". The second equation is said to be wrong (due to incompatible units) both by another user at 19:52 and myself at 20:07.

An immediate consideration is whether Slawekb is justified in both injecting repeated WP:NPA violations of troll accusations into a question that is under discussion by 7-8 users, apparently in dissatisfaction at his posts not being entirely approved, as well as hatting the entire discussion. In mitigation, some comments by another were unhelpful, such as "go be a crank" and "try to have some idea what you're talking about" but these were not directed at Slawekb and were outweighed by calls to civility by myself 00:55 and most patiently by SemanticMantis 17:00 and 20:23.

The hat suppresses elaboration or free comment on these points. There may also be an administrative question about Slawekb both imposing a hat at 20:16 that says "...discussion is closed. Please do modify it." as well as subsequently 20:38 adding a rude post under the same hat.

I informed Slawekb on his page of this summary so that he could use my page to give any comment or correction. Slawekb deleted the notification 3 minutes after receiving it, citing WP:DENY. He is now informed of this complaint at WP:ANI about his behaviour. AllBestFaith (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• AllBestFaith (talk · contribs) is a new account with few edits. A quick look at WP:Reference desk/Mathematics#Fibonacci sequence convergence confirms that whoever hatted the thread should be thanked. Please do not waste people's time by posting nonsense questions then arguing when the discussion is closed. If, by some miracle, you were not trolling, it would be reasonable to understand how others could view the issue, and disengage. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The graph shows approximations to the Golden Ratio calculated by dividing successive pairs of Fibonacci numbers, one by the other.

I am no troll. The question I brought to RD/Math is in the public eye as part of the presentation of a kickstarter project. Money has been invested and it is legitimate to address sceptically the claims being made to attract more investment. A Wikipedia reference desk has competence to do so independently, with helpful access to Wikipedia articles. This is not a page for mathematical discussion so the graphic will suffice to identify the subject of the question. Two claims are considered. Claim#1 is not disputed, it is endorsed in the Wikipedia article that provided the graphic which nobody at WP/Math thought to cite. Claim#2 predicts what happens if one actually computes the continuation of the converging plot shown in the graphic for much higher Fibonacci numbers than shown. Is there a more fundamental limit (says the claim) to resolution of the Golden ratio than one expects from unlimited lengthening of computing binary wordlength? As questioner I am open to answers that may be Yes, No or Indefinite. I am however not open to being denounced as a troll for asking the question, particularly not by poster Slawekb who has no excuse of incompetence to address the issue. Slawekb has made a spectacle of himself in posting two equations (which I contend are wrong) and then using a hat to gag anyone from commenting further. Since Slawekb dismisses invitations to discuss this civilly on my page, I show the the first of his equations just for illustration: $F_{1001}/F_{1000}-F_{1002}/F_{1001}=3\times 10^{-418}$ Slawekb's use of a hat to shelter his own mistakes and deliver personal abuse will likely deter anyone who considers posting a new question at RD/Math where usage is already low. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Astounding that this argument over whether there's a more fundamental limit to resolution of the Golden ratio than one expects from unlimited lengthening of computing binary wordlength hasn't attracted more comment here at ANI. Sounds like a job for ... David Eppstein!

Can't we have an ANI/RD where RDers can hash these things out for themselves? Also, can someone remind me what we keep RD around for anyway? (I actually think I know the answer: it gives WP:ORers an outlet so they won't clutter up actual articles with displays of erudition.) EEng 06:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

EEng & D. Eppstein: "You rang?"

• • Uh, hi. Someone called my name? Anyway there's a fine line between trolling and crankery (is the OP bad at math and bad at assessing their badness at math, or just pretending to all that) and I don't see the point in trying to make the distinction in this case. Anyway, that discussion was never going to go anywhere interesting or useful, so hatting seems like a fine option to me. As for oscillations in series: they do occur, sometimes, and give rise to interesting mathematics, but not this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Slawekb deletes the notice of this ANI complaint within 7 minutes, so at least he is paying attention. @Slawekb your behavior at WP:RD/Math, specifically your construct of a hat as a hideout for delivering personal abuse, is bad for Wikipedia. Mediation is a process that creates valid consensus with the aid of a neutral third party, and it is the rational way forward. I think an Admin can easily nominate a mediator from the many computer-savvy volunteers who comprehend concepts such as a "decent computer (for 210-digit numbers)"; the mediator would advise rules, such as WP:AGF, WP:NPA and scope of our discussion, freely and in the best interests of the project. I set no precondition for entering mediation and if you Slawekb reciprocate, I shall withdraw this complaint about behavior so that mediation can proceed. AllBestFaith (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It was a great joke but you are taking it too far now. In case you are having trouble interpreting the comments on this page, no one supports your position and Slawekb has done exactly what should have been done. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not to exchange thoughts. If anyone can be bothered, please close this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not to exchange thoughts." I hope no one takes that too much to heart and writes WP:NOPUBLICTHINKING. EEng 01:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Me and my big mouth. EEng 03:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal/downplaying of well-sourced content through cherry-picking and editing with a POV

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

User Damianmx is constantly removing/downplaying well referenced material written by modern-day scholars (historians/linguists/philologists) who explain the etymology of the word "Georgians", in order to favor lore-based tales written by medieval authors. He has not cited ONE proper modern RS source that backs up these medieval tales as for being the etymology of the word, yet he puts them into the articles as if they were actual theories accepted by a part of the modern scholarly community (which they are not), while at the same time he largely deletes/tweaks that sourced content that comprises the actual scholarly conclusions. Simply because historical individuals like Jean Chardin (traveller) stated something in the 17th century, he puts these 17th century folklore claims on par with statements and conclusions of modern-day academics and scholars, which is total bogus. Even though the actual scholarly sources state a totally different thing and literally debunk these medieval claims even, he just acts as if he hasn't seen it and continues to edit-war per the traditional "pick and choose" routine. Not only is this indeed cherry-picking, its also total disruption, as he's removing legit sources and claims.[8] To make things worse, he only removes part of the sourced content every time. Every time that he's deleting content, he's only removing and completely downplaying that material that 1) states that these medieval tales are not the actual reason behind the word 2) that the word actually derives from a Persian word.

These are some of the core sources he constantly deletes in combination with the material as you can see in the linked diffs, amongst numerous others;[9]-[10]

• 'Popular theories also purport that the term Georgia/Georgians stems either from the widespread veneration of St. George, who is considered the paton of Georgia, or from the Greek georgos (farmer) because when the Greeks first reached the country they encountered a developed agriculture in ancient Colchis. However, such explanations are rejected by the scholarly community, who point to the Persian gurg/gurgan as the root of the word.'

- Mikaberidze, Alexander (2015). Historical Dictionary of Georgia (e.d. 2). Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 978-1442241466 page 3

• Georgians; add at the end: Ultimately from Persian gurg "wolf."

- Hock, Hans Henrich; Zgusta, Ladislav. (1997) Historical, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies. Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978-3110128840 page 211

• The Russian designation of Georgia (Gruziya) also derives from the Persian gurg.

- Boeder, et al. (2002) Philology, typology and language structure. Peter Lang ISBN 978-0820459912 page 65

I provided and added numerous sources that back my revision up, but it has nnow been several times that's he's cross-article warring and removing sourced content in order to push a non-RS etymology. He's even reinstating material written by a writers of children's books/travel books in a feigned attempt,[11]-[12] as well as by re-adding material about how the ancient Greco-Romans called the people of the region (0.0% connection with the etymology of the word Georgians). I have made numerous talk page sections to try and get through him why what he's doing is wrong,[13]-[14] but to no avail. Instead of replying to the content of the material, he's constantly evading the topic and most importantly the sources,[15]-[16].

He simply does not want to accept what all these scholars say, and just keeps warring and pushing a self-formulated WP:POV into these articles. Note that I have absolutely no objection against at least the mentioning of these medieval lore stories alongside the clear formulated modern-day conclusions and deductions, but even that is unacceptable as one can see by his editorial pattern on this matter; per his rules, simply these two things are not allowed 1) that the term derives from Persian backed up by numerous sources 2) that these medieval stories are not accepted by the modern-day scholarly community. Anyway, this nonsense and disruption needs to be stopped. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like responding to repetitive rants, but I can restate what I've said before. Wikipedia is not a scientific or linguistic journal and it is not our place to be making assessments or rendering judgements as to which theory of etymology is more correct and which is not. We can only report what we know from individual sources. All we can draw from the differing interpretations is that name Georgia is rather old, has a murky history, and it has no single definitive theory as to its provenance. Creating a WP:SYNTHESIS of existing sources to argue that one theory is superlative to the other is original research. "Those old European travelers were wrong and I will set things right", which is pretty much LouisAragon's attitude, is the archetype of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which should have no place here.--Damianmx (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

We're not here to assess anything. We are ought to present verifiable in-depth material, backed up by WP:RS. "All we can draw from the differing interpretations "" -- that's the whole thing; you added no interpretation thats backed up by modern-day scholarly sources of being any possibility for the etymology of the word Georgians/Georgia -- modern-day scholars, as I have shown, completely debunk this even, and adhere to a totally different stance. When I added more in-depth material with the inclusion of these numerous contemporary RS sources, it was all simply removed by said user, as it happens to be that it doesnt fit well with his ideas of how Georgians should be presented. Oh, neither do I like responding to repetitive rants, trust me. However, what you're doing over here, is simply what we call disruption, and it needs to be stopped. Erraneously Wikilabeling and removing well-sourced content you just don't like seeing is part of that as well. As I repeat, I have absolutely no problems with what those travellers stated (as one can see; I included all those lore-based stories in my revisions, apart from the modern-day scholarly conclusions, and even added extra material to them which you also removed), but modern-day scholarly conclusions need to be inside the article, when available, and can't just be removed like that simply because you hate seeing it. Try to grasp these simple things; it'll help you alot. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

After ispecting the artile and the talk page, I must conclude that Damianmx still have serious difficulties understanding WP:RS, and their behavior at the talk page is borderline disruptive. On the other hand, they started the talk page discussion themselves, and did not edit-war, so that at this point I do not see any need to block them. If they continue disruption, and ArbCom case seems to be the only way out, given that this is not the first incident, and so far I was the only administrator remotely interested in resolving this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (redux)

Hello. For the most recent ANI discussion on this user, please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#User:STSC_and_WP:NOTHERE. Pinging previous nominator User:SSTflyer.

The last discussion was archived with no administrator input or action. Predictably, as has been the case for years, User:STSC's political agenda editing has continued. As I stated in the previous discussion, though he (or she) seems to be active in any article related to controversies surrounding the People's Republic of China, I only happen to run into this user in Hong Kong-related articles, since Hong Kong is my main editing interest. So my analysis is always skewed toward Hong Kong issues but STSC is active in basically any controversial China-related subject such as Falun Gong, Taiwan, Japanese war crimes, disputed territories, Tibet, etc.

Anyway, I post here because STSC is once again censoring reliably-sourced content from articles related to political demonstrations in Hong Kong – in this case, 2016 Mong Kok civil unrest.

Often this behavior consists of subtle tweaks to the wording, which is not very harmful although the usual misleading "ce" edit summaries can be problematic: [17], [18] (many other examples in the last discussion)

But I really object to arbitrary censorship of reliably sourced content like this. This is STSC's modus operandi – to pull reasons out of a hat to censor reliably sourced information (and sometimes photos) that may reflect badly on the government, and generally to subtly push the viewpoint of the government.

This edit selectively censors certain details:

* that Lam was departing on a planned family trip. The effect is that Lam appears to be fleeing Hong Kong to escape prosecution

* that the police have not commented on his arrest, which does not really reflect well on the police

* that Lam's school, a respected university, have called on the police to release him and to offer a comprehensive explanation. This is obviously unusual and has received coverage in local media

Details of this arrest are not "undue weight" if the case has received particularly heavy coverage in local media, which it has. It's not our job to judge what's important and what isn't – what matters is the level of coverage in other sources. I hate getting bogged down in the details of any particular case because it doesn't really matter. This is just one of thousands of political edits by STSC that serves to promote the viewpoint of the government and censor details that could reflect badly on the government. It is emblematic of a long-term pattern of agenda editing.

He is also continually leaving inappropriate warning templates on others' talk pages. He chronically places a warning for "personal attacks" on my talk page (today) even though I have only ever expressed grievances over editing behavior.

This has been a headache for years and I have no interest in edit warring with this user. Could an admin please look into this? A search of the archives here, and of STSC's talk page will reveal a pattern of years of low-level contentious agenda editing, in violation of our policies on NPOV and WP:NOT. Thank you, Citobun (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrarily stripping the context from a protester's earlier arrest. Citobun (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

uninvolved user comment -- I have to agree that this [19] diff by STSC is concerning. I do actually think that Citobun would have done better to use the word "remove" rather than "censor." That said, on the whole I found Citobun's tone to be measured and factual, not the sort of thing that would justify a level-4 NPA warning from STSC. I haven't looked at this extensively and don't plan to, but this sort of over-templating suggests to me that Citobun's concerns could be well-founded.CometEncke (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

more from the same uninvolved user -- glutton for punishment that I am, I looked into this more, after saying I wouldn't. The arrest of Derek Lam Shun-hin, which is part of what led to this dispute, has been reported from far afield, i.e. the Washington Post[20], and even Ecuador/Guatemala(!)[21]. Again, Citobun appears to be right on they money -- this is obviously highly notable, and in an article about the protests specifically, lengthy coverage would be WP:DUE. CometEncke (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Citobun has in the past constantly attacked me as a "long-term agenda editor" whenever there's a content dispute, therefore the level-4 warning was issued. Regarding the content about Derek Lam, unlike Joshua Wong, he is a little-known member of Scholarism, and the excessive detail that is seemingly defending Lam would be undue. STSC (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you see this cited content as "defence" is problematic. It isn't a "defence" of Lam that to add that Scholarism said he planned the trip to Taiwan - it's simply a fact that received significant coverage in the media. Likewise, when you added that he was previously arrested for "assault" I did not view the word "assault" as an "attack" on him. It's just the facts of the story. I do not view Wikipedia as a venue to "defend" anyone. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure: I commented on the previous ANI that Citobun raised against STSC. STSC does exhibit a certain level of zeal when it comes to performing copyedits particularly if the loss in context can lead to a misinterpretation in some readers, particularly if they view things with a political slant. In this instance, the diffs do not seem to support, in my eyes, that there is a significant political POV in STSC's edits. Excessive pruning, yes, and ultimately a content dispute. Whether the coverage of this particular arrest is DUE or UNDUE coverage should be sorted out on the talk of which there is none. Coming straight to ANI without any talk page discussion is likely only to result in this being closed as a content dispute. If STSC and Citobun are not opposed, I'd be more than happy to look into copy editing the section that is being disputed to maintain context. Blackmane (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I welcome your input on the content dispute. STSC (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've opened up a discussion on the talk page about the section that is being disputed. As there has been no discussion to date, I would invite @Citobun: and @STSC: to join in as well as any who would be interested. Blackmane (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Blackmane. It's late here so I'll keep this message a bit short. First, I didn't raise the last ANI against STSC. It was someone else who independently made the same observations about this user.

Secondly, as I mentioned above, I don't care to get bogged down in the details of this particular content case because if it isn't one thing, it's another. I have found STSC unreceptive to discussion in the past, and once he moves on from a certain issue he goes and censors something else. It's endless and exhausting. The root of the cause - STSC's long-term, low-level political agenda editing - needs to be addressed, and here is the place to do it.

I know I seem prickly. But this has been an ongoing issue for years, with seemingly no administrator scrutiny, and it is really getting tiresome and sapping my enthusiasm for this project. Wikipedia is not the place for political advocacy and countless other users have come to the conclusion that STSC's edits serve to bolster the viewpoint of the Chinese government/Hong Kong SAR government/Chinese Communist Party. I would name some of these users but I think I would be accused of canvassing. Evidence can be found in ANI records, in his talk page history, and scattered around countless article talk pages.

All I ask is that administration please scrutinse STSC's past for evidence of political agenda editing and take action in accordance with Wikipedia policy. This has gone on far too long and I am sick of picking through diffs to try to prove my point. His edit history speaks for itself. He has gotten away with Wikipedia:Advocacy for years by being very subtle about it, but the pattern is clear. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm just minding my own business editing the topics that I choose but you've been Wikihaunting me for a long time and you don't seem to give up. Just stop using an ANI to silent other editors who don't share your POV. STSC (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also like you to stop accusing me of stalking you and harassing you. You know just as well as I that we only run into each other on Hong Kong topics and I am not monitoring your editing. Please stop making these accusations and address the concerns we have raised over editing behaviour. Citobun (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

same (formerly) uninvolved user again Starting a discussion on that is fine. But I took a look at another portion of the underlying issue, and for the third time, it appears to me that Citobun right is on the money. I have no idea if these two edits cited by Citobun are appropriate in regards to the sourcing or not. [22], [23] But what is certain is that in both cases, an edit summary of "ce" is highly misleading. "ce" is supposed to be used for cases where you are not changing the meaning. A brief glance at each of those edits shows that a lot more than just "ce" is going on. The prior ANI discussed the "ce" problem.[24] Here we are, two months later, and it is continuing. Obviously, admin inaction did not solve the problem. Apparently, STSC has acted inappropriately in three different ways, there was a prior discussion, yet the problems have continued. That suggests that problems like this will continue until there is sufficiently strong admin action. CometEncke (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. My "ce" usually refines and makes an improvement on the content as per "five Cs" to make the article clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent. (WP:COPYEDIT) STSC (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

In the last ANI dispute I provided numerous examples where you used a "c/e" edit summary inappropriately. SSTflyer also provided many examples. Citobun (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Many of your edits don't even have edit summary at all, and how about this c/e from you?[25] And many others I just cannot be bothered. STSC (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't leave edit summaries because I don't think my editing is particularly contentious. According to X's Tools edit counter, 82.8% of my edits have a summary, but I'll try to raise that figure in the future. There's nothing inappropriate about using "c/e" in the edit you linked to. I didn't change the meaning of anything, save for changing "incontinent" to "inconvenient" which I think was the intention of the original author.

Anyway, rather than simply making unsubstantiated counter-accusations would you care to comment on the countless misleading "c/e" summaries I linked to? That most often subtly bolster the viewpoint of the government? Citobun (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You're required to input edit summary for your edit if you still don't know by now. And I just don't have your disgraceful habit of digging through other editors' edit history. STSC (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So my "c/e" edit that you linked to – what's wrong with it? If you're going to accuse me of misconduct then at least substantiate your complaint. Or are you just trying to distract the discussion? Citobun (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

STSC has now asked [26] on my talk page if I am a sock, without providing any similarities of my posts with any other user, or any suggestion of who I might be a sock of. This is further evidence of a pattern. Just as STSC reacted to Citobun's concerns with the NPA template, STSC is reacting to my analysis of those concerns with the sock quetion. STSC correctly notes that my account is relatively new and that I do, however, appear to have some experience on WP. The curious thing is that despite my posts above, there *were* actions STSC could have taken to at least lessen my concerns, though likely not allay them altogether. Asking whether or not I am a sock, however, was not such an action. CometEncke (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I "admire" you not sounding like a new user having just created your account on 27 Dec 2015? The way you pushing things here as an "(formerly) uninvolved user" seems you have a premeditated motive. Come on now. STSC (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am going to continue beating this particular horse, regardless of how dead it is. Look at STSC's reaction[27] to the "ce" concern two posts above. Although there are two users making the point, STSC fails to acknowledge the issue, and instead says "not at all," and making an assertion that his "ce" edits improve grammar. But that's not the issue, is it? A "ce" edit should improve some form of presentation without altering content. But if an admin examines any of the various linked "ce" diffs above, he or she will surely notice that the diffs marked "ce" make considerable alterations to content, often to the point where the meaning is changed entirely. This is yet another example, as if any were needed, of the pattern where STSC fails to respond to substantive concerns in a way that gives others confidence that the problem will not recur, which, of as multiple posts above demonstrate, is precisely the problem. Will an admin handle this situation, please? CometEncke (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

My "ce" doesn't just correct grammar, it's meant to correct any misinformation in the content. Basically you're just trying to make a meal out of this. STSC (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't copyediting if you're changing the meaning of the text or arbitrarily removing content. Citobun (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Rather than addressing concerns head-on STSC simply skirts around the issue and peppers others' talk pages with frivolous warning templates, accuses others of "attacking him", "harrassment", "starting ANI with a pack of lies", perpetrating "hate campaigns", being "Falun Gong editors", harbouring a grudge, being "pro-colonialism", being sockpuppets – just a host of attacks meant to bully people into shutting up and deflect attention from his own behaviour. Sadly it seems to work. Citobun (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're the bully one who tried to use an ANI to silent other editors who don't share your POV. STSC (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet another example, User:Marvin 2009 has made a grand total of three edits at Epoch Times so far in 2016 -- on Jan. 23 and 26, and on Feb. 6. STSC reacted to the third one with DE warning[28], stating that Marvin could be blocked. In all fairness, Marvin has had some edit warring blocks, and some of Marvin's edits at Epoch times were edit-warrish in nature. That said, three edits at an article in the first 37 days of 2016 is not DE by any measure. So what's up with the DE template? CometEncke (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you're in a position to make that criticism as you're not a regular editor on that topic and you don't know the background as to why I issued that warning. Maybe you just wanted to ping him? STSC (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Has an admin looked at the evidence presented in this thread? If someone looks and thinks there is nothing here, that would be one thing. But it would be unfortunate for it to simply get archived without any investigation from anyone who has the power to take action. CometEncke (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Range block requested

Hi. I'm requesting a range block on 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:*. I came across this IP range at The Driftless Area as 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:15B1:5308:295:DDC3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). A few days later, 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:4C81:0:1C30:9CD8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) showed up to perform the same vandalism (edit by the original vandal, edit by the new IP). The first IP was blocked blocked for one year by Spencer for persistent disruption. Other IP addresses on this range have also been blocked for similar vandalism, such as:

• 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:ED22:291E:D653:7BFC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): diff
• 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:F0A9:1A3A:F336:A72C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): diff
• 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:9DD:3B55:1AB2:63A2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): diff
• 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:CDF8:FA17:9A0A:1A94 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): diff
• 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:5DB8:58B3:6EF1:6630 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): diff

I've included a representative diff for each IP address that I hope demonstrates that this IP range is not going to contribute constructively. I raised the possibility of a range block with Spencer, but he directed me here. I'll settle for a block on the latest IP address, 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:4C81:0:1C30:9CD8, but I think it would make life easier for everyone if we got a range block. I'll alert 9CD8. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• I hope you'll settle for semi-protection of the article. Or are there more articles? Drmies (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• OK, I see you. Passing the buck to a real admin. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there are probably too many targeted articles to protect, but I'll take whatever I can get. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I meet the standards of "real admin" but I would be foolish to turn down a buck; it's 100% more than I normally receive for my work here. I've soft blocked 2606:A000:FA82:1F00:0:0:0:0/64 for 3 months. All edits from this range reaching back to December 2015 are from this same user (plus one of their blocked sock accounts). Please drop me a note if the disruption continues once the block expires. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Both Doc and you are "real" admins, of course, two of the best, in fact. Doc just likes to pretend that range-blocking is beyond their ken. BMK (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure Drmies is a real admin, he's just not a real CheckUser.[29] All arbitrators are automatically granted the CheckUser tool, and … uhhh … not all of them are … hmmm … suited … hrmm … forgot what I was going to say. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC).

Just keep on forgetting that, Bish. Remember that my powers are AWESOME. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bravo. -Roxy the dog™ woof 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:RajaRajan Tamilian

RajaRajan Tamilian (talk · contribs) never listen to create encyclopedia or listen to others, but removes content that has valid references and add own ideas without valid references. User action is against Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. I have reported at WP:AIV. Note: I already revert the page, Paraiyar twice and somebody has to recover the page to original version. --AntanO 18:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It also looks like the above named editor has issued a legal threat on AntanO's talk page here in this diff--173.216.248.174 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed for legal threats. BethNaught (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Paraiyar Article

Hereby I acknowledge that the article about "Paraiyar", a community of South india is a sensitive information.Some Users are potraying the community as slaves.Mentioning of "Slave" or Using any defamatory words against any community or particular section is an punishable offence.There may be a chance for particular section of people were treated as slaves,but mentioning a community as slaves is unconstituional since slavery is abolished by the constitution of India.Degrading a community status is a punishable offence under India law (Promoting enmity between different classes and endangering Integrity of India.Some times some truths cannot be exposed in public.(India was once a slave nation to british,for this single reason India cannot be introduced as former slave of british).I Hope all the admins can understand well.I welcome more research and discussions about the article.I am not against removing unreliable information(without sources).But I am against discrimination in the name of religion,caste,culture,language.I Hope wikipedia will protect the true spirit of knowledge and human freedom. AntanO (talk · contribs) User : AntanO is spreading defamatory information against a particular sect of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AntanO — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajaRajan Tamilian (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2016 February 11 (UTC)

The moment you begin invoking laws, lawyers, and jurisprudence, you have lost your argument by default. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The user never discuss (Look at the user's talk page.). I added the page to my watchlist after I see the edit war and removal of content. As per WP:CASTE and WP:SUE, I request proper action against the user. --AntanO 21:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The user was indefinitely blocked about an hour ago. Not sure what more can be done at this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see user's page and I wanted to report myself for WP:SUE. --AntanO 21:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration

@Bethnaught, I think this user has been misunderstood. If you read his message again, you would note that he makes quite sensible points. "I welcome more research and discussions about the article. I am not against removing unreliable information(without sources). But I am against discrimination in the name of religion,caste,culture,language." He is not just issuing legal threats, but rather I see him using the legal framework to support his argument. Not a great strategy, and he is not very well-versed with the ways of Wikipedia. But he is basically protesting against what he sees as unfair treatment of a community. Please reconsider the block. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

They made a legal threat, "If you repeat these actions,the same will be bring to the notice of Government of India and the honourable Supreme Court of India." Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Conclusion_of_legal_threat this is how they get unblocked.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho's quote, which was the basis for the block, is in my opinion a clear legal threat and it has not yet been clearly retracted. I will not object to an unblock once it is retracted. BethNaught (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the decision after having seen the evidence. I will advise him accordingly. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The user (RajaRajan Tamilian) continues unhealthy and wrong way of discussion and accused my as discriminator that I report here as personal attack. (See User_talk:RajaRajan_Tamilian#Unblock_Appeal) --AntanO 05:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Buckshot06

User:Buckshot06 is asserting that I made a personal attack by starting a topic at Talk:Mohammed Omar with the heading "Unsourced POV pushing by User:Sundostund". I know this belongs at SPI but I also want to say here that I have reasons to believe that User:Sundostund is a sockpuppet of User:Toddy1 (and possibly also a sock of User:Be Black Hole Sun, User:Im a Socialist! What Are You, User:Trust Is All You Need, User:StanTheMan87, StanMan87 [30], and User:TheMadTim). The evidence I have is based on behavior and location. The issue here is that I try to avoid User:Buckshot06 everyday but he's refusing to leave me alone. See [31] [32] [33] [34]. When I reply to him, he says that I annoy him. [35] When I don't reply, he WP:ADMINSHOPS in order to get me blocked. This behaviour of Buckshot06 must stop.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Users interested in the ongoing behaviour of User:Krzyhorse22 should review, this time, Talk:Mohammed Omar and also my request for a second admin opinion at User talk:Nick-D#User:Krzyhorse22 before going to my warning at User talk:Krzyhorse22. I am not entirely sure why ADMINSHOPS has been cited, given that I myself have the power to take administrative action. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I cited ADMINSHOP because perhaps you wanted a written comment from Nick-D (so everyone can see it) as a support to justify an unjustisfied block. I've been online since early 1997, I know alot about how people behave. Based on your recent behavior, I think your "power to take administrative action" should be taken away from you. No offense but you behave more like an edit warrior.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no connection to any of the users mentioned above. That claim is just ludicrous. Any SPI would confirm that. And, I see no problem in Buckshot06's actions. The whole problem here is that Krzyhorse22 can't accept that his controversial edits are opposed by other editors (namely me and Buckshot06). And yes, I see it as a personal attack if someone accuse me of "unsourced POV pushing" just because we have differences in opinion about an article's content. I've already said, and I'll repeat - Wikipedia is built on consensus, and Krzyhorse22 must have it if he wants to implement his versions of articles in question. I hope admins will resolve this issue quickly, and let me say that I don't plan to post further responses here (or at Talk:Mohammed Omar) - I've stated my opinion there, and I'll just wait and see what other users think about Krzyhorse22's edits, and what admins plan to do here. Cheers everybody. --Sundostund (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you made Mohammed Omar a president of Afghanistan without citing a single source makes you a WP:POV pusher. This is especially so when Encyclopædia Britannica states that Omar "was emir of Afghanistan." [36] I used POV pusher because many other WP editors use it.[37]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Krzyhorse22: You have managed two rounds of personal attacks, first, in your choice of heading and secondly, in making allegations of sockpuppetry without evidence. I suggest that you change the heading to a neutral one and retract your allegations of sockpuppetry pretty damn quick lest you find yourself blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  I have the evidence to prove the sock connection but will not post it here, will start SPI when I'm free. If you think that is a personal attack then the accusations against me are also personal attacks.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been doing some clicking around, and I've just discovered Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive, which mentions this user a number of times. The CU was declined, but what it does show, looking through the page, is that other users have had serious concerns with this user's conduct dating back some time. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  Those who reported me were themselves abusing multiple accounts. I was also wrongly reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert/Archive [38] and a number of other SPIs. Please perform a CU on me if you wish, this is the one and only account I use.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Huh?! I've been inactive as of late, as you can see you by my WP contributions. I'm not a sockpuppet of anyone, and I'm a good contributor (or was :p) to Wikipedia, even if I sometimes suffer meltdowns. I don't want to be involved in this discussion any more than I have to, but when that is said and done, I've never (or at least very litte) edited the Omar article. I know about Afghanistan's communist past, I know way to little about its Taliban past.... Of course, if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them! :) --TIAYN (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Call it a feeling, but the bent piece of wood is on its return journey. Blackmane (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Krzyhorse22 is a joke. I have been away from Wikipedia largely since July 2015 (Though I have made 5 edits between then and now). I will however take this time to offer my analysis on the user who has mentioned me in this discussion (Of which our encounters have been plentiful). Krzyhorse22 doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. I am actually surprised he has managed to remain on Wikipedia this long and it really is disappointing that no one has blocked him yet. His very first edit (that's right, first edit) on his account was filing a bogus ANI against me for no reason in September 2014, diff here [39]. He has filed a couple of other ones against me, again for no reason other than disagreeing with me on certain pages we both edited, see [40], [41]. Even if I was in the wrong over copy-right (We all make mistakes), his first action would be to waste the time of Wikipedia administrators and file an ANI. It was just ANI filed after ANI, accusation after accusation. He has accused me of sock-puppetry before. And his signature move (which he has mentioned in this very discussion) when faced with the burden of proof is to resort to a tried and true bs tactic along the lines of "I have the information proving you are a sock-puppet...but I don't have time to find it right now." Seriously, he pulled that exact same line on me, though in a different context. He is a disruptive editor and loves to cause trouble, particularly when it comes to editors that have different opinions to him. He loves nothing more then to own a Wikipedia page in the literal sense of the word and despises having to contend with the additions of other editors even if they are constructive and help the project. If you don't believe me, just take a look through his contributions. The diffs showing his hostile and partisan nature are a treasure trove. I urge all editors reading this to dismiss Krzyhorse22 and all claims that he makes, both in this ANI and in any future ones. He has demonstrated zero credibility as an editor and contributor to Wikipedia. I can't help but feel sorry for Buckshot06 who is the latest target (and hopefully the last) of this idiots harassment. I know, because I was the first and had to contend with it for all to long. My advice is to just keep editing despite his tantrums and completely ignore him. He has shown he dislikes the opinions of others, so give his opinion no merit. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

StanTheMan87 is making WP:personal attacks here and everywhere (e.g., using the word "nigger" [42], [43]). For the record, I've explained many times in the past that my first edits were in fact nominating images, which were deleted along with my edits, I have 37 deleted edits. [44] I'm surprised to see StanTheMan87 still allowed to edit Wikipedia. I want to point out that this discussion in this thread is about User:Buckshot06 WP:HARRASSING me everywhere, including on my talk page. I warned Buckshot06 (on my talk page) but he continues to harrass me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang: Proposed Topic Ban for Krzyhorse22

After reading through this saga here, noting:

1. This recourse to WP:ANI and others [45],[46],[47],[48],[49], asking for sanctions against other editors he is involved in a content disputes with.
2. Previous ANI visits where this editors competence has been questioned [50],[51]
3. WP:BATTLE mentality at Talk:Mohammed Omar
4. WP:NPA Personal attacks at Talk:Mohammed Omar [52]

I tend to conclude that Krzyhorse22 is not engaging with editors appropriately in area of controversy and his actions are disruptive. Hence, I would propose a community topic ban for at least one year on all aspects related to Afghanistan broadly construed. WCM_email 12:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. WCM_email 12:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment What User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) presented here is fundamentally unfair. 1) I'm one of the top experts on Afghanistan; 2) the accusations levelled against are all untrue; 3) I have a feeling that editors who don't like me are plotting (by emailing each other) to get rid of me. Their physical location supports my suspecions. [53] For these reasons, WCM's proposition should be denied.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

IP disruptive editing

Rickmartyfanclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 166.171.59.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 166.170.33.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 166.171.59.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – making disruptive edits now on Alice Cooper (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) regarding an improper use of the hatnote (WP:HAT, Template:Distinguish). Has reverted three times: [54], [55], [56]. Was cautioned here; has received warnings before here. Lapadite (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protection perhaps?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, no reason for page protection at this point. Nine edits in six days is hardly an "edit war". Lapadite should have attempted to use the Alice Cooper talk page prior to issuing warnings to people who disagree with his perspective - it helps prevent warring. Yes, I did the original edit. Obviously I see nothing wrong with it or else I wouldn't have done it. But now there are others involved, some revert to my edit, and others can't agree as to where to put the information included in my edit. Rickmartyfanclub (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi protection more specifically. It blocks IP's and new users not auto-confirmed. It stops sock puppetry. This situation doesn't pass the duck test.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Has been reverted by two other editors: [57], [58]. Lapadite (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

And obviously, has been un-reverted, by just as many because you included three of us in your "report".Rickmartyfanclub (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protection requests should be made at WP:RPP. But given Rickmarty's behavior, a short block might be in order. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Libel of British politician

I have posted something important at the revdel requesting service regarding seriously libellous statements in the page history of a British politician which also may require action against the editor who posted. No one seems to be responding. AusLondonder (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't all do IRC (or telepathy). You may have to supply some information. If it's truly libellous you should email User:Oversight. If you prefer you can use CAT:REVDEL. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does this page repeatedly say "if the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here" in that case? AusLondonder (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It does not say "Do not post it here except with no informational content that can be acted upon" it says "Do not post it here". You see the difference? BMK (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You should email Oversight, they are usually pretty swift. If it is less serious, contact an admin directly, either through a talk page post or email. The warning against posting a diff here is because this is one of the most visible places on Wikipedia. So contact an admin or oversighter directly. IRC can be fast (although I've never been there) but it depends on who happens to be present. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not always a good idea to post matters requiring oversight on AN/I as it can draw more unwanted attention to the problem. I'd just wait for your reply. --Ches (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aciram

I need help with this user re: posting false personal accusations (often about my alleged/fictitious behavior on "Swedish Wikipedia") and never being able to discuss anything, as far as I've seen, without getting personal to an extent that is not constructive. Could someone try to reason with the user to get the user to try to stick to subject when discussing and stop trying to make my work here more difficult and much moire unpleasant? Here Aciram showed up not to discuss the issue at hand but only to criticise me. It's depressing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see what reasoning will do; that comment was a clear personal attack and I have warned them for it. But if something needs to be said: Aciram, I don't see what Woodzing's alleged behavior on the Swedish wiki has to do with their edits here, and your comments contained too much accusation, too much innuendo, to be accepted. Kindly refrain from making accusations of canvassing until you can prove them. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies and think that the warning was sufficient. If it continues, Aciram can be blocked for making personal attacks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Conduct of editor CafeHellion on article Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

In short: Editor CafeHellion has transformed the article about OCLA into an unsourced attack page, using the pretext of removing edits for reason of COI.

Here is the diff.

Here are the two sections on the Talk page, which were attempts to resolve the conflict:

• "1 Rancourt conflict of interest"
• "2 RfC: Are CafeHellion's edits justified?"

I ask that the CafeHellion edit (his latest revert) be reverted by an administrator, and I ask that CafeHellion be barred or notified from editing the article about OCLA on his sole pretext of COI. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Denis Rancourt is a central member of the organization whose article he is editing. I have reverted his edits on the basis of this very strong conflict of interest. That is the entire basis of my undoing his edits. I restored the entry to how it was before his conflict-of-interest edits, and as a result he is running from venue to venue, apparently hoping to distract from the deep conflict-of-interest issue by trying to make it about my behavior instead. Google "OCLA Rancourt" to get a sense of how intertwined the two are, and then ask him why he apparently co siders himself exempt from conflict-of-interest rules. 16:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CafeHellion (talk • contribs)

• (Non-administrator comment) There is certainly a COI as shown here. I quote from page 6 of the PDF: "Mr. Hickey (Executive Director of OCLA) provided an affidavit in [Denis G. Rancourt's] application for leave to appeal, for the sole purpose of giving evidence of the egregious nature of Beaudoin J.’s words and actions in court on July 24, 2012, in support of the national importance of judicially addressing the appellant’s complaint of reasonable apprehension of bias, as a systemic problem." Thus, I have reverted the page to Qrstuvwx's version, as it is neither slander or overly positive of the organisation. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with that. My intent was solely to remove the conflict of interest. CafeHellion (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Just to clarify. Editor "My name is not Dave" has not "reverted the page to Qrstuvwx's version". In fact, editor "My name is not Dave" has made substantive changes to the "Qrstuvwx version" by removing the most problematic content. Will this edit by "My name is not Dave" survive? If so, it fixes the attack-page character of what editor CafeHellion was imposing. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As a general rule: Should not content removal decisions be based on the content, and not on the person adding the content, which is a distinct question (NPOV vs COI)? The instant exercise should not replace a proper discussion and determination of NPOV regarding the content. For that reason, I continue to request that the CafeHellion edit (his latest revert) be reverted by an administrator. (Also, for information, I have not made edits to the page since learning about WP:COI potentially applying to non-financial volunteer links to non-profit organizations.) Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

note: you don't have to use that {{nao}} template all the time on here :-) Thank you for renouncing your right to edit the page. On your point -- one influences the other. If you have a COI, then it is likely that your edits may be one of a non-neutral mannner (what do you mean about reverting Cafe's edits? They have been removed from the current page revision). Yet, @CafeHellion: Before I arrived with some actual evidence to show that there was a COI, your point was nothing but an accusation -- if you don't want to get mired in WP:NPA, please provide some sort of evidence to support your claim. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks for your help. I'd just like to reiterate that what Rancourt keeps calling my edits are really only reverts. CafeHellion (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

MNINDave asks "what do you mean about reverting Cafe's edits?". I mean if we revert CafeHellion's last edit, then we get THIS, which is valid content that should not have been removed without consensus. I'm asking that this be the clean starting point for any further discussion. I also note that CafeHellion's above assertion "I restored the entry to how it was before his conflict-of-interest edits" may not be genuine since I created the article. In fact, and the page history is clear, CafeHellion selectively reverted in order to establish unsourced trash content and then screamed COI. He also refused to remove the trash content despite a full RfC process on Talk. Let's be clear. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we haven't finished then, I apologise. Well, I did see the RfC, but since nobody uninvolved really joined in with the RfC, it can't really go far. Depending on how far you wish to go, I would consider abstaining from anything about the article now. Your COI has coloured a situation where, if this was a standard dispute, then yes, WP:BRD could go on, but your associations mean that despite your best conscious efforts not to have an agenda per se, you may find yourself having one nevertheless. The version you are wishing to propose for discussion is a little bit too liberal on praise. Qrstuvwx's deletions perhaps also remove a bit too much as well, notably the section documenting the OCLA's rewards. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Editor "My name is not Dave" made a quick and premature closing, in the middle of discussion, having asked a question... I request that an Administrator review this matter, which has not been resolved to my satisfaction. Editor "My name is not Dave" selected to cut the article back dramatically but now is "abstaining from anything about the article now". The result was deletion of a large amount of content, without discussion about the content, and without consensus. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that Rancourt had not only COI-edited the article, but as he admits above, COI-created it in the first place, an even fishier kettle of fish. Maybe this is a matter better suited for "Articles for Deletion" then, but I've already spent too much time on this. CafeHellion (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, no, you misinterpreted me. That remark was directed towards you. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I undid the close: not everyone seems to be happy. I made a few tweaks for neutrality, and would like to add that the article version by Denis.g.rancourt is unacceptably not-neutral. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies: THIS EDIT is not a change towards neutrality. It is a change towards bias. An association must be presumed to act in good faith, following its own statements of purpose. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Good faith is what we extend to other editors until we run out of it. Whether an organization actually defends something or not depends on a lot of factors, but good faith has little to do with it. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree; it's ridiculous to insist Wikipedia must take any organization's claims about itself at face value, especially what appears to be a very tiny volunteer group of very questionable notability and a heavy history of COI editing. As this discussion is no longer about *my* reversion of Rancourt's conflict-of-interest edits to his own organization's entry, I'd suggest that this section be closed and further discussion about the article, if any, go to the article's talk page. CafeHellion (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ha, "ridiculous" is indeed the word I was going to use. We know have (see Talk:Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association#Rancourt_conflict_of_interest) not one but two cats from this outfit editing related articles: User:Denis.g.rancourt is trying to wikilawyer themselves out of a clear COI--a COI visible in other places as well. Let's see--we have an article Denis Rancourt (an article that itself flies in the face of all kinds of policies we have), and User:Denis has authored Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism (earlier deleted by DGG, a book written by Denis Rancourt published by the, ahem, "Stairway Press", an article consisting for 90% of a quotation from a review in the Times of India (not the first place one would look for a review of an academic book). BTW, the history of Denis Rancourt is interesting: it was created by a now-blocked account, and this first version seems similar in style to what we've seen in the other articles mentioned in this thread, with their focus on lawsuits. User:Denis also wrote up James Maurice Daniels, the Doktervater of Denis Rancourt.

  So, we have a COI editor (who fessed up to the COI), writing up articles on organizations they work for and people they worked with which includes content that violates our policies, and who in addition seems to plug his own work here, walled-garden style. Editors and admins, please have a closer look. I'm going to post a note on COIN as well, pointing this way. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• For those interested in the COIN thread, see here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association. But, as Drmies stated, don't continue talking there. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice that much of the (disproportionately detailed and very one-sided) material on the Rancourt entry seems to come from IP addresses with the single mission of editing the Rancourt article after Rancourt himself learned that he could no longer do so. Coincidence? Either way, yes, by all means, let's get more eyes on it. CafeHellion (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

More grist for the mill. [[59]][[60]][[61]][[62]][[63]][[64]][[65]] CafeHellion (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There's not even the tiniest sliver of doubt that the first-listed IP is User:Denis.g.rancourt. Aside from the edits to Denis Rancourt notice the edits in the climate thread, where he seamlessly takes the same position with both accounts. With that one a solid lock, the other IPs range from "highly likely" on down. A bit disappointing as I've had some interesting interaction with him. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUCK?142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• a few notes here.

I opened a discussion with denis.g.rancourt about COI in Wikipedia on his Talk page. We got pretty far and it seems to be going ~relatively~ OK (not perfectly, but relatively OK), so I am hopeful that the problems he has caused will diminish going forward. We'll see how that goes.

As others have pointed out, the influence of denis.g.rancourt's COI on the content he has added is very clear - the content he has added generally has failed NPOV and has been badly sourced or unsourced. COI will out. The actual removal of the content by CafeHellion (part of the behavior that is the subject of this ANI) was correct.

However the heart of the ANI that denis brought, is that it has generally not been OK in Wikipedia to remove content on the sole basis of the COI of the editor who added the content.

To reiterate that -- CafeHellion's rationale for the reverts he/she made was solely based on denis' COI. See CafeHellion's first response above, and their edit notes here and here, and on the article Talk page here

My understanding is that we generally have not accepted removal of content on the sole basis that the editor is conflicted, and denis.g.rancourt's response to CafeHellion's remark, which is here, is consistent with that.... and so in my view it actually was appropriate (just on that basis) for denis to bring this ANI against CafeHellion, who did justify their edits in a way that we generally have not accepted in the past.

That part of Denis' argument has been ignored, as everyone has been understandably aghast at denis.g.rancourt's blatantly bad (in terms of our content policies) editing, his ignoring of the COI guideline, and his cluelessness in bringing this ANI when his hands were so unclean.

But this ANI is interesting in that it is establishing a precedent that reverting an edit on the sole basis of the COI of the editor who made it, is acceptable to the community. (I am not wiki-lawyering here -- it is just really remarkable to me that no one has even commented on this) I think community consensus may be shifting toward more proactive COI management, especially where the surface content problems are so clear.

Finally, I just wanted to note that per his/her contribs CafeHellion is a new editor and somewhat of a WP:SPA with regard to the article where the edits took place, and seems to know a lot about the organization per his/her remark here, raising the possibility that there is a COI or other advocacy issue going on with CafeHellion. I have opened a discussion on their Talk page with them about that.

I know this was bit long and nuanced for ANI, but I wanted to add those thoughts to this case. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog, thanks for taking this up. I agree that CafeHellion's edits need to be looked at; I have only really looked at the articles and Rancourt's edits, since they were so blatantly in violation of COI, NPOV, RS, etc. And like you I wish we had some more admins/editors looking at this, or that we had @Admin: that kicked every single one of them in the rear. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Quick note. I was just going to work on improving the Rancourt article and was just reading the results of the arbitration about his getting fired, which is here. Due to the nature of some of the material that Rancourt discussed in his SCI 1101 course, as described in paragraph 16 on page 5 of that document, which I was not aware of until now, I am not going to work on matters related to this anymore, to remain well away from the topic of my TBAN. No drama; I just want to abide by my restriction. Good luck to you all in resolving this and improving the content. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• As I see it , ​Whether reverting material on the basis of coi is right depends on the material and the circumstances. If one reverts and just says coi, I would interpret it to mean COI and not contriuting to the encyclopedia in some manner , such as being unsourced or promotional. It's better to specify, because it clarifies the edit. If the reason isn't obvious, or is challenged, it should be discussed on the article talk page as in any other situation. (note:jytdog informed me about his comment, but I'd been following the discussion anyway, because I prodded the article on his book. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Socks on "[Year] in Germany"

Pretty much every article in this format is being targeted by socks of Europefan: See the open SPI. Is there any way to protect them all? This is rather difficult to contain at this point. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 03:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It might be more effective to have the checkuser that just finished the SPI case evaluate the possibility of making a rangeblock or two. Bbb23 did the last check but I don't believe he does rangeblocks so Ponyo might be able to evaluate here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I do range blocks when they are feasible. I almost always check to see if they are. Ponyo did a check just before me. She probably looks at that, too. In this particular instance, I don't believe I did look at it, dunno why, maybe because I get sidetracked by the cross-wiki abuse issue. I suppose I could look at it now. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Aargh, look at what you guys got me into. A can of worms. I'll be posting new findings at the case page sometime later. There may be some behavioral analysis required, which I'm expecting both of you to assist with in exchange for being taskmasters.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'll stop by. Feel free to ping when it's up. Sorry for piling on to your workload. GAB^Hello! 16:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh hi guys! What's going on in this thread? Oh.... You guys need help with anything? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: We might, might want to keep the spi on the radar until the new findings are put up. GAB^Hello! 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Leitmotiv WP:harassing me

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

---

I have asked Leitmotiv to stay off my talk page hereand here yet he continues to post here, this must stop. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

He, like myself, warned you about edit warring and not discussing on the talk page. It's a little in bad taste, considering he's edit warring right along with you, but it's not harassment. It's exactly what talk pages are for. Now go take your content dispute to the article talk page and discuss it out, or drop it and move on. Nothing actionable here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

either we all play by the same rules or we change the rules.CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

What are expecting here? The warnings were valid. If you don't like talk page messages, I recommend following the rules. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Users who have been asked to stay off others users talk pages are only allowed to post *required* notices, that warning was not *required* CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Then, worst case scenario, you're at "unrequired talk page message". Still miles away from harassment or anything requiring an ANI thread, especially when the easiest scenario, "don't edit war and discuss on article talk pages", still remains to be an unattempted approach here. If you don't stop wasting the communities time on this, you're heading towards a BOOMERANG block. Stop complaining about trivial issues and go discuss your content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

CombatWombat42 - I'm not seeing any harassment or violations of behavioral policies here. He's simply trying to ask for collaboration over a content dispute that you both appear to be edit warring over. I agree with Sergecross73; you need to discuss the issue with Leitmotiv on the article's talk page to resolve your issues. Edit warring and then coming here and asking for administrator attention because the other user is attempting to contact you and properly resolve the dispute will only draw negative attention to you. In fact, there may be a WP:BOOMERANG over the horizon per 3RR. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Putting edit warring and 3RR aside for the moment, if I request someone to stay off my Talk page I expect them to do that. For them to then post to my Talk page is WP:Incivil behaviour (although I am not sure about harassment). If Leitmotiv wants to get input from an editor, s/he could edit the article talk page and WP:Ping the editor.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, not sure if you saw my reply to Oshwah so replying here. My intent to talk to CombatWombat42 was not out of disrespect or harassment of any kind, but quite simply forgetting that I got warned from an incident that was over a year ago. I would expect editors to assume good faith and not jump to conclusions. If you read the intent of my latest post on Combat's talk page, you can see my only goal was to work things out, which has not been reciprocated. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DrChrissy. If someone is asked to stay off someone else's own talk page, then I agree that purposefully continuing to message that person using their talk page (and knowing they were asked to stop) does violate behaviors that are expected of others (sure - they were asked to stop, and they didn't stop). However, in this situation, either collaboration needs to occur between the two of them or CombatWombat42 needs to drop the stick and walk away if communication isn't going to be possible with resolving the dispute. But I acknowledge and agree with DrChrissy's response and his assertion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I won't be around much today, but yeah I honestly forgot about the previous warnings to stay off his talk page, because it was over year ago I believe. Honest mistake considering that talk pages should be used for talking, but CombatWombat64 refuses to do that with me anywhere. Which leaves me with a dilemma of editing alongside him. Combat chooses never to take things to the talk page. So what recourse am I left with, except for discussing the edits in the edit notations? I posted to CombatWombat42's talk page as an honest attempt to put whatever differences we have behind us, but as you can see the editor is unwilling. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll just ask: CombatWombat42 - How do you plan on communicating with Leitmotiv regarding the dispute? Do you plan on communicating or collaborating with him at all about it? Where at? On the article's talk page? If you are serious about solving this dispute, a good start in the right direction would be to answer these questions so that Leitmotiv knows, drop this thread, and start working together. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Can you stay off Combatwomabt42's page? You've given them the warning. Make sure yourself are not edit warring. Use the talkpage of the article. They will either join you or not. Y'all can seek some form of dispute resolution as necessary from there. In the event that they do not you can go to WP:AN/3RR.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Yeah that's been discussed already up above. I fully intend to stay off Combatwombat42's talk page. Nothing has ever been worked out on his talk page it seems. I would have stayed off before if I had recalled I was given a warning over a year ago. Simply put, I didn't remember because I don't think of CombatWombat on a daily basis, or barely a yearly basis. Everything that has transpired thus far is merely a function of lost memory regarding warnings and interacting with too many Wikipedians for me to keep them all separate in my mind. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So this is resolved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Self-reporting

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

---

Hi. I believe my behavior in this encyclopedia has a highly negative effect on the overall wonderful ambiance of this place. Some of my utterly despicable edits include:

• This personal attack
• Swearing in an edit summary
• Swearing in a peaceful talk page discussion
• Hell, my own user page is highly degrading to women

To conclude, I believe this encyclopedia will be better off without such disgusting people as me. So, for the betterment of this community, I hope I am permanently blocked. Thank you. Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is not an incident. Either stay and edit constructively or leave. Simple choice. Tiderolls 16:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Could a CU please check if the account has been compromised? Because there's definitely something fishy going on... Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering the indef for vandalism, yes, something is weird, but I don't see what could be done at this point. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W, now you mention it... looking at this user's contributions, they appear to be very constructive up until today's happenings. I second the proposal for a CU. --Ches (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of the account being compromised from an outside entity, the technical data is consistent throughout. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Too bad. Almost five years, and more than 17K constructive edits, and then this, right out of the blue. Thomas.W ^talk 22:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that CU results only indicate that this was not likely to have been an external compromise. It doesn't exclude the possibility that they left their computer unattended while logged in, or that a family member/roommate didn't get a hold of their password etc. I supposed we'll just have to wait and see what Krimuk90's next move is. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

• Apologies for a comment after the close, but it could just be an anger attack based on something we haven't seen - I intend to sleep on it (and let the editor sleep on it) and see if I can reach out to them in some way tomorrow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  Looking a bit further, something a bit similar has happened before - see edit summary here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  Shahid Kapoor seems to be the article of issue. Somehow related to Priyanka Chopra in someway but in the prior article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem with constant removal of content on the page Nergis Mavalvala

Hi. There is this user with changing IP addresses, that is constantly removing the part about sexuality from the above mentioned article, for no apparent legitimate reason. I have warned him or her multiple times to stop, and have reverted them, but he/she persists. Can some admin please do something about this?

The user's IP addresses were:

• 94.201.215.177
• 39.50.213.29
• 212.183.140.54

Thanks. --39.44.151.39 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Woah, there's a lot of editing going on with Nergis Mavalvala right now. Can you provide me with a diff that shows the content being removed that you have an issue with? Is it the "homosexuality" part (in the article summary paragraph)? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this person keeps on removing the homosexuality part from the article constantly even though it deserves to be in there, since it is a part of her personal life.

Here are the diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=704792195&oldid=704786411
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=704784604&oldid=704784416
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=704769757&oldid=704761846

--39.44.151.39 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding with the diffs and the additional information. I checked out the source provided just after the "homosexuality" part, and it does not state clearly that this person is a homosexual (although it does appear to imply and perhaps assume so). It does state that she didn't know her sexual identity in her youth, and that she works closely with gay and lesbian students; it doesn't directly state that she is a homosexual. Per WP:BLP, unless there is a reliable source that states that she is a homosexual, I'm actually okay with the removal of that part until the issue with directly attributing it to a source is resolved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. --39.44.151.39 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't know how to use this but she does describe herself as "out, queer person of color": http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2012/06/just-herself

She is also certainly a Parsi with numerous sources stating it: http://www.dawn.com/news/1239270

Here it is stated she is married to a woman and has a son with her: http://parsikhabar.net/individuals/mit-astrophysicist-nergis-mavalvala-wins-macarthur-grant/2708/

I believe these facts are very important to be included in Wikipedia profile. Some people in Pakistan find it offensive and are trying to censor it. Please do not give in to their efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.145.24 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what other way to interpret the "out, queer person of color" there is. However, at this point I suggest that the discussion needs to be moved to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as there is no admin action to be taken at this time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am Pakistani, and I am not offended by it. Whether she is homosexual or not, she is still a fellow Pakistani and a human being. --39.44.151.39 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The part about her homosexuality has been removed again by user Spasage (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nergis_Mavalvala&diff=705055162&oldid=704885682). Can somebody revert it, as the page has been semi-protected. --103.24.97.66 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Banned from posting sources

Hello. I posted 2 sources on talk page to be visible and the user FkpCascais is removing them. Here: [66]. He has been accusing various people of being socks, and nationalists by trying to block them. He was reported several times and blocked for that behavior at least once. He was also topic banned from Serbs of Croatia article where he tried to block and IP, another user and personally attacked the third user. I don't feel like he is to be allowed to remove sources.I feel I should be allowed to post sources on talk pages, even if he doesn't agree with them. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 89.164.134.31 - You're required to notify other users about ANI discussions that have been started that involve them. I've gone ahead and did this for you. I assume that you're referring to this thread; the IP involved in the discussion appears to have been blocked and for block evasion. I don't see what the problem is here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you were too fast. I'm in process of doing that. Oh, I see you've done it. Thank you. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm not blocked. I've been discussing for a few months with that user under those accusations with 2 RfC's that ended in my favor. [67] [68].

It's ridiculous to discuss with someone for months and keep claiming he is a sock and do not make a single report. No other of at least dozen editors in that discussions had any problems or complaints against me. They had agreed with those 2 RfCs that I had started and they had supported my opinion for changes. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Also to clarify the problem. In my past discussions with that user I found out that his pattern of discussing is to delete other people's posts, personally attack them and accuse them of being socks (you can read all that in the report I referenced). I don't think that he is the one to decide whether some sources should be stated on talk page. Anyone is free to post sources on talk pages and I don't see anything wrong there. He can't delete them only because he doesn't agree with them. You can see whet the admin had done on the talk page. He didn't delete any posts while this user is trying to push his POV by hiding sources that do not agree with his stand. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I should also not that he has a grudge over me because I'm the ip who started the RfC on Serbs of Croatia and finished it against his stand. [69]. He also tried to block me there, but I managed to bring that RfC to other editors who agreed with me. He was extremely rude in that discussion which had him almost blocked.

Here is that report by another user that he was extremely rude to: [70].

89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I note this post, added at 18:16 has had a false time added to it - Arjayay (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that can happen innocently in certain edit-conflict situations. EEng 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I've searched ANI for other reports on the same user:

[71] "User:FkpCascais has a history of repeated personal attacks and extreme incivility. He was previously reported [19] in the past, which resulted in a stern warning by LessHeard vanU ..."

[72]"Hello, the user FkpCascais (talk) had been POV pushing for quite some time now and since he went from POV pushing to personal attacks I'm making this report."

[73] " FkpCascais has gone from seemingly hating my guts to apologizing. The current problem is that I had added a "disputed" tag to one of the two main points of contention. FkpCascais removed it twice and then removed my talk page request not to do that (I see he has reverted that now, though)." -> removing other peoples comments

[74] "This is now the second time that I see FkpCascais misusing AN/I to get rid of an inconvenient user." -> I've seen it at least 2 times, on me and another editor on Serbs of Croatia article.

[75] "This user is being very disruptive."

[76] "Proxing for banned user User:Evlekis. [99] and other examples. Deserves block and topic ban thereafter. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)"

Those are some of the reports. I've also seen a report where he was banned for a week or so, but I couldn't find it now.

I don't think he should be allowed to remove the 2 source I posted on talk page. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• An indef-banned User:Asdisis has been openly violating his ban by admitingly using IP accounts, a situation admin User:HighInBC, me and some other long standing editors have been strugling to find a mechanism to cope with this. It is him using the same old arguments and sources, he simply doesnt disengage. FkpCascais (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I just caught that this IP looks to be within the same range as the IP that was blocked per block evasion in the closed thread linked here. This makes a lot more sense now. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I participated 2 RfC that lasted for a few months and you hadn't reported a single time. That's quite a struggle. I'm allowed to post sources and if you find you have to delete them I can only say, tough. It's not up to you to determine which sources can be presented on talk pages. If you don't agree with what they say, go and find sources to support your stand. 89.164.134.31 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup, same guy, another IP. Once again engaging in the same tactics they were blocked for. There are 4-5 other ANI posts in the past exactly like this. Blocked for evasion. HighInBC 19:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Posting sources. That's really a tactics to get blocked for.141.136.219.204 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC ^^ Is that another one? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

About a 98.5% chance. HighInBC 19:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There a reason y'all are just pontificating about how this guy is probably a sock instead of taking it to checkuser? Jtrainor (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Checkusers can't really tell us much when a person is using a wide variety of IPs. This guy changes IPs every time they get blocked. HighInBC 00:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring after 3 previous blocks.

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

---

user:Natsume96 continued disruptive editing and edit warring after two previous blocks. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5C94:91B2:B204:1F8A (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

2602:306:3357:BA0:5C94:91B2:B204:1F8A - You need to provide actual diffs and edits that show exactly what you're referring to. Where exactly is he being disruptive and where is he edit warring? Beats of Rage? I need more information before I can help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Diffs and stuff are on the Edit warring report. -Einstein95 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was stupid of me to ask. I should have looked there first :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Oshwah,How about actually reading his contributions. 2602:306:3357:BA0:5C94:91B2:B204:1F8A (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, how about... give me a minute, will ya?!! :-) ~Oshwah~^{::(talk) (contribs)} 19:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the user's block history and contribs, it looks like this person has been blocked for edit warring in the past, and also blocked recently(ish) (Dec 2015) for vandalism. I think that the AN3 report will just need to run its course. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oshwah: It looks as if the complainant here is an IP address set up less than an hour ago.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy - Good call. Noted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Consider the following edits, that is not vandalism. Just type "Metro-Active X OpenBOR" in Google. The first link will take you at RuTracker with this game on board. Natsume96 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment Maybe I am having a grumpy evening, I don't know. Whenever the edit section of this page opens, editors are requested to provide diffs. Oshwah was correct to request those in the very beginning of this thread, but we have not seen a single diff in support or opposition yet. THis is extremely frustrating for those trying to help. Furthermore, if there is an active AN3 regarding this complaint, then there is the possibility of forum shopping. The complainant might consider withdrawing their complaint here (i.e. striking) until AN3 is settled.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• No need to WP:FORUMSHOP it here since it's already opened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Natsume96_reported_by_User:Einstein95_.28Result:_.29. An Admin will review it in due time and take the actions they feel necessary. It looks here though that we may have a possible sock using an IP account.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both DrChrissy and Serialjoepsycho - I'm not seeing any edits outside of the 3RR issue (which has already been reported at AN3). Apart from recommending that the reporter refer to the AN3 discussion, I'm not seeing anything that warrants action here at this time. I'm considering this case closed at this point. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I am leaving it to you guys to look through the edits and find out which ones are in support and which ones are in opposition, I am not going to do it for you. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This is another IP address registered about an hour ago.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 - That's not how it works. You can't just open a noticeboard thread (like you did here), make claims about another user such as "making disruptive edits", etc., provide no direct proof (such as diffs or previous discussions with diffs) to back up your claims, and then say "here, you find proof for me. I'm not doing it." - ANI is not a place where you can throw a user under a magnifying glass and expect a community to dissect him like the IRS (lol). If you're going to make claims like this about another user (and, on top of that, open a noticeboard about him), you must have proof and present evidence. Now, I agree that this user has been blocked in the past (somewhat recently) and for pretty non-constructive things (like that vandalism episode). I'm iffy on the 3RR and the report, but I'll leave that for another pair of eyes. Anyways, these are my findings and I think that no action is required from anyone here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I know, my ip address changes often. I don't know why. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Looks a whole lot like a duck. Think if we should do anything here at ANI we should archive the top and bottom.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• I am not a sock puppet, and do not even go there. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Well, I do not care what you guys expect from me, I left you the report so you can do all the work, and I can just get the results. I got better things to do on a Saturday afternoon than looking for evidence. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The evidence is that this has already been opened up in the appropriate location and there is no need to WP:FORUMSHOP it here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Billclarkok's deletions

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

User:Billclarkok has engaged in recurrent vandalism through unexplained deletion of sourced material at political biography articles. Warned about their behaviour here, here, here, here, and here, however said warnings are repeatedly ignored and the user's behaviour continues. The edit summaries provided by the user are disingenuous (as can be seen here and here), and are evidently designed to conceal the disruptive nature of their actions from page watchers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl - I don't see enough recent edits by the user to warrant action. The user has only edited once this entire month, and the last edit had an explanation in the edit summary (see here). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong! There was an edit summary ("link no longer works") but it was a false summary. There was no link. It was the removal of sourced content with a false edit summary, which is this editor's modus operandi. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There is still not enough recent edits to warrant action here. One edit in February 2016 is not going to raise any brows. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, is it possible that you could possibly hold off on providing your opinion or NAC closing threads at an "administrative" noticeboard until at least an admin has had a chance to take a look at the complaint? There seems to be a rush to clerk and close off threads here that is not always necessary or warranted.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 05:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The content blanking is indeed an issue, especially given the false edit summaries. I've left them a message pointing them to WP:DR along with a caveat to use the article pages. We'll see how that goes...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 05:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, on vladamir lenin it was a mistranslation. And even a person there agreed with me. From this point on I'll post on the talk pages of my edits. Thank you Billclarkok (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Help

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

---

I was attempting to start an article, Highfalutin. I went back today, and all my work is gone... this has happened twice. I have to type in everything again - am I doing something wrong? 400 Lux (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you and Bkonrad are in a conflict dispute about this page. Your edits are in the page history. I suggest you start a conversation at Talk:Highfalutin regarding this. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

She never said anything to me. I will edit the talk page. Thank you. I was worried that I was not formatting much - I don't edit often, but I read alot of the help pages. 400 Lux (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Do you know where I can find more help pages on starting articles fresh... and some pages on the wiki formatting? 400 Lux (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

400 Lux - Lets take your question to my talk page :-) -- Do you mind leaving me a message there? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response - I will stop by your page later to talk about that article. And I'd like to pick your brain about the two areas I mentioned above.

p.s. that archive thing makes it difficult to continue talking. 400 Lux (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 400 Lux - Yes, I was hoping to close this ANI thread, since no administrator action is required. If we move this conversation to my talk page, I can close this thread and I continue assisting you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh - I posted on the wrong forum. Please close - I apologize! 400 Lux (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

400 Lux - No apologies needed; it's perfectly fine :-). I'll await your message on my talk page with your questions, and we'll take things from there. Thanks, 400 Lux. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

2607:FB90:170F:F01:0:18:8552:701

2607:FB90:170F:F01:0:18:8552:701 (talk · contribs) is simply a vandal, see his contributions. Please block. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Debresser - If this is the case, you should report the IP to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - this way, it will be visible to more administrators, and it will be handled faster. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah for the advice. And Materialscientist thanks for the block. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. He is back from 2607:FB90:A054:1B24:0:4D:3284:1701 (talk · contribs), vandalizing precisely the same two user pages. Debresser (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and added a short term protection on the two target pages. Please let me know if you want the protection of your user page removed/extended etc. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Add to these two: 2607:FB90:2BD:A641:0:3E:15F2:8C01 (talk · contribs), 2607:FB90:1700:A7A1:0:49:4881:3301 (talk · contribs), 2607:FB90:29B:5AC6:0:4C:9846:A401 (talk · contribs), who for unclear reasons vandalize only me and 117Avenue (talk · contribs). At WP:AIV they only do ad hoc blocks, while it seems here we need to block the whole 2607:FB90:etc. range. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I undid my (non-admin closure) as this seems to be ongoing and requires a bigger solution. I will allow an uninvolved administrator determine when this is closed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Debresser and 117Avenue: I would recommend seeking indefinite semi-protection for your user pages. It seems like the anonymous editor will only continue after temporary protection has expired. There are few reasons another editor should edit your user page and even fewer for an anonymous editor to do so. clpo13_(talk) 19:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI Problems

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

---

For some reason, SPI reports are not submitting properly for me (see here). Is there any way to fix this? I am unsure of what exactly is wrong. GAB^Hello! 00:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• There was an extra bracket in a diff. I think I fixed it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. GAB^Hello! 00:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: the transclusion subbed my signature for yours when I fixed. Do you mind going in and replacing it with your own sig? I've used the {{unsigned}} template in the meantime.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, done. Thank you for fixing that. GAB^Hello! 00:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Blethering Scot

Could an uninvolved Admin please review the Talk page of Blethering Scot (talk · contribs) where he is collecting comments about BrownHairedGirl because she asked him not to post on her Talk page. Blethering Scot is showing Ownership issues on 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season against consensus and pushing his point to the point of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on WT:FOOTY. It's all becoming very disruptive. JMHamo (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I took just a cursory glance but I'd question if they violate WP:POLEMIC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It's the same old BS conduct of assuming that every nuance is actually a binary choice, that a misunderstanding is evidence of lying, and that every disagreement is evidence that BS is being harassed and persecuted ... and that the way to resolve this is through angry, accusatory tirades.

Lots of WP:OWNership, and very WP:BATTLEFIELD ... but mostly just very tedious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I am collecting comments about BrownHairedGirl for the reason that she has repeatedly used the terms I am Perma angry [angry angry and shout, furious, malevolent liars. She has not provided evidence of this and she asked me to show good faith and as you will see on my talk page i clearly asked her to show good faith. I have advised BrownHairedGirl that i feel harassed by her. Until recently we have never interacted, yet now she pretty much pops up frequently reverting or disagreeing with me. I have explained clearly to JMHamo on several occasions that this is not an ownership issue, but one of wanting consistency. I asked him to provide evidence that today this is an ownership issue. He has failed to do so. Ive asked him to provide evidence that during this discussion today I've done anything but discuss. He won't. He tried to shut down the discussion despite him starting it by threatening me with an admin and using the term Stop. Blethering Scot 01:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel this is beyond a disagreement. All i ask of User:BrownHairedGirl, is she stops making comments such as those above. She has made it very personal and yes i do feel harassed by her. I have taken part in the discussion, asked questions and frankly. The reason i was collecting links was to bring her as evidence, if she continued to make these comments. All I want to do is create content and edit wikipedia, I don't want to feel I'm being stalked or targeted and rightly or wrongly I do feel this with BrownHairedGirl. Consistently saying I'm angry when I'm far from it doesn't help me or her. I would like to propose either an informal or formal interaction ban between myself and User:BrownHairedGirl.Blethering Scot 01:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Are you collecting this comments for a reason such as coming here to ANI with a case against them?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see my above comment. The reason i was collecting links was to bring her as evidence, if she continued to make these comments. I feel that if she had continued to make these comments despite her not providing evidence of Shouty comments or being angry then I needed to keep these links. As stated the best outcome of this would be that BrownHairedGirl & i don't communicate. As for JMHamo it is particularly bad that he has provided zero evidence that on this occasion this is about ownership. It is not & as i stated here this is about consistency. I would make the same argument for any season article.Blethering Scot 01:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

To go out of my way and state the obvious, It seems like it would be a good time to bring such a case. But per WP:POLEMIC if you decide not to bring the case just yet it seems like it would be a good idea for you to immediately move them to a subpage.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

As they are clearly documented above I will archive them.Blethering Scot 01:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If BS really wants to pursue this, I can produce bucketloads of evidence of the angry, shouty, battlefield behaviour which I noted. I would hope to avoid that, but it's there aplenty if needed.

As to WP:OWNership, there's plenty of evidence of that too. I accept that BS genuinely wants the articles to be constructed in a certain way; the ownership comes in the angry rejection of everyone who disagrees, and attribution of malicious motive to people who hold a difft view. That's the opposite of consensus-forming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:, are they pinging you every time they post your name?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

They should be pinging her as I did intend them to. As here I was asking her to stop with the comments.Blethering Scot 01:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if this highly annoying practice may be in part why we are here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd consider "Deliberately and repeatedly pinging somebody who has asked the pinging user not to post to them" to be at best seriously stretching good faith, if not WP:WIKILAWYERING around "but I haven't posted to their talk page". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• One thing I'm not really seeing here is evidence. I'm looking at the talk page of 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season and it's coming up blank. Is anyone here not familiar with WP:BRD?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It was discussed back in October 2015 with BS. By the way, I didn't come here over a content dispute, but because of his overall disruptive nature. JMHamo (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Again thats not evidence of me being disruptive in todays discussion. I acknowledged previous discussion right at the start and it was acknowledged that dashes were allowed at editorial discretion. You've provided zero evidence of where in this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#En_dash i was disruptive. Conversing and replying to other points of view is not being disruptive. I wasnt the only one to state the point in the above discussion that WP:Footy should follow the same policy as everyone else and not have its own set of rule with limited consensus. Blethering Scot 02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

He means this conversation Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#En_dash. I did ask JMHamo to provide evidence when he threatened we with an admin. Blethering Scot 01:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyway Im going offline.Blethering Scot 01:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ok so it was discussed in October. It's February now, and now in February can you provide something that sorts looks like eveidence of an issue?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the discussion he believes i was disruptive in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#En_dash. He notifed me of discussion here and i took part in it. I firmly believe User:JMHamo is wasting everyones time with this. Although there definitely is an issue with me & BrownHairedGirl. Which I hope we can sort by agreeing to an interaction ban. We both end up having a go at each other & this isn't good on either of our parts, although I would say I'm not the admin here. Anyway I'm definitely going offline now so I will leave this for everyone else to decide on. Blethering Scot 02:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you steal their keyboard? I'm thinking they may be able to respond for themselves. But reviewing the content they linked for October, you do seem to be displaying ownership issues there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also disclose that i do have a small amount of mental health issues, but this is not relevant in this case. Being constantly accused of being angry in todays's discussion when I'm actually not is disruptive. Anyway as I've said I want nothing more to do with this discussion, it is JMHamo that has asked you to block me so ill leave this to him.Blethering Scot 02:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Does the latest thread on WT:FOOTY look productive to you? Rather than collaborate and discuss the issue in a productive fashion, BS gets defensive and displays the usual behaviour as noted by BrownHairedGirl too, same in October. When you dare make an edit he does not like to an article he "owns" the fun starts.. BTW, BS, Serialjoepsycho is not an Admin either (which is not an issue, just FYI). JMHamo (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The key question is not is it productive but is it disruptive. User:JMHamo I'm fully aware he's not an admin, but as i said above I won't be continuing with this conversation as its a one way street with regards to you providing evidence that todays discussion was disruptive. As for me & BrownHairedGirl I've acknowledged we can't get on and thats not going to change. I feel she despises me and i feel harassed by her. She doesn't see it that way but i do, but again thats something I've said should be dealt with above. Other than [wanting to see me blocked what do you hope to achieve here?Blethering Scot 02:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I can see the annoyance. Not really seeing much in the way of ownership there. How about an RFC to decide the format? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, with respect, I did not come to ANI to discuss a content dispute, this is about BS' track record of Ownership. I will drop the stick myself now, but if BS insists on reverting further changes because he doesn't like it then maybe 3RR is the way forward. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect you came here to ask them to block me. But yet you have provided no evidence of my disruptive behaviour in the discussion or that this issue is about anything but consistency with article on HTML. I acknowledged past ownership issues but this isn't the case here. This would be the same on any current season article. With respect on WP:BRD you reverted me, your edit was bold & mine was the revert. Yet you reverted me again. So equally thats disruptive. I don't think any of us have behaved well and i acknowledge that, but realistically all you are trying to do is have me blocked. Thats all you want, you don't want a resolution, you dont want me to take part in the discussion, so what am i supposed to do. If you feel so strongly about HTML, then Serialjoe is right start a discussion in the proper place to have it removed altogether from the site. At this time it is allowed, so I can't see where you feel My edits are disruptive. Even BrownHairedGirl admitted that they can be used in text. She only objected to links and I get where she is coming from. Anyway enough is enough. Ill let any admin decide what they want to do.Blethering Scot 02:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

JMHamo, I asked for evidence. You really haven't provided any. You have alluded to the possibility of their being some at the bottom of a page. I looked over but didn't really see much of anything wrong. You want to narrow it down and use diffs that would be great. Without evidence I personally have to agree with BS in that everyone has done something that perhaps they shouldn't. I recommend the RFC because it gives you more than the WP:LOCALCON you'll get from footy and it completely resolves the situation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sri Srinivasan

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

---

Recommending page protection for Sri Srinivasan due to speculation and comments about him being potentially appointed as Antonin Scalia's replacement per WP:CRYSTAL. WTF? (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be much a reason yet.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a need for page protection yet. If major BLP issues or vandalism occur where protecting the page becomes the best way to prevent policy violations, you can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Guestajh impersonating an admin

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

---

I am starting to suspect that the recent behavior of User:Guestajh (e.g. moving an article to the draft talk:namespace, creating a userpage for a nonexistent user) has crossed the line from innocent incompetence to malicious impersonation of an administrator. As this is not, IMO, clear-cut vandalism that would justify a report to AIV, I am bringing it here. What pushed me to make this report was, in part, the fact that on User talk:The Wiggles, Guestajh is posting messages similar to those you would expect an admin to post on that of a vandalizing editor (even though Guestajh is not an admin and "The Wiggles" is not a real user). In short, I think Guestajh should be blocked for impersonating an administrator, and for violating WP:DISRUPT and WP:NOTHERE in doing so. Everymorning (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Update: Guestajh has repeatedly removed the speedy template repeatedly from the userpage of nonexistent user "The Wiggles". Everymorning (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. I made a mess trying unsuccessfully to undo that move. His behavior seems bizarre and aimless as it is disruptive: the user he "blocked" is imaginary, as is the "administrator" (Tim Calrissian) he signed the page as; he even acted out the blocked user requesting an unblock. —  Rebbing  talk  05:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's recent contribs, I'm suspecting a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Will wait for a response to this discussion before deciding to block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

[[77]] I don't know. I'm seeing a response like this and thinking its vandalism.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked for blatantly going above-and-beyond in demonstrating WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE, or both, and from their history on their talk page the high probability that the notice for this discussion would simply be removed and the disruption continued. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations by the copyright holder

Hello. I would like to ask for assistance in a matter at Spring break. I'm not sure that I've handled this the best that I possibly could, but it is clear that I am not getting through. Sbp2014 continues to edit war to include copyrighted content from this dissertation, as seen here, here, and here (among a couple more times). He claims to be the copyright holder.

I tried to point him in the direction of donating the material here, but it doesn't seem that I got through as he has never commented on that subject. As he is now just reverting my messages to him and continuing to restore the copyvio, I have failed to get through. I am honestly hoping that somebody else may have better luck that I have. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he's the copyright holder, unless he donates the copyright to us. Even then, there's only certain materials that we accept donations of. Whether or not he does, if we assume that the work is his, his addition of the material is pretty much WP:COI spamming. Of course, if he isn't the copyright holder (it happens), then he needs to stop or be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio, revdel'd the copyright violating revisions, warned him about edit warring, and left another message explaining the above options. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and well-handled intervention! I know I should have brought this here sooner, but I was hoping that he'd slow down and we'd be able to start a dialogue and handle it without bringing too much attention to it. I failed in that. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 07:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:: I believe you are incorrect in your interpretation of copyright in regard to Wikipedia. The assumption is made that everyone who adds material here is the owner of the material's copyright as its creator, and continues to own the copyright after they have added it. By adding it, they have simply licensed it to Wikipedia, not transferred the copyright. If the person in this instance actually does own the copyright to the material, then they can license it as they wish without giving up the copyright. I would check in with WMF legal or ask @Moonriddengirl: to confirm this, but I'm fairly certain it is correct. The editing page says: "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." It says nothing whatsoever about transferring the copyright. In fact, the theory behind Wikipedia is that the copyright is held collectively by the editors who participated in creating the material. BMK (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Fixed ping, see above. BMK (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Per Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Dealing_with_copyright_violations, "A copyright holder cannot both retain non-free copyright elsewhere over their content, and license it for one-time use here with their permission, because Wikipedia's licensing scheme requires that its readers and end users be able to reuse the content under the free license notice that is posted at the bottom of every page." If he retains his copyright over the material, everyone else ends up violating it every time they hit "save page," or use reuse that article in other projects. His copyright precedes that of Wikipedia's copyleft, unless he wants to either donate the material or otherwise copyleft it. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, the copyrighted material must be licensable by the copyright holder, but it is not required (as far as I am aware) that the copyright notice on the material (in its original place) list all the places that parts of it have been licensed to. After all, the owner has the copy right, and that includes the right to license all or part of it as they see fit. Once it is licensed by being added here, the owner cannot prevent other people from using the part that has been licensed by pointing to the original copyright. Once it is licensed here, it is usable everywhere, as long as the license terms are upheld.

(One often sees this in reverse, in which a magazine article, the copyright for which is owned by the magazine's publisher) is expanded into a book, in which the copyright belongs to the book's publisher or to the author. There is no conflict in these two copyrights both existing.)

In other words, the copyright is not unitary, and can be subdivided, with the part that was posted here being licensed, and the part that never was posted or otherwise licensed still being held back. The owner of the copyright can split it up any way he or she wishes, so an existing copyright is no impediment to posting material here by the copyright owner -- that material just becomes licensed for use under our terms. BMK (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at this from the other direction. I create (using reliable sources) a paragraph about the popularity of Pokemon in Venezuala, and upload it to the appropriate article. That material is now licensed under our licensing terms. Then I decide to wirte a book about the popularity of Pokemon around the word. I do that, and get it published, and it includes the material I previously uploaded. I can still copyright the book, and the material from it cannot be reused without my permission except as allowed under the fair use doctrine. Now, if I've substantially re-written the material on Venezuala, the same goes for it as well: no re-use except under fair use. If, however, I've been lazy, and the material on Venezuala is verbatim what I posted here, that material is still licensed, regardless of the copyright I hold on the book, and can be re-used not only under fair use, but also under our licensing terms. So we see that there is no fundamental reason why a license for use cannot co-exist with a copyright. BMK (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If he is the copyright holder, he can legally license either the entire work, or any excerpts of it, in any way that he wants. There is no legal requirement that he publicly repudiate his rights in the previously published work, nor that he grant a license that extends beyond any specific excerpts he chooses to license. However, because the work was previously published with a copyright notice, we at Wikipedia have to assume that the work is not free unless a clear assertion to the contrary is made by the copyright owner. The instructions at granting us permission to copy material already online explains how a copyright owner can provide us with sufficient proof of granting a license. Dragons flight (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for oversight

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

---

Could I request an admin to oversight an edit that is outing me. Obviously don't wish to draw attention to it here, I did try emailing oversight last night but got no response. WCM_email 09:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, just wait for your reply, rather than drawing attention to the problematic edit. Just my advice. --Ches (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

User:JDavidovits at Geopolymer – Personal attacks and legal threats

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

---

The issues at Geopolymer came to my attention with a filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard in which User:JDavidovits reverted months of edits with the following revert and edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geopolymer&type=revision&diff=704588689&oldid=700673701

This definitely was not vandalism. Initially it appeared to be an ordinary case of yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute, which is a common type of personal attack.

However, the following post to the talk page requires attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeopolymer&type=revision&diff=704589367&oldid=700248137

In particular "For several years, we thought that this disarray in the community by which geopolymer at large was a synonym for alkali-activated materials was a matter of misunderstandings, or an over simplification of a polymer chemistry by some civil engineers. In fact, we were surprised to discover that it was a deliberate attempt done by a small and yet defined group of people to use the word "geopolymer" as a cool marketing wording without any consideration for the real chemistry behind it. With all the evidences gathered now, some members of the Geopolymer Institute are thoroughly thinking of any legal complaint and will definitely inform their peers about this situation. The original text represents our knowledge dating back to 2012. We shall update the new current article with any new scientific data acquired since that date. Please, be patient. Prof. Joseph Davidovits (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)" This looks like a legal threat, an even more serious matter than idle claims of vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is a legal threat. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed. Blocked. Sad situation. That talk page post makes for fascinating reading, of course; I wish my conferences were this exciting. It it entirely possible that Johnprovis shouldn't be editing this article because of a COI--but that is a different matter. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Trolling again from Hengistmate

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

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

• [78]
• [79]

I recently fixed a minor spelling in Plasticine from fuse to fuze. This is a specialist term in military history. The correct spelling is somewhat contentious (see long past discussions at Talk:Fuze and related articles) as the z spelling is specific to that field and widely accepted within that field. It is usually seen as the correct spelling, "fuse" being either incorrect or at very least confusable with fuse (electrical), and fuze is never seen as incorrect for these devices. Nor is this an ENGVAR issue.

Hengistmate rapidly reverted my correction. When I restored it he reverted it again in minutes, removing the relevant link too (as [[Fuze|fuse]] piping "fuse" to link to "fuze" was presumably beyond even his chutzpah).

With any other editor, I would have taken pains to explain the significance of the spelling, with reference to the past Talk: discussions, and the fact that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for use with this term. However this is Hengistmate – a self-declared expert in military matters (see User talk:Hengistmate) who is certainly already familiar with the subtleties of this issue. An editor with whom I've also had extensive past problems, including his blocking for repeated socking: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive.

This is not edit-warring. This is not a content dispute. This, given the editor involved and their past history, is simple deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have unwittingly blundered into this content dispute having made (what I believed to be) a legitimate revert. Judging from the discussion currently taking place at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse there does appear to be a valid and proper discussion over the spelling of fuse/fuze. Without commenting here on who is right or who is wrong, on the basis that there is an ongoing discussion, I would suggest that this ANI be closed as no further action. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC

• Re-opening this. Thanks to Ed Johnston for closing this (below), but the issue has kicked off again.

result=No action needed. Please continue to discuss at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse. Hengistmate has not edited the article since 31 December. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC) }}

This issue was raised on 30 December and was ignored for some time. An independent editor, 86.145.215.191, restore the fuze spelling, which was again reverted by Hengistmate. They took no part in the discussion at Talk:Plasticine, nor responded to the ANI issue here. They were active, they continued to edit other articles.

Minutes after Ed closed this, Hengistmate again reverted and even inserted an inappropriate wl to the DAB page at fuse.

This is an editor who knows the technical background to this issue, that WP has adopted the "fuze" spelling for the major articles, and who has a track record of blocked repeated socking simply to troll me. For them to ignore an issue for the duration of their exposure at an ANI posting, but then dive straight back in within minutes of that going away - especially with an edit so simply unconstructive as to replace a correct link with a DAB link (whatever the spelling issue) - this strikes me as sheer BF editing.

Those interested are invited to read the discussion at Talk:Plasticine - but this is still here as a behavioural issue about one editor, not a content matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• De-archiving this. I have tried to help out with the content dispute, and it has become clear during extensive discussion that there is an issue with the conduct of the OP.

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has misrepresented sources [80] [81] [82], and repeatedly made the same uncited edit [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89].

As well as the false accusation of "trolling" made above, he has now issued false warnings for disruption [90] [91]. As advised in WP:DE and WP:HA, I am reporting this here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A little reminder, you're required to notify other editors if you raise them at ANI. Why didn't you? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe reverting MFD relistings

Ok, I'm getting tired of this. I'm trying to close the giant backlog at WP:MFD and my relistings keep getting reverted by User:SmokeyJoe. If this was AFD, CFD, TFD, RFD, anywhere else, anyone who would be blindly reverting an administrator's choice to relist a discussion would be treated as disruptive editing. Is it disruptive if it's done at MFD? The reason this matters is largely because relisting will move it from the bottom of the MFD page to today's page just like what is done with relisting at AFD, CFD, TFD, RFD. If SmokeyJoe wants to re-write the admin closing instructions to disallow relisting, that's fine but that's a severe policy change that requires more than just blindly reverting an admin's attempts to deal with these discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• From what I've seen of this, SmokeyJoe has explained the issues, so perhaps Ricky81682 could do more listening.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that reverting a relisting notice in the MFD (like in the diff provided) is disruptive. In this example, there was only one vote and consensus was not reached. I don't understand what he means by "pushback against mindless relisting by a self-declared deletionist", as you weren't deleting anything. Ricky81682 - Are there more instances of him doing this that you can provide? Have there been discussions between you two about this? Where can I find them? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive913#MFD_relistings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The only best solution to this is simply for Ricky to stop relisting the MFDs and simply moving on....., MFDs don't need to be relisted in any shape or form. –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I am both acknowledging and noting the previous ANI discussion you provided. It appears to be recent, and was started by Ricky81682. Let me read the discussion and find out what consensus (if any) was reached. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I read the ANI discussion. There doesn't appear to have been any consensus reached; just opinion and discussion on both sides. In my opinion, relisting an MFD seems perfectly logical (even if there aren't many voters that participate there) if no consensus appears to have been reached. In the example provided above, with only one vote made to the discussion, I think that relisting it was a completely appropriate thing to do. But I don't participate at MFD, so I can't provide much context with the typical number of voters or input that discussions accumulate (and starting today, I think that will change; I'll start participating if you'd like :-D). I think that the best solution to this is the RfC that was created below. Without any documentation or policies on relisting, reverting, etc. in MFD - it can be argued that no violation has occurred either. Lets get a consensus going and change that :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have created Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?. Cunard (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is the best solution moving forward from this ANI. Since there is no policy regarding it (which is acknowledged by everyone here), lets fix the root of the problem and see what should be done :-). Thanks for doing that, Cunard! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually there is a policy (or at least clear instructions) in place since 2009 and Ricky is following them. Says either closed or relisted above':

Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, well, there you go. Adding this into perspective, I stand behind my original response in that reverting an administrator's relisting of an MFD is disruptive to the process. It should be discussed, not simply reverted. Using an edit summary with "pushback against mindless relisting by a self-declared deletionist" seems to me like there's a grudge or something here. WP:IDONTLIKEIT maybe? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• No need to pretend that this hadn't been discussed.  I took a look at the diff.  A poorly prepared MfD nomination, a clear discussion that explained how the nominator could have handled the issue rather than bind the time of MfD volunteers; but that wasn't good enough for Ricky because he is also busy adding articles to MfD, so he posts an effete relisting, to give Legacypac a chance to "win" the MfD.  I've seen this often enough to know what is going on, and I've seen the problem with Legacypac not getting the proper corrective feedback from administrators in preparing deletion discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not look at the provided diff until now because I know Smokey hates relistings. Please don't make this about me, cause all I did was nominate junk for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not hate relistings. I only hate empty relistings. Usually, at WP:AfD, I only review relisted discussions. Comment-less relists on empty discussions are frustrating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What comment would you expect? There's the nominator saying delete, and you voting blank on the basis of "no need to do this" which is fine and all but is "no need" really a policy rationale here? "Hi, go take some more time here"? "Hi, I'm relisting because it's a 1-1 ratio now"? "Hi, I'm relisting and going to give my personal opinion here so that someone else can drag this to DRV under the guise of its a SUPERVOTE and I'm biased"? Now, you're going to my talk page, and at the RFC talking about "roving deletionists". Is the issue my closes? Are you saying that I'm biased in closing these as delete? Why not take these to DRV? Is it just that there's so many people voting delete and you're in the minority and you want an admin who will WP:SUPERVOTE them to blank? This feels like a way to drive out an admin simply because they have different policy views that you do and rather than actually trying to achieve a consensus ("no relisting at all" is clearly going to fail as a proposal) it's simply about pushing and pushing me around until I leave MFD alone and you can harange the next admin who is stuck with this backlog. I get you, you think this whole thing is a waste of time and are less immediatist than the people proposing these. Fine, that's a fair but I'm not closing my discussions. My MFD nominations are fairly specific and not of these types so I don't know what you want done here, a power-hungry admin who just blanks all these under the guise of WP:STALE and all the other policies are wrong because you think so and then see if that goes to DRV for further discussion? That is already going on and it's basically the same issue: everyone agrees that one vague quiet MFD discussions aren't ideal, everyone thinks more people should offer an opinion, there's a minority who oppose deleting these, there's a number of people who support deleting these, the "deletionists" (fine) are in larger force at MFD and if admins close these as no consensus, they get re-nominated and deleted, if admins relist them, you'll just revert without discussion, so what exactly do you want done? Do you just want everyone who is nominating these pages perfectly correctly under the current policies and currently having them deleted to all be topic banned from MFD? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that I'm biased in closing these as delete? Yes. You are self-declared deletionist, as supported by AfD stats, and you, and others from WikiProject:Abandoned drafts, are overwheling the MfD reviewer with worthless harmless pages. Then when things are ignored, appropriately even, you really try to break the process by wholesale relisting, purportedly to hide the fact that there is a backlog.

Why not take these to DRV? Because the specific page is not worth undeleting. Better to discuss it. You even asked for discussing it in one place, but you keep posting different ideas in different place, and in general are not listing. Of particular relevance, is you close of the previous ANI thread, you don’t want to talk about it, but then go back to the same thing, indiscriminate relisting messing up the only list. Why not DRV? There is a certain absurdity to having yet another of level of discussion over things not worth the first discussion. Have you yet read busywork and do you see how you are creating it?

“This feels like a way to drive out an admin simply because they have different policy views”. When closing, you should not reflect your personal views.

I am less immediatist than the people proposing these? Absolutely. Now lets be rationale. If the rate of nominations exceeds the rate of reviews, is that not an obective measure of a problem? What is your response to the problem? To make reviewing more difficult by scrambling the only list?

“a power-hungry admin who just blanks”. No. Blanking old things, or redirecting to the superior page, is an any-editor action.

I don’t know that I have ever haranged an admin closer. Further, I have never hanged you over a close. Fistly, it is the busywork nominations. Secondly, it is the indiscriminate relisting that makes reviewing harder.

The "deletionists" (fine) are in larger force at MFD. I guess that is true. Recently. I think it is due to recent invigoration at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts.

I reverted your relist due to you ignoring attempts to discuss and going back to the same challenged behaviour.

Do you just want everyone who is nominating these pages perfectly correctly under the current policies and currently having them deleted to all be topic banned from MFD? No, I want Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts to consider which of the tens of thousands of identified so-called abandoned drafts should be nominated one-by-one at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So you want all of MFD to stop in favor a project that's barely active and where you've never been involved? Why do you care so much about that project? It's hardly active. Why not propose something over there rather than volunteer that project with a giant workload that you clearly have no intention of actually helping out at? I've been active there since June 2014 at least and it existed because prior to the creation of AFC there was no G13 mechanism to delete the thousands of drafts coming out. The issue was first brought up in August 2014 with 40,000 stale drafts then and I jumped in when it got 47k. It's been nothing but complaining from all around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you and others are in the process of listing all 40,000 stale drafts on MfD. And then when the reviewers can't keep up, or stop commenting on unimportant things, you are going to scramble the list order, meaning that important things will get through without systematic review.

"So you want all of MFD to stop in favor a project that's barely active" Again, it is as if we are speaking different languages. I want MfD to work efficiently, while you are making it harder. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Then propose something, something more concrete than "don't relist things at MFD". However, there's no evidence that there's any consensus for your "slow down" for whatever reason approach. Besides would relisting these things to have more discussion be better at slowing these down than just deleting them? I honestly don't get what you want here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Unscintillating, your accusations not only sound absolutely ludicrous, but they are not supported with any evidence. Do you have evidence supporting your accusation that Ricky81682 is relisting MDF notimiations for the purpose of allowing Legacypac to vote correctly on them so he can appear to correct his statistics due to "not getting the proper corrective feedback from administrators in preparing deletion discussions"? Because this is a strong accusation, and making such accusations without evidence isn't just unwelcome to do, but it can also be seen as uncivil. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Unscintillating is exactly right. I count three editors recently active at MfD with low standards for rationales/criteria for deletion how are, unintentionally by coincidence or due to mustering at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, tag teaming in nominating an overwhelming number of worhtless harmless pages and supporting each others nominations. Evidence? Look though MfD for things like: Draft already elsewhere (NB more often than not, the draft pre-existed, making the nomination technically incorrect), "Delete as unlikely needed", "Need to clear stale draft backlog" and who is using such bland statements nearly without discrimination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What exactly would you like? To close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Janicerj/Sherman Oaks Antique Mall with "blank, ignore the people who voted delete"? Take it to DRV if that's what you want; if you offer, I'll restore it and move it wherever you want. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

How much detailed rational is required from an editor to justify deleting a poorly written 4 year old stale draft about Hanna Montana, a roundabout in India, or some band that played some coffee houses in Spuzzum before breaking up 6 years ago? Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What exactly would you like? With regard to this thread, for you to not relist without a better reason than it is in the backlog. Have a bit more patience and we'll get to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So are we back to "no relistings at all" again? At the RFC you demand no "indiscriminate and comment-less" relistings? Why is that relisting to get it back up on top (since most people are going from top to bottom) so terrible when Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Geography of Christmas/to do was relisted on the 25th and you didn't care? You even voted afterwards with no mention of any objection that I didn't put a comment there? Are you only demanding no relistings when you have commented? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, what actual evidence (diffs, revisions, URLs, anything?) do you have that directly support your statement and your agreement that this is occurring? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can we focus on the reverted relist. Was that an appropriate relist, given Ricky's close of the previous ANI thread to forstall the discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:RELIST says in part "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." A fair implication is that no comment is needed on the 1st and 2nd relist action. The template already states a valid reason for relisting:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment- This whole thread seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKERICKY81682. You can't just attack an editor for allegedly having deletionist leanings, and then invent some fanciful tale about them relisting MfDs just to give a tag team the opportunity to vote. Nobody's presented a shred of evidence for this wildly speculative attack, or for the idea that relisting MfD is disruptive at all. I suggest this discussion be closed under WP:NPA and WP:COMPLETEBOLLOCKS. Reyk _YO! 07:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Nobody's presented a shred of evidence for this wildly speculative attack, or for the idea that relisting MfD is disruptive at all" I'm telling you, as I told Ricky, having contributed to over a thousand MfD discussions, that indiscriminate relisting is disruptive to my systematic review of MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am so watching that page. I know it's going to become blue one day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Careful what you wish for, Ricky81682 [92]. EEng 07:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't hate Ricky. I actually quite respect his intention to clean up, and especially his efforts in closing many old discussions including some difficult discussions. Actually, I should not that I find his nominations deletionist, but have not been bothered by any close.

I was frustrated that Ricky pulled the pin on the last discussion on these comment-free relists, saying he wouldn't continue, which is all I asked, and then suddenly resumed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Reyk the point of this section is the wholesale reverting of the relistings, not a complaint that the relistings themselves are objectionable. Can I un-do the revert and actually relist the discussion? Should I continue to go through and clear out the MFD backlog including relisting discussions? I'll await the RFC results but it doesn't seem like there's any idea on what relistings are appropriate and what aren't to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't send the listing back to the top unless there is a reason for previous reviewers to review it again. Note that reviewers, like myself, may review and choose to make no edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll ignore relistings until there's an actual consensus on when they are appropriate. There's a combination of discussions about whether to relist, when not to relist and then there's Legacypac's closed RFC about nomination-only going for softdelete (which to be honest, all of these are, there's literally no chance I would object to restoring any of these pages). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary

Let's put this whole MFD thing aside for a minute, if you don't mind :-). I would like to ask you, SmokeyJoe, about your edit summary here. You appear to have called Ricky81682 a "self-declared deletionist" - why did you do that? Where does he say that he is? You also use the term loosely to describe other editors here. What is this all about? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah, that was a reference to his "this user is a deletionist" userbox that he had on his userpage until today, which I note matches his AfD !voting history. Intended as a suggestion of bias, not an insult. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

But, SmokeyJoe, you said that the reversion was for "pushback against mindless relisting by a self-declared deletionist" - why wouldn't that be taken as an insult when you say that his edit was "mindless"? I would take that as kind of insulting if you said that to me. I still feel that there is some battleground/grudging going on here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. SmokeyJoe, please be careful with statements like that. I feel that this would be widely regarded as incivility by others that don't understand what you mean, leading to fueling negativity and anger to discussions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. "mindless" Sure, a bit clumsy. I later tried "indisciminate and comment-free". When something is relisted, I look for the relisting comment. I was thinking of the quality of the relist. Apologies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So I just ran into this. Your apology is noted, but I'm inclined to continue my questioning about your behavior towards Ricky81682 - what's this all about? You said that you don't think that his removal of that userbox "was a 'dumb joke'". You also tell him that his AFD history reveals him to be "a deletionist", and that "it matters, because I think you act with a clear deletionist bias". Your edit summary doesn't appear to me to be simply "thinking of a quality relist"; this appears to be battleground conduct. Can you explain your message on Ricky81682's talk page? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well the first discussion on it was at WT:MFD like this so I've generally been called out personally for these things for a few weeks now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Peter O'Conner

Peter O'Conner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in a sort of slow-motion edit war. The editor makes an edit (typically sourced poorly, or with a source that is not in accord with the added text,) which is subsequently reverted by other editors (at least, I have been doing so.) A few days, weeks, or months later the editor returns and makes nearly the same edit again - sometimes with a change of sources, again poor.

The editor's edits for Chengdu J-10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are examples of this.

Aircraft range

• 6 August 2015, unreliable sources.

Adding aircraft varients

• 6 August 2015, unreliable sources.
• 7 August 2015
• 12 August 2015
• 10 September 2015, unreliable sources.
• 12 October 2015, no source.
• 29 October 2015, unreliable source.

Varient properties

• 22 August 2015, no source.
• 24 August 2015, unreliable sources.
• 10 September 2015, unreliable sources.
• 18 October 2015, not in sources.
• 23 October 2015, not in sources.
• 30 October 2015, unreliable source.
• 6 February 2016, no source.
• 12 February 2016, unreliable sources.

The editor is also making substantial edits on Type 99 tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which are also being reverted, again over several months. The editor's history contains other, perhaps lesser, examples.

The editor does not use (refuses to use? avoids?) talk pages, so it is impossible to come to any "concensus" on matters. I have attempted to use the editor's talk page, but it seems not to have had any effect; the editor has continued to use non-expert sources as sources (particularly chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com.)

Peter O'Conner's behaviour is identical to Tamlinwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/AChig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (accounts abandoned shortly before Peter O'Conner's creation) and I believe they are the same editors, which would suggest this has all been going on for a lot longer than Peter O'Conner's record suggests.

I am at a loss at how to proceed since there seems to be no way for me to get the editor's attention. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 08:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

RovingPersonalityConstruct I don't see an edit war at all. It just looks like edits that you don't agree with. Have you spoken to this user at all and tried to discuss your concerns with this person? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, fix your signature. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

As mentioned in my initial post, I have attempted to contact the editor on their talk page, and received no reply. Invitations to discuss matters on article talk pages also went unanswered.

The editor does not use talk pages; there are no instances of talk page edits in the editor's contributions list. In fact, the user has, in the past, blanked their user talk page after receiving messages. Whether they bothered to read the messages first I cannot say, but obviously the messages have had no effect.

And thanks for the heads up about my sig. I'm quite embarrassed that I didn't notice it myself for so long. :o - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 11:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I note that the OP has in one user talk page post claimed that User:Peter O'Conner is a sock of two accounts, User:Tamlinwah and User:AChig, the latter of which is currently blocked as a sock of the former (though the former is not blocked) diff. Indeed, a trawl through the editing history of all three accounts reveals a very loudly quacking WP:DUCK. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Very loudly quacking indeed. Also please note that Peter O'Conner was created on 25 June 2015, during Tamlinwah's two-week block for socking (see SPI), and from the very first edit they made , on 10 July (an edit I gave them a warning for...), continued doing the same type of unsourced/badly sourced edits that Tamlinwah and AChig until then had been doing, explaining why Tamlinwah stopped editing after getting blocked, even though the block wasn't an indef. So I suggest that RovingPersonalityConstruct file an SPI report, naming Peter O'Conner as a suspected sock of Tamlinwah. Thomas.W ^talk 14:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI case raised. See [93]. Hopefully some kind soul will move it into WP space.86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thomas.W ^talk 15:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC) (Couldn't resist using that nifty little template...)

User:Josephlalrinhlua786 and personal attacks

Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few days ago, I posted on this user's talkpage regarding a potential edit war. Further edits to the article in question where made by this user including edit summaries with personal attacks one and two. This user chose to ignore the warnings and has moved onto the article for the film Deadpool (film), continuing with personal attacks against other users in their edit summaries: one, two, three and finishing with this four. His talkpage is awash with warning notices around personal attacks and copyright violations (they've been blocked before for the latter). I also see no attempt by the user to discuss the issues on their talkpage or anywhere else. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The personal attacks are mild and I wouldn't action anything on that - to me they come across as an angry teenager banging their first on the table complaining that things are so bloody unfair rather than actually lashing out at you specifically. The lack of communication looks like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but I hope that can be cured by dropping a note telling them to use talk pages. If they ignore that, we can block then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So if I call you a dipshit, that's OK, as it's only a "mild" attack? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the context, but in the case you mention it, no it's not OK. However, I believe charging in like a herd of elephants and handing out a civility block has a nasty tendency to blow up in your face, so I'd rather go for the harder but more rewardable approach of listening to them so they drop the incivility of their own accord. If they call me a dickface in response to my message, we can deal with it then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I didn't understand the no part of No personal attacks. How many warnings is enough? One? Two? Three? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

New suspected sock of User:Dragonrap2

Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock of Dragonrap2 (talk · contribs).

Previous socks include: WXA53 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki (talk · contribs), 104.243.169.127 (talk · contribs), 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs), Futuristic21 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki2 (talk · contribs), Mega256 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki The Third (talk · contribs), Mega257 (talk · contribs), Mega258 (talk · contribs), Futurew (talk · contribs), 104.243.166.108 (talk · contribs), and 104.243.170.125 (talk · contribs).

Similar editing pattern, and edits are to the same relatively obscure Louisiana articles (note that all of the IP socks were registered to users in Natchitoches, Louisiana).

See Template:Baton Rouge Radio where four other socks have edited:

• WXA53 (talk · contribs)
• 104.243.170.125 (talk · contribs)
• Futuristic21 (talk · contribs)
• Futurewiki (talk · contribs)

See Template:New Orleans Radio where four socks have edited:

• Mega256 (talk · contribs)
• WXA53 (talk · contribs)
• Futuristic21 (talk · contribs)
• Futurewiki (talk · contribs)

See Template:Laurel-Hattiesburg Radio where an IP sock has edited:

• 104.243.166.108 (talk · contribs)

As well, Baseballman93.100 (talk · contribs) (already blocked) may be another sock, as the edits are to many of the same articles. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:SPI. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tylerkermit

Reporting Tylerkermit (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Diffs after block: [94] [95]

I was going to post this to AIV, but I wasn't sure it met the threshold for "clear" and "obvious" vandalism. Edit history for account is confusing. Possibly some well-intentioned edits (hard to tell), but far too many subtle but clearly unconstructive changes (usually on minor content like film statistics) to continue to assume good faith. User never provides sources and arguments in edit summaries appeal to "memory" or similar. Suspect disruptive intent. User has been notified. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Reporting Fgnievinski

• Reporting Fgnievinski (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Fgnievinski has twice unilaterally moved the article Historia (Chilean journal) to different names. The first move [96] occurred just after he contested my removal of some content on SciELO [97]. When I proposed the page to be moved back to its original name he did not join the discussion [98].

Fgnievinski has done something unacceptable, he has changed the naming convention to justify his move. [99]. That edit was done just one minute before he made his unilateral move.[100]

Can a an administrator move back the page to Historia (Chilean journal) so any move can be properly discussed? Or do I have to make a move proposal, wait seven days, just for Fgnievinski move it to a new name with one-click? Again, Fgnievinski's behavior is disruptive and inconsistent as his moves have been toward different names. Dentren | ^Talk 12:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Dentren: Please try to initiate a discussion in which involved parties are notified first: Talk:Historia (PUC Chile journal)#Title. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• I already did when I did the move proposal. You chose to not participate. Your behavior is not acceptable. Dentren | ^Talk 13:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Reporting the abuses of administrator Doug Weller

An NPOV template was justifiably added at the article Sovereign citizen movement but it was reverted by Doug Weller:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:160.39.203.39

Without any reasonable explanation, Doug Weller labelled this edit as "nonconstructive" and "disruptive". Even more, he is making a threat against me that I might "lose my editing privileges".

Making a threat to a Wikipedia user with no good reason is terrorism, plain and simple. Therefore I hereby demand Doug Weller be removed for his administrator privileges in order to have a free and safe Wikipedia community. Alonso McLaren (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)