Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
OneClickArchiver archived Anything other than reverting/blocking that can be done? to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#Anything other than reverting/blocking that can be don...
Line 185: Line 185:
=== Call for administrator review and close ===
=== Call for administrator review and close ===
May we please have a ruling on this? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 18:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
May we please have a ruling on this? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 18:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

:As OP, I concur. It is clear that there is a good consensus that some action should be taken by the admins, though opinion is divided as to what. Option 3 is a non starter as it was proposed under the illusion that all Wtshymanski's reverts were uncontroversial. In fact the second of the two in my OP was completely controversial, as others have agreed.

:I would suggest that this is ''not'' left unactioned, but at the very least, Wtshymanski should be formally warned of his breach and of the consequences of any future breach. [[Special:Contributions/212.183.128.147|212.183.128.147]] ([[User talk:212.183.128.147|talk]]) 15:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


== Problem with admin who has erroneously accused me of disruptive editing on the page [[Clarawood]]==
== Problem with admin who has erroneously accused me of disruptive editing on the page [[Clarawood]]==

Revision as of 15:51, 19 April 2016

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Repetative disruptive editing on Battle of Lang Son (1979)

    An anonymous editor keeps using various IPs to create disruptive editing on the page without explanation. Here’s his last editing [1]. Dino nam (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP 153.19.171.18 has made another disruptive editing on the page [2] Dino nam (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP 94.254.225.68 has made another disruptive editing [3] I think it's sufficient to block all these IPs. If you don't have any method to deal with this, then surely I will have to deal with it by myself. Dino nam (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've requested semi protection at WP:RFPP. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wtshymanski reverting IP editors in breach of editing restrictions

    In March 2015, Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) had an editing restriction imposed because he was routinely reverting any edit made by an IP address based editor regardless of whether it was vandalism or a good faith edit. The editing restriction was:

    Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · logs) is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article.

    On the 23rd March 2016, Wtshymanski reverted an IP editor in violation of this ban with this edit.

    On the 16th March, Wtshymanski reverted an IP address editor with this edit. This was an indirect revert (by copy pasting) of this good faith edit made by an IP address editor. The ban was enacted precisely to stop this last behaviour.

    Note: that the ban was made for any edit made by an IP editor because Wtshymanski was disguising reverts of good faith edits by labelling them as vandalism. This is also a known tactic: to carry out an apparently harmless edit in amongst a raft of other edits to check if anyone is watching. If they are not, it is back to business as usual. 212.183.128.152 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a link to the long ANI discussion about this editing restriction. Liz Read! Talk! 12:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) This was a perfectly good revert. However, a ban applies and it's indefinite. Nevertheless, I find swinging the ban hammer based on a single (good) revert a little too much. The remedy was proposed to break a pattern, and this edit can hardly be said to fit that particular mold. Don't try to kill a gnat with a howitzer... Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. As for the known tactic, unless you have evidence (and show it) that this is a recurring pattern with this user WP:AGF applies. Kleuske (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned about this because although I'd fully support these particular edits (one is vandalism, one an error) there is a problem here that Wtshymanski acquired a richly deserved editing restriction to limit. He is in breach of it.
    I favour no action here, as I can't see that any action would be any more than punitive. However he should be reminded that the restriction is in place. Any further reversions like this are likely to attract sanctions.
    I'm mostly unimpressed by the IP editor here trawling to find excuses to bring Wtshymanski to ANI weeks after an uninvolved event. In what way is that a constructive action? Is there need for a WP:BOOMERANG here? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Andy nailed it. The vandalism revert was brainless. yes W should not have done it, but pointless to punish now. But spank that petty IP. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that the best response would be to caution Wtshymanski with no other administrative action. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion If Wtshymanski didn't breach the ban for over a year (block log is clean since 2013, so I can only assume this is the case), and their first technical slipup was not of the same disruptive kind that led to the ban in the first place, perhaps someone should suggest appealing the ban, or maybe putting them on probation where they can revert clear vandalism, mistakes, etc. for, say, six months, before the restriction is lifted entirely? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    An examination of Wtshymanski's editing history answers your point. Since the ban in March 2015, Wtshymanski has only made a handful of edits (19 to be precise) up to March of this year. He has since then sprung back to life with nearly 200 edits.
    Someone above dismissed the second example that I posted as an 'error'. In what way? The IP editor made a good faith edit that was technically correct. It might be argued by some that we don't call batteries as cells in every day parlance but that is not the point. Wtshymanski reverted the edit against his ban. Part of the original complaint was that Wtshymanski was not checking the history prior to his actions.
    An editing ban is an editing ban. Either we have them or we don't. At the very least, Wtshymanski should be warned that he has erred. 212.183.128.152 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is interesting, and does make me lean more toward a six-month probation period before all sanctions are lifted than simply immediately lifting the sanctions, but then again you might be just as much at fault, because apparently an IP editor has been trying to goad Wtshymanski into violating their restriction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not me. I have had no interaction with Wtshymanski for well over a year (apart from placing the required ANI notice on his talk page). Also forgive me but I have had to make this post from an alternative platform because the ANI page refuses to update on my regular PC. 85.255.232.7 (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC) (AKA 212.183.128.252)[reply]
    The IP who was reverted for their error went to 3RR to push an unsourced and incorrect change, in quite a proscriptive form, "properly speaking, a battery consists of two or more cells". This is simply wrong (1 cell is still a battery), especially when stated so firmly. So whoever reverts it, that's not a statement that belongs in that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Before considering a reduction in restrictions, please look at the pattern of behavior here:

    Some of the above incidents that should have ended up as blocks ended up instead as page protection because Wtshymanski's latest opponent (typically a new user) behaved worse, so Wtshymanski's block log does not tell the whole story.

    Whenever a line is drawn that Wtshymanski is not supposed to cross, he stands on the line with his toes hanging over it and makes random short dashes over the line and back. This generates endless debates as to whether sanctions are appropriate for the minor infraction.

    Also note that whenever Wtshymanski faces the possibility of sanctions, he typically does not defend himself or comment at ANI (statistically, this is a great strategy for avoiding sanctions) but instead stops editing for a while. The old "he hasn't edited since X, so nothing to do here" trick works every time -- his RFC/U was closed with "Considering that Wtshymanski has not edited since 16 May 2012, no immediate administrative action appears required". If he stops editing, please don't fall for this trick again.

    Whenever administrators decline to take any action, Wtshymanski regards it as an endorsement of his behavior. He has repeatedly responded to warnings on his talk page with a comment that he has been taken to ANI, no action was taken, and therefore his behavior is acceptable. "... and yet, every time someone lists me at WqA or ANI, it peters out due to lack of interest."[4]

    The good news is that Wtshymanski responds well to even short blocks. A 6 or 12-hour block will cause the specific behavior that led to the block to stop for many months and even years. The other good news is that the vast majority of the time he does really good work, and we have a shortage of skilled engineers who can detect problems in highly technical engineering articles. The bad news is that every so often Wtshymanski pushes the engineering equivalent of fringe theories and pseudoscience, and in such cases he refuses to accept any feedback from the other skilled engineers who are working on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of those come from before -- some long before -- the restriction was put in place. Wtshymanski technically violated his ban twice, in a benign manner that others agree with on the substance, but thee also got in fights with IP editors and new editors as four years before the ban was put in place and managed to avoid restrictions because they were right on the substance then as well. Per what the IP said above, technically it would be impossible for a dozen instances of violating the ban to have already gone unnoticed, because they've only been actively editing for a few weeks. Retroactively blocking Wtshymanski for an edit they made back in 2011, because it my have been in violation of a restriction placed in 2015, even for only a few hours, is a terrible idea. I don't know if it was your intention -- I actually doubt it was -- but I know for a fact that there are contributors on ANI who actively try to enforce restrictions ex post facto, and I can't shake the feeling that some of them get their way, so even accidentally giving them their way here would be a disastrous misstep. And fourteen threads on multiple forums (only six on ANI) over more than half a decade is pretty average, and possibly below average for someone who's made on average around 13 edits a day for over a decade. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Where has anyone suggested that Wtshymanski be blocked for an edit made in 2011? Guy has provided some context but that is basically all. 85.255.232.7 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I specifically recommended that Wtshymanski not be blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but at least one IP editor is requesting thus, and taking a rather cloak-and-dagger approach to it; posting links to discussions from five years ago may not muddy the waters any further, but it hardly helps the situation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree. My "posting links to discussions from five years ago" helps the situation a lot. This is a case of long-term behavior, and the fact that he was doing the same thing five or even ten years ago is extremely relevant. I presented the following context:
    • Wtshymanski does a lot of good work and should be retained if at all possible.
    • Wtshymanski is usually (but not always) right when it comes to questions involving engineering and technology.
    • Wtshymanski often ends up battling IPs and newly-registered users who are pushing engineering pseudoscience, often for commercial reasons.
    • Wtshymanski exhibits long-term problematic behavior and will not collaborate with other established Wikipedia editors who have technical skills.
    • Wtshymanski (unlike most editors who end up at ANI) is extremely responsive to sanctions, and a very short block usually puts an end to the particular behavior being addressed.
    This is context that will help any administrator who decides to deal with this situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a sometime critic of WTS, I looked at the two WTS diffs in the original report. The first one was a straightforward vandalism revert that nobody should get worked up about. The second was more problematic but should have been discussed with WTS before bringing it here. Especially since there doesn't seem to be a recent recurring issue, the report and its followup came across as axe-grinding, as per Andy Dingley. I think an admin should leave WTS a talk message linking the second diff and asking him to be more careful, but more immediate action against WTS is not needed. The batteries/cells thing should be discussed on the article talk page. The reporting IP's style also reminds me of a certain someone but I'll leave any decisions about that to others. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove the restriction Because frankly, it's ambiguous and can be wikilawyered to death and has no teeth at all - as evidenced here. What's the use of a ban on reverting IP edits if we're not going to enforce it? Take of off, let WTS go willy nilly all over the project, and let's just look the other direction because, once again, productive editors are above community critique. Save us the ANI discussions for a worthless ban and just take it off (I'm being sarcastic and serious at the same time, get rid of it).--v/r - TP 06:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the fact that no administrator seems to be willing to even caution Wtshymanski when he violates this, and the easily-verifiable fact that Wtshymanski consistently interprets administrator inaction as permission, the restriction has already been effectively removed. We might as well make it official so nobody wastes any effort reporting future violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So today we see the return of Wtshymanski, a first post to this thread asking to have the restriction lifted, then within the hour a reversion of an IP: clearly vandalism, reverted. Yes, this is "clearly vandalism". However this restriction does not have any exclusion clause for "clearly vandalism" - rightly so, because although no-one is going to object over such clear vandalism, the problem is that Wtshymanski's judgement over what is "vandalism" has been questioned in the past.
    For today though, I see that someone under an editing restriction choosing to flout it so obviously during an ANI thread is hardly encouraging. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Observation of this forum shows that for threads of this type, it requires someone to propose what action is required to be taken and for there to be community support for it. That being the case ...

    Proposal 1

    That Wtshymanski be formally warned of his breach of his editing restriction and that a block will be imposed for any further breach. In view of the nature of the reverts, I think a block now would be counterproductive, and with the lack of activity for a couple of weeks the admins may well consider it time served.

    • Support: As proposer. I would observe that if editing restrictions are not going to be enforced then, taking Guy's point above to its logical conclusion, WP:RESTRICT might as well be deleted in toto. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read (some) of the above.: The purpose of an editing restriction is to protect the ostensible work of the encyclopedia, not to provide fodder for Jesuitical level discussions of fine distinctions. I would agree with the above proposals to remove the ban. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the turkey would vote to abolish Christmas! 85.255.232.199 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2

    I might have supported option 1, but as there has now been a further infringement as in the next section, I have to propose: that Wtshymanski be blocked from editing for a period of at least one month. This is to reflect the blatant refusal to abide by this restriction. Certainly, no consideration should now be given to lifting the restriction.

    Support as OP and proposer. 85.255.232.199 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, but I don't believe in mandating block lengths. That should be left to the discretion of the blocking administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support In view of latest revert, a warning now is pointless. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I just checked, and WP:3RRNO states that reversion of obvious vandalism (including page blanking) is not subject to sanction. If this is correct, then isn't it inappropriate to block him over it? If I've misinterpreted the policy somehow, I'm open to retracting my vote, but for now it seems like this doesn't qualify. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Retracted.[reply]
    You have misinterpreted the policy (easy to do -- it isn't clear about how it interacts with bans). Let's start with an easy case. Assume that I get banned from editing Wikipedia. Am I allowed to revert obvious vandalism four times because of 3RRNO? No, I am not. I am not allowed to revert even once or make any other edit. So let's assume that I get topic banned from all banana-related pages. Am I allowed to revert four times on Banana because of 3RRNO? No, I am not. I am not allowed to revert even once or make any other edit to that page. The 3RRNO exception is only for those who are otherwise allowed to edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted; thank you for clarifying. I retract my vote. --Gimubrc (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - the proper policy regarding this is WP:BANEX, which allows reversions in cases in which no reasonable person could disagree - which I believe stuff like page blanking would be. ansh666 04:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy starts with the phrase, 'Unless stated otherwise...'. In this case: it is stated otherwise because the editing ban specifically states, 'Wtshymanski is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address' (my emphasis). As I read the above, this was rendered necessary because the original problem (reverting good faith edits from IP adresses in pursuance of a campaign against such editors) was being disguised as legitimate reversions. It therefore makes sense to ban those legitimate reversions so that not only are judgement calls are avoided, but it also avoids Wtshymanski gradually eroding the boundaries. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy is specifically worded that way so that restrictions with the "any edit" wording may still revert obvious vandalism. The "unless stated otherwise" would be "...is banned from reverting any edit, including obvious vandalism...". ansh666 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking back at the original ANI discussion, it seems clear that the intent "was any edit including vandalism" (the original proposal was "any edit broadly construed"). I was aware of a follow up point made to the enacting administrator's page, where he confirmed that "any edit" included vandalism from IP editors. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah found it! The thread is here. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose. Banning someone for edits no sane person would disagree with seems pointless and counterproductive. This ANI-case reflects the shortcomings of the ruling, not some misbehavior on the side of the subject of discussion. The proper policy is WP:IAR. Kleuske (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Reinstating my earlier Oppose for the same reason. Granted 3RRNO doesn't cover this situation, but it seems needlessly draconian to ban him over this. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued refusal to abide by restriction

    Wtshymanski, in spite of clearly being aware of this discussion about his editing restriction has blatantly and in defiance of the restriction reverted yet another edit made by an IP editor. I acknowledge that the revert was of pure vandalism, but I perhaps need to remind the contributors here, that the restriction was made for any edit made by an IP editor because Wtshymanski, in his campaign to drive IP editors away, was deliberately disguising reversions of good faith edits as vandalism. 85.255.232.199 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:IAR, good one, too.Kleuske (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 3

    The ruling is amended with the words "except blatant vandalism" just after "any edit". Kleuske (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. A quick look at the diff should be sufficient to determine if he's violating any policies, and I'm really loath to block someone uncomfortable with the idea of someone being blocked for reverting unambiguous vandalism, whatever the context. --Gimubrc (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC) (edited for clarity; see below)[reply]
    @Gimubrc: Your response to this proposal gives the very clear impression that you are an administrator when you claim that, 'I'm really loath to block someone for reverting unambiguous vandalism'.(my emphasis) However a quick check reveals that not only are you not an administrator, but you have only had an account since the end of January this year. At the very least, you are not acting in good faith. At the worst, I have seen editors blocked in the past who have falsely claimed administrator privileges. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for any misunderstanding; I did not mean to claim or imply I was an admin. I have edited the offending comment to make things more clear, and struck out the original wording. However, please don't be so quick to assume bad-faith deception, rather than a simple miscommunication. I simply weighed in on a matter I had an opinion on. My vote also stands. --Gimubrc (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thanks for the clarification. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also support; I see an IP (surprise) grasping at straws to get a productive editor who hasn't done anything wrong punished, and removing the possible loophole which is presented would be most ideal. ansh666 18:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Leave the restriction as it is and now start enforcing it too.
    The problem is that Wtshymanski's judgement is not trustworthy as to what is "obvious vandalism". I have no problem with him reverting obvious vandalism; I do have a concern with him reverting non-vandalism and camouflaging this under "vandalism". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As soon as an actual example of that behavior is presented, I'm willing to entertain the assumption that this claim has any merit. I've asked for such examples, but none have been forthcoming. Until that time, WP:AGF applies. Kleuske (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How about twelve examples of reverting good faith edits? That is how many examples were given in the original ANI which someone obligingly linked above, so they already have been presented. You obviously didn't take the trouble to read it. I shall provide the link again. The ANI is here. It was reported in the ANI that it only included examples from a restricted time frame in order not to make the ANI complaint too long. There were five initially though it continued to document a further seven reverts of good faith edits after the original complaint was made, several of which were disguised as reverting vandalism when they were not (and a good few reintroduced vandalism that the reverted IP editor had removed). It was also stated that there were copious examples from before the time frame (which I can confirm that there were - actually going back several years). 86.149.141.166 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. That was a year ago. The edits referenced above, however, are fully uncontroversial. Apparantly, his judgement has improved somewhat. Unless you can show me a recent transgression, WP:AGF and WP:IAR apply, as far as i'm concerned. Kleuske (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Too easy to game. If, as Andy Dingley claims (and the edit history seems to back him up) Wtshymanski makes a bunch of edits reverting obvious vandalism from IPs and then when nobody is paying attention slips in reverts of good edits, you would see fully uncontroversial edits at this stage. The only "judgement" involved here is Wtshymanski judging how best to do what he wants without interference from the admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the examples given are not fully uncontroversial. In the second example given in the original post above, the IP made what must be considered a good faith edit given that it was technically correct in every detail. The term battery (in the article's context) is the collective noun for cells. Thus a single cell is technically a cell and not a battery. Thus the IP's edit was resolutely not vandalism. I would agree that WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that as most people refer to single cells as batteries and not cells, that Wikipedia is justified in doing the same - but that is entirely beside the point. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with 86.149.141.166. Clearly the decision about whether to call a single cell a battery is a content dispute (and a pretty ordinary one of the kind that happens in the engineering articles all of the time). It should have been dealt with by talk page discussion, and if that didn't work, by dispute resolution -- and indeed the rest of us who work on engineering articles typically resolve disputes like this with little or no drama. This[5][6] was anything but uncontroversial. It was Wtshymanski testing the limits to see if anyone would notice and enforce the restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to be charitable and suggest that Wtshymanski may not have been aware that the original edit was made by an IP editor. But, when I check the article history, I find that Wtshymanski copied back the precise wording from before the IP edit (and therefore an indirect revert for which he is banned). Wtshymanski cannot have avoided but seeing that the eidit was made by an IP editor. By performing the indirect revert, he has made it appear that he has just performed a routine edit, something the wording of his edit ban was clearly crafted to prevent. I agree with Guy that Wtshymanski was deliberately trying to game the system. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Call for administrator review and close

    May we please have a ruling on this? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As OP, I concur. It is clear that there is a good consensus that some action should be taken by the admins, though opinion is divided as to what. Option 3 is a non starter as it was proposed under the illusion that all Wtshymanski's reverts were uncontroversial. In fact the second of the two in my OP was completely controversial, as others have agreed.
    I would suggest that this is not left unactioned, but at the very least, Wtshymanski should be formally warned of his breach and of the consequences of any future breach. 212.183.128.147 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem with admin who has erroneously accused me of disruptive editing on the page Clarawood

    User:Davey2010 has posted to my user talk page accusing me of disruptive editing and stating that I will be blocked if I do it again [7]. The issue stems from a reversion I did of an edit to the page by User:CDRL102 in which they said that a statement was an opinion. In reality the statement was referenced and was a matter of established fact. I explained my reversion substantially on the Clarawood talk page however this page was changed by Davey2010 and the sections deleted [8] [9]. Instead of taking my comment and explanation on board the immediate reaction from Davey2010 and CDRL102 was to accuse me of ownership and inexperience. Davey2010 has previously stated to me that there are Guidelines and Policies on Wikipedia. I have attempted to follow them and anything I have done has been referenced to such. Davey2010 however, admin or not, seems to have the attitude that he can do anything he wants. This is demonstrated by the original AfD he and CDRL102 raised for Clarawood which was closed after approx 1 hour and which was reinstated after a Deletion Review [10] [11]. In other words he has a pattern of what could be termed disruptive behaviour himself and deliberate ignorance of Guidelines and Policies. I am being accused of not being willing to work collaboratively and unreasonable "ownership" style behaviour concerning the page Clarawood. As I have previously argued in the AfD, talk pages and the Deletion Review this is not the case and there are very substantial references on the page and I have encouraged and asked for any problems others have with it to discuss them particularly on the talk page. The edit by CDRL102 demonstrates the importance of this as they were factually wrong. I have also been accused of reverting every edit anyone makes. This is also quite simply not true, but I have reverted non-constructive edits and explained why I did so. I have followed process in anything I have done here, I have not deleted other people's comments or blankly edited fully referenced material and I have not acted outside normal process and policy. Davey2010 however has done these things and I feel that it would be pointless and impossible to have a rational discussion with him on his talk page which is why I am raising this ANI instead. I have no problem with constructive edits to any page, that is what a collaborative encyclopaedia is about, however I think I am entirely correct when I say that edits must actually be constructive and based on fact and if they are not then it is fair to revert them. I think I am also entirely correct to say that Davey2010's behaviour has not been perfect and I hope this can be looked into Clarawood123 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If he tried to do anything to improve that article, then more power to him! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • TL;DR - Yep I gave them a strong warning as they've heavily been trying to "promote" the article and clearly do have OWNership issues with it,
    Yep I've wiped their article talkpage posts as it was more or less moans over reverts and some were unrelated to the article - I never ever do this however in this case filling the talkpage up with crap isn't ideal either -Most of it belonged on a user talkpage,
    Yep I did move the article to a sandbox as CDRL was more than happy to work on it although it was reverted by Sandstein as there wasn't really any consensus at DRV for my actions,
    So all in all I believe my actions overall have been okay and the only person that should be blocked is Clarawood123 for their huge amounts of disruption not only on the article but also on the DRV and the AFD. –Davey2010Talk 14:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to edit this page, most of my edits were reverted. It was then userfied to me to improve the quality, once it was put back into Clarawood, User:Clarawood123 deleted my revision and copied and pasted his last edited revision before it was userfied. Since then, I didn't try to restore some of my improvements as I'm not going to waste my time and have it reverted again, although I did try to edit the opening paragraph, which surprise surprise was reverted. So User:Clarawood123 seems to have an Ownership Issue. CDRL102 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed ban/WP:BOOMERANG of Clarawood123

    It's pretty obvious that User:Clarawood123 has an WP:Ownership problem (I'd also point out that they're a WP:SPA and most probably have a WP:COI). I suggest this be boomeranged back to them with either a straight ban or at least a topic ban with a forced name change.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    *Support a Topicban I notice the article is named Clarawood and that the user is named Clarawood123. With the ownership issue this is rather striking. While I can't say there's exactly a COI but their connection to Clarawood does seems likely to be apart of the reason for their disruption.With an indef topic ban they can build up other contributions outside of their single purpose and in 6 months they can appeal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    oppose as @HyperGaruda: points out Clarawood123 does seem to be mindful of the ownership issue and can be expected to take that into account in the future. They are a new user and should be given the opportunity to correct course. In the event they do not they can be banned accordingly later. As opposed to banning her some more experienced editors can step in and assist in the article such as by fixing the article or tagging an issue with it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    • Extremely strong oppose on the following grounds: a site ban is overkill; this proposal is brought forth by someone who either doesn't want to take responsibility for their Wikipedia edits and activity by registering an account or they are a sockpuppet. I'm very uncomfortable giving this proposal any credence based on the fact that the IP proposer could be anyone who has edited here previously under an account or another IP and is currently blocked or are IP hopping or just playing games. And just for the record: the account we being discussed here for some kind of sanction/ban is way too new for anyone to be calling for a site ban, topic ban, and saying they aren't welcome in Wikipedia. WP:BITE immediately comes to mind. Clarawood123 HAS less than 80 edits at this writing. Some folks just don't get Wikipedia at first and mistake it for something other than an encyclopedia project that has extensive rules, guidelines, policies, and the like. To some, it's just an online site where they can add some stuff rather than actually seeing the bigger, more serious picture. What should happen is someone very experienced and/or very patient needs to volunteer to mentor this individual, put them in the right direction, give them sound advice, and get them editing productively, not set them up to create another account and get into the sockpuppet death-spiral. Which is what will happen if they are site-banned or topic-banned. This is a bad proposal and it's a bad precedent to allow an anon-IP to suggest such a strong move and editors going along with this should seriously rethink their agreement with the proposal, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I share your concern with this IP. The major thing really is that the ownership issues cease.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for assuming good faith, guys. If you had checked my contribs, you'd have seen that I've been on this IP for a while. As for my proposal: here we have a blatant promotional account who is trying to force their own POV on an article, without and against consensus, and you're proposing we treat them like any other account 142.105.159.60 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been here with this current IP only since January 2016, from what I can see. My concerns are well spelled out and I don't think they are unreasonable. And yes, I do think we should treat them like "any other account" -- something they are and something you are not. If you want to be taken seriously in situations such as this, my suggestion is you also get an account. I'm sure there are admins and other editors who will disagree, however, I am just as certain there are admins and other editors who would agree. It's no big deal to have an account, after all. Why not create one? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because... it's none of your our business? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this point be forced? No. Is it our business as a community when an IP is looking to have a newbie permanently banned from editing? I think it is. I've said what I had to say, and am fine dropping the issue of this IP not having an account from here on. But I won't keep silent over a permaban proposal when I don't think it's warranted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I would like to thank the various participants for their advice and guidance. It seems that I am being portrayed as someone who simply just reverts everything for the sake of it because I am new and unwilling to learn. This is not the truth. It also seems that those who have supported this position have taken others' comments at face value and have not checked into the history of any edits or reversions I have done or the comments I made to support those. At present following the latest edits to the Clarawood page by various editors over the last day or so it is in a state where it is factually innaccurate from the very first line of the infobox, is misreferenced throughout and is in breach of copyright as legally required statements for the attribution of multiple references have been deleted. I am not going to edit it or revert it as I will only be accused - as I have been already - of ownership etc...all I can say is that if correcting mistakes, ensuring information is factual and ensuring that material is referenced is wrong then I am happy to be wrong. Hopefully someone with a bit of sense and gravitas will look into this Clarawood123 (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarawood123, if you have identified material currently on the page that is a copyright violation, it's pretty important that you identify that content, because it needs to be removed.
    Otherwise, some general comments:
    • Although multiple people have been involved in edit skirmishes on the article, as well as the AfD, attempts to have any discussion at all on the article talk have been weak sauce at best, and not always been done with the best tone, on multiple sides. For example, CDRL102's remark "you're incabable, that's all", is sure to lead to productive discourse, and not at all escalate tensions.
    • Davey2010's behavior also leaves much to be desired, such as not blanking discussion on the article talk with such helpful summaries as "Stop filling the talkpage with moans" (please see WP:NPA and WP:TPO), not to mention giving a final warning as a first warning on Clarawood123's user talk, and threatening indef, which is clearly not a thinly veiled "fuck you".
    • I am very suspicious of a ban proposal by an IP, especially after four comments, three of which were made by the two above referenced editors.
    • To their credit HyperGaruda has made a commendable effort and others should follow their example.
    So overall, oppose ban, support not WP:BITEing, recommend certain editors take a few moments of serious self-examination. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I could've discussed it better with them but overall my behaviour was absolutely fine, They deserved a warning months ago however I left off the warnings in the hope they'd get the hint .... which they didnt hence the final...., I stated above on why I removed their talkpage comments and my edit summaries wasn't a personal attack, Ofcourse because you're absolutely perfect and haven't ever made a mistake in your life have you ? .... –Davey2010Talk 18:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly six minutes wasn't enough personal reflection time. Your actions have not been absolutely fine, and saying that they were is not a justification. TimothyJosephWood 18:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I called the User 'incapable' after they again reverted one of my edits, which has been fixed by another editor since. CDRL102 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I find in my travels through life, that insulting people is generally not an effective communication technique. TimothyJosephWood 20:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban. Well, that escalated quickly. Taking into account how new Clarawood123 is, you could be a little more considerate. From their comment above, it appears that the you do not own Wikipedia pages message has finally sunk in. Perhaps it is best if someone experienced in the Wiki-MoS checks and old version of Clarawood, such as this one, tagging problems as they go through the page (don't forget to save it to a sandbox), like I did in one section. That way, Clarawood123 can learn what exactly is wrong/unwikipedic, instead of being flooded by vague comments that the article has problems somewhere at an unspecified location. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - editor has demonstrated an incapability to talk about their editing stances without some way incorporating their commentary/opinion of an editor to it. This is not a battleground. Based on the information that's relayed, Ciarawood123's condescending and ownership attitudes isn't helping anything to resolve anything. Proceeding to start massive discussions so to talk about another editor rather than just make the discussion about what it is about the article they have a problem with is not how to start an article talk page discussion or otherwise seek consensus. It also doesn't help that he edit wars and fights when others challenge him and only trying to get his way. I am not familiar with the subject area and do not make an opinion on anyone's edits at hand, but we don't always have to know which is the right version of an article to know whether an editors perception of collaboration is the correct one. Its about working with others to achieve the one goal to build an encyclopedia, not treating others as opponents when they disagree with you. Its detracting from our goals when we have people on this project that don't seem to know what collaboration and working with others truly means. —Mythdon 07:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response In reply to the last few commenters - a simple search through and perusal of the entire correspondence relating to the page Clarawood, including those comments and talk page sections which have been deleted by other editors - in my view deliberately as part of their campaign to portray me as something I am not - will demonstrate fully that my focus has been on the content of the page and the quality of the information and referencing on it. When some editors have stated that they tried to improve the page but I just reverted as usual, this portays me as a disruptive and non-collaborative editor with ownership issues. But this is not the truth as I have been saying for some time now and which is the reason I raised this ANI. I will offer an analogy. If any of the editors above had created and written a page and then I came on and made edits which left it demonstrably factually wrong would they be justified in reverting those edits? I think they would. Further, if, despite having explained exactly why they reverted, they were then accused of ownership, bias and disruption would this be true? The answer is it would not. As I have previously urged people to do, please do not participate in this without fully looking at the facts and without being completely and utterly honest. The reality is that a number of those involved have not been honest, are guilty themselves of the things they are accusing me of - and worse - and when others with more rational minds have tried to highlight this to them they have blanked it and indeed acted arrogantly and rudely. I have attempted to keep my arguments and comments civil and rational and on key. I have had to defend myself against other editors which is why I have had to mention them. It was me who was the person focussing on content in the first place. As I stated above the article is now in breach of copyright, seriously misreferenced from the first line and factually wrong from the first line. This is because in their haste to make me out to be a fool and defend their friends the editors concerned have acted irrationally and rashly and frankly do not have knowledge of the subject they were dealing with. Pointing this out does not make me disruptive, it does not mean I am moaning, it does not mean I am unwilling to collaborate, it does not mean I cannot self reflect or that I have a conflict of interest - it means that an article which was factual and fully referenced has been vandalised in a way which is a disgrace to Wikipedia. By those who are accusing others ie me of the same actions. I am getting rather sick of this ongoing nonsense myself and sick of constantly having to defend myself from people jumping on the bandwagon without checking their facts Clarawood123 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarawood123, not a word you wrote there acknowledges that you have done anything wrong. As long as you maintain that stance, you are, in my view, going to be an endless source of disruption. Everyone is new, but most new editors do not cause this level of disruption, and most new editors are willing to listen and to learn. If you were self-aware and willing to learn, and not focused solely on blaming others, I would not be supporting a site ban. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear User:Jytdog it does not acknowledge I did anything wrong because I did not. The only thing I appear to have done wrong here - aside from some minor mistakes at the very start - is have a username which some have assumed means I am an SPA. It doesn't, but I haven't had the chance yet to get into Wikipedia and my first article was written about something I am an expert on. Nobody knows what other potential articles I might write or what contributions I may make. As I tried to point out to you, but you were unwilling to reflect on your own actions and words, if an article is fully factual and referenced and someone claims it is not and makes a sweeping edit which then actually does leave it innaccurate and unreferenced, then an editor would not only be within their rights but expected to revert to the original. This does not make them disruptive, but it would highlight the other editor who has left the article in a bad state as disruptive. Me not agreeing with you does not mean I cannot look at myself, it means I do not agree with your analysis, and my disagreement is based on facts and evidence not blind assertion. Thankyou Clarawood123 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have made so many mistakes. None of them fatal or unusual. The unusual, fatal mistake - the reason this thread is here - is your inability to be flexible, dialogue and learn. You are profoundly unfit for Wikipedia, where the bedrock policy is consensus. I am wrong sometimes, btw. Not here. Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly? Provide evidence Clarawood123 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been, both here and at the AfD. Indeed, some might argue that you were contributory to presenting the evidence yourself. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban but they just need to learn how to write, I understand what it's like to be a young editor - and so I can see the frustration of why others weren't happy with me - and take it from me, Clarawood just needs to wise up and bit and learn how it all works, move on to a project maybe and help out there. But with a ban they won't learn so it's not a good method. CDRL102 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair they've been problematic since March and nearly a month later and nothing's changed in terms of their behaviour, How do you know they're young ? ... They could be 85 all for you know ...., Don't get me wrong I would absolutely love to give the editor a chance however with the amount of disruption caused here I honestly can't them ever changing their ways here .... There's only so much WP:ROPE you can give.... –Davey2010Talk 00:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose(with clarification) - I think the person needs some mentorship, as my first Article got AfD'ed and I didn't like the way it happened, but that is the lessons needed to learn how we are required to format our contributions. I agree that the person has displayed obvious recalcitrance, and am suspicious of the name's involved, but in the spirit of "good faith" think some mentoring would be good. Nuro msg me 02:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment User:CDRL102 advises that I just need to learn "how it all works". Presumeably this would include such issues as not deleting from articles established academic facts which are referenced. For example such as they did as described on the Clarawood Talk page here [12] which was the edit and revert which kicked off all this nonsense. User:Davey2010 states that I have been "problematic since March" and talks of the "amount of disruption caused". Presumeably his own listing of the article for AfD and subsequent actions in closing it after an hour, deleting comments and discussions on Talk pages, threatening me with blocking etc etc and therefore me having to raise this ANI - it was in fact me who raised this about User:Davey2010 - were not in any way disruptive. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi made sweeping edits to the Clarawood page. The edit in which they left the page in breach of copyright was labelled "irrelevancy", the edit in which they adopted CDRL102's change to the opening statement was labelled "unsourced WP:OR" despite the fact that it was in fact referenced and was NOT original research as explained previously, they removed a lot of detail under the label "unsourced" despite the fact that it was not only heavily sourced but the source was the official record of the construction by those who built the estate (but of course they had already removed those references as "irrelevant"), they then removed even more stating it was a synth and also that the sources were "crap". If the offical Government record held at the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland is a "crap" source then God help us in trying to find good ones. Others have made helpful edits by leaving the article completely and utterly misreferenced in other words there are references on the page - from the first line - which bear no relation to the statement or fact they supposedly back up, there is now some very bad grammar on the page including mispelling, and as I have also previously mentioned the article is factually wrong in multiple places from the outset. People need to get real here, see that my arguments on this have been driven by a desire for proper content and proper procedure; recognise that a number of those attacking me and my actions have been completely in the wrong despite their assertions to the contrary; get this article restored to the way it was before it was vandalised ie my last edit; if there are genuine problems with how it was written then raise those issues particularly in discussion on the talk page where I would be more than willing to learn or amend if appropriate; stop playing the issue as being my inexperience and understand that the actual issue is the inability of some of the above to reflect honestly on their own actions. Contrary to some people's assertions I can and have reflected on my own and as a result have not done anything else except try and defend myself - even though as I have said the page is now in breach of copyright thanks to [User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi]] and others. Yours, anticipating that the above mentioned and others will reject this comment and redouble their attacks on me Clarawood123 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you anticipate that editors will start linking to WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE too? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarawood123 is taking all the WP:ROPE that other editors are offering and hanging themselves. I urge the editors voting !oppose to read the intransigence in what Clarawood123 is actually writing here, and reconsider. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Intransigence is defined as not willing to compromise; obstinately maintaining an attitude however it is invariably used in the context of someone who does so without reason or rational thought, reflection on their position or reference to accepted norms or processes. This is not what I have done. If it was I would admit so and move on. Instead my staunch position has been held with direct reference to multiple Guidelines and in the face of blank assertion without evidence. There is most definitely intransigence throughout this saga, and rational, sensible and honest minds - after investigation and reference to the full history of it on the various talk pages, AfD, Deletion Review, edit histories and this ANI (which I started about Davey2010) - will be able to distinguish what quarters it has been coming from eg I have been accused of reverting everything anyone else did to the page lots of times, the edit history shows that after a couple of mistakes by me initially over fair use images and trivia, there were only 2 or 3 reversions of edits by CDRL102 over a period of about 2 weeks and they were both explained fully on the talk page. The only other reversions were then the one after the Deletion Review restored the page and the one reverting CDRL102's removal of a referenced fact. User:Jytdog is currently going through the article as it has been left by others ie misreferenced and in breach of copyright etc highlighting references which appear to bear no relation to things mentioned and deleting sections of what little remains. I must point out that if those edits which left the article in this state had not been done then it would not be misreferenced Clarawood123 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose site ban. A site ban would be ridicusly harsh on a new editor with so few edits. If anything, a topic ban would be more than enough to check Clarawood123's intentions. Given they have not edited almost anything outside of the topic it has almost the same effect. Still, it leaves plenty of room for Clarawood123 to edit on something else. But before any ban at all, we should ask Clarawood123 to edit also on other topics, and let this one article grow mostly from other contributions for a while (it just passed a deletion discussion, it will most likely not be in any risk of deletion any time soon). And within a month or so, we either have a new editor, or we are sure that we do need a ban. Banning now would be based on a wild guess, that is not fair, nor useful, and quite BITEy. - Nabla (talk)
    User:Nabla I get what you are saying in theory, but you should actually come try to improve the article. This person is completely unworkable. I am not exaggerating. Jytdog (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog Seems like the more recent changes have gone off without a hitch. Or maybe I'm misreading things. TimothyJosephWood 16:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They have stopped reverting people, yes, but their comments on the Talk page remain 100% antagonistic and disruptive, and above all, just not helpful. Rather than discussing anything simply, every remark is full of accusation and disdain. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    well its pretty clear to me this will be closed "no consensus" but hopefully with a good, clear warning. Let's hope it takes. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and hopefully my final comment No matter how many times those such as User:Jytdog, User:CDRL102, User:Davey2010 or User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi state things about both me and the Clarawood page, or how plausible they sound, or how much other participants latch onto their assertions, it does not make what they are saying about me and the page true. The truth is the truth and the facts are the facts and I have now urged numerous times for sensible admins and editors to please look at this fully and take my comments on board and determine who has been telling the truth and acting appropriately through this affair by reference to the facts. No matter how many times they accuse me of being unable or incapable or unworkable it does not make it the truth. No matter how many times they plant suggestions of disruption, COI, SPA, etc etc it does not make it the truth. No matter how insulting or personally invidious they are to me it does not make their assertions true. As stated previously, multiple times, the article Clarawood is now factually wrong in multiple places, misreferenced in multiple places and in breach of copyright in multiple places. This has only got worse with each edit done by those supposedly "helping" and "fixing" it. This is because the sum total of knowledge most of them have about Clarawood was drawn from the article itself (though I have reason to suspect there are some who actually do and did have agendas to change the page from the outset to fit with their personal views of the estate). Stating this does not make me uncooperative or demonstrate that I have ownership issues, it demonstrates - as it has all along - that I am rightly concerned about the integrity of the article and of Wikipedia. What is the correct position to take here? Support someone who was attacked unjustly and was a victim of lack of process and disruption themselves and allow them to leave the article they wrote in a factual, referenced and legal state? Or support those who have wildly and blankly accused them of practically everything they could accuse them of (without evidence to back any of it up) and leave the article breaching copyright, factually wrong and misreferenced? The answer is also not to delete the article, the article was fine until the recent vandalising. I STILL hope that someone with a bit of clout and sense will look into this fully, see what has gone on here and resolve things to the satisfaction of all, with all accepting things in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration which Wikipedia is supposed to typify. I have tried to follow procedure to allow this to happen, next stage will most likely be arbitration Clarawood123 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Clarawood123, I can see why they are so frustrated with you. You are really so self - absorbed that you cannot see what is happening right here in front of your nose. No, the next step will NOT be arbitration. The next step will be your editing privileges will be permanently revoked. Arbitration is for intractable issues the community cannot solve. You are rapidly assisting the community in solving this, and the solution will be you are site banned. This isn't a court. You have no rights here. If you are site banned, which is what is on the table and seemingly ruling the day, you will never be allowed to edit here again. So just exactly who do you envision is going to file an arbitration case? John from Idegon (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    .... You do realize you're digging a very big hole for yourself ..... Instead of "everyone's vandalizing this" and I'm going to Arbcom" etc etc, What you really need to be saying is something along the lines of "I've learned from my mistakes and they won't be repeated" or "I'll communicate with everyone better", To be absolutely honest I've been pondering on whether or not to oppose the siteban however you're making it extremely difficult for anyone to keep you here and it's clearly obvious you're not going to change your ways which makes the siteban all the more appropriate it, You really need to think about your actions and words from hereon in. –Davey2010Talk 15:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose ban A ban is not appropriate for good faith editing. Having reviewed the disputes on the page, I am shocked that a ban would be suggested. "The next step" will be whatever it will be, and no one here can yet say what that will be until a consensus is taken, and at this point, consensus is divided. "No rights"? What strange talk this is -- All have rights until it is shown that they abused those rights. Clarawood123 (talk · contribs), please be explicit here about the copyright violations you allege. Grammar's Li'l Helper 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WURT (Wikipedia Urgent Reform Team) has issued a press release to British newspapers about bias and bullying on Wikipedia. It refers to the Clarawood article as an example. WURT is angry about the unjust treatment of Clarawood123 but it has no connection with Clarawood123. Keep an eye on the newspapers. Ispitinyourgravy (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And you felt the need to create an account ten minutes ago to tell us that...? Cheers :) 10:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Not to be confused with WERT (Wikipedia Extraordinary Rodent Ticklers), which despite public pressure, has remained conspicuously silent on the issue. TimothyJosephWood 10:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hypocritepedia

    I have had an SPI report against Hypocritepedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on their latest IP 69.178.193.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) open for five days since they sent several password reset requests my way with no action, though understandably so because there was no en.wiki activity from 69.178.193.128 until this morning when they began their usual anti-Facebook edits and North Dakota media topic edits anew. I added to the sock report but didn't send a report to AIV because I figured somebody would be on it.

    This afternoon the IP used an email I never have made public and use for junk purposes only, to create a Twitter account to post their rants on (I can provide the email proof on request). They didn't have the password but I still got the verification email about it, which I obviously turned down. This continues Hypocritepedia's past behavior of attempts to compromise my email and social accounts (which are all protected by two-factor so I'm not really worried about losing them). Please immediately block this IP and take action on the SPI; I understand there's not much that can be done for off-wiki harassment but they definitely have no intentions for positive contribs here ever (I am refusing to inform the IP for obvious reasons). Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 05:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Why did you "create a Twitter account to post their rants on"? Sounds like the "off-wiki harassment" is going both ways .... Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender--you may want to re-read the above and consider whether bedtime is here? John from Idegon (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. There should probably be a coma between the 'only' and the 'to'; viz, 'and use for junk purposes only, to create a Twitter account.' Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

    Drdaviddukesucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked this morning making the same edits. Never mind criticizing my grammar, can someone look at the open SPI and block the IP, please? Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - No, grammar is extremely important and you should have Proof Read your post BEFORE you saved it. Dedication to Detail. Having said that, this is clearly a serious matter and those with the authority to act should IMO. Nuro msg me 01:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm rusty on SPI details, but I blocked 69.178.193.128. Fences&Windows 15:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive nationalist clearly WP:NOTHERE

    The user Bolter21 is repeatedly showing that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. After a long discussion resulted in an overwhelming consensus [13] after two months, Bolter21 immediately went against the consensus by twice editing State of Palestine completely contrary to the strong consensus [14], [15]. As Bolter21's attitude to other users is to declare that others aren't worth answering [16] and openly declaring they won't respect WP:CONSENSUS [17]. The whole edit history of this user suggests WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE. I'd suggest a topic ban from everything related to WP:ARBPIA as the user clearly cannot edit constructively in that topic area. Jeppiz (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bolter21 is also quick to invoke 1RR policy against others in a way that is, frankly, intimidation: [18]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You simply blame me for WP:TALKEDABOUTIT, there is no problem in quetioning a poorly sourced consensus, even if a million people agree about it. I did not violate the consensus in any way, I only stated that there's a discussion about the definition in the lead section and I said I don't have any respect for this consensus. What is this? Soviet Russia? are you not allowed to say you don't agree with a consensus?
    Of course I will go against the consensus! -(some of you understood it as if I am going to violate the consensus, but I meant I will continue the argument)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Me and another user, presented over 15 reliable sources who contradict the consensus.[reply]
    I have placed the "Dubious" template on the article becuase a user changed the content of the lead section and while he was backed with a consensus, there is still an ongoing discussion about it.
    And I told OpenFuture he doesn't worth the answer becuase he continued to avoid the problem. If he was deeply hurt by this, I am sorry, but that doesn't justify a topic ban. You are saying that my whole edit history suggest I am not here to make an encyclopedia.. You clearly havent seen my edit history. That's, in my opinion, worse than saying to someone "you don't worth the answer" in a ridiculous conversation.
    Isambard Kingdom, the law in WP:ARBPIA says that who ever violates the 1RR rule is subjected to a ban, so I warned you so you won't quetion it. I didn't knew who you were and what is your background so I talked to you as if you were a day old user, to make sure you will self-revert it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems Bolter21 has been having this argument for almost a year now, when they quite cautiously and conservatively called a name change a "crime against humanity". Per their user page, item one on their to do list is "Remove the claim the PNA was transformed to SoP in 2013." So seems an awful lot like they don't care about the consensus because they've already made up their mind, not because they have better sources. TimothyJosephWood 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This "crime against humanity" statement was made when I had less than 100 edits on Wikipedia, so I'll ask you to ignore it. About the the PNA subject, it's already over, I "won" simply because there were no sources to support the claims of the opposing users while I brought over 40, so I don't see the relevance.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It seems to be admin action is urgently required here. Bolter21 is openly admitting he intends to continue to disrupt the project by editing against consensus by stating blatantly "Of course I will go against the consensus!" and "I don't have any respect for this consensus". This editor is very clearly here for advocacy and as they so openly admit on their own userpage, to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. At the very least a total topic ban from this area is required. AusLondonder (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sir Joseph: Please read before commenting. It's there in black and white. "Of course I will go against the consensus!" Ctrl-F is your friend. AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason you deleted my comments? And again, you can't bring someone to ANI for commenting about how the consensus is wrong and he will comment against it. Did he edit the page in violation of the (non) consensus? Again, since you deleted my comment, the RFC was on how to describe the recognition of Palestine, not on if it's a state or not. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sir Joseph: I didn't delete your comment. Check the history. Please strike that false allegation. AusLondonder (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I said I don't respect, but I didn't violate it nor did I had any intention of changing the content of the article without a consensus although I cant allow it to remain as a "state" when clearly I and another two editors presented sources who contradict the consensus, so insteed of editing by reliable sources, I just added a template implying this is debatable.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you say then "Of course I will go against the consensus!" above? AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because in my retarded semitic language, the literal translation of "go against" is "to speak against". As I said, you misunderstood me and you have no proof to claim I had an intention to violate the consensus since I didn't nor I said I will. Although now I discovered I was mislead and the consensus wasn't even about the topic we talked about--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (ec) I guess one issue here is what to do when consensus of the masses is wrong. This is the inherent problem of a democracy. In this case, Palestine is not a state, the same way all other countries are states. So I do agree that there has to be some notation or citation to clarify what is meant when you write Palestine- State. It is not a de facto state and we should not be writing as such no matter our biases. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: B21, you noted that there is no problem with equating your fellow editors' problem that you "don't have any respect for the consensus", with the censorship of Soviet-era Russia. First of all, that is hyperbole, and I think you know that. There are two problems I see here. First is your apparent willingness to argue forever against the consensus. While you don't have to agree with consensus, once its formed, you do have to accept it until new information comes to light sufficient to challenge it; its part of the social contract we agree to when editing Wikipedia. If you choose not to accept viewpoints that are different than your own, you do not have to edit here. It's not like you are getting paid or receiving college credit for being a contributor.
    Secondly, you should address how you deal with your fellow editors. Reminding them of violating 1RR is a bit disingenuous. The way you are proceeding is a sure path to topic ban. Ease up, give it a rest, and use that time to construct a better argument for change. The ones you are presenting aren't gaining traction here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I violate the consensus?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You stated your clear intention to do so, Bolter21. If someone shouts in a crowded theater that 'of course they will shoot everyone in the theater', people are going to presume that you are going to act on that and act preventively. To me, stating that 'of course you don't agree with consensus' would have been a better tack to take.
    Something that just occurred to me - are you a native speaker of English? I've noted some grammar issues that tend to suggest that you aren't. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I am a native Hebrew speaker.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • More filer is also misleading us with regards to the consensus. The consensus through a RFC was not how to call Palestine, it was whether or not to say Palestine is partially recognized or not. Sir Joseph (talk) 4:53 pm, Today (UTC−4)
    However, merely objecting to a pre-existing consensus formed amongst certain editors, and saying you oppose it, is not "going against consensus". Neither is stating that you intend to speak against that consensus some mortal sin on Wikipedia, or indeed any sin. Bolter21's words are open to various interpretations - if there has been real disruption by content editing against consensus there will be diffs showing it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Bolter21 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 6-months from any edit that relates to Israel and Palestine statehood or the legitimacy of Israel and Palestine.--v/r - TP 19:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sir Joseph: No idea how someone can !vote "snow oppose" as the very first !vote AusLondonder (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a grain of salt to be had here somewhere, given the user's personal connection to the topic per their user page. No accusations. No salt trucks. Just a single lonely grain. TimothyJosephWood 22:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What's that supposed to mean? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Oppose - I get that y'all are pissed at B21 for his behavior; the good lord knows I've dealt enough with that sort of behavior before, and wanting to toss the editor in question into a box with nails on the inside and toss the box off a cliff can seem extremely attractive. But its wrong. If we don't start rehabilitating these editors, we lose the ability to define what is and isn't acceptable. Guide Boltor21 into being a better editor; that way, if they choose not to accept the help, its all on them. Topic bans aren't helpful, as you are still left with an intransigent editor who will just muck something else up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • A 6-month topic-ban from a very narrowly defined topic is just about as easy as it gets while also ending the disruption. And frankly, if the editor goes and mucks something else up, then perhaps this isn't the project for them. Also, FYI, I'm not "pissed". I'm not involved in the topic area.--v/r - TP 20:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: six months? for what? What have I done? Disagree with you while bringing dozens of sources? I did not violate any consensus and I did not start an edit war. I only said I don't support the consensus.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You are misleading other editors. You didn't "only say" you don't support the consensus. You stated above in this very section that "Of course I will go against the consensus!" and "I don't have any respect for this consensus" AusLondonder (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Restoring my comment removed by Bolter21 AusLondonder (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so I didn't say I will go against the consensus, I "stated". Did I violated the consensus? I"ll explain for the observers again: What I meant is that I do not agree with the consensus, but not that I will violate it. I am here for almost a year so I do understand the consiquences of violating a consensus (although the consensus was about the adjective "Partially-recognized" while the conversation was about "de-jure" status). I didn't violate the consensus, I only said what I said and you interpreted as if I have an "intention" to violate it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're unequivocally stating here that you will abide by the consensus of the RfC when editing the article, then there is little need for this proposal and I retract my support for it. But, you really were not as clear as you think you are. A reasonable person would interpret that as your intention to disregard the consensus when editing the article.--v/r - TP 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen. There was a consensus not to use the statement "partially recognized" in the lead section of the article. The discussion was about "de-jure" status.
    I have no problem saying "I will not call Palestine a "partially recognized state as the consensus in the RFD says", because the argument in the State of Palestine's talk page wasn't even about this subject. I can also say "I have sources that call the State of Palestine a "de-jure state" and therefore I am trying to seek for a consensus for that". You see that there is a difference between what I tried to achieve and what was agreed on the consensus? I honestly say I fully disagree with the other users opinions about what should be written in the status and also with the consensus, but I did not violate it and belive me or not, I did not have the intention to add the statement "partially recognzied" to the article while knowing there's a consensus against it. I don't remember even mentioning it in the talkpage.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Seems the answer to me. The statements by Bolter21 that "Of course I will go against the consensus!" and "I don't have any respect for this consensus" bodes very badly for me. It shows a refusal to respect the community and proper consensus building. I don't agree with Jack Sebastian when they state topic bans result in an "intransigent editor who will just muck something else up" given that the editing of Bolter21 is problematic in this area because they are openly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding Palestine's statehood. Immediately after the RfC, Bolter21 disrespected and disregarded that result as shown above. This editor can use the period of a topic-ban to demonstrate competence outside of this single topic area AusLondonder (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you misunderstood my statement, because never have I ever violate this specific, not-100% related consensus. I meant is that I want to argue about it. And the consensus was about "partially recognized", not about "de jure" which is what we were debating--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the diff a bit more closely, AusLondonder; you both posted at approximately the same time. I've accidentally tagged out someone else's post in EditConflict before. How about a little AGF, eh? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: This "qualifying phrase" was added at a later date in this edit which per WP:REDACT is not entirely proper or fair as it makes the replies of other editors look misleading AusLondonder (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I"ll be honest, I added it after I realised the language barrier. Even if I did meant to violate a consensus, I didn't do it nor did I say "I want to violate a consensus" so the statement "I will go against the consensus" (Which literally means in my language to "speak against") can be interpreted in many ways and AusLondoner of course decided "I want to violate a consensus".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I interpreted your statement as stating you will go against the consensus. That was what you stated. I think you do have some things to learn. For example - don't edit your comments, don't delete others comments, don't engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour regarding a topic you are obviously emotional about. If you learn those things you could be a great, productive editor AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not remove your comment on purpose, I now made my edit of my comment clear that it is a note I added after I posted the comment, and I don't think what happened in the talk there was a battleground. I was involved on WP:battlegrounds in the past and I am not willing to do it again. My arguments in the talk page of the State of Palestine were backed only by sources and the argument was not about something existing in any consensus.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reasonable reply. I do personally think, as someone who edits relatively little in this topic area, that you are engaging in battleground behaviour on Israel-Palestine issues. This is evidenced by the statements on your userpage. The most obviously problematic statements for me are the ones, including the ones in diffs posted by the OP, that show disregard of consensus. Finally, what about the WP:CANVASSING of another editor you assume will agree with you and support you here? AusLondonder (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Who was supposedly canvassed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't really thought about the consiquences when I asked WarKosign. I didn't take this conversation seriously becuase I was blaimed for talking and it felt like it's just an extention of the original argument but in an ANI.. So I really have nothing to say about that "votestacking", if you want to call it by this.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe WP:CANVASSING applies to content disputes. This page deals with user conduct, and consensus is achieved by admins, not by obviously involved editors. “WarKosign” 06:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: I said this above. Here is the diff AusLondonder (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Obvious, really. Since the ANI report, Bolter21 has continued editing against consensus, probably violated ARBPIA, and showed no inclination to even listen to others or admit any wrongdoing. Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you are just lying, or I am drunk and I don't know. Can you prove it please?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that, apparently my computer and phone show different times for edits. That part struck, the reminder stays. Jeppiz (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I see no reason to topic ban a normative editor for a rather small issue like this. From my interactions with him, he is fully capable of reason. Which is what I think will solve this issue as well. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a proof that this whole issue is people who take advantage of the complexity of the topic to ban me. All the editors who are slightly to the Israel side have oppsed sanctions against me, one of them even mentioned here that my statements on the State of Palestine talkpage were right, while those who are on the Palestinian side (AusLondoner and Jeppiz) want to topic ban me. This is just a POV debate, not a debate on a problematic user, regardless of me being problematic or not.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- He said he would not respect the consensus in word only. He actually did nothing to disrespect the consensus that I've seem. None the less, Bolter21, as the old redneck phrase goes, "You need to slow your roll." You can take this as a warning and adjust your behavior accordingly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    B21 has just noted that English isn't his/her first language, so I think it beneficial to Assume Good Faith that the editor, in stating that they would 'go against consensus' might be a translation error when what they meant to say is that they would speak out against consensus - a completely different thing.
    This is how I see it:

    1. This article has a lot of overtones involving nationalism and the legitimacy of such - opinions are going to be very strongly endorsed.
    2. We have one editor with a substantially different viewpoint than that of the consensus.
    3. That editor has stated that he has brought numerous references in support of their position, but they haven't convinced the consensus.
    4. The editor's stated intention in disagreement with the consensus has been (innocently) misinterpreted as tendentious editing.
    5. The editor doesn't have the experience necessary to understand how consensus works in consensus, or communal editing. This is a critical skill necessary in all aspects of editing within Wikipedia.

    With the above in mind, I would suggest the following:

    • If reliable, well-supported and mainstream sources exist, an RfC should be created to consider the weight of those sources (or, of course, via RSN).
    • Bolter21 is in critical need of mentorship. This should be a condition of his moving forward from here. If he's not just ranting and spouting propaganda but instead bringing sources, that should be interpreted as being useful to the project.
    • Bolter should voluntarily avoid this topic during the period of mentorship. If he can do so, it will only help him as an editor, and his realization of this would only help the Project. If he agrees to this and violates it anyway, I'd fully support an indef topic ban (not temporary).
    • Consider that sometimes the consensus is wrong, as per Biggleswiki. This is why we rely heavily upon sourced material from outside Wikipedia and not opinions from within it. Neutrality os key here.

    Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with all the above points. We are looking at at primarily a confusion of semantics, and minor behavioural issues which can be fixed by mentorship. I believe this editor has excellent potential to be a great editor (Palestinian workers in Israel is an example of the editor's ability to create good content) and I further believe that Bolter21 will be a net plus to the project after some additional guidance. Irondome (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I always appriciate a good word.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not willing to avoid this topic, since I havent done anything wrong in the topic in the past few months. I still have things to do such as expanding the history section of the PA article and update new information about the Fatah–Hamas reconciliation process which no one seem to do. I still don't see something I did wrong in the topic, since the last time I was blocked for violating 1RR which was in last [User_talk:Bolter21#1RR_violation_again september] and I"ve "grownup alittle" since. About mentorship I have no problem. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • well are you ok to accept mentorship while editing this area for a few months, so you can co-operate more effectively with other eds? Hint. The correct answer to that is yes. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I already use some degree of mentorship from another user whom I have contact outside Wikipedia. The only thing I really care about right now (Apart from sleeping, this conversation clearly ruined my salary of tomorrow) is the State of Palestine's topic, and as long as mentroship doesn't prevent me from extracting basic information from reliable sources and placing it in a lead section to prevent a POV and/or misleading statement in an article visited by 50,000 people in a month, I have no problem.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I think you should absolutely take a little time to consider this proposal; your stated unwillingness to avoid this topic during mentorship gives credence to the RIGHTGREATWRONGS arguments being put forth in advocacy of your being banned from editing there at all. I'd urge you to consider displaying some discipline here; it will count greatly. Consider the alternative to taking a short break from the article to taking a permanent one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume by the "topic" you mean the State of Palestine article? Because I don't really have an intention editing it beyond that lead section issue. Cuase I don't have a problem avoiding what I bearly edit anyway. But I can't avoid the whole conflict topic becuase this is my main focus in Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "The only thing I really care about right now (Apart from sleeping, this conversation clearly ruined my salary of tomorrow) is the State of Palestine's topic" - these remarks are not remarks from someone planning to drop the stick and contribute constructively to the project. AusLondonder (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You again take my statements and use them as arguments to determinate I am "NOTHERE", go look at my contributions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (edit conflict) I think it's interesting and concerning that Jack Sebastian seems very keen to criticise and undermine consensus. I also see no reason why the interpretation of most editors of those remarks by Bolter21 critical of the consensus is "incorrect". We now see editors conceding more ground and Bolter21 openly stating they will continue on this crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not much progress is being made here. AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with withholding judgement, as long as you don't withhold WP:ROPE.TimothyJosephWood 22:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I will not participate in this conversation until tommorow becuase I really got to sleep.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment & Explanatory - I have just read the entirety of the Talk Page and this discussion here. It is quite clear that there is a VERY serious language barrier in terminology. It is also quite clear that some of the 'commemorators' have used this to further their own POV. The status of Israel and Palestine are very emotive subjects, as is known, and obvious, to any person that is up to date on the subject. I see a lot of POV being masked behind 'source material' as well. The primary status of Neutrality on WP is not being accurately, and I would say intentionally, adhered to by some. I support Option 1 for the record (as a military and political historian). AusLondonder has repeatedly used the Language issues as an example of Bolter21 having a recalcitrant attitude. I find this to be problematic and not coming from an UN-emotive state, but I do support some of hers/his comments on the issues raised. Various commentators have tried to bring the topic back to the issue at hand, but this has been ignored by multiple participants, including Bolter21.
    The Israeli Lobby and the Palestinian Sympathisers are clearly present and accounted for also. I very strongly don't consider the consensus to have been Appropriately reached either. Quite specifically, 2 of the options given (3 & 4) were completely ignorant of the historical facts; though I'm not condemning the person who attempted to make a compromise, in their efforts of finding a consensus, it is just a perfect example of the side of the fence certain parties, with a vested interest, are going to promote, hence my wording. I also consider Option 2 to be supportive of one side more so than than the other, which is not a neutral stance.
    I feel this needs some very serious, large scale efforts by people that do NOT have any Israeli or Palestinian backgrounds. It also, the article in general (IMO), needs to reflect the literal, actual position held by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the issue as a whole, which is not flattering for either side at all.
    I've avoided the Israel/Palestine topic so far, because neither side get away with the publicly aired views from their respective propaganda machines, as being true, accurate (or even factual a lot of the time, IE propaganda), when it is scrutinised against the Purely Militarily Historical Evidence of Mandatory Palestine and Trans-Jordan, and the historically proven way 'it all went down' from the fall out of WWI and then again after the effects of WWII.
    As a very neutral party I am willing to participate in any such discussion. I also realise I slightly strayed form the ANI, but I felt some context was required. Nuro msg me 01:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously. Conciseness. Gotta work on that. TimothyJosephWood 02:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that was very concise for the topic being presented.--v/r - TP 03:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you TParis, and Timothy I don't do 'small talk', as what ever it is by Concise that your looking for, sounds to me like using 'little words' and not much substance, which I find abhorrent and disrespectful to the reasons behind commenting on anything in the first place. Make a defined and factual statement is the only way to go. If/when that an be achieved with few words, I will do so. Nuro msg me 04:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Voluntarily avoiding the topic during the period of mentorship and no restrictions are not the only solutions. We could allow the edits but require pre-approval from the mentor. Or require that edits be in the form of proposals on the article talk page which anyone (including the mentor) can implement. The goal is to lift any restrictions as soon as possible, and this would help to make the case for removal. I think that Bolter21 can do a lot of good in these topic areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, but I find your statement confusing. Are you supporting his voluntary temp suspension, with mentorship, from the page, or are you saying that he/she should be banned from the topic permanently. Nuro msg me 12:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Either. I'm not interesting in "punishing" anyone, just to make Wikipedia work. If his voluntary temp suspension, with mentorship, from ARBPIA subjects work, then all the better. If he does not accept that, or if it does not, then a topic ban from ARBPIA. Given his behavior, and his attitude towards others (see RolandR's comment below, I fear he is WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It should be noted that, in a comment on my talk page[19], Bolter21 has very strongly implied that I am an antisemite. I question this editor's ability to interact collegially with other editors who do not share her/his viewpoint, and suggest that they are advised and warned that such comments are not acceptable on Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you are anti-semitic (which will be wierd since you are a Jew), I said it seems you share ideologies with anti-semites, I didn't spsify which. I am not stupid enough to call a man who calls himself a Jew an "anti-semitic".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been my suspicion. That it would come down to this level; Pro- or Atni- Israeli, or more importantly the accusation of, which I consider a pointless attitude and alters my opinion. Nuro msg me 13:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: I posted my response at the same time as Bolter21 - to which I will add that this has become the 'argument' that I feared. I think Bolter21 is acting like an Ultra-Nationalist, and this is not acceptable. The rationale used a moment ago is a condemning example; "shares the views of an anti-semite, even though they are a Jew". This is quite extraordinary, and is clearly the opinions of someone not accepting the facts, that many parts of the world, with large Jewish communities in them, like here in Australia, are not supportive of the Zionist attitudes towards the Palestinian question. This does not make someone an anti-semite. Bolter21 I don't know your age or education or background professionally, but I would advise you undergo some mentorship if you want to contribute to the debate, because you come across very one sided; this may be unacceptable to you, and you may feel aggrieved, but it is my advice. Nuro msg me 14:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultra-nationalist...... Wow. Now that's a title I never got from anyone. I am not sure how to react to someone who called me an ultranationalist to be honest. You clearly distort the words I said to RolandR in an ugly and dirty way, becuase I didn't even talked about his opinions on the conflict or critisized him for not being Zionist. You now assuming things about my political opinions on Jews oppsing Zionism. I live in Tel Aviv, I am serounded by anti-Zionist Jews who generally vote for Hadash and funny enough most of them are my friends. All the users who critisize me, do it becuase of statements I made in talks, while it was a pretty long time since I made disputed POV statements in articles whilie dispiting other peoples opinions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - WP:ARBPIA volantary hiatus with mentorship, or if unwilling or unable to accept, total topic ban. Nuro msg me 14:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Now completely disruptive. Admin action needed

    In the "best" possible display of his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, Bolter21 waited barely 24 hours before going back to his edit war, even writing "24 hours passed" to show how he's gaming the system [20]. This renders moot all the concerns above that it was about Bolter21's language skills; Bolter21 claimed he would respect no consensus and by returning to edit warring, he shows that he ignores the consensus. So what we have here is an aggressive WP:SPA who openly declares he respects no consensus that doesn't suit him, accuses people who disagree of being like anti-semites, and despite this ongoing discussion, he still continues his edit war against a clear consensus. I respect those who assumed good faith but now more than enough WP:ROPE has been given. By blatantly continuing the edit war in an area under heavy discretionary sanctions, Bolter21 shows he will not listen to anyone else. I move the user be either topic banned or indeffed as per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This user brings nothing positive to the project. Jeppiz (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I made this revert. The template says "This claim has reliable sources with contradicting facts", and this is the reality, I presented reliable sources with contradicting facts. So until the dispute is settled, this statement needs to have the template. Now could you leave me alone already?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You knew the consensus was against it, but of course did it anyway to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are lying about me accusing people of being Anti-Semitic just like when you claimed yesterday I "continued editing against consensus, probably violated ARBPIA". I did not violate a consensus and a consensus is always subjected to conversation. Just find someone else to harras for moses' sake.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the consensus, there are new sources, that were not presented during the conversation of the consensus that are presented now. According to WP:TALKEDABOUTIT I did nothing wrong.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You also claim I bring nothing positive to the project.
    I created this article, and in the article Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) I made edits like this, this, this. In the article Palestinian National Authority I made this section, this. On the article State of Palestine I rearanged this section. So please, can you leave me alone with you stupid accusation cause I am really starting to loose it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If you feel you are starting to lose your cool, you might want to sit back and read WP:TEA. Editing while frustrated or angry has never - in the entire history of Wikipedia - ended well for the person unable to stay calm. Take a break. It's Spring - go and smell some flowers or listen to kids play. Seriously. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe a short 48-72 hour article ban might help cool heads a little. Is too much WP:SANCTIONGAME. TimothyJosephWood 22:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Will an article ban prevent me from participating in the talk? cause that's the main problem..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe so. I'm not an admin, but my understanding is that the two pages are specific. Maybe someone with more rights can clarify. Regardless, I think at this point, the responsible thing to do would to be to let someone else make the change to the article that you are pushing for. It's always a good tactic to avoid the appearance of impropriety in matters like this. TimothyJosephWood 23:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Timothy has given some good advice Bolter21 and as I have now read all the articles that you've been editing, to clarify myself further with the situation, I strongly suggested you take it. Your continued Recalcitrance on the advice and the suggestions that have been given to you is not helping your cause. Living in Tel Aviv doesn't change anything. You continuously maintain a Nationalist attitude (yes I used the term Ultra-Nationalist for a reason) towards the entire affair. Look at some of the Eastern European WP articles for some insight as to what is expected of a contributor about conflict zones, IE Crimea, and the required Neutral Stance expected of an editor. Citing new source material doesn't mean that you've 'proven' your point of view is the correct one. Look, I've been in trouble for reacting badly to article debates and issues involving myself since reaturning to WP. I'm a very Heavy person in general and in my daily existence, but in the written word I'm a ******* nuclear weapon in responding to criticisms made against me in a 'perceived attack' or if I consider someone as being 'disrespectful', when they may not be. I've learned some hard lessons. You need to also, mate. Your not correct about everything. Seriously 'eh. Nuro msg me 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Timothy, for now I was engaged in a talkpage discussion, so I really don't see what a page block will do and since I barely edit the SoP article, it would really do nothing if you"ll block me from that page and I don't see any reason to block me from other articles.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the "ah ha! 24 hours have passed and so I'm technically not violating 3RR" edit. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a misktae you know, I self reverted a minute after, spesifyig it was a mistke.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And it is clear mistakes like this that have fostered a lot of people's unwillingness to offer you the benefit of the doubt, Bolter21. I urge to you to agree to mentorship and voluntarily withdrawing from these contentious articles until you can learn how to interact more cooperatively with your fellow editors. If you are convinced that your actions neither require mentorship or self-restraint, I am afraid your next misstep will result in you not only topic-banned, but blocked as well. Towards that end, I will state this as such: - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break 2: Recommendations

    Recommend: I recommend a two-pronged course of action as well as its more draconian alternative. First, Bolter21 is in dire need of mentorship; the contributor is unaware how their missteps with actions both on and off the pages in contention are shredding the Assumption of Good Faith that other editors are obliged to offer the contributor. If (s)he continues on his/her current trajectory, it will see the user expelled from the Project.
    Secondly, Bolter has clearly noted a RIGHTGREATWRONGS viewpoint that is 100% counter to the efforts of editing within Wikipedia, especially within the article in contention. Therefore, he should voluntarily withdraw from this (and related) articles for a period to be determined by the community, Bolter21 and his/her mentor.
    Alternatively, should Bolter21 refuse to accept either of these suggestions, a topic ban as well as a 1RR editing modifier. If (s)he is unwilling to address how their behavior is currently a net negative to the Project. I realize this is harsh, but we've debated this topic for almost a week, without any discernible relenting by Bolter21.
    Arguments in support or objection should be addressed below. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I agree to withdraw from the State of Palestine debate (although this is pretty much killing one side of the argument and leaving WarKosign to ask users to go by reliable sources) and remain on low profile in regard to extremely debatable subjects? I still need to work on the Hamas-Fatah Reconciliation process as well as continue my work as mainly someone who include current affairs over outdated topics. Remaining outside of "related" topics seems a bit vague to me and I would to have an explaination. I don't want to agree to something that will cut off pretty much 90% of my work on Wikipedia, cause I will just quit.
    Just explain what I"ll have to avoide, becuase this is a single incident, in which I was engaged in a debate on a talk page and it is still absurd to me that people want to topic ban me for it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't about a single incident, or a few articles, Bolter21. It is about how you approach these articles (and to some extent Wikipedia). You've edited another user's talk page - a move that never ever has them turn around and say, 'gee, thanks. I didn't know what I was saying, and now you've shown me the error of my ways.' Your approach to editing seems more confrontational than collaborative - hence the recommendation for mentoring.
    As well, i recommended a voluntary stepping away from these contention-riddled articles because of your approach to them. You just stated that, if you were not around, no one would oppose the wrecking of the article. This is - by any measure - the absolute worst way to approach editing. There are millions of users within Wikipedia, and you are but one. There are over 330 editors watching the article in question, and four score editors actively working in it. At the risk of sounding rude, it is arrogant to the point of stupidity to assume that only you cares about the neutrality of the article. Might some of these editors be biased? Sure. But you need to trust that the rest of us are going to see through that nonsense. Nothing will ever work for you here without exercising the assumption of good faith; it is the essence of communal, collaborative editing.
    This is why, imho, that you need mentorship, and why you need to stop shredding your credibility in articles you enjoy editing in. I'm guess your new mentor (if you so choose the best path and get one) would have you edit articles you don't know a lot about, so you can pick up on that joy that most of us feel when editing an article about something we know nothing about. There is no internal drive to push an agenda or to right great wrongs. It's about retraining yourself to write articles and collaborate with your fellow editors, despite their personal viewpoints. It will make you a better and more focused editor, in my opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This editor is either the most recalcitrant person I've ever come across or the most belligerent, I can't decide. They have no respect for the views of others, hence my Ultra-Nationalist comment. Editing another persons Personal User Page is not an innocent mistake, as any editor who knows anything at all about using this website will know. The continued Refusal to even understand the facts put before them by various others is also indicative of the Mind Set they hold, which is utter contempt, or complete ignorance, of the community at large who don't share their POV. Nuro msg me 15:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I find that Bolter21 has been unnecessarily aggressive in his/her edits, as per: [21] and [22]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I don't know that a TBAN is appropriate since it seems the issue has to do with one or two articles in particular. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken a decision to let a family member change my password until I"ll feel like returning to Wikipedia. This whole issue begins to interfere with my personal life as I already screwed up a day in work and didn't do other important stuff.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The user states that they have lost direct control of their account, and given the password to a third party. If this is true, then it becomes a de facto compromised account. The account should be blocked for this reason. It "interferes" only when they get taken to AN/I. This whole thing looks like just one more case of an editor in hot water retiring just in time to stay out of trouble. Scr★pIronIV 18:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calm down, that sounds like you're gaming to system to get your desired result out of this. If he's asked someone to help him take a break, then let it be.--v/r - TP 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block - per ScrapIron, this is a self-admitted, compromised account. Time to move on. Jusdafax 20:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose - indef blocks are a clear stigma, but the user is new enough to not be aware know that they shouldn't have given access of their password to anyone else. I think the user was trying to indicate that they were handing over the keys so they wouldn't drive angry. That doesn't mean that we should penalize them by totaling their car. A block is indicative of wrongdoing, as well as a protective measure for the wiki. I don't know what the stats are about whether blocked editors return, but issuing an indef block here will only be seen as punitive. Is there a less stringent solution? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block or topic ban from ALL WP:ARBPIA articles There's a limit to good faith as well, and Bolter21 has long sinced passed it. I should point out that even if the acount Bolter21 is blocked, the person behind the account should be topic banned, either indef or for six months. As several users have pointed out above, it's clear this user cannot contribute constructively. Jeppiz (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block or indef topic ban from all WP:ARBPIA articles As discussed in detail in above sections. Since this discussion first began, Bolter21's behaviour has got progressively worse and more unconstructive. AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You know AusLondoner? You really have the nerve. You are also editing while pushing POV and unlike this spesific incident of me, you have indeed violated a consensus FIVE times on the course of two months. The consensus was reached in 2015 By me and another two users and it stated that because there's a dispute about the sovereignty in the West Bank, no flag should be there. This was true for lands under Palestinian control and for East Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty by Israeli law. In Jaunary you have violated this consensus, saying "West Bank is part of Palestine". After I reverted your edit, stating there was a consensus, insteed of asking me where is the consensus, you just violated it again without asking. Then you violated it again without asking why - although for your defense you didn't know the consensus was reached in another talk. A day after this mess, I explained to you what was the consensus so you couldn't say anymore you don't see it. Then on February you violated it again and just 10 days after you violated it again!.
    Now I ask you and Jeppiz to leave me alone for having an opposite opinion of yours. I have agreed to mentorship and to withdraw from disputed topics because it seems no one here is hearing my voice, not because you don't agree with me, but becuase you blamed me for talking against a consensus as if I was violating it. I will not be near a computer until the 21st of April and I hope not to edit again until that date, cause I really need to clean my mind from this conversation and if this conversation will continue, I might get banned.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You also say my behavior went more "unconstructive" - what article have I edited since the discussion begun in an unconstructive way?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A total misrepresentation of this matter. I had no idea the "consensus" of you and two other people suggested that the Palestinian flag should not apply to areas administered by Palestine but the Israeli flag should apply to Israeli administered areas. That is absurd. I suggest this personal "consensus" is in serious dispute. AusLondonder (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated at the time "flags are not included in Palestine areas with de facto Israeli sovereignty but with Hebron no excuse can be made". The Hebron describes the city in the lede as "Palestinian" AusLondonder (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This seems to be an overreaction to a heated talk page discussion, in which Bolter21 misstated that they would "go against" consensus when they meant "argue against". They are discussing dispute resolution now, discussing mentoring, and also say they are now on vacation. I think this thread is sufficient to put them on notice of how to edit and debate in this area, and only a recurrence of problematic edits would need admin action. I propose archiving this thread. Fences&Windows 01:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree. Consensus is clearly forming up for a block or topic ban. The subject's comments just above demonstrate a deep emotional investment in the topic that is unlikely to change anytime soon. The case has been made convincingly that this editor is unable to contribute constructively, in my view. "Sweat promises" to finally behave don't mean a whole lot. Jusdafax 03:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef block I have taken a decision to let a family member change my password until I"ll feel like returning to Wikipedia. Assuming that this is true we're left with two potential outcomes: WP:BROTHER and failing to resist the temptation to get the password back quickly so that they can rejoin the conversation. That Bolter21 refused to accept any voluntary restrictions on their editing privileges or modifications to their posting suggests that RIGHTGREATWRONGS is in effect with is incompatible with the purpose of wikipedia. If/when Bolter demonstrates that they understand and agree to standard operating policies (Pillars, Rules, Policies, Guidelines, Consensus) including not re-calling the same question over and over to try and get their way then I could see rehabilitation of the editor, but not before. Hasteur (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the calls for an indef block and complete topic ban - at least to an uninvolved eye - appear to be motivated by the same sort of nationalism and emotional investment in the topic as they are claiming Bolter21 has. To his credit, he has voluntarily withdrawn himself from the argument (something no one else appears to be doing in the article, if the page history is to be believed), and is willing to volunteer for mentorship, to address his editing style.
    Our actions in this noticeboard are meant to protect the encyclopedia; this seems punitive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    My call for an indef is to prevent the obviously disruptive editing that at least a half dozen editors take issue with. I have never edited the article, and have next to no involvement in the topic. Your characterization of my motives therefore becomes, in my view, a personal attack, and subject to sanctions. I strongly suggest you strike the portion of your comment in question. Jusdafax 23:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: I also take umbrage at your implications that I am somehow involved nationalistically with the conflict area. My call for indef stems from a hybrid of WP:COMPROMISED and WP:CIR in no way did I make my judgement on the actual content of the disputed edits, but on the way Bolter has conducted themselves here on the community discussion of their conduct. We aren't punishing Bolter, we're preventing disruption of the community and the article by revoking the ability for the user to participate and contribute is good for the encyclopedia and the community as a whole. Bolter only has accepted these "restrictions" after being threatened with wiki-capital punishment and miraculously contracting "ANI Flu". We do not let editors escape responsibility for their actions in this way. I also invite you to strike your attack on the motivation of editors you disagree with. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I accepted the restrictions because I saw that any other word I'll add will get me banned. I didn't oppose them initially, I repeatedly ask what those restrictions include.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While I guess my assessment characterizing some of the other editors in this matter as based in either nationalism or emotional investment were too much of a blanket statement; for that, I am truly sorry. However, it seems clear to me that too many editors have already made up their mind about Bolter21, and the complete lack of AGF is pretty disappointing - that's what prompted my statement. He might not be the best editor (yet). He might not yet realize that they are being exceptionally unwise (yet). The comments I am seeing only reinforce the idea
    I'd ask you all to remember back when you were starting out: how many mistakes and grievances you all blew out of proportion. You picked up experience and you (hopefully) became much better editors. Bolter21 - for whatever reason or motivation - is trying to be a better editor. Many of us start doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Sometimes, some of us fake it until we make it. Others take to it like a duck to water. In the final analysis, what does it matter, so long as the end result is the same?
    Instead of disposing of editors, let's take the ones who come here and train them up. I'm tired of working in an environment where editors are considered disposable; its an ugly outgrowth of internet forum culture where anonymity equals ass-hattedness. I reject the idea that if a user pisses us off, then we simply say 'fuck them' and eject them. We are better than that, or at least we should be.
    If Bolter21 is willing to work to be a better editor, it's simply wasteful to not give them a chance to be better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jumping into one of the most charged conflicts in wikipedia without taking advice from other editors, announcing an "ANI Flu" time off with forced lockout only to turn back and reply again, and the curious acceptance/non-acceptance of consensus suggesting willful disruptive editing.. AGF is not a suicide pact. If an editor, through their own actions has burned through their AGF good will like vaporized ethanol, we shouldn't grant them more AGF. In short this editor has the hallmarks of a vexatious disputant who will grind the wheels of consensus building to a halt to try and get their POV inserted. Hasteur (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hasteur Last time I actually violated the 1RR (without self-reverting) was in September, when I didn't quite understand the law. I don't remember a time when I violated a consensus while knowing it exists. As far as the discussion in talk:State of Palestine went, I did not violate the consensus, I simply argued against it. You can't ban a person for not understanding Wikipedia right away and so many people started their editing career on highly disputed topics and survived. There are users more expirianced than me who I've seen violating consensuses and using bad tounge against others. This whole topic is a huge overration to an argument.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 05:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    COPYVIO and possible COI

    This issue was initially raised at WP:BLPN here, but bringing it here for more eyes and possibly admin action. Two single purpose accounts were recently created, HARRYCRAIG and Vacariu.bucharest. HARRYCRAIG has only edited two articles - Markus Gabriel and yesterday created Gabriel Vacariu, the editor Vacariu.bucharest has only edited the Vacariu article (probably a WP:COI) and the Vacariu article has WP:COPVIO issues. This section in the article appears to have been copied verbatim from here. It would appear these two users are here to right great wrongs and push a POV that Gabriel plagiarized Vacariu, which apparently has already been addressed, but maybe not to his satisfaction - there are no plausible grounds to believe that Prof. Gabriel violated the standards of good scientific practice by making improper use of the ideas expressed in your published texts.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Logically speaking, if an editor is adding copyright violations to an article, they do not have a conflict of interest - COI refers to content that is from an original source, that cannot be found elsewhere. I don't see any reasons to accuse this editor of a COI, because their username doesn't seem to give much away in respect to this. Simply speaking, if the information can be accessed on the Internet or through a book, there is no conflict of interest. I completely agree with the WP:COPYVIO observation, however. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    COI refers to content that is from an original source, that cannot be found elsewhere. The way I interpret WP:COI is - "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships." The editor's username is Vacariu.bucharest and the only article they have edited is Gabriel Vacariu, who also happens to be with the University of Bucharest, which is why I said probably a COI, if the editor doesn't have a conflict of interest in editing the Vacariu article, then they can simply declare that they don't have a conflict of interest.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Isaidnoway - I completely misread and thought that Vacariu.bucharest was the name of one of the articles. That'll teach me. Of course, a COI editor is someone who edits about someone they know well, but if there is a copyright violation present, that means the violating material comes from somewhere else (i.e. a website) and therefore it isn't original research or own knowledge. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ches, no disrespect intended, but I didn't mention anything about "original research or own knowledge", I clearly stated above that the copyvio originated from this website. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Chesnaught555, I know you mean well but please don't comment on policy unless you understand it, as it has to potential to confuse good-faith new editors who assume people making confident pronouncements on ANI are speaking from authority. The existence of a COI has no relationship to whether the author knows the article subject (although the latter can sometimes be an indicator of the former). Whether something is a copyvio or not has no relevance to whether a COI exists. Inter alia, it's perfectly possible to violate the copyright of a work of which you're the creator—in most legal systems copyright belongs to the body commissioning the work, not the author, and thus a writer contributing a piece to a newspaper or magazine will rarely have the right to upload the piece to Wikipedia even though it's 100% their own work. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Iridescent, I do mean well, and I thank you for your good faith assumption. I simply do not see a conflict of interest, only a copyright violation. Of course, as you said, I am not speaking from authority, I am simply making a non-administrator observation. My apologies for any confusion I have caused. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Returning to Isaidnoway (talk · contribs)'s original complaint, there's clearly a bit of COPYVIO going on and possibly the owners of these two accounts haven't quite got to grips with Wikipedia policies yet. That said, they seem to be fairly new here and haven't had anything like a level 3 or level 4 warning for their actions, so I'm not convinced that any admin action is required at this stage. If we get to the stage where they've been adequately warned about their behaviour and are continuing to be disruptive, then obviously a block would be in order - but I don't think we're there (yet). WaggersTALK 14:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Isaidnoway (talk · contribs) first thing i wanna make clear is your COI request is fully wrong now on COPYVIO . I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE ISN'T ANY COPYRIGHT DISTURBANCE I KNOW ABOUT Gabriel Vacariu WORK AND HAD ACCESSED HIS ALL INFORMATION BEFORE WRITING AT WIKIPEDIA . NOW THERE IS PROBLEM ON IT CAN YOU ALL PLEASE HELP ME TO SORT OUT IT SO THAT I CAN PROTECT HIS ARTICLE FROM BEING DELETED.--HARRYCRAIG (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2016 {utc)

    WP:PLEASEDON'TSHOUT TimothyJosephWood 22:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response here. (1) it's not necessary to type in all caps. (2) As a new editor here, you should familiarize yourself with some of our editing policies and guidelines, such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:COI and you can always ask questions about editing at the WP:HELPDESK or me when I happen to be online. (3) Do you have a conflict of interest with editing either one of these two articles - Markus Gabriel or Gabriel Vacariu, in other words, do you know either one of these individuals, are you associated with either one of them, friends of either one of them, employed by either one of them? The reason I ask is because your very first edit to the encyclopedia was to insert an allegation of plagiarism to the Markus Gabriel article using this source - why did you do that? And then you jumped to the newly created article about Gabriel Vacariu and have started editing it now, so your editing behavior has come under scrutiny and is being discussed here. If you do have a conflict of interest with either one of these individuals, let us know now, so we can proceed to guide you on how to continue to edit the encyclopedia, especially if these two articles are the only ones you are interested in editing. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User :RaffiKojian on 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes

    This report is about user User:RaffiKojian vandalizing page 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes and using the page's talk for personal attacks against me. Several times he changed [23] the background section of the article without discussing it on talk page. In two different sections [24][25] on talk page I clarified myself. However he did not respond me in each case instead he accused me of editwarring and calling other users to take action against me. He continuously deletes my other contributions to article without discussing on talk.

    My arguments were followings:

    The main reason for clashes stem from continuing Armenian occupation and 600.000 Azeris displaced because of the Armenian Agression as it stated in the refernces from UN. I see some users just call all refernced information as propaganda and remove it.

    The Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan is distantly relevant to Azeris from Karabakh expelled by Armenian forces. And it does not overlap with the pervious sentences in the paragraph. So I suggest mention Azeri refugges only. Otherwise we need to take Azeris from Armenia as well. Thanks.

    No respond given by the user on talk page. Thanks Abbatai 17:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Two nationalists POV pushing against each other. Lovely.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I take that back. Abbatai is a nationalist pushing his POV.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This may call for a boomerang. Abbatai has displayed a reluctance of taking into consideration the overwhelming disapproval of his edits at the talk page. He has continued to edit-war incessantly and this is a cause for concern. The thread below highlights many of these reverts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Along with User:RaffiKojian, User:EtienneDolet [26] [27] and some other pro-Armenian users acting as a gang in the article 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, removing referenced information and accusing other users of edit war. In 4 different sections [28] [29] [30][31] of the talk page they were invited to reach consensus but they simply ignored all and continued edit war. Thanks. Abbatai 09:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think all of the edits in question concern the addition or removal of content which is actually off-topic for the subject of the article. The "Background" section is just meant to detail the immediate background to this event, the 2016 clashes themselves, not an abbreviated rehash of the entire history and prehistory of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. I have been bold and deleted this off-topic material [32]. I hope my edit remains, that the Background section can then be expanded with legitimate content for the subject of the article, and that everyone will realize that this is an easier solution than arguing about content that really does not need to be in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there a standing Arbitration ruling for Armenia and Azerbaijan? Probably best if this was dealt with there. Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Abbatai

    Please look into user Abbatai (talk · contribs)'s edits. Seems to be a single-purpose distuptive (for example, these edits [33][34][35]) user who was warned for his reverts at 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) several times [36][37][38], but no results (for example, this edit he reverted 13 times since April 6 - [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]). Previously he was blocked 3 times for disruptive editing and editwarring [52]. OptimusView (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello in each case I invited the users to discuss it on talk before changing however I had no respond on talk page. See [53][54] it is absurd those users report me now instead of discussing the issue with me at talk in two different sections. Plus some pro-Armenian users remove referenced information the page needs some action by admins. Thanks Abbatai 18:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - @Abbatai, listing the Madrid Principles as you have is not supportive of the issue. Your clearly stated Anti-Armenian positions betrays your biased view. My advice is to step back from the argument, as Nationalist Agendas are not supported on WP. I do agree, however, with your concerns of the Armenian newspapers having an agenda that should not be supported on WP either, as the reliability of such source material, Armenian or Azerbaijan, actually being correct is extremely doubtful. All involved need to source reliable independent Journalistic reviews of the conflict. Nuro msg me 01:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Madrid principles was misused in the article at the beginning just one side of story "self-governance of Karabkah" was mentioned ignoring other parts. I had include what it clearly says. Do not get what is wrong with this. Abbatai 10:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I consider that all of the edits in question concern the addition or the removal of content which is actually off topic for the subject of the article. The "Background" section is just meant to detail the immediate background to this event, the 2016 clashes themselves, not rehash the entire history and prehistory of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. I have been bold and deleted this off-topic material [55]. I hope my edit remains, that the Background section can then be expanded with legitimate content for this subject, and that both sides (if there are sides) will realize this is a better solution than arguing about content that really does not need to be there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello, I partially agree with you. The paragraph can be reduced to a few sentences. However you miss lots of points. The things you mentioned on talk: “Aggressive rhetoric by Azerbaijan, something of the previous clashes, military spending and procurement of advanced weaponry by both sides" they all stem from de facto independence of NKR and occupation of Azerbaijan. The entire world except Armenia and NKR call Armenian persistence in Azerbaijan as occupation and UN called withdrawal of Armenian forces from Azerbaijan several times. Technically all is happening within Azerbaijani territories. And 600,000 to 1 million Azerbaijani refugees are core point as it changed demographic of NKR drastically. Indeed this clashes stem from ethnic conflicts between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. So ignoring that facts makes hard to understand why all this happened. Thanks Abbatai 18:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are now raising content issues about what post-1994-ceasefire pre-2016 clashes material should be added to the Background section. If you were to stop arguing about what pre-1984 material from the main articles, material that these core articles can handle better, should be picked out for inclusion in this article, and recognize that none of that material is really needed since a link to the main articles' suffices, them maybe we can start to discuss what the post ceasefire background content should consist of. Because of all the editing disruption concerning pre-ceasefire material, no such discussion has been possible so far. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    R2-45 copyright policy violations

    The article R2-45 links directly to an external web source (tonyortega.org) that (according to the text on that page) carries a unauthorized 3-minute excerpt from a lecture by L. Ron Hubbard, copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. My understanding is that this violates WP:ELNEVER. That article also links to a shorter recording on Wikileaks. The local editors accept that copyright is claimed on the material,[56] but they revert my edit when I remove the links. They argue, under various theories, that the Church of Scientology cannot enforce copyright on the materials.[57][58] They also argue that linking is OK if it is for a different purpose.[ibid:"for the purposes of commentary"] The editors involved are Damotclese (talk · contribs), Slashme (talk · contribs), Feoffer (talk · contribs), and Prioryman (talk · contribs). When I removed the link, I was "warned" by an opposing editor that my insistence on following WP:POLICY on this and other issues is "continued tendentious editing".[59] Damotclese (talk · contribs) also copy/pasted a complete Scientology document (purported) into the talk page,[60] in disregard of WP:COPYVIO, to support some point of argument with another editor. These actions suggest some or all of these editors are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to promote a particular view of the subject. NB: I do not represent Scientology, and I have no personal knowledge of the genuineness of those recordings. They may be false (in which case they are fraud or forgery) and they may be true (in which case they violate WP policy on copyright). Whether false or true, the content is inappropriate and against WP policy for external links. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noticed article now includes a "non-free" scanned image from a copyright Scientology magazine uploaded by Feoffer (talk · contribs)[61]. This should be considered a separate but related issue -- that is, each instance of suspected copyvio should be considered separately. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the Church of Scientology is an organization, they have the ability to claim copyrights on documents and restrict their reference or use by others. If the document is copyrighted and the tonyortega.org source is violating that copyright, the source should be removed from the article per WP:ELNEVER. This also applies to the wikileaks source (and honestly, I wouldn't reference anything from Wikileaks if I were writing an article). I wouldn't think that the removal of a reference that potentially violates Wikipedia's external links and copyright policies would constitute as a violation of any discretionary sanctions on an article. However, if articles under the subject of Scientology are under 1RR restrictions, then removing and restoring the sources back-and-fourth is a very bad idea. The question I have is... are these documents actually under a copyright that restricts the use of those sources? My first thought is yes and these sources should be removed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright isn't a black and white argument. There is WP:NFCC and WP:Fair use to consider. If the material provides the best context for the education of the reader, it can be used. I haven't read the article or the diffs, I'm simply pointing out that "It's copyrighted" it's the end-all to this question.--v/r - TP 23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I just reviewed WP:NFCC and I'm looking at WP:F now. Striking out my "first thought" from the previous response. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: Just speaking about the image, File:L Ron Hubbard R2-45 Racket Exposed ads.png. WP:NFCCP #8 is at issue here. Also, it definitely fails WP:NFC#UUI #15. --Majora (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree (regarding the image). Still looking into the concerns regarding the sources. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Majora: WP:NFCC #8 is the most subjective criteria of them all. Needs a discussion regarding it on the talk page. Although, I tend to agree with you. NFCC #8 is met when the article is about the NFC and the context of the NFC cannot be described in a suitable way without the NFC.--v/r - TP 23:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: Ignoring NFCC #8 it still runs afoul of NFC#UUI #15 (a pretty clear cut unacceptable use). I'm going to put it to FFD as soon as I'm done with one other thing (if someone else doesn't get to it first). --Majora (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to follow up. I started a FFD discussion on the image. As for the external links, unless we can prove for certain that the person has permission to post that video it is pretty much like posting a potentially pirated YouTube video. As such, it is my opinion that the link should be removed citing WP:ELNEVER. --Majora (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that the image should be deleted under NFCC #8, and I've removed it from the article. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As @Feoffer: says, this is a short excerpt of a much longer speech, and it's very clearly fair-use: it's the historical figure who created the topic of the article mentioning it in a lecture. It gives just enough of the speech for the hearer to understand clearly in what context it is being used there. Without hearing the explanation leading up to him mentioning "R2-45" you get the impression that he's just talking about shooting people, but this way you can understand that, yes, he's saying that "R2-45" means shooting someone, but here he's explaining that in his belief system, killing someone is just a very basic way of making the spirit leave the body. Saying that we can't link to an external site because it contains a 3 minute extract from a lecture that lasted an hour or more is a bit extreme. --Slashme (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but let's be clear about this: this is just an excuse being made by Sfarney to remove this source from the article. It is being used in the article to discuss US government papers published by Ortega relating to the topic of the article - not as a source for the lecture in question. He has only latched on to this copyright claim after (1) attacking Ortega's personal qualities in various places on Wikipedia; (2) claiming that WP:BLP applies either to L. Ron Hubbard or the Church of Scientology as a whole - an organization that claims 6 million members, 2 million more than the entire US federal government; (3) that the lecture shouldn't be used as a source because it's paywalled; (4) that a Church of Scientology publication shouldn't be cited because it is somehow "original research"; and (5) that the recording he's claiming is a copyright violation isn't genuine anyway. (Quite a turnaround, that!) In short, this is part of an ongoing campaign of tendentious obstructionism relating to this particular article. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More personal attacks, and no diff links in support. WP:NPA. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing your behavior isn't a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. The ANI bearpit isn't the appropriate place to review your behavior in detail. Prioryman (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) In Wikipedia, all "statements of fact" are supported with links and references; (2) ANI is not universally considered a "bearpit"; (3) This is very much an appropriate place to review my conduct; and (4) When an issue comes before the ANI, the conduct of all involved editors comes under review. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a personal attack to point out Sfarney has been on an extended campaign to remove material originating from Ortega and has taken to many venues to complain about our usage of Ortega as a source. The claiming that Ortega is a copyright infringer is but one in a long series of allegations cited as reason to scrub his reporting from the project. Feoffer (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a personal attack to accuse me of running contrary to Wikipedia's purpose, but fail to provide the diffs to support the accusations. In this most recent case, if a diff were provided, the administrators could fairly judge whether I have accused Ortega of "infringing" on copyright, and they would find I have not. I do not know whether Ortega's recording is the genuine item. But as stated above, if it is not, it is fraud or forgery (or perhaps satire) and we should not link to it. If it is, we violate WP:ELNEVER if we link to it. Wikipedia has different rules from Ortega. We live by our rules, Ortega by his, whatever they might be. The only question before the ANI at this time is whether the R2-45 article violates Wikipedia's policies on copyright, as stated above. If you wish to broaden this question to other issues, follow the rules for discussion on this page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Journalist Tony Ortega included a 3 minute excerpt of a much longer lecture for the purposes of reporting and commentary.[62] Ortega was Editor-in-Chief of The Village Voice, his usage of the audio clip is in his reporting is certainly "in a way compliant with fair use". Feoffer (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's tell more than half the truth. According to the Observer, Ortega was asked to leave his position at the Voice in 2012: “He was increasingly obsessed with Scientology and had neglected almost all of his editorial duties at the paper,” the ex-staffer said. “Sometimes he wouldn’t even edit features.”[63] We would not want that obsession to spill over into Wikipedia such that we forget our own policies about copyright, neutrality, advocacy, and verifiability. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Ortega's job performance at the Village Voice relevant to the copyright status of the external link on this article? --Slashme (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not. It does, of course, dualistically question his presence here. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately Sfarney has been smearing Ortega in various places around Wikipedia to try to make a case that he shouldn't be used as a source. It's part of a pattern of bad editing that should earn him a topic ban under the arbitration sanctions currently in force in this topic area. Prioryman (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But the first person to bring up Village Voice was in fact Feoffer who appeared to be trying to use it to give credence to Tony Ortega. It seems to be a case of what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either both are relevant or neither are. Which means it's difficult to criticise Sfarney for bringing it up in this particular instance as it was a resonable response to Feoffer's comment. The alternative option would be to suggest Tony Ortega's previous position at the Village Voice is irrelevant point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it's irrelevant either way. None of the content we're discussing relates to the Village Voice, so there is no point bringing it up. Prioryman (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We can discuss all of it without personal attacks WP:PA, and we can keep it relevant. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you recognise that that includes avoiding making personal attacks on the authors of sources, too. Prioryman (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive editing

    Despite multiple warnings, 97.95.12.163 refuses to stop making disruptive edits. The user is an obvious sock puppet of 96.35.115.44. The user pretty much just changed his or her IP addresses after getting blocked multiple times just so they could continue doing what they were doing.

    The user's disruptive editing includes unsourced changes, no edit summaries, no attempt to discuss, unexplained reversions, POV content about "stand-alone sequels", incorrect titles, listing poster taglines as the title, and more. The user has been warned repeatedly and knows exactly what (s)he is doing at this point. DarkKnight2149 14:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you requesting a range block? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I don't think the situation has escalated to the point where a range block is necessary. The user stopped using the other IP after previously getting blocked, just so (s)he could do the same at the current IP (97.95.12.163). As far as I'm aware, there aren't any others (at least, not yet).
    I think that the blocking of both IPs may suffice (as there's no telling if the user will evade their hypothetical block by going back to their previous IP, assuming they can). DarkKnight2149 00:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Update (15 April 2016)

    Since I had to re-add this after it was mistakenly archived before conclusion, I want to reiterate to administrators that there has yet to be official response or action to this disruptive editing report. DarkKnight2149 02:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked your first IP 31 hours for disruption. The second is stale so I can't do anything about that one. If he resumes after the block expires, report it at AIV. :-) Katietalk 03:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. DarkKnight2149 03:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably can. What specifically do you need a link to? DarkKnight2149 03:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article in question, as there isn't one in the post, only the complaint. Nuro msg me 03:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There were multiple articles. I'm busy at this very moment, but I'll be sure to message you the links the user's past blocks soon. DarkKnight2149 03:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob, just need to look at the specifics is all. Nuro msg me 03:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat?

    Is this a legal threat? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Justlettersandnumbers Debatable IMO. I think they're just trying to take ownership of the article, no legal phrases used. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd thing to post. I don't see a threat, just a series of proclamations. The important thing is I don't think it was meant to have a chilling effect, nor do I think it had that effect. HighInBC 14:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat

    New user User:Vermicious Knids? claims to have "sent a certified letter to the legal department at Wikipedia" objecting to editors restoring sourced press criticism on the Ann Louise Gittleman article, which is fair enough, but they go on to publicly threaten those editors with "damages both real and punitive" for this "defamation". --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked them for engaging in intimidation. If they agree to stop using legal intimidation then I am happy to unblock, and I have let them know that. I have also asked them what their specific concerns are so we can take a look. HighInBC 15:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please unblock them. They were not making a legal threat. Indeed, they said they "have no grounds to take legal action." What they said, basically, was it's bad to publish a hatchet job and it exposes both the WMF and the responsible editors to possible real and punitive damages. These things are true. Just point them to the bit in WP:NLT that warns them about using words like "defamation" and the reasons why that's a bad idea. What possible good is your block doing? People have a right to describe BLP content as defamatory, and to point out the risks involved in writing and publishing defamation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment[64] was clearly designed to intimidate through a legal threat. And as for your "people have a right to..." comment, no. They do not. Not here. They are free to create their own web page and say what they want there and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we won't care. But if they want to post comments on Wikipedia they must follow Wikipedia's rules, which include "no legal threats". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, people do in fact have a right to describe potentially defamatory content as such. That is not in itself a legal threat or improper use of wikipedia talkspace.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good example of WP:DOLT. Vermicious Knids? was pointing out possible defamation, but, in stating they contacted Wikimedia's legal department and requesting "any editors involved in these actions be stricken from any further editing and access to Wikipedia now an in the future", they created a chilling effect that came across as a legal threat. All that's needed here is an explanation to the user that articles can be cleaned up by bringing up concerns on the talk page or at theBLP noticeboard. clpo13(talk) 16:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Overt legal threat, maybe not, but intimidation, certainly: "I have sent a certified letter to the legal department at Wikipedia notifying them of the intent of those on this page to defame a notable person, which exposes Wikipedia and its principles and any editors involved in potentially dangerous actions that can lead ultimately to damages both real and punitive. I assure you that they will review this and take action so any further actions regarding posting of negative reviews editorials and opinions that have no real purpose except to damage a notable person be noted and removed, and any editors involved in these actions be stricken from any further editing and access to Wikipedia now an in the future." Those are strong implications. GABHello! 16:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a legal threat, that's running to mummy. That's, "I'm going to tell the WMF that you're being really shitty editors, and you're going to be in big trouble." And so they should be if the article is a hatchet job. Read. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOFREESPEECHHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a thought. Why not ping WMF legal to this conversation? I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if they received such a letter they would apply an office Block to the OP. Pretty clearly you can either edit here or take legal action not both. Sending certified mail demanding some action be taken is a common first step to legal action. Seems right to me. John from Idegon (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec)It would certainly qualify as a legal threat, EXCEPT it's being directed at Wikipedia itself, not to an external entity. It could just be a bluff, but a few years ago a user named Xanderliptak successfully intimidated the Wikimedia folks into doing his bidding, despite his complaint being bogus. So be careful. Be sure the article's sourcing will pass rigorous examination. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not making legal threats merely notifying you of the potential legal ramifications of blatant bias and how it could expose you and Wikipedia to legal action. Please bring it up to the Administrators. This is informational and I cannot threaten anyone as I have no grounds to take legal action. [65] cannot reasonably be considered a legal threat. NE Ent 17:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • The intent of WP:NLT is to prevent the use of overt intimidation to coerce changes to content or exert a chilling effect on other editors. It is impossible to see these comments as anything other than coercive. We block for that. We have a route for people with genuine legal concerns to contact WMF and the editing community, i.e. OTRS. And if people get blocked then clarify that this is not what they meant, they get unblocked. I really do not see why we should argue over the letter of the meaning of the word "threat" when the clear intent of the policy has been met in this way. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, the comments implied attempts to coerce. If the user clarifies this was not the intent then they can be refactored and clarified and the user the unblocked. Protecting the project against coercion has, IMO, a higher priority than enabling a WP:SPA to continue pursuing an agenda. All things considered, this is a user with a couple of years of history of doing fuck all but promoting a quack. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Before unblocking, someone should find out if he really did contact Wikimedia attorneys or if it was just a bluff. Xanderliptak was never unblocked after running to those same attorneys, nor should he have been. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Do I seriously need to say this?) It's not a blockable offence to complain to the WMF that editors are defaming people and ask that those editors be sanctioned. My last word on this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He could stay blocked until his true intentions (if any) become known. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage."
    — Tim Simonite, Technology Review [66]

    does far more damage, long term, than the "intimidation" caused because someone send a letter to WMF legal. Yea, sure this particular editor may not be of great benefit to the project, but a policy of blocking every SPA -- we were all "SPA"s after our first edit -- sends a message "newcomers need not apply." Not good. NE Ent 23:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Newcomers who are only here to promote something, "need not apply." As with Xanderliptak, whose sole purpose was to promote his graphic design skills. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You say. I disagree: reliability is important, ans SPAs who are here to promote quacks are a resourse which has a massive excess of supply over demand. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course reliability is important and I didn't say "don't block pov editors (spa or not)" -- what I did say is a policy of blocking every SPA is counterproductive, especially when they're not violating policy. "I am not going to sue" is not a legal threat. "I discussed something the WMF legal team" is not a legal threat. Block persistent vandals and trolls and edit warriors and doxers, don't block a newbie because they don't grok the wiki-bureaucracy in the first day. NE Ent 23:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it amusing that we're Wikilawyering over the definition of a legal threat :-) This commentary form the user was clearly intended to coerce, and that IMO was the problem. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anthonyhcole: "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention." The intention of the user was not in need of clarification The comment was clearly meant to have a chilling effect. It described a desired outcome, it spoke of taking action. We don't allow intimidation here, legal or otherwise. To do so would compromise our neutral point of view.

    This recent trend towards tolerating legal threats(carefully worded or otherwise) does not serve our project or our editors. I also don't think it enjoys consensus. I think the block is valid and it should stand until the user agrees not to engage in future intimidation. If they agree to this very reasonable standard then I have no objection to the block being reverse with a close eye kept on them.

    I have explained to the user again how they can come back here. HighInBC 03:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Good Block even assuming that the user didn't intend to issue a legal threat or to make a chilling statement (which is the substance of WP:NLT) the username they chose is one of a species of villains in a children's book. Based on the pointy username they chose and that they went for specific language and then went retroactively to shade it to be not as bad, but the chilling effect is done. If the Legal Office does see merit in addressing the user's complaints, they'll address it. I'd prefer that the user not be unblocked for the Pointy/Disruptive editing that they've already engaged in. Hasteur (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    64.229.246.209 disruptive behaviour

    Please see the IP 64.229.246.209 (talk · contribs) recently active at Talk:List of universities in Canada#Algoma and Talk:Canada Day#See also. Contributions to Canada Day and Battle of Ontario. Battleground mentality and attacks at the above two talk pages, the latter of which subject to much past battles waged by sock UrbanNerd and PhilthyBear. Edit summaries featuring "lol", "peacock terms", "nonsense" and pushing BRD. (Credits from Hwy43's response). Further, he unnecessarily attacked, with this unkind response, ElKevbo (because of ElKevbo's revert on his change to List of universities in Canada) on his talk page (and typical of a UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear) message. (Credits from Miesianiacal's response).

    On April 12, after he told me to take my change to the talk page (likely out of spite and retaliation after discussions on Canada Day), which I did, he continued to make wild hypocritical accusations and doesn't seem to like discussion, as he doesn't try to aid it after constant pleas for suggestions, but rather adds fuel to the fire. After one suggested change from Dbrodbeck, I agreed with it and gave a new one. After the talk page became dormant for almost three days, I updated the article based on no further users responding. The IP was also dormant for those three days with his last edit to Winterysteppe's talk page. Within an hour of my update three days later on April 15, he was very quick to revert it which shows he was still coming to Wikipedia likely only to see if a change was made to that page. This user may be a suspected sock and clearly has not learned from the past and is clearly not here. Thanks for taking the time to review this. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    At the very least, this deserves a WP:NPA block. clpo13(talk) 23:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm almost positive this is UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear, who was indef blocked for a raft of reasons, This anon should therefore not be allowed to edit Wikipedia at all and 3RR shouldn't apply to reverting his edits. Then there's that message to ElKevbo, which, yes, should be reason enough in itself for a block.
    There's a bigger problem here, though, of UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear coming back to disrupt Wikipedia using multiple IPs--see UrbanNerd's talk page for a list. I don't know what the solution to that could be. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the last few days, myself & many other editors have been getting phony block warnings from an evading banned editor. It's quite possible there's a connection. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP reverted my ANI notice on his talk page (like he always does with messages) if it looks like I didn't give him one. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just found another IP sock active May through October last year – 216.48.162.150 (talk · contribs). Caught this reviewing the edit history of Battle of Ontario to determine who was responsible for non-neutral opinion at the expense of my (and his) thirtieth favourite hockey team. This "remove fluff" edit summary then reminded my of UrbanNerd's use of the same edit summary language. Also, compare this second IP's contributions with the most frequent articles edited by UrbanNerd. The interests in Battle of Ontario, Ontario, List of tallest buildings in Canada, light rail transit (Light rail in North America and Light rail in Canada), and Montreal are just uncanny. Hwy43 (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And he's now just sent me a mild personal attack. This isn't the type of behaviour we should tolerate and certainly is not learning. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 12:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Typical behavior from an evading banned editor. The best way to deal with it, is to WP:DENY the evader recognition. Merely revert, block & ignore them. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Typical sort of non-insult. Puerile vandals like these always make these sorts of insults thinking it makes them sound like a tough nut but in reality just shows how pathetic they are. Liberal application of WP:DFTT. Blackmane (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Community Ban Proposal

    • Support Community Ban for UrbanNerd/PhilthyBear - this is the last stage of our process. Considering the amount of disruptive socking, it appears overdue. Jusdafax 04:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, of course. But, what will a "community ban" achieve that the indef block didn't? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban. As a WP:RETENTION member, this pains me to do this. But, it's necessary. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - this user's sockpuppetry and disruption outweighs any positive contributions this user has made to the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any and every punishment available to throw at this editor. However, what does a community ban really do? This guy just sock hops from IP to IP now. Does the ban prevent that from happening at all? Also, do we need to start a formal SPI on this as well? I'd be curious to know if a CheckUser reveals if this editor is also operating under a new registered account that has gone undetected thus far. Can't recall if a CheckUser can confirm that or not. Hwy43 (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Persistent disruptive socking only has one response. @Hwy43: a community ban means that any sock account this user creates and is identified is blocked indefinitely straight away with no recourse to appeal using that account. Any edit of theirs, constructive or otherwise, may be reverted with extreme prejudice without running afoul of WP:3RR or be considered edit warring. SPI is useful for logging their socks although if their socks are obvious a WP:DUCK block may be levied without the need for a CheckUser to be run. However, it is sometimes useful to request a CU to identify any sleeper accounts. Blackmane (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Thanks for the explanation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Blackmane. Is it any worth to also consider semi-protecting articles frequented by UN/PB so that only autoconfirmed users can edit them? Hwy43 (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on how many articles this particular vandal hits. If it's too many, it may be problematic to apply semi protection to them all as it will hamper not only vandals but also good faith IP editors. Unless an obvious range of IPs are used, in which case a range block may be possible provided the collateral damage is assessed to be minimal, playing whack a mole is usually the way to go. Blackmane (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/205.197.242.179/24

    I am seeing a ridiculous amount of vandalism coming from this range. Could a checkuser take a look and make sure that the collateral damage wouldn't be too bad if I put a hard block on? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a checkuser. That being said... I don't know - out of the /24 (254 addresses after network and broadcast), I see about 5 1-2 edit vandals in the last few days. 1 or 2 more persistent vandals or problematic users. There seem to be quite a few useful contribs coming from there in the same timeframe. Is there a page perhaps that's being targeted? We could look at applying semi-protection if so. SQLQuery me! 01:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated Pakistani PoV pushing in Kulbhushan Yadav

    Kulbhushan Yadav is an Indian national and a former naval officer. Pakistan claims him to be an Indian spy and also claims to arrest him in Pakistan. India rejects all Pakistani claims here. However, in the article Pakistani PoV is being presented as the neutral PoV. In a situation where there is no third party confirmation or neutral sources are unavailable and being such a recent news, claims of both parties should be presented like I did here with sources. Even the Iranian President termed such Pakistani allegations as remours here(Pak source) and here(Indian source). But, my edits are being reverted by Pakistani PoV pushers both by registered editors and even by dubious IPs. You are all requested to go through this and do the necessary as deemed fit to keep wiki as a NPOV platform. I can not edit war with all of them all the time.Ghatus (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left a comment in the Talk Page of this article. I'm not Admin, but I am willing to participate in the discussion, on how to move forward with the article. It clearly needs some consensus, from others, on how to keep it Neutral POV. I agree that there has been some deletion of sections without consensus though. Nuro G'dayMate! 06:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I fail to see any POV pushing in the last week or so ever since the renowned socker/vandal Knightwarrior was blocked and booted off of wikipedia. Also your own conduct has been far, far from civil or acceptable. I see that you have reverted 4 times in the last 24 hours. Are you claiming that you are not aware of WP:3RR? You are edit warring in an article and then claiming that "others" are at fault? I mean come on! Furthermore you are the one who is guilty of pushing a pro Indian POV in the article when you used Indian sources to source Iranian claims. Furthermore you are guilty of fabricating claims. As you did with this source. You said that according to this source the Iranians had dismissed the "spy scandals" as rumour, however there is nothing like this in the source. According to the source the Iranians denied that there had been any "high level meeting" between Iran and Pakistan to discuss the scandal. This is quite clever, but disingenuous on your part. We should refrain from adding this kind of falsehood in articles. So instead of edit warring and adding false information please stay away from the article for a few days and maybe it will become better seeing that the socker has been blocked now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are lying. Forget Indian source, even Pak sources(with video in English) here saying this "Rouhani denied having such a discussion and said, “Whenever Iran comes closer to Pakistan such rumours are spread.”" Why lying??? India has rejected all Pakistani claims (here) and Pak has no third party confirmation or neutral sources in its support. Hence, claims of both parties have to be presented accordingly.Ghatus (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ghatus according to wikipedia etiquette you are not allowed to say "you are lying" to another editor. The rules are written here at WP:NPA. However if you want for us both to ignore the rules feel free to state it and I shall be more than ready to thrash you in verbal brawling to such a high degree of hurt that you will regret the day you attacked me. Anyway, moving on to your comment. Let me just repeat what I said. I'll bold it up for you so that it is clear for you to read you know. I stated that You are guilty of edit warring as per WP:3RR. I said You have used Indian websites to source Iranian claims which is POV editing in itself. While discussing your attempt to insert a hoax into the article I said Iranians have NEVER dismissed the spy scandal as rumour, rather they have denied that a high level meeting took place to talk about the scandal. I then said Claiming that the Iranians dismissed the spy scandal as mere rumour is clever but disingenuous source misrepresentation. See the bold lines, read them and then look at your "counter argument". does your answer make any sense whatsoever? No? Well that is because it does not address any of the issues I pointed out. See there are four issues and you do not talk about any of them that is the reason your answer makes no sense to anyone. So what can you do now? Well my advice is to firstly refrain from personal attacks and whatnot. Secondly try to read an argument before rushing in to defend the motherland. Thirdly try to edit in good faith. Fourthly try to give this article a breather, let neutral editors take over for a while, you do not have to protect the article now that it is mentioned here on the ANI so why don't you remove it from your watchlist and do something else for a while? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1)You are lying again. This is the video as given in the Pak Newspaper and the Iranian President is saying :" “. Whenever we become close to Pakistan such rumours come up. I have heard this more than 20 times We have brotherly relations with Pakistan. We also have a good relationship with India, thus there is no problem,” You can hear it by yourself.
    2) India has rejected all Pakistani claims (here) and Pak has no third party confirmation or neutral sources in its support.Ghatus (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ghatus next time you use the phrase "you are lying" I will give you butthurt. understood? so please shut it with the personal attacks. And again you are addressing none of the issues pointed out. Iran only denied meeting with Pakistani officials. They did not say that the scandal is not true. youtube videos count for didly squat here on wiki. you are going to be laughed at if you try to insert POV text while using youtube as a source because the double whammy will be a bit to much for even the most staunch good faith assumers. So answer the 4 questions I have put to you and lets get the ball rolling. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have some comprehension problems. Pakistan's most notable news DAWN.COM has reported this and shot this and they have published in their news portal in support of their report. Indian sources have reported it also see here(Indian source). BTW, entire article of Kulbhushan Yadav is based on recent news Paper articles and nothing more than this. And, I say it again "India has rejected all Pakistani claims (here) and Pak has no third party confirmation or neutral sources in its support." That Yadav is an India spy is nothing more than a CLAIM of Pakistan and they have no proof in its support.Ghatus (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang I don't know much about India and Pakistan, other than they have nuclear weapons and a tendency to get cranky with one another, so I think I'm in a good spot to look this over. There's no question that Ghatus is pushing his own POV and edit warring to do it. The content isn't the issue for us at this noticeboard, but the user conduct definitely is. @Ghatus: I'd really like you to explain why we shouldn't block you for edit warring and violating 3RR, because I'm this close to doing just that. Katietalk 14:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First of all, Ghatus really needs to start following the policies. The edit warring is unacceptable, so are the repeated personal attacks ("you're lying"). All of this needs to stop. Second, FreeatlastChitchat also need to stop the personal attacks ("I will give you butthurt"). Third, it's true that the article appears to be a constant edit war between Pakistanis and Indians and nobody else cares. It probably could do with a neutral observer. Jeppiz (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeppiz my comment about giving him butthurt is not a personal attack, the next time he attacks me I will report him at ANI. Kinda tired of all this FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Report them at ANI for...a personal attack visible to all at ANI? I think you will do better by calming down and letting Ghatus' attacks speak for themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Talk on content First of all, I want to talk on content. Here is an "alleged spy" as claimed by Pakistan. India denies him to be a spy. So, when an article is written on him, will the claims of both sides be included or only one side (Do not forget that there is no third party or secondary sources) ? That's all. All others are secondary. Discuss on this. Read the article and you will find that an "alleged spy" is turned into a "real spy". This is the "core" issue PoV pushers are running away from discussing. Finally, I am not abusive to anyone and have not use any "unconstitutional" language, though some words of mine may be straight. Let's focus on "content", the heart of Wikipedia.Ghatus (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ghatus if you want to "talk" on content you should first of all stop edit warring and falsifying sources. I know it is allowed to edit an article while discussion is ongoing, but it is not allowed to edit war whilst you discuss. So no more edit warring from you. Secondly, your language is foul and abusive, and has been so on multiple occasions. You have been warned of this before on your talk talkpage but you have always removed such warnings calling them rants. This shows a basic problem with your attitude. If there is a problem with your behavior you should just acknowledge it, apologize, say that you have recognized the problem and it will not happen again, and then everyone forgets about it and we move on with editing the wiki. This is a pretty basic way of dealing with your own behavioural problems. If you do not even acknowledge the problem, others will point it out for you and some admin may take action and you lose your editing privileges for a week or so; so why don't you just admit that you engaged in foul language, no apology required, and you show good faith by letting this thread be closed by an admin or a non admin. We then stop wasting the ANI space and move on to discuss content at the TP of the said page. In all seriousness if you just admit your abusive language I will myself be willing to close this as non admin even though you targetted me. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive exchanges with user Nishidani

    In an articles talk page user Nishidani accuses people of being (me I guess) 'not willing to work with anyone,' Users quoting fundamentalist pastors and calling people bible thumpers. Some language I would think could find this along the lines of bigotry.

    Examples:

    Accusations like bible thumping, which I have not done

    Refusing to negotiate with other editors

    Attacks user with language like 'biblethumping creationist'

    etc.

    Looks like they are a regular here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basileias (talk • contribs) 06:36, 17 April 2016

    I have tried to ask having content proposed on the talk page. It keeps falling into bullying on the main article through revert after revert. I originally made a statement about discussing poorly sourced material and moving it to the talk page. I also indicated it would be through consensus. User Nishidani then began carpet bombing the article with edits and reverting the other editor. I suspect he took my offer of consensus as weakness and an opportunity. The article and environment is now toxic because of him. While other editors are very passionate about their views, the constant is nobody can work with Nishidani, and frankly their verbal abuse should not be allowed to continue. The name calling borderlines around religious bigotry. Basileias (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Nishidani

    Basileias, you are misreading everything, and being extremely pertinacious about my etiquette breaches while silently passing over the irrational nonsense thrown my way by the other editor.

    I.e. Dontreader read a primary source, grasped the truth, and now is forcing it on Wikipedia. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is 'forcing a square peg into a round hole.' When I provide sources I'm told I am 'totally in the Christian apologist camp despite your claim that you're a pagan'
    The scholarly evidence, from Jews and Christians, is far more nuanced:
    Factional agendas underpin the writing of the canonical texts, and the various NT documents are windows into the conflict and debates of that period.(Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz, Jews and Gentiles in the Early Jesus Movement: An Unintended Journey, Springer, 2013 p.93.) According to Timothy Johnson, mutual slandering among competing sects was quite strong in the period when these works were composed. (Lloyd Kim Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism, Supersessionism?, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006 p.14.)The New Testament moreover is an ensemble of texts written over decades, and reflecting the different milieux of composition.(Guy G Strousma, ‘From anti-Judaism to antisemitism in Early Christianity,’ in pp.1-26 p.5’I wish to recall that . . these texts were written in rather diverse milieus, and that therefore it is quite meaningless to speak about a single New Testament attitude.’;p.16 ‘The context and meaning of the rejection of the Jews in the Gospel of John, . .are vastly different from Chrysostom’s anti-Jewish invective. We cannot speak of a single early Christian or Patristic attitude toward Jews and Judaism, or imply its existence. Both the relationship of Christianity to Judaism and the Christians’ perceptions of Jews were totally different at the end of the fourth century than they had been three hundred years previously’.)

    Comments

    • Comment Both Johnuniq and Nuro Dragonfly have misunderstood (despite their kind efforts) what has occurred on that talk page and in the article. I actually thought at first that Nishidani was a Christian fundamentalist because he was expressing their views (a total determination to eliminate any perception that the New Testament is anti-Semitic). But based on his userpage and what I have read in the ANI archives, he just seems instead to have a massive problem with the Jews, including any notion that they have been victims of anything. It's impossible to work with Nishidani. It's not that he has a scholarly approach and we do not. Look, for example, at how he disqualifies (and even threatens to take out) the respected scholar Walter Laqueur, who is cited in many similar Wikipedia articles: [67], [68], [69]. My addition of a book source written by the pastor John F. MacArthur was merely a way to refute Nishidani's claim that "The phrase ἡ συναγωγή τοῦ Σατανᾶ 'synagogue of Satan' does not refer to Jews, but people pretending to be Jews" (that's what he wrote in the first diff I showed). MacArthur points to Romans 2:28-29 to prove that the phrase does refer to the Jews [70]. There's nothing wrong with citing a very well-known pastor with advanced theological studies (one of the "Top 100 Christian Leaders in America" according to Newsmax Media [71]) to support this simple claim in the article: "In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 Jews appear to be called a synagogue of Satan." The two following scholarly sources make the same claim. The difference is that MacArthur quotes from Romans to support the claim, which is informative. All I have asked from Nishidani is to add sourced content to show other scholarly views WITHOUT removing content supporting the views of those who believe the NT is anti-Semitic, but he did this instead [72]. In other words, he tried to make HIS view prevail over the view of other scholars instead of letting the reader understand BOTH views. We don't know what Nishidani's next move will be. He's erratic and impossible for us to deal with. He has created a toxic environment by refusing to reach consensus on the talk page. Please intervene. Dontreader (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to see what the issue was in the talk-page section I linked above but there was nothing clear. If it concerns a particular source, raise it at WP:RSN if its reliability is questioned, or at WP:NPOVN if there is doubt over whether its material is WP:DUE. If the issue concerns whether or not particular wording should be added or removed, start an WP:RFC. However I have encountered Nishidani before and if he says that sources say X it is a very safe bet that X is what the sources say. In particular, if Nishidani bluntly states that "The phrase ἡ συναγωγή τοῦ Σατανᾶ 'synagogue of Satan' does not refer to Jews, but people pretending to be Jews" the best course of action would be to engage with him and ask about any concerns—why does he think that? where did he learn that? Such engagement will be profitable, and it should happen before trying to prove he is wrong. A lot of writing on historic issues is merely a repetition of earlier assertions, and people cherry pick previously published material to find something that supports their point of view (I'm talking about authors of sources, not editors). To find out what the phrase in question meant in the context that it was used, it would be essential to consult scholarly experts known for their expertise in the area. Someone like Walter Laqueur should not be relied on for such an interpretation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Johnuniq, but I must respectfully disagree with you concerning Walter Laqueur. If you look at which articles link to his page, you will find Antisemitism, Antisemitism in the Arab world, Blood libel, Islam and antisemitism, Religious antisemitism, and New antisemitism, so I think it's clear that many Wikipedians regard him as a competent source when it comes to anti-Semitism. Besides, the claim in question is supported by yet another source in the article [73], and I don't think anyone would dispute that Sander L. Gilman and Steven T. Katz are excellent scholars on this topic. However, I have no interest in editing that article any more unless something is done about Nishidani, and I regret that you defend him despite his problematic history as a Wikipedian. Anyway, thanks for your time and for all the advice. Dontreader (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You could visit WP:RSN and ask whether someone whose main works deal with European history in the 19th and 20th centuries and whose works show no sign of scholarship regarding the New Testament or the Greek used in the New Testament would be suitable for a source regarding the precise meaning of a certain phrase. I assure you that the regulars at WP:RSN would point out the obvious—such a source is totally unsuitable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement just above by User:Dontreader is a good example of the rampant WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT on the talk page.
    (1)A day ago I gave a list of the errors in Dontreader’s work, amongst which was the following:
    ’I don't think anyone would dispute that Sander L. Gilman and Steven T. Katz are excellent scholars on this topic.’
    (2)A long time ago I noted that Walter Laqueur was being used for the article Islam and antisemitism (Laqueur's fine by me if he's dealing with modern history even though he failed to graduate from Hebrew University, never obtained an academic degree and is not an Arabist). The problem was, he was being used as a source for the meaning of the Qur’an, a classic Arabic text even scholars find hard to read. Worse, he synthesized passages from two separate Surahs in the Qur’an (Al-Baqara 2:191 and Al-Ma'ida 5.60) and passed off his synthesis as coming from the former, from just one Surah. I found stubborn opposition to this, all by editors who refused to check the error, who opposed the introduction of scholars competent in Qur'anic studies who explained those passages, and just played with policy objections. See
    ((1)here
    ((2)Recap.
    Another (very good)editor has now asked me to be nice to an incompetent chap who has a bee in his bonnet with the thesis that all Japanese culture is indebted to Koreans. Same monomania, identical incomprehension of the scholarly lay of the land, similar googling for tidbits that prove a thesis the author is personally convinced of, dredged up, as one finds each time, from sources that fail RS. Wikipedia of course has WP:AGF, but our job here is to write competent, articles based on sound peer-reviewed scholarship. It's not a fucking nursery for tender kiddies, or a playpit for amateurs to push private theories. Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I entered this debate because of the subject matter, even though its the missus who has the Arts (Major) degree with Honours in Medieval Studies, Religion and History, I'm the Military History dude. The author Walter Laqueur in question is not an expert in the field and I would consider biased in their views of the subject. They have their field of expertises, but I don't think is a good example. John F. MacArthur is also not a very good example of unbiased source material. Both of these authors page on WP are not well written IMO, and have serious POV overtones that are not neutral as far as I've read them. Consensus is required with some serious efforts at finding Legitimate Experts in the fields of Ancient Greek and Hebrew, not to mention an Unbiased, or not easily challenged, view. That's how I read it. It has become an extremely toxic article, and I think that the blame is shared, I'm sorry to say. I'm happy to become a contributor to the Talk Page also, as I have no vested interest in the matter. NuroDragonfly G'dayMate! 12:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuro Dragonfly, many thanks. If you could help with the article then I would really appreciate it. I refuse to go back there as long as Nishidani is present with his insolence, anger and hostility. Take out Laqueur if you don't think he's qualified. Do whatever you want, but I give up. Nishidani has made me sick. Sooner or later you will probably feel the same way while dealing with him to improve the article. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall move over to the talk page. RE the Admin comments below, I concur. Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 23:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User Nishidan, abusive language.

    Starting a new one because the main points of someone behavior is getting lost. New example.

    "It's not a fucking nursery for tender kiddies... Nishidani"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basileias (talk • contribs)

    So you don't like their use of language. Any rules violated?--TMCk (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not considered personal attacks? It would be in a workplace. And you would be under disciplinary for behavior with that language. Basileias (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And likely in church but this is neither of those places. I do feel that WP is indeed "a fucking nursery for tender kiddies" and I can say this pretty much in any form and language as long as I don't call someone here a "tender kiddy" (which would be a mild PA IMO).--TMCk (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And you realized you create a fuck up asshole environment people will not participate, other than the incompetent. Right? And why do we need to keep bringing up fucking church? Basileias (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Better than bringing it up in church... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't create what's already there :) --TMCk (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is there because it was allowed. I repeatedly asked for help to get it under control. But yes, it is now past that point and the one person who started and persist in the bad behavior is now embolded to continue to do so. Nice job here. I predict you will see all other editors abandon that article and talk page. Basileias (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fa Chrissake, have we lost a sense of proportion? I wrote large swathes of technical points on the talk page and added 20 'fucking' works of scholarship to a dumbly sourced attack page,-all met with a stony silence - and the only thing Basileia notes is a substantive and an adjective, and thinks I should be sanctioned. If I had one intelligent comment on sourcing, none of this streetwise exasperation at the sheer stupidity of trying to edit some pages in wiki would have been necessary. Anyone who's knocked around the world, well knows, that these choice epithets, at appropriate moments, are wake up calls, meaning 'focus!' (on editing issues, not on namby-pamby issues).Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whenever someone accuses another user of being uncivil and gives a quotation of them using foul language, I like to look at the context behind the comment, especially when (like here) no context is provided by the user who gave the quotation. Yes, using the F-word on Wikipedia is generally frowned upon, but generally there is some reason a senior editor like Nishidani would be (driven to) using such language, and the user primarily at fault is in my experience almost always the person who through constant refusal to read [Nishidani]'s comments apart from the dirty words, or who just doesn't get it. The question then becomes "What should we do with the user we found to be at fault?" Just my two cents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:INTDABLINK violation by User:Herostratus

    I am holding back from personally blocking User:Herostratus to avoid the appearance of being involved in an editing dispute. We have a clearly spelled out policy at WP:INTDABLINK that "the community has adopted the policy of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page". This necessary to prevent our disambiguation efforts from being flooded with literally hundreds of thousands of false positives showing up as errors needing to be fixed. I made such a fix at Kindred Spirit; Herostratus, apparently asserting ownership over the page, has reverted this fix twice, and has plainly stated that he does not intend to follow this policy, and does not care whether it disrupts the efforts of other. I would appreciate if someone can explain to him the necessity of avoiding disruptive edits, or at least not reverting fixes made by others. bd2412 T 00:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, I'm sorry to pick on this one thread randomly, cause minor stuff like this shows up here all the time, but doesn't it ever occur to anyone to take something like this to some calm, friendly nearby admin first, before going nuclear with an ANI post? This isn't an "incident" requiring broad community input. EEng 00:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am bringing this here because I am generally the friendly nearby admin to whom things are brought (particularly matters relating to disambiguation). bd2412 T 00:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I opened a thread to discuss the question (it is here: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#This can't be right? And if it is, what do we need to do to fix it?. I'm not a programmer but even so I'm willing to write the code to prevent the false positives BD2412 is worried about. It should take about 15 minutes, since it only needs to check if the error report is coming from a disambig page. (This is not even considering that, after all, we are here to enhance the reader's experience, not ours.)
    Apparently BD2412 is an admin? How is that even possible? His first communication pointing me to the rule (which maybe he is right, not sure, I'm asking for clarification, but I can't memorize every rule) accused me of "intentional vandalism" (I'm a 10 year editor with a pretty clean record and a former admin myself). This is how you destroy, not grow, project like this, BD2412. You need to stop acting and talking like this. I'm sorry for whatever is making you so cranky but please don't take it out on the editors. I'm just really really depressed if people like this are really getting into the admin corps. How could this happen? I need a beer.... Herostratus (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that an error report is coming from a disambiguation page is irrelevant. Sometimes there are genuine disambiguation errors on disambiguation pages. For example, right now the disambiguation page Set in Stone is reported as containing a link to Catherine Dunne, which is also a disambiguation page. That link definitely needs to be found and fixed, not filtered out. Also, I did not accuse you of intentional vandalism. You rolled back an edit of mine fixing disambiguation links before you bothered to ask why I had made the fix. I informed you of the rule. Now that you know the rule, and that violation of it is disruptive of disambiguator efforts, there is no reason for you to undo such fixes in the future unless your intent is to disrupt the encyclopedia, in which case it is quite proper to treat future edits of this nature as intentional vandalism. bd2412 T 01:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)(Responding to the first paragraph) @Herostratus: There are plenty of times that a link on a disambiguation page is an unintentional link to another disambiguation page (for example, on the disambiguation page New Orleans (disambiguation), there is an entry for Rancid's song "New Orleans", from the album Let the Dominoes Fall. If that page was subsequently moved to Let the Dominoes Fall (album), with Let the Dominoes Fall turned into a disambiguation page (because of more articles created with the subject "Let the Dominoes Fall"), the link to Let the Dominoes Fall on the New Orleans (disambiguation) page would need to be fixed. Fixing this type of link is part of "enhanc[ing] the reader's experience". -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 01:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: I got to say, BD, that I do generally see you as one of the more level headed around here. But your comment comes off as leaping to the nuclear option with your threat of calling Herostratus a vandal. That's quite an accusation for an editor with 35k+ edits. Curious if you could step back and see how your approach escalated this issue instead of resolved it?--v/r - TP 01:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is obviously not ripe for AN/I. Discussion is ongoing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    So we have two very senior editors edit warring over a disambig page that mostly consists of redlinks with absolutely zero participation on the talk page Talk:Kindled_Spirit ... how about ya'll dial it down like a thousand degrees, drop the ad hominem nonsense, assume the other person is here to improve the project, and try to come to agreement on the talk page? NE Ent 01:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected sock doing random vandalism

    I suspect that Freddie123lol (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is creating a number of new accounts to vandalise pages, often in quick succession to vandalise one and the same article. Connected vandalism of the same nature has occurred by Claudiagharrison (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and Brownie2feb (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). If I'm correct, then blocking the creation of new accounts would be in order. Schwede66 09:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Freddie123lol and Brownie2feb had account creation blocked and any IP addresses used autoblocked. Claudiagharrison has not edited since 6 February. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits at Coverage of Google Street View (Result: 48-hour block)

    A slight edit war by myself and the user Eugen Simion 14.

    Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coverage_of_Google_Street_View&diff=715435922&oldid=715415766

    And: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coverage_of_Google_Street_View&diff=715834071&oldid=715826889

    Pablothepenguin (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    So don't edit war; talk about it at Talk:Coverage of Google Street View. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I lodged a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pablothepenguin reported by User:Nick-D (Result: ) before seeing this. Grateful if an uninvolved admin could follow up on what looks to be a clear-cut 3RR violation. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This actually led to two AN3 reports, with the live one now being: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pablothepenguin reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and User:Nick-D (Result: ) Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP revdel on the Gamergate Talk page

    Discussion

    I am asking for a review for a revdel made on the Gamergate Talk page. The edit was made by MarkBernstein, who has since been topic-banned (not for this edit or anything directly related to this). It is verbatim, a passage from the Washington Post article, so cannot be deemed "unsourced or poorly sourced", which is the criteria for BLP removals without consensus. Ironically, the passage which was redacted is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations. I am not even allowed to refer to what it was about, since my edit was also revdeled. The link to the Washington Post article is here. The relevant passage starts with: There is, to be clear.

    Various rationales have been advanced on the talk page (see discussion here), but none of them stand up to scrutiny. IMO, this is a wild overreaction. The normalization of this kind of overreaction and weaponization of BLP on the talkpage has poisoned discussion and led to lots of strife, both pro- and anti-GG, for more than a year. Anyone who has engaged in discussion on WP knows how aggravating it is to have your comments refactored or redacted, by people who you don't particularly like. It's time this behaviour was rolled back. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why? Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech or anything else unrelated to development of the encyclopedia. Is someone suggesting an article should include mention of the person named in the linked article? What is the purpose of posting the link other than because we can? Editors should stick to discussion of actionable proposals that might plausibly improve the article, not prolong the agony of gamergate. Johnuniq (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am quite unclear on what criteria are used to determine when to delete a revision on that talk page. Further, the practice of deleting verifiable information about claims which are relevant to (or already in) the article from the talk page is infantilizing. Protonk (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLPTALK is quite clear that where potentially problematic BLP info is *being discussed for inclusion in the article* a link to the source that will be used as a reference should be included on the talk page. Pasting an except from the source is not required (or even recommended if it turns out it is an issue) likewise if the material is not actually going to be included in the article at all then there is no need to discuss it on the talk page. From looking (briefly) at the talkpage, it looks like this is a case of the latter rather than the former. Washington Times (a reliable source) excerpt pasted by Mark Bernstein, no actual discussion for anything to be included into the article, so its basically pasting BLP-sensitive material for no purpose. It probably should have been removed and rev-del' unless there actually is going to be a discussion about incorporating it into the article. Then a link to the material should remain. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that it is so clear. Here's what BLPTALK has to say "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." I cannot interpret that as an injunction against talking about it there, considering how much was on the talk page about the subject before. And given that amount of discussion, we shouldn't expect that the content would never appear on the page. If it were to appear, how would editors working on a contentious topic discuss the changes to the page, the author's meaning or the veracity of the claims without running afoul of that interpretation? Protonk (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well its not an injunction not to talk about it. The point is that you talk about it *if you are attempting to work it into the article* - I cant see that anyone was. It was just Bernstein doing his usual soapboxing - which is why I support it being removed on that basis. If it was intended to be a proposal to incorporate it into the article, it should have been linked to and discussed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're talking about this edit, correct? Sure, it's turned up to 11 and what-not, but the underlying ask seems clear to me. As I say below, they contrast it with an extant source in an ongoing discussion about how/if the subject should be portrayed in the article. How is that not a reasonable interpretation? Protonk (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The revdel was appropriate. The content included highly defamatory material about a living person. Just because some newspaper decides to publish unsubstantiated rubbish doesn't mean we can repeat it when not particularly relevant. Wikipedia era on the side of protecting the reputations of living people. Mark was trying to make a point, but in the process exposed this defamatory material. It would be sufficient to say Gamergqte tactics include opposition research and publication of unsubstantiated claims. It is not acceptable to repeat the unsubstantiated claims on Wikipedia. Our standards are higher than many newspapers. Jehochman Talk 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Horseapples. On what planet does that article contain defamatory material? I guess if we jumble the words in the article and re-arrange them to recreate the defamation the article was discussing that could work. Protonk (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well technically the linked Washington Post article does repeat allegations about a living person *which if untrue* would be highly defamatory. However it would not be Wikipedia defaming the subject, it would be the people making the allegations. The Washington Post would probably get a free ride too given they are merely reporting said allegations. But I repeat, unless any of this is actually going to be incorporated into the article (which it could theoretically be, given the subject was fired from her job after allegedly a long period of harrassment by Gamergate) it shouldnt be on the talkpage at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I edit conflicted w/ a reply above that might related here. There was and is talk page discussion about the subject, so inclusion of the material is not a remote consideration. And I'm not clear on your meaning about the Post. We make countless claims on this encyclopedia that if false would be defamatory. To justify this, we rely on sources like the post as a matter of course. I'm not saying quoting out the gate is the right route. BLPTALK (as you say) warns against it. But certainly redaction of the quotes is strongly preferable to deleting the material from history. Especially since if you read the comment from beginning to end it's clearly about including the material in the article and makes references to ongoing discussions about a different source they feel is inferior on the same subject. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah clearly I didnt read up far enough on the talkpage as I was stopping at Kingsindian's posts where he states that it wasnt about including it in the article. Since concensus already existed to remove the material from the article, revdel'ing what is clearly a BLP1E issue on the talkpage where no one is actually having a current discussion to include it still isnt that bad. (I get the feeling from the above talkpage discussion that the only person really for inclusion was Bernstein, and given his anti-GG viewpoint, unsurprising). Personally I would have just archived the lot which would be complaint with the BLP policy, but some people are more zealous about it. Re to Kingsindian below: If it isnt being currently discussed to go into the article, then it really shouldnt be on the talkpage. This isnt problematic in 99% of articles. It is potentially problematic with regards to living people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To some of the comments above. Nobody said anything about free speech, so that is a red herring. Also, the discussion is about discussion on the talkpage, not the article. I find the standard that "if it shouldn't be in the article, it shouldn't be on the talkpage" rather silly. Nobody uses such a standard: otherwise 99% of the talk page history would consist of revdels. And please don't make me laugh with the claim that Wikipedia's standards of defamation are higher than the Washington Post. Not to mention that there is nothing defamatory in the paragraph: it is literally the opposite of defamatory; it is debunking/casting doubt on the allegations.
    The main point is that WP:BLP is not a micromanaging tool to get rid of stuff one doesn't like. The effect of such (arbitrary) redactions is to inflame matters and confuse people. The redaction was a tit-for-tat action against an earlier redaction. This kind of stuff has to end. Follow policy as written and roll back the new normal. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Protonk: In fairly adequate experience in the Israel-Palestine area, I have found that in most discussions, most people don't change their mind. This format of "Discussion" and "Survey" is routine in RfCs I have participated in. I have reverted to the format. I meant to do this from the beginning, but forgot. There is no harm in it anyway. The closer would take it all into account. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left notices at WT:BLP and WP:VPP. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    User:Ngk44 reverting genre again after multiple warnings not to....

    Ngk44 has been editing genre's again when they have been expressly told on numerous occasion to stop.

    Nürö G'däÿ 13:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user periodically comes onto the pages I'm working on to WP:EDITWAR with the genres, without going for a consensus on the talk page. Please interject.
    Nürö G'däÿ 14:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, hello? I put this up yesterday and still nobodies attended?
    Nürö G'däÿ 02:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatchu might wanna do, if you want a better response, is add [users contributions], with selected difs of what you see as edit warring, and mention a couple of genres, and groups/artists, so that an admin can look at the thing and rapidly decide if they have the background. Going in cold, the learning curve for figuring out what is rightly in what genre can be high, and so some people don't wanna touch this kind of thing unless they are halfway familiar with the genre, and also with the other editors involved. Anmccaff (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. This user profile has form, lots of form. And continuously has done so. Their entire page is full of Stop warnings.
    Nürö G'däÿ 03:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloody Sunday article - historical and political bias, inaccuracies and key important facts left out

    I would just like to put on the record, that Wikipedia continues to experience and allow a political and historical bias to creep into articles and moderators with a heavy and blatant political bias to moderate such articles who are clearly unsuitable for that role.When dealing with any articles of historical or political significance, it's vital that anyone in a position of moderator is dealt with and ultimately removed if they shift from a neutral position and demonstrate continued bias.

    I just posted on "Talk" my opinions and assessment of the Bloody Sunday incident, offering 5 key facts which were missing, along with the "other side" of the story connected to these facts, which would make the article not political biased as it clearly is. It would also help people unfamiliar with the history (and in particular the incident itself) to understand how and why incident occurred, the events leading to it prior and the evidence which emerged after. It would offer a clearer and more accurate historical version without the heavy political bias and historical skew. The incident is described as a "massacre" which is simply absurd and wholly inappropriate, it even goes against the trial and witness testimony in the aftermath.

    My post was immediately deleted (entirely) and no explanation was given. I was "logged out" of Wikipedia and a comment appeared on the Talk page (at the top): 

    "it's best not to feed the trolls".

    So I'm "a troll" for offering an unbiased academic assessment of a key historic event in my country's own history I have studied? I didn't even alter the article, nor add to it. This was merely opening a discussion and I merely put forward an opinion, backed by some facts from a reliable source, and offered some suggestions on how the article could be more balanced and historically accurate.

    It's this type of conduct by political biased or agenda driven moderators (and little groups exist like this all over Wikipedia unfortunately) which means Wikipedia is not taken seriously as an academic reference source by leading universities, such as my own. We're actually discouraged from referencing to Wikipedia or using it for any research for this very reason.

    It's a great pity, because Wikipedia is a fantastic project and concept. It has a wealth of information (and granted not all of it is politically biased, inaccurate. However some articles most definitely are being lawed over by individuals or groups of individuals with a specific bias or agenda and are simply getting away with using Wikipedia as a platform to push that agenda and remove any opposition or counter-argument that is purely academic and factual.

    If this type of conduct goes unchallenged (and I've reported several incidents, but nothing has been done to remove or oversee those moderators) then people like myself, that is academics, who have time, money and willingness to participate in the Wikipedia project to help make it into a serious and credible academic resource that is properly moderated and peer reviewed, are unlikely to attempt to try and simply will not support or use Wikipedia, beyond entertainment value or looking up trivia occasionally.

    Let's see some proper moderation and strictly adhered to academic discipline brought to Wikipedia which after all does present itself as serious academic resource. Not doing this is severely undermining everyones efforts in the project and limiting its credibility and value to the world's academic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.26.204 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a bit of clarification. (a) The "troll" comment was at the top of the talk page before you started editing it. (b) No "moderators" were involved in removing your arguably inappropriate talk page comments, just another user (c) Nobody "logged you out" of Wikipedia; you weren't logged in when you made those edits, and nobody has the capability to log out other editors; (d) article talk pages are for discussing the article itself, not for expressing our own points of view. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, a fact isn't a fact on Wikipedia unless it comes with a source. I imagine if you return to the discussion with sources, other editors will be more open to your suggestions. TimothyJosephWood 14:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should be clear to which "Bloody Sunday" you are referring... I was initially wondering whether there was Russian nationalist howling about Nikolai II or something... I see from the disambiguation page that there are actually more like a dozen "Bloody Sundays" out there... This is about Ulster/Cúige Uladh 1972. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 89.241.26.204, looking at the edits in question, you explicitly say that you want to discard the academic sources currently used and rewrite the article based on a work of fiction. Yes, it may have been rude to summarily remove your comments, but this is a suggestion which is never going to gain traction, and thus really isn't worth discussing. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my Military Conflict/History capacity, I state that you have written about (after reading the edit you made finally) issues that, were as have some legitimate elements to the interests of Neutral Article policy on WP, have not been sourced with Reliable Third Party material. Belfast live? Youtube? WTF are they? I have an Historical opinion on The Troubles and can argue various actions by the IRA or UDF or the Royal Regiments involved. What you are trying to do, in the way you have written your concerns, is attempt to say that the British 'acted reasonably', which nobody agrees with. You have attempted the 'Excuse' the actions of the 1st Paratrooper Regiment, which nobody agrees with. You have entered 'evidence' that their was IRA gunmen at the rally, which is not what the 12 year long inquest (that was completely contradictory to the original Whitewash by the British) report finally found. Yes there are various factors about the lead up to the rally, and I do think that this should be addressed, somewhat at least anyway. But the manner in which you have entered you concerns, it reads as a British Army, British Judicial System, British Establishment, Apologist. And that's NOT Historically accurate. I'm Australian by the way and have no personal connections to the issue, other than drinking in a pub somewhere, sometime with an Irishman watching footy, at some point.
    Nürö G'däÿ 00:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I went to post a comment on the Talk Page but someone interfered with it...
    Nürö G'däÿ 00:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP hopping troll back?

    A troll who has been hopping on IP range 86.187.x.x (last discussed here) seems to have returned on 31.55.89.19 (talk · contribs). Can somebody investigate and see if a new/revised rangeblock is appropriate? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, same chap. See also 31.55.127.56 (talk · contribs), 31.55.93.53 (talk · contribs) and he reverted Eik Corell, his other m.o., using 31.55.112.2 (talk · contribs) [74] last week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a big range, but there's only about 100 contributions from it since April 1, and a significant plurality of those are disruptive. I'll block 31.55.64.0/18 for one week. ACC is always available. Katietalk 17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor will not stop comparing person to Nazi, gross insults on talk page

    Dava4444 (talk · contribs) on the page Talk:Phil Mason made this edit. As comparisons to Nazis are not acceptable in WP:BLP, I reverted it. Now the user is warring with me over its inclusion on a talk page. I think its completely unacceptable but he apparently disagrees. Please advise/judge. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, while the word feminazi is indeed a portmanteau of the words 'feminist' and 'nazi', it isn't the same thing as calling someone a nazi. I am hoping your use of Godwin's Law via Reductio ad Hitlerum is simply misinformed instead of clever marketing to get someone to quickly act on your complaint. While I pretty much know that anyone who uses terms like 'feminazi' or 'sheeple' is someone usually too close-minded to edit anywhere outside in Conservapedia or Fox News public forums, it doesn't mark them as supporting nazism.
    Maybe you might want to restate the problem? As I see it, you are miffed that someone has unrepentedly used the term in a BLP's talk page - which is very different than using it in a live BLP article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, I suggest, to resist edit-warring over the issue as has up until now been the case. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article and are not for general discussion about the subject, the comment ought be removed anyway. And noting also that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it should be removed and it does apply. We have a pretty good article about the term Feminazi. By Rush Limbaugh's definition ("radical feminists whose objective is to see that there are as many abortions as possible"), it's certainly extremely objectionable to call somebody a feminazi. (Read John K. Wilson's rejoinder to this definition too, at the end of the article.) Bishonen | talk 19:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    With respect, the term Feminazi may have derived from the delirious rants of Rush Limbaugh, it has a broader meaning now. Merriam-Webster defines it as; "an extreme or militant feminist" And while I agree it is a pejorative word that should be avoided in an encyclopedia, I don't think anyone would mean "abortionist radical feminists" when it's used, (except for extreme right wing loonies of course) and it's not very productive to bring up the abortion to the discussion. Just as it is not very productive to imply the word feminazi is actually related to Nazis. Darwinian Ape talk 23:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "feminazi" is a play on the word "Nazi." The word exists to compare feminists to Nazis. If an editor calls someone a feminazi, they might not be claiming their target is a literal member of a National Socialist movement, but they are absolutely comparing them to Nazis, in every case, and in every situation. We know this because they type the letters that form the pejorative "nazi." 76.72.20.218 (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The term NAZI has evolved to have the emotive 'Extremist' attached. NAZI's were not Socialists, they used the term to differentiate from Communists, their actual enemy. 'FemiNazi' is, however, a term used by people who don't like it when Strong, Feminist, Voices call for the abolition of Patriarchy or similar such modern social views.
    Nürö G'däÿ 04:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Or alternatively, used to describe feminists with authoritarian, pro censorship tendencies (and at least one feminist who, in jest, suggested men should be put into concentration camps.:))
    The point of the discussion is though; No we should not use the word Feminazi to describe anyone in wikipedia, just as we should not use "right wing loon" to describe anyone. Darwinian Ape talk 05:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nuro Dragonfly, our articles on National Socialist Party and National Socialist Movement (United States) might help you understand the terminology in use, here. 76.72.20.218 (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I will have a look at them to see if I can contribute anything, but I don't support the linking of Socialists and Nationalists, as the exception to rule is the NSDAP. It ends up trying to link Nazi Sympathisers and/or Fascists with Socialists, which is completely incorrect. Marx didn't like Fascists. (Military History and Political/Military Conflicts being my thing).
    But as to the subject at hand, I think the person lowering themselves to these types of replies, when debating consensus, are not attempting to maintain the level of decorum required.
    Nürö G'däÿ 06:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Creative gossip ignoring WP:MOSCAPS on Manit Joura after warnings

    Hi, Creative gossip ignoring WP:MOSCAPS on Manit Joura after warnings. Here are some diffs. Special:Diff/715913221, Special:Diff/715911856. I'm unwilling to undo a fourth time. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 18:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia

    Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, this is a notice to a community in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --

    — Cirt (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That guy needs to be gone. Can non-admins participate? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see why not. GABHello! 00:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering it was started by someone who is banned on enwiki, I think it's safe to say that everyone is welcome to participate on that RfC. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And Cirt was kind enough to inform us here because the person who alerted the other wikis also happens to be banned on enwiki. Thincat (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Failure to Yeild

    I'm coming here as User:Chickensire refuses to stop his disruptive editing after a number of requests from other editors to use edit summaries, and to cite his sources. He also refuses to stop changing geocoordinates on cities. Update: It appears that this user has issues with communication. Assistance needed. --TJH2018 talk 23:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption at Bopomofo and related articles

    A pair of IP addresses that are certainly being used by the same editor, Special:Contributions/209.66.197.28 and Special:Contributions/76.176.22.252, have been engaging since the end of March in disruptive and uninformed editing of Bopomofo and other articles involving the spelling and pronunciation of Chinese language terms.

    For context: the edits involve replacing correct WP:Pronunciation given in IPA with meaningless "English"-like approximations (respellings without a key to give them any meaning), with unclear but certainly uninformed edit summaries such as this one (Pinyin is not a pronunciation system, and something can't be "pronounced in Pinyin"). Secondarily, there were arbitrary WP:ENGVAR changes and unjustified changes between Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese spellings.

    They have been warned repeatedly with detailed explanations about what they were doing wrong by me and LiliCharlie, among other people.

    However, the reaction consisted in futher reverts with bundled personal attacks and after more of the same, I think it's due time to report this.

    Please see the addresses' contributions for further relevant diffs: many of their recent edits are relevant to this. LjL (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I second LjL. The two IPs (obviously the same person) have already been blocked three times before for the same behaviour, but always resume their disruptive edits after the blocks expire. Time for a lengthy block, preferably 6 months or a year. -Zanhe (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued vandalism

    Two IP's appear to be linked and are making the same disruptive edits at Trans Pacific Partnership and auto-related articles:

    Edit history of IP #1
    Talk page warnings for IP #1
    Edit history of IP #2

    The vandalism at the TPP article is exactly the same for both IP's:

    IP #1
    IP #2

    Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Might be better to just WP:WARN the IPs. Two edits, though the same, doesn't require admin intervention imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits from User:206.207.78.112

    206.207.78.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly and recently added unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content to a BLP, Jermaine Dupri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The user has been warned several times within the last week. The user's talk page illustrates both his/her unwillingness to cooperate, as well as the aforementioned warnings.

    The user's last warning was a UW-biog4, which threatens a block without warning following the next unsourced BLP edit. That warning was posted 04:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC). The user has since made at least 5 more edits of this type, all of which can be viewed here. I would list diffs, but there are 18 of them, so I would recommend for you to just look at the article history or the user's contributions, both of which are linked above.

    This user has shown unwillingness to cooperate with policy and other Wikipedians, as well as deliberate and repeated ignorance of warnings. I request that the user be blocked. Amccann421 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @Amccann421: Since warnings were given, WP:AIV would be the next step usually. It has faster results than this noticeboard. If a reviewing admin at AIV doesn't want to block based on the behavior, then here at ANI would be the next step. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: I was unsure whether to go here or to AIV. I will try AIV. Cheers. Amccann421 (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left them a real human generated note explaining the problem with their editing. Hopefully that will be a little more helpful than just repeatedly telling than they can't do it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Titleblacklist addition request

    I'd like to request an addition to the title blacklist. Sockpuppets of JellyfishFilms (see the SPI) have been perpetually recreating the exact same article about Domenick Nati, which was deleted after an AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Domenick Nati). So far, the titles Domenick L. Nati, Domenick Nati II, Domenick Nati Jr., and Domenick Nati have been deleted and salted (well, actually, Domenick L. Nati isn't salted yet, but the rest are), and Domenick Nati I is currently tagged for deletion. It's clear that this is not going to stop (as Nati's twitter bio shows, he's very prideful about having a Wikipedia article), so I think the only way to settle this is to blacklist any combination of "Domenick" and "Nati"; that is, a regex like .*domenick.*nati.*. -IagoQnsi (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    [Dd]omenick.*[Nn]ati.* might be more precise. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: Titleblacklist entries are case-insensitive by default, so no need for the brackets. I suppose dropping the first .* is okay, though I foresee the article "Mr. Domenick Nati" being created after that. But I guess it can always be tweaked as needed. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay. That makes more sense. Didn't think of the Mr. possibility. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack page/COI (by socks above)

    I found this attack page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sean_McBride_(rapper) created by WikiWriter76. Can this be speedy deleted? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Update, it seems there might be a PR agency behind these edits. I have opened a report at COIN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tag-team reverting

    The above two users are currently involved in reverting edits at the 2016 Indian Premier League article. There's a bit more info here. To me they look like they're one and the same editor, and as a minimum, the edits are disruptive. Please could someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been deeply aggrieved by an anonymous editor ViperSnake151 and I want to be completely removed from Wikipedia

    I have tried my very best to contain my anger with ViperSnake151 and other anonymous "editors" who know nothing of me or my record and of my work and have chosen to stand in judgement without disclosing themselves. I find this intellectually disingenuous and immediate request that my page be taken down completely and not directed towards anywhere. This is not a collaborative process, this is a hatchet job and judgements made by people with too much time on their hands. I don't need this and won't stand for it. I want Edward Beck (psychologist) and Edward Beck (professor) removed because the editors are completely misrepresenting me, my body of work and my notoriety in my different arenas of achievement. I would rather have nothing listed here than something inaccurate. I hope I have made myself clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredbeck (talk • contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Crystal. But unfortunately it is not your article; you are its subject, not its proprietor. As such, it stays (On edit as part of the Middle East Peace article, of course). Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just restored the article, it was redirected without discussion a few days after an AFD closed as keep. -- GB fan 12:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dredbeck: are you familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding Conflict of Interest? Regardless, as per Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, the threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". — Kralizec! (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OP is technically evading a block for these legal threats. And the section "The Scholars for Peace in the Middle East" has me wondering if it could argued that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is applicable (but I'm about to go to bed, so I won't be carrying that out). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch: since this accout was 'created on 13 September 2006 at 08:58', the legal threat was made whilst logged out and editing as an IP... which is now blocked. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mad Hatter

    Summary

    This user has developed a pattern of splitting bibliographies and other works from writers/artists pages in contradiction to the guidance of WP:SPLIT, and without seeking consensus on article talk pages or any other venue beforehand. This could be forgiven before the user received proper warnings, but it has now continued after the receipt of such warnings and the user's promise to stop. The user's response to these warnings has been to personally attack me (baselessly) and to canvas for backup.

    Note: It is not my assertion (or my belief!) that all splits of bibliographies are wrong; it is my assertion that proper procedure must be followed — beforehand — when those splits do not fall within the consensus-generated guidelines. To do anything less is to disrespect the consensus model.

    (Pinging @Mirokado and Erick Shepherd:)

    Redress

    As my approach has not been effective (and I am open to criticism on that), I intend to extract myself completely from the matter, so I am seeking outside input to reinforce the points that consensus must be sought for controversial splits, and that personal attacks are never tolerated. If that fails to work, I seek a topic ban for this editor with respect to splits of articles on creative persons.

    Supporting evidence

    • From WP:SIZESPLIT: Articles with readable prose size less than 40 kB do not justify splitting on the basis of length. If there is any doubt as to whether the criteria are met, a discussion should be started and consensus reached.
    • The user has never, to my knowledge, put forward a justification for splitting on any basis other than length.
    • Jim Butcher, which user split on April 12, has a readable prose size of 10 kB, according to the script available at User:Dr pda/prosesize. This is one of many such splits performed before user was warned; I believe listing them all here is unnecessary.
    • On April 12, at 19:52 UTC and 20:01 UTC, I informed user I had undone two of his splits, and asked him to seek consensus before proceeding.
    • At 19:56, User:Mirokado reverted another split and asked user to provide explanation when performing large edits.
    • At 20:03-06, user asked another editor, User:Erick_Shepherd, to interfere on his behalf, while attacking me as a "rogue editor". Erick_Shepherd agreed with me, condemned the attack, and again asked user to seek consensus before controversial splits.
    • At 20:11, user again attacked me as "roguish" and "destructive" on my own talk page. (To be clear, I have never said anything about user's editing abilities; their ability to abide by community guidelines is a different matter.)
    • At 20:36, user claimed that they would stop the splits. This was a lie, because...
    • On April 18, at 00:06, user performed a split of Marion Zimmer Bradley, again without explanation and without any effort to seek consensus.
    • At 18:23, I again warned user to seek consensus before controversial splits, after I had reverted the latest. User's immediate response was again to complain to yet another uninvolved editor, at 18:23, again misrepresenting my motives and seeking backup.

    It is my conclusion that user has no intention of changing this pattern of behavior unless closely monitored or outright banned from these edits. I would like very much to be proven wrong. As stated above, I intend to remove myself completely from this matter starting immediately, in the hope that new voices will be more effective. —swpbT 14:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=716049049"