Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Violation of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, nationalist pov-warring, and source misrepresentations

Ferakp (talk · contribs) has repeatedely violated the 1RR restriction on WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR articles.

• Rojava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 3 reverts in less than 24 hours [1] [2] [3]
• Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 4 reverts in less than 24 hours [4] [5] [6] [7]

Other problems of this user are that he continues to insert blatant source misrepresentations in wikipedia articles, which damages wikipedia reputation, through his editorializing of anything that doesn't confirm to a nationalist pov, like anything related to women's rights or minority rights of Christians. @GGT: @Attar-Aram syria:@LouisAragon:@GGT:@Shmayo: @عمرو بن كلثوم: Some previous discussions regarding this user: [8] *[9] [10]--80.254.69.43 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I see user Ferakp is cited in an edit-warring case above. I would kindly ask the Admins to look at the contributions of Ferakp (talk · contribs) closely. They are removing sourced material because it simply does not conform with his/her political agenda and definition of reliable sources. Please see the Talk page for Rojava for example. Another example for their negative behavior can be witnessed in their reverts of contributions by user @Beshogur:. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As I told admins many times before, Kurdish articles are 24/7 under attack of Arab, Turkish and Assyrian nationalists. I have had to clean almost from same users. Users Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, عمرو بن كلثوم and two other users which use random IP are clearly black washing Kurdish articles. I have used talk page in all my edits and called users to dsicuss. I have told them about unreliable sources, WP:NPOV violations, cherry picking and WP:ORIGINAL violations. They still don't use talk pages and continuously involve in POV pushing and edit war and violate WP:FAKE, WP:REALIBLE and WP:ORIGINAL. You can talk pages of all articles I have edited and neutralized, I have mentioned and explained my edits word by word, unlike those Arab users here who are not willing to even discuss. Talk pages, [11], [12], [13], [14] and all other edits are mentioned in the talk page of articles. I would like to remind that the users who reported me are clearly violated all those WP:rules I have listed above. Ferakp (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to add, the user User:عمرو بن كلثوم has clearly involved in black washing, violating 6 times WP:NPOV and WP:REALIABLE despite warnings. The users is copy pasting some statements randomly to different sections. His edits: [15], [16].Ferakp (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins, in the absence of any sanctions against him/her, user Ferakp is edit warring again reverting edits in sevral pages. Please look into this. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit clearly shows the purpose and racist agenda of this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain whic part of my message was a racist? Ferakp (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

In that edit you are implying that certain editors you disagree with have a certain nationality or ethnicity, and that this nationality or ethnicity is the only reason they are making the edits and wanting to include or exclude certain content. Even if it were true (which you have no way of knowing for certain) it is not a legitimate argument to make for or against article content. You could possible make a case for that argument being used, with care, when concerning sources, but you were not doing that in the cited example. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I said that "There are at least 21 users in Wikipedia who are cooperating and black washing Kurdish articles. They are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians." I just said that those users are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians. I didn't say anything against their ethnicity or nationality, I said users had those nationalities. I have checked their IP addresses and edits and they really are. Read a little bit what is a racism and then what to here comment. 86.50.110.79 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually find this report quite ironic. There may be reasons to report Ferakp, so far I didn't look very exactly at his edits. But all User:عمرو بن كلثوم is accusing him he is doing himself too. He is a clear POV-pusher against Kurds and the YPG.

Examples:

• Tell Rifaat (The source didn't say anything about a displacement of its population, in conclusion what he wrote there is partially is a lie)
• Al-Manajir (Removing without reason)
• Al-Shaddadah (Removing sourced edit without reason)
• Tell Abyad (POV-pushing)
• Kurd Mountains (Removing without reason)
• Azaz District
• Upper Mesopotamia

This is not a defense for Ferakp but rather a hint to the double moral standards of User:عمرو بن كلثوم. His arab nationalism is quite obvious and I actually don't know why he hates the Kurds that much, but his POV-pushing is inacceptable in my eyes.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you proving here? Every day you annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan. Is Azaz part of Syrian Kurdistan? Is there any neutral source that backs this? By neutral, of course I don't mean Kurdish blogs or "news agencies". The name Rojava itself is a big scam. No self-respecting news agency or international organization uses it. They all refer to the area as Kurdish-controlled area or Kurdish enclaves, or a similar form. It seems there is a pro-Kurdish Canvassing in Kurdish related articles here. Users Ferkp and emranrich continue their edit warring here and are removing sourced information, simply because it goes agains their POV. Here is one example, and I am ready to name several more . Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone here will be blocked, it will be you . Reporter User:عمرو بن كلثوم is clearly an Arab nationalist. He is vandalize Kurdish articles since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerfulman11 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم::First of all, I'd be really interested, where I took part in an edit-war in your eyes and where I "annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan" every day.

What I'm proving here is for example that you claim that the Kurds displaced all Arabs from Tell Rifaat with a source that doesn't even nearly mention such a thing. You can't argue seriously that any kurdish news agency (like Rudaw or ANF) is unreliable only because they are Kurdish. Of course, Azaz is not part of the Rojava administration. But in Germany, to take another example, the Sorbs also don't have any federal state (even if Germany is a federal Republic) or any other administration and still the towns where they live have German as well as Sorbian names: Cottbus is also called Chóśebuz, Bautzen Budyšin, Weißwasser Běła Woda and so on, even if Sorbs only make up 7-12% of the population there.

Also your view that Rojava doesn't even exist is somehow ridiculous. And I can talk here only about the German press, but the name 'Rojava' is used by almost every newspaper or -agency, when they it writes about events in this area.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ferakp is annoying and act as if he is in a marketplace for sources.. he bargins and his idea about a consensus is him writing on the talk page and think its enough to do whatever he wants .. its specially funny when he decide that something isnt reliable!!! Yet no, he shouldnt be banned.. he has some points about the black washing of kurds, yet he do the opposite and white wash them... all involved users should balance their opinions ... on a side note, ban them for edit warrying for like a day or two so they think twice before doing that again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: How am I annoying? I have seen your edits. You usually see that some edits are clearly blackwashing the article but you skip them intentionally. Last time, I showed you some sources and neutralized sections and I explained my changes. You still wanted to keep the "Kurds" and "Turks" in the genocide section and removed all parts which mentioned Arabs and other ethnic groups. You couldn't explain your changes, as reliable sources clearly proved that Arabs and other ethnic groups have been also a part of the genocide, so there were no reasons to remove Arabs and other ethnic groups from the section. About white washing, just show me one single edit which could be classified as whitewashing. I always use the talk page and explain my edits. Sometimes, I make mistakes, but I admit and fix them. I also apologize. In this case, the user who reported me has involved in POV pushing and violated WP:FAKE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:ORIGINAL dozens of times. I always try to reach consensus. Ferakp (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

ADMINS, PLEASE do something here about user Ferakp. Look at this revert that goes against the consensus on the Talk page including user Ermanrich. This has been going on for over a week now, and I have been restraining for edit-warruing with this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: I have explained why I reverted it. You can read it here, [17]. A consensus was reached (me and Ermanrich). Ferakp (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add one thing here. You and Ermanrich should be very careful, at least 4 of your edits violated WP:FAKE and WP:ORIGINAL. Also, you should learn more what is a reliable source and not, WP:RELIABLE.Ferakp (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment by Hijiri88

I have gone quite disgusted with the conduct of the above named editor, User:Hijiri88, including most recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Possible wikia site(s) on religious devotions or practices/prayers/calendars/etc.. Records will show that his first recent edits to the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity also included disparaging remarks to the set up of those pages. Also, in recent history, he has made similar grossly irrelevant and counterproductive aspersions regarding my motivations elsewhere. Given his recently demonstrated "refusal to let go" (as one of the closing admins described it) regarding his recent Arbitration clarification and amendment request, now to be found here, and his other recent activity, including as well as his frankly repulsive, repeated requests and comments regarding others impugning their activities, including me at the thread first linked to, at AlbinoFerret in the AE request, etc., and his own violation of the ban there, I think that the time has come to perhaps again review whether this editor is capable of working in this system. I had mentioned in the Arb case that I was definitely of the impression that we were proceeding to the point of a site ban of him, and, although I am not in a position to judge whether these recent events are sufficient (and I myself doubt they are) I think it worth the time and effort of others to try to get through to this individual that, whatever his own tendencies to place absolute credibility in whatever his own opinion at the time indicates to him at any given time, the policies and guidelines of the project, including those guidelines regarding conduct, apply to him, and he violates them at his own risk. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I am unaware if a ban from his user talk page includes notices of discussions of this type, and do not want to risk being blocked, and, on that basis, am not leaving one there, although I have added a link to his page here, which should ping him at least. I would however request that any individual seeing this leave the message, which, under the circumstances, I am not sure I am in a position to do. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering you do have a talk page ban and the discussion which lead to that had a fair amount of support for an i-ban, I'm not sure the wisdom of this ANI, but I guess it's your choice. Nil Einne (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I believe a review of User:Hijiri88's comments on the page first linked to would provide even more support for an i-ban. I think his comments on that page show that he has used it to, basically, do little if anything other than, disparage, cast aspersions, or rush to prejudicial judgment regarding my actions in that matter. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A two way i-ban is basically means that the community has been forced to intervene because two editors have been unable to learn to engage each other in an acceptable manner. It IMO should never be anything someone desires especially at it means your behaviour is going to be under a microscope and you create problems for yourself in the future when your paths happen to cross. If you feel an editor is behaving an unresonable manner to you, the best solution is often to ignore it, particularly when it can be ignored such as a case of a random talk page comment (as opposed to a reversion). If it can't be ignored, the best solution is still to respond as positively or at least neutrally as possible. Don't get me wrong, I know from experience how difficult it can be dealing with some who gets your back up, all I'm saying is you are ultimately responsible for your behaviour and you never want to get in to a situation where an iban is called for because it means your behaviour is problematic. (Whether or not the other editor's behaviour is worse.) In any case, your initial request said nothing about an i0ban. It requested an evaluation of whether Hijiri88 should be here. The problem is given the history between you two, it's likely upon reading the beginning of this thread the immediate reaction of a number of people is going to be similar to mine: 'oh no, not these two again, I thought we already ibannned them from one another'. In other words, even if there is merit to restrictions on Hijiri88, there's a very good chance it isn't going to happen here because this request is tainted by the fact it's coming from you and given the long animosity between you too. If Hijiri88's problems are really as bad as you suggest and considering they seem to edit in some resonably high profile areas, it seems resonable to assume someone else will notice and bring the issue to the communities attention. BTW, looking at the thread you refer to, after a quick read of both your comment and Hijiri88's reply (and the other editors), I actually felt they had a resonable point. Later when I re-read your reply more carefully I noticed you did raise issues which seemed to apply to religions in general but these we IMO not so clear. This may be because your experience is mostly from a Christian or perhaps Judeo-Christian viewpoint. There's nothing wrong with that, but a simpler response Hijiri88's comment would have been something like. 'I'm sorry but perhaps my response wasn't as clear as I expected. I'm targetting this site at all religions, hence my mention of "religious celebrations of some sort taking place on that day". I'm sure there are other aspects of these religions, including saints for those that have them (even if they don't have dial-a-saint concepts) which could be covered. I'm coming at this from a Christian viewpoint so many of my examples were Christian, but this site isn't supposed to be Christian oriented and should cover other religious texts, practices, traditions and concepts in the same manner. That's why I'm here, to get people who can help me especially fill in the areas where my knowledge is lacking.' Actually the response you did leave isn't too bad, if you just cut out the early part. Getting back to what I said earlier, in this case I don't see why you couldn't have just ignored it anyway. If your initial comment was really as clear cut as you felt, people would have read it then read Hijiri's comment and gone what on earth is Hijiri88 on about?

Ultimately, while I have no desire to look in more detail, all I've seen so far looks to be the same as before: two editors who can't seem to resist sniping at each other to the detriment of wikipedia. While Hijiri88 has IMO made clear cut mistakes before in their dealings with you as I highlighted in the previous thread, in both cases neither of you were that far from each other. So really my question to you is, do you really want to force us to force you two to separate (i.e. an i-ban), or worse (frankly blocking both is always tempting when an i-ban comes up)? Or can't you just ignore wherever possible. And where you can't (mostly in edits to articles), responding as neutrally as possible, seeking help or waiting for others rather than allowing a 2 way fight between the 2 of you two develop?

Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the Christian orientation is because there are abput 2 dozen articles in a reference work on Christmas relating to Christmas in various locations, and an old, at this point 90 year old, "Biographical Dictionary of the Saints" which runs to about 20,000 entries relating to Christianity. Also, having reviewed some of the reference works which relate to religious holidays, most of those listed are, not surprisingly, Christian, given the number of formal saints and liturgical calendars, presumably. There seem to be few such formal calendars outside of Christianity, from what I've seen, and few reference works which clearly relate to the broad topic of "saints" in non-Christian contexts. Also, there is a problem in at least some of the guru based religions, like ISKCON, with which I have some familiarity, where there might be a brief acknowledgment of a "day" of the guru of the guru of the guru of..., that seems to be the extent of the acknowledgment of such "historical" figures. Basically, it struck me, and still does strike me, that the easiest way to get the guidelines for content set would be by trying to start with the most easily available content, which, given the size of Christianity, also relates to the largest interested body, see what guidelines could be developed regarding national celebrations, etc., and then, maybe, bring in the others to see what if any variations come to mind. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• @John Carter: Well, I'm not sure how you'll take this right after my criticism of you on a user talk page we've both recently commented on, but I reviewed the Wikipedia space talk page you linked and I don't see your complaint. You had a suggestion about something unrelated to Wikipedia (which, I'm interested in, by the way) and then Hijiri88 suggested you take it to the Christian wikiproject. I know that the history between you two may come into play, but you followed up on that with "I realize you have an all-but-uncontrollable urge to engage in grossly unproductive commentary directed at me." I'll be honest, you look like the instigator. Except, of course, that with the history of dispute, the sensible and wise thing for Hijiri88 to do would've been to ignore the thread and move on.--v/r - TP 01:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• One of the problems is, of course, that he seemed to insist on me doing what he said I should do, rather than doing the obvious thing and abiding by WP:DOIT. Also, I should point out, that the complaint was not about my taking it to the Christianity noticeboard, which I had in fact done, but about my not taking it to the talk pages of any other religion projects. My reasons for choosing to start with the Christianity project relate to the material I present in my last comment above here. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne has said several times in this and the previous thread that I am making "assumptions" about John Carter's motivations for engaging in the kind behaviour he does. I admit that I have allowed such assumptions to colour my wording at times, but I generally try to give the facts as they are. John Carter's behaviour is indisputably disruptive, regardless of his motivations (User:MjolnirPants will back me up that John's comment on Bart Ehrman's supposed involvement in translation of gnostic gospels was bizarre, off-topic, and, if untrue, possibly defamatory; MjolnirPants can also vouch for my having been editing in the Christianity/Bible topic area for years before my dispute with John started). But at least when I make assumptions, they are in some way supported by the facts; John Carter's assumptions about me, like the one above, make no sense whatsoever and appear to have no relation whatsoever to the facts. I never said anything about John "not taking it to the talk pages of any other religion projects". I very specifically said the opposite: that he should keep discussion of specifically Christian topics to specifically Christian noticeboards, rather than annoying the rest of us with off-topic discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: I know that would have been "the sensible and wise thing" for me to do, and you can ask Drmies for the emails where I told him about how frustrating it was having to do this sensible and wise thing when John Carter follows me to discussions I started and I have to just ignore it. It is extremely difficult to be "polite" (read: pretend there is no problem) when replying to John Carter after he follows me to discussions he wasn't involved in, or (like here) didn't technically join in a discussion I started but created a new thread immediately below my one that already wasn't getting the attention it needed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem again is that you seem to be reading more into an action then is resonable. It may very well be that John Carter is following you and always joining in to discussions you started. If so this needs to be dealt with. However to assume that your comment there was part of the reason JC decided to post, well that fairly extreme. Baring an admission, it's going to be very very difficult to show even a careful look at the edit history that he's doing that. So raising the possibility is likely to be helpful as it suggests your extremely paranoid/sensitive. Even if you have reason to be so, people are less likely to consider your complaints have merit. Considering all that, if JC is following you and always joining discussions you started, perhaps it's somewhat understandable for you to followup to his comments there. But this case is one where you joined in to a discussion he had started based on an extreme assumption. As I said above, I don't find your comment that bad since it's true that the wording of his initially comment strongly suggested a Christian focused project (and one thing I was thinking but didn't mention but has now been mention by TP is that the comment didn't really seem to have much to do with wikipedia anyway). But concerns of JC following you, doesn't seem particularly helpful in the context of a case where you replied to a discussions they had initiated. Particularly since I find it hard to believe they never have a resonable comment in all those times they take part in a discussion initiated by you. (Although I do appreciate JC is asking for a restriction based on wider behaviour and in such a case, considering the wider behaviour from both of you is expected.)

Note that even if your extreme assumption was true, it's not like your comment was going to make people notice the thread you initiated since realisticly whatever the merits of your comment, John Carter wasn't going to delete his new thread. Actually it probably means people are less likely to notice. Ultimately as I said above, whoever is more at fault it would be better for both of you if you could learn to deal resonably with each other (doesn't mean you have to like or agree) rather than requiring community enforced action. This would likely include ignoring each other as much as possible, the one who is better at ignoring the other is likely to come across better (obviously other factors will affect the overall impression).

Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Actually, if you read his comment very closely, he actually agreed with me on the substance, but seemed to be really stretching to find something to disagree with me on. This implies that he was not actually there to respond in good faith. Also, I never said that I think John Carter opened his somewhat spammy thread on WT:RELIGION in order to distract from my thread immediately above. I said that the reason I noticed his somewhat spammy thread was because it was posted immediately below my thread that wasn't receiving any attention, rather than (as John Carter keeps claiming) because I am "stalking" his edits. Yes, I do keep track of his edits, but this is because he keeps posting on random admins' user talk pages and noticeboards like this one and requesting that I be blocked, without notifying me. In this case I was pinged, but in all of the other cases I would not be able to defend myself against his accusations without keeping track of his edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC) (updated 06:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC))

One wonders just how many of these threads I am alleged to follow him on relate to the topics I deal with, which are largely religious, and whether Hijiri88's self-involved viewpoint ignores the possibility that I take part in most of those discussions. I believe the full evidence indicates the latter, rather than the former. A distorted view of things from someone with a clear bias is not, in and of itself, ircontrovertible evidence. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Pot kettle black. John Carter is the one making accusations that I am "following" him with no evidence. I am (thanks in no small part to John Carter's efforts) technically not allowed post all the evidence of John Carter following me over the past year on-wiki. Again, if anyone wants the information, I would be happy to email it to you, and to authorize you to post it on-wiki as something I wrote. Unlike John Carter, I have nothing to hide. His claiming that I am "biased" and "involved" in claiming that he has been following me but that he is somehow not biased or involved in claiming that I am following him is clearly disruptive, especially when I have already posted incontrovertible evidence that his repeated claims that I am only editing Biblical/Christian topics to harass him are false and made in bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• You forgot the allegations of stalking, which imho from a brief perusal of their editing history, appear to be the reverse of the situation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And also see the completely out of the blue comment by Hijiri88 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#In the news: Whitewashing in Providence (religious movement), which to my eyes is rather clear evidence of Hijiri88's own stalking. And, certainly, considering that there was no obvious reason for him to comment there other than it being a thread in which I was involved, I think it a possibly clearer case of stalking than any of those he has alleged but provided no evidence for. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

John Carter has almost no history of editing in Korean topics, while I do. ANI is one of the most, if not the most, active page in the Wikipedia namespace, and I have posted in dozens of threads in which I was not directly involved. At the time I posted, the thread was also immediately below a thread I started. Calling my comment "out of the blue" is ridiculous, and implying I followed John Carter there cannot be defended as a good-faith mistake, as I clearly explained that the reason I was posting was to inform the OP that their pinging User:Shii would not do much good as Shii appears to have dropped off the face of the earth. John Carter should be blocked for these continued outrageous insinuations that I am following him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to call the above, unsubstantiated, assertion ridiculous and very possibly indicative of a pathologicial mindset. If he is referring to my making comments at the now archived ArbCom Request for Amendment page, it seems to me that, as I was one of the parties to the case which was being discussed, I should have been notified of the discussion, which I was not. When one can, reasonably, see that another individual is, perhaps, acting contrary to basic conduct guidelines in trying to prevent input from others involved, it is not unreasonable to wonder just how widespread such behavior might be. And it is worth noting once again that Hijiri seems to be engaging in his repeated request that he be allowed to present his evidence by e-mail, which, of course, does not allow for an option of response. Hijiri — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)

John Carter, stop hiding your posts behind random collapse templates, and start signing and dating your own posts. I can't find the diff of you making the above edit, but I can tell it's you because in my eleven years of editing Wikipedia no one has called me "pathological" (or "insane" or "paranoid") except you, and you do so at least once every few weeks. I am not requesting that I be allowed present any evidence via email; I am requesting that you be sanctioned for refusing to provide any evidence of me being an "insane", "paranoid", "pathological" "stalker" despite not being under any restriction that prevents you from doing so, and saying up front that I will provide as much evidence on-wiki as I am allowed, and any contextual explanation that is requested but that I don't think I would be allowed provide per the terms of any ArbCom decisions I would be happy to send by email. I have already posted ample evidence on-wiki of your following me, lying about me, trying to wikilawyer me into a block, vote-stacking, trying to get around the requirement that you inform me of any requests you are making to (members of) the admin corps that I be blocked... Anything sent by email would merely be a supplement. And, as I have already stated in this thread, I would readily grant permission for the recipients of these emails to post their entire, unaltered text on-wiki, as (seemingly unlike you) I am not trying to hide anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I know I can be wordy. Sorry. John Carter is the one following my edits. Email me if you want the full story. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

John Carter has been closely following my edits for over a year, and engaging in off-wiki contact with other users he considers to be my "enemies" for about as long. I don't want to go into the whole history (I was recently told in an email exchange with User:Callanecc that giving all the details on-wiki would potentially violate one or both of my TBANs), but I would be happy to provide them on request, by email if necessary. John Carter recently followed very closely on my tail to four different separate forums, and in two of them ironically accused me of following him. He has also repeatedly accused me of "following" him to the general area of Christian/Biblical topics, even though those are subjects I have a serious interest in off-wiki and have demonstrated such on-wiki countless times. I am really sick of dealing with John Carter's harassment, and I frankly don't want to go back and search for all the diffs at this time, but if anyone doubts anything I have written I would be happy to retrieve the evidence. I would be very happy with a two-way IBAN -- I requested it several times, most recently a month ago, but if John Carter honestly believes that my "behaviour" (read: continuing to edit an area I have been active in for at least three years) constitutes hounding, then I worry he might continue to accuse me of hounding him even after an IBAN is imposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Also: Mjroots explicitly told John Carter that he was not only permitted but "required" to inform me of ANI discussions like this one. His above claiming after this explicit clarification was posted on his talk page that he is "unaware if a ban from his user talk page includes notices of discussions of this type" is difficult to believe. This, combined with his distinct history of reporting possible violations on my part on admin user talk pages (implicit block requests) rather than AN or ANI and not informing me, is difficult to take in good faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, only e-mail him if you want a clearly biased version of the "story," which seems to be primarily based on the assumption that checking a watchlist and responding to changes made that appear in them is "stalking." John Carter (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply to above Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that John Carter not following the clearcut wording of the talk page ban which allowed such notifications doesn't reflect well on them. But again, I would suggest reading more in to it than simply not properly reading the wording of the ban properly, or not remembering what was read and checking it again before coming here, is simply not helpful. It's obviously possible that JC intentionally did it to annoy you, but since it'll be again impossible to prove and should be a once-off it's not something that can go further. Even if you may find it infuriating, it's irrelevant to the outcome and it's accepted that some people don't notify when there is genuine question over whether they're allowed and JC did make it clear they hadn't notified. Note that although it looks like no one informed you (I didn't notice that part very well) I guess either the ping worked or you became aware of this discussion somehow else. There's almost zero chance anything would have happened without you becoming aware of this discussion. The comment you made about JC going directly to admins is more concerning however the examples cited seem to be about violations of topic bans rather than behavioural concerns which require wider ANI input and AFAIK for better or worse there's no explicit requirement for notification in such cases where ANI/AN isn't involved. I would hope any decent admin would ask for input or take it elsewhere where they feel it's needed, but topic ban violation block are something that intented to be something low fuss. Personally I think the bigger concern is whether they show some degree of stalking, a big issue here would be how many of these reports lead to a block. I don't think it's the best idea for an editor with a history of antagonism with the reported to be frequently reporting topic ban violation, but if these reports all have merit it's difficult to say they were wrong. But if they are making these reports and a lot of them are wrong, it may very well be time to tell them to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @Nil Einne:It is worth noting that in the Request for Clarification and Amendment Hijiri started there were, if I remember correctly, indications that others thought the request was not acceptable conduct from his side, which, honestly, I had never seen the like of before. That being the case, I thought it reasonable to act on the side of caution. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @Nil Einne: Despite John Carter's repeated attempts at wikilawyering me into a TBAN block, I have not been blocked for any TBAN violations I may or may not have made. One of them (the recent ARCA) was a clear-cut misunderstanding as Callanecc can attest to per our email exchange, which is why I wasn't blocked and immediately withdrew it when told I probably should. A few more of them (my replies to Curly Turkey on my talk page) were the opposite of a TBAN violation, as they consisted of me saying "I'm sorry -- I don't think doing what you're asking of me would be acceptable under the terms of my TBAN". Another of them (the AE report) was initially a clear-cut case of BANEX as I was asking for clarification of my own TBAN, and an admin short-sightedly encouraged me to post an AE report; several others said I should be blocked for the AE report, but then when this background was clarified they withdrew these statements. John Carter also once (quite some time ago) interpreted the wording of another user's TBAN to make it sound like it applied to me, and recently misquoted the wording of my current TBAN with the effect of making it sound like it covered something ("Chinese topics") that I have edited numerous times since December (as Sturmgewehr88 pointed out, given the history it's difficult to take this as a good faith mistake). None of these attempts by John Carter have led to blocks, despite numerous admins (several of them Arbitrators) weighing in. This recurring pattern is very frustrating for me, as I would much rather improve Wikipedia's coverage of the various topics from which I am not banned than spend all this time defending myself against bad-faith accusations that I violated some sort of ArbCom ban. It's also worth noting that John Carter's above saying "if I remember correctly" and talking about "others" agreeing with him for something that happened only a few days ago, without even providing a link, is very misleading (whether it was meant to be misleading is another matter). The claims that User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Kingsindian (the two users whom John Carter says are "from [Hijiri88's] side") thought my request was "not acceptable conduct" is a complete misrepresentation of what they wrote. The actual posts are here, here and here. The fact that John Carter misquoted these people and weaselish-ly defended this misrepresentation as being "if he remembers correctly", while I have given the exact diffs, should be proof enough that I am not the one trying to hide evidence. The only reason I am only posting most of the recent evidence, as opposed to all of the evidence, in this thread is because providing the necessary context for mny of those earlier diffs (and some of the recent ones) would violate my IBAN and one or both of my TBANs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged since I had commented on the ARCA request. I only read the first post relatively carefully by John Carter and I see no evidence presented for any stalking. That said, Hijiri seems to not mind a mutual I-ban, so if both agree, that is fine. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• I was pinged by Hijiri88, who said I could back him or her up on certain things. In fact, I cannot back them up on their editing history, as I am not familiar enough with it to state with any certainty whether they were editing years before some disagreement I am also not familiar with started. However, their editing history should make that apparent, if it is true. With respect to the claim John Carter made about Ehrman being involved in the translation of the Gospel of Judas: Yes, I can back Hijiri88 up on that. Carter commented that "If I remember correctly, there is and has been reasonable somewhat widespread criticism of his work on the early version of the Gospel of Judas translation..." Not only is this factually inaccurate on the surface, it makes factually inaccurate assumptions about Ehrman's participation in the project. In that context, it is an extremely bizarre thing for someone who should be at least passingly familiar with the subject of New Testament history to say.

Also, I read the first link John Carter provided, and while I think Hijiri88 might have shown poor judgement in responding in the first place, what came out was a legitimate concern, to which Carter responded by failing to assume good faith and casting serious aspersions on Hijiri88. The implication of stalking there, in fact, more closely resembles Carter's behavior at the FTN thread Hijiri88, John Carter and I participated in.

There may be more there that I am unaware of, but what I've seen so far causes me to lean towards taking a closer look at why this notice was filed. I'm not advocating for any outcome, mind, just airing my 2 cents. Also, please don't ping me any more unless there are specific questions to ask me. My general thoughts on this have all be aired above, and I really don't want to do the editing history and block log research necessary to come to a more considered, informed opinion on this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Correction Hijiri88 reminded me (for the second time) that we had interacted about two years ago in respect to some rather academic issues regarding biblical history. Therefore, I can vouch for this editor having been participating in such work for that period of time. It's also worth noting that I would tentatively vouch for Hijiri88's competence to work in this area: most of us make mistakes and have some false beliefs, including myself, but I've yet to see this editor say anything which I could find to be factually wrong. I cannot speak for any civility issues beyond what I've said above, though I believe I made myself clear, there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Responding since I was pinged and John Carter really needs to drop the stick already. As in every interaction between them, John Carter stalks, character-bashes, casts aspersions, wikilawyers a way to get someone blocked, and/or lies about the reality of the situation. Oh and that "I'm gonna complain about something not happening and then scold you for not making it happen" thing he's pulled before. He's always talking about these reference projects he's cooking up, so maybe he should go work on those instead of getting into fights with Hijiri. Or an IBAN could be placed, since both would agree to it; that works too. I'd still be amicable to an IBAN between myself and John Carter. Anyway, that's my 2¢. If John Carter tries to deny anything I said, I'll be happy to bury him in diffs (or maybe Hijiri will beat me to it). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not seeing a single diff in the OP or even in the sea of words that is this thread. Therefore I'd be happy if the OP received a boomerang for time-wasting and for stirring a pot he knows shouldn't be stirred. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: You are right that the OP hasn't provided diffs; as I have stated a few times in this thread, he appears to be trying to convince the admin corps and/or community of my wrongdoing without showing evidence that would backfire on him. But I don't know how it happened that you didn't notice the diffs I provided. I gave at least 15 diffs (and six archive links -- evidence does not have to be given in the form of diffs) in the collapsed sections above. I even made an edit that consisted almost exclusively of adding diffs and archive links to my own earlier post. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I'm talking about the OP, not you, and sections are collapsed for a reason. But if you want to start/continue whining as well, I'm happy to suggest that all two or three of you receive feuding blocks from Floquenbeam, who is well-disposed to handing them out, and would be perfectly within his rights to do so here I think after all the ANI time this silly feuding has taken up over the months and years. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I was responding to where you said "in the sea of words that is this thread", but I appreciate that you were mainly criticizing the OP. Your noticing the OP's lack of diffs is recognized, and appreciated. I frankly don't want any more to do with this thread (I've been sick of ANI for quite some time) and would be content if it closed right now with the OP getting a slap on the wrist and being told to stay out of my hair going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of copy violation claim

Well, i'm not sure whether to go here or directly to WP:ARBPIA, but let's try here first without sanctions and stuff. It seems that user:Sean.hoyland removed the copyvio template from template:Palestinian territory development, violating the procedure guidelines. There should certainly be a discussion on whether this is a copy violation or not (concerning the usage of six maps in series to promote a certain political agenda), but semantics aside Sean violated the technical procedure, which is highly problematic.GreyShark (dibra) 20:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No, your copyvio claim was malformed, claiming it is a copyright violation of a home page for the office of the Palestinian president. There is nothing on there that is close to these maps. Besides that, these maps arent copyrighted by themselves, and aggregating them does not magically confer copyright on them. Regardless of that last bit, your edit was malformed in that it claimed a copyright violation of a website that doesnt in any way resemble the image shown on our page. nableezy - 20:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy has the right of it, I think - the source doesn't include the material tagged as a copyvio. Greyshark, if you have evidence that the maps are taken directly from some other page, feel free to post it here for discussion. If your concern is that these maps, in this format and this sequence, present some message that matches a message presented elsewhere, and that THAT is what is being copied... no, that's not quite how copyvio works. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, thats a template thats transcluded on 3 fairly often read articles here, a template that you nominated for merge and nominated for deletion. A copyright violation accusation is fairly serious and it shouldnt just be used to remove material you disagree with as part of some checklist of ways to remove material from Wikipedia. Putting that copyvio template on this has somewhat far-reaching impacts, and given how long youve tried to have the template removed by other means I have to question the motivation in using this tactic now. nableezy - 20:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've interacted on this template for quite a while; recently while reading the Mahmmud Abbas' webpage, it did strike me that the source for the images is his and "Palestinian territory development" is highly misleading, actually being a copy-paste from Mahmud Abbas' page. Looking into more resolution and details, the images indeed morphed into a slightly different style over time. However, i would take a deeper look whether earlier versions were a copy-paste; i assume that the original copyvio thus could have been corrected (if indeed copyviolated).GreyShark (dibra) 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The logic above is not completely sound. A single set of events may bring a whole slew of charges by a prosecutor without raising that "question", even by the most aggressive defense. A single inclusion may be a violation of multiple rules or laws, and while a prosecutor's office can try them all at once in court, an individual on Wikipedia can often manage only one process of appeal at a time, given the individual's limited resources. Let us not give any weight to that argument. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 21:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Maps are indeed copyrightable and the site has a copyright notice, I'm not sure what the issue is. If the tag has the wrong URL, so redo with correct URL but we all know what site he's referring to so we know that the maps are not allowed here without permission. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

  Assuming GreyShark09 is referring to http://president.ps/eng/interviewdetails.aspx?id=3823, there is no copyvio: the template and the linked page use similar maps to express similar ideas, but absolutely nothing has been copied. --Carnildo (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2016

• None of the maps match each other in addition to the fact the Palestinian Authority's copyright notice doesn't really matter because the maps they created exist in public domain. I have made those maps myself long ago using other sources and the PA's maps have some serious mistakes. Some are technical and some are for the purpose of misleading and those mistakes are not repeated in template's maps. It would be like saying the map used in the article of the United States is stolen from the website of the American Congress while the map of the US exists in so many other places.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 03:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the technical procedure with respect to copyright template removal and I removed it anyway here with the edit summary "surely you don't mean http://president.ps/eng/interviewdetails.aspx?id=3823" because there is no evidence of copyright violation, exactly as I would have done if a vandal had added the template, thus making Wikipedia content inaccessible to readers. I've asked GreyShark to carefully explain and justify their edit atTemplate_talk:Palestinian_territory_development#Copyvio_allegation and at User_talk:Greyshark09#Copyvio. Instead they came here. If this proves to be a misuse of the WP:COPYVIO as a tool in an ARBPIA related content dispute (to which I am not a party) there should be consequences, a warning at the very least. Copyright violation is a serious matter and the tools for dealing with it should never be misused. There are 500+ active admins and this is a matter that would benefit from admin attention. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As a single topic editor in ARBPIA space, i guess you are more familiar with the edit-warring on that topic. If you strongly feel that i'm a single topic editor as well and spend my days over edit-warring on ARPBIA pages, you are welcome to press charges. Per WP:GF i decided not to go to topic sanctions page, due to the fact that the copyvio is a fairly technical issue; I'm still not sure you are eligible to remove the copyvio template by yourself. Are you?GreyShark (dibra) 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking Sean Hoyland jumped the gun too quickly here. | this image, which is featured in the template comes from | this image on commons, which in turn is a photograph of a professionally produced image made elsewhere. Per Wikipedia's own rules, this image is copyrighted and therefore the claim of copyright infringement looks plausible. I'm not a huge copyright expert so I won't replace the copyright notice on the page, however, it looks like Greyshark is right , however I defer to our resident copyright expert's opinion to be sure!

It's entirely possible that I jumped the gun, but I don't think the information you have provided indicates that that is the case. The UN map is, as far as Wikipedians know, in the public domain, which is presumably why it's in Commons rather than Wikipedia, and a map derived from that UN map will not be a copyright violation as far as I'm aware. That was also not the stated reason for the application of the copyvio template. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Greyshark, did you

• a) apply the copyvio template because you identified a copyright violation
• or b) apply the copyvio template for reasons unrelated to copyright.

If a), you applied the copyvio template because you identified a copyright violation, can you explicitly confirm whether the following statements are true or false

• your edit summary 'the map is almost entirely a copy-paste of the Mahmud Abbas webpage under "Palestinian position on current issues"' is referring to the maps in this page available via the "Political Position" link in president.ps/eng
• you are claiming the maps in the template Template:Palestinian_territory_development are "almost entirely a copy-paste" of the maps in this page

If, as you say here, "The copyvio is so evident to me (in earlier versions of the map collage)", provide an example diff for a revision of the "earlier versions of the map collage" you refer to that violate copyright.

If b), you applied the copyvio template for reasons unrelated to copyright, describe those reasons so that admins can decide whether they are compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. In evidence is an effort by "Greyshark" to remove, on spurious and deceitful grounds, maps showing the evolution of territorial control in Israel/Palestine in the past 80 years. Why? He doesn't like the reality these maps demonstrate being observed and known. It turns out he's tried to airbrush these maps out of Wikipedia before. This is not the sort of person who should be contributing to an encyclopedia on this topic. I'm sure he will continue to, though.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, my knowledge of copyright isn't great, however, my understanding of it is , that wikipedia follows the Berne Convention when it comes to copyright, that is, that an item is copyrighted by its creator on the moment of it's creation, and thus is considered copyrighted unless it is explicitly stated that the work is Public Domain. This would make that image copyrighted, and not public domain. KoshVorlon 17:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume the statement "This would make that image copyrighted" refers to the UN map made by @Zero0000: to include the boundary of previous UNSCOP partition plan, derived from the original UN map, and released into the public domain by Zero, with the standard Commons template that states "Unless stated otherwise, UN maps are to be considered in the public domain. This applies worldwide." If so, that is not relevant to this issue because a) that image is not used b) that was not the stated reason for the use of the copyvio template and c) derived works such as [18] are not copyright violations. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland on the actual map itself there's nothing on it that says it's public domain, therefore it can't be assumed that it is, rather, copyright is assumed under the Berne Convention. KoshVorlon 11:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

UN maps are open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map… nableezy - 15:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether anything can or cannot be assumed about that UN map is not relevant to this case because that map is not relevant to this ANI thread and the template at issue. Discussions about the copyright status of the UN map should take place in Commons. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

At the same time, what appears to be happening is that the maps here in the template are user-made SVG versions using data from maps that are under copyrights. While a specific map image may be copyrightable, the data on that map is not, so the user recreating the SVG versions is in the clear (this is part of what The Graphics Lab functions as to make free versions of copyrighted images that are otherwise based on uncopyrightable data. So there doesn't appear to be any copyright violation here. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The amusing thing here, of course, is that the PA and countless other organizations would be quite happy to license maps for use in Wikipedia articles for the price of an email or phone call. But, again: This not about copyright. It's about hiding facts that don't suit "Greyshark's" political agenda.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dan Murphy: There should be penalty for blaming people for WP:NOTHERE on ANI discussions the way you do. You clearly don't know user:Greyshark09's agenda and neither do I (He is somewhat mysterious). There's a discussion about copyvio so keep it a dicussion on copyvio. Thanks--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't born yesterday kid. I can observe his behavior, a pattern over quite a period of time, and deduce his agenda.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Which would be a personal attack absent you actually presenting the evidence, so dont do it. If you feel he has an ulterior motive, take it to the NPOV or COIN noticeboards and make your case there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The pattern is already presented here. A request for merge, then a request for deletion of the same template. Wait that didnt work, how else can I hide the material. Oh oh oh I know, a copyright violation claim, that completely blanks the template! Brilliant! nableezy - 15:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Using an existing map, even one copyrighted, to make a new map that shows the same geographical shape is not usually a copyright violation. It is actually more of a violation to copy the coloring and presentation (if the latter is creative enough). The basic idea is that copyright protects creative content, not the pre-existing factual basis if it is well-known. Greyshark should make a case on the copyright pages, which I'm confident will not be successful. It is ridiculous to add highly dubious tags and demand that nobody remove them on pain of being brought here. Zero^talk 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I looks to me as though Greyshark has wasted a significant amount of everyone's time. Given his two previous attempts to have the page removed using unrelated arguments, we should set a high bar when considering whether this was an intentional and deceitful misuse of Wikipedia process. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean like your actions at the Israel Palestine conflict page?19:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs)

Remember, you brought me to ANI, not Oncenawhile. I asked you some simple and straightforward questions above (starting with 'Greyshark, did you'). Answering those questions would clarify matters. It's important to establish why you applied the copyvio template when there doesn't appear to be any evidence of a copyright violation. You can provide a simple and straightforward answer to that question and then admins (and editors who may need to interact with you in ARBPIA) can decide whether you followed due process, whether you made a mistake or whether you employed deception. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Id very much like to see even a token attempt at answering those questions as well Greyshark09. nableezy - 22:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Persistent abuse of categorization by IP

76.88.107.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been in a sustained effort to add certain categories to pages. While a number of their edits are moderately helpful, a great many of them constitute gross overcategorization and is highly disruptive. I had been trying to avoid requesting a block for this IP, instead trying to clean up after them and guide them to a better understanding of the principles of categorization (four notices over the last three weeks at User talk:76.88.107.122 § A couple of notes on categories), but they continue without a response to my four notices or even a change in the pattern of their edits. Several editors have been involved in reverting or otherwise cleaning up after this editor. I'm hoping a temporary block, of at least one week, will encourage this editor to check their talk page, take the time to review the guidelines, and hopefully discuss the issue with other editors.

This is likely the same user as 76.88.98.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was previously blocked for similar reasons, and also 24.165.80.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

This is a repost of an earlier report which was archived without comment, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922 § Persistent abuse of categorization by IP. Ibadibam (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I empathize with your plight. It's frustrating trying to reach a reasonably good faith editor but for some reason or other they do not respond. I agree that a short-term block may help in this case. For the record, do you think you can provide us some example diffs of them at their worst? -- œ^™ 12:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The IP's edits mostly fall into the following areas, with examples:

• Holiday categories, especially Category:Holiday foods and its children
  • Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats, as reverted by Trivialist
  • You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch, as reverted by me
  • Steak, as reverted by Andy M. Wang
  • Category:Irish cuisine, as reverted by DexDor
• Genre by franchise categories, added to pages and categories about genres or individual works (these categories are meant to be places only on pages about franchises)
  • Metropolis (1927 film), as undone by Betty Logan
  • Category:Steampunk, as reverted by me
  • Silent Running, as reverted for different reasons by MarnetteD
  • The Black Hole, as reverted by Scjessey and yet again by FilmandTVFan28
  • Category:Retrofuturism, as reverted by Fixuture
• Categories concerning the supernatural – I've mostly left these alone
  • Diff of Fiddler's Green, still on page
  • Diff of Category:Wind creatures, still on page
• Fantasy and science fiction genre categories – sometimes ok, sometimes not
  • Hellraiser as reverted by Apokryltaros
  • Category:Animated horror films, as reverted by me
• War categories, especially subcategories of Category:Military equipment by war, or else members of Category:Wars used in the same way – I haven't touched these, as it's not my area of expertise and no one else has reverted any of them
  • Diff of Pickelhaube, still on page
  • Diff of M1879 Reichsrevolver, still on page
  • Cuirassier, as reverted by Urselius and a week later by Buistr
  • Dragoon, as reverted by Gaarmyvet and by me today
• Pirate categories, particularly Category:Pirates (a category for people, which the user confuses with Category:Piracy
  • Category:Pirate ships, as reverted by DexDor
• Adding categories of articles to their eponymous categories, an issue I'll admit is confusing even for experienced editors
  • Diff of Category:A Tale of Two Cities, still on page
  • Diff of Category:The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, still on page
  • Category:Dracula, as reverted by DexDor and again by me
• Lastly, and this is not a categorization issue, the IP occasionally engages in gross overlinking
  • Diff of The Producers (1968 film), as reverted by Everyking

There are also a number of literature-, history- and fashion-related edits, that don't appear to be problematic. But given the effort it's taking to follow this IP, I'm not sure the good edits are worth it. Ibadibam (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ibadibam: It looks like they're back to the war categories which isn't my area of expertise either, but the large number of different articles they're editing are sure to catch the attention of some at the Military history Wikiproject where we can get some more eyes on this. I've left them a (yet another, I know) warning message, we should assume they are reading them and just choosing to be non-communicative. If they appear to be heeding the advice and improving at categorization then I myself can't justify a block just yet, but have no problem if another admin chooses to. The minor issue of not using edit summaries remains but I don't consider that block-worthy. We have the above diffs on record so for now let's just wait and see what else happens. -- œ^™ 08:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Adding war categories to weapon articles. Ibadibam (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Short military bios in Draft

Working through a page of stale Draftspace pages I am coming across dozens of very short pages on WWII German military people and at least one holocaust surviver. Typical examples found with several warnings and many deletion notices at User talk:Mad7744 but no evidence of any response. Earlier he was doing this in mainspace but now is doing it in draftspace. I suggest an Admin go through his page creations and delete all similar pages rather then us having to tag each individually. He is a prolific page creator, pretty much all on military bios.

• [19] many page creations
• 88 mainspace pages - 28 deleted so far [20] Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

He's creating stub articles - nothing wrong with that, they're in Draft Space not article space. KoshVorlon 11:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone is trying to name me.

The same person who forced me to use my IP to edit rather than my Username because he was telling everyone I am someone from the UK is trying to name me here. Are there no policies about not trying to dig private information up about Editors here? I am not a public figure, I am a private individual and I am entirely unknown to User:Неполканов and his meatpuppets who have an obsessive compulsive fixation on trying to identify who I am and getting me to reveal private information about myself by irritating me to pieces calling me names of different people. The only piece of info I volunteer about myself (because I wish to assert that I am not someone that my harassers once said I am) is that I am an Israeli. Everything else is my own business and I do not want anyone to try naming me here on Wikipedia. please do something about it. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

More edits from the User's meatpuppets trying to guess who I am. [21] [22] It is very obvious who is using that IP if you look at the history of my talk page [23] This sort of personal Harassment should not be allowed. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you self-identify as User:YuHuw (see [24]), why do you edit as an anonymous IP editor? Also, why do you feel the need to make abusive comments about other editors? For example in your post of 11:31, 14 May 2016:

• You described one editor (currently blocked) as "a rather repulsive person from the UK".[25]
• You describe other editors as "a team of meatpuppet sycophants hovering around him rather like the way flies hang around a dung-heap".[26]

Suggest block as WP:NOT HERE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Clpo13 please. Toddy1 is some kind of User:Неполканов puppet. I notified User:Неполканов but Toddy1 responds. This is his typical behavior pattern. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) This harassment has been going on for 5 months now already. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC) User:Неполканов himself is the one who led me to believe that the UK editor was repulsive in the first place by saying he is a pedophile. Then they called me that person. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Toddy1's responses here (and his anon IP edits on my talk page) are a perfect example of how he buzzes around people who have issues with User:Неполканов, almost like he is a paid bodyguard or something. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't he called Vaz as well? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

<personal attack redacted> 94.119.64.42 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging User:Bbb23 and User:Someguy1221, as this appears to be a continuation of an SPI that failed to result in a block for YuHuw some months back. If the IP claims Toddy1 and Неполканов are still making accusations of sockpuppetry against him/her months after their TL;RD sockpuppet imvestigation didn't go the way they wanted, then this needs to be looked into. Note that I'm not endorsing YuHuw's side in the various edit wars these users have engaged each other in. The only user I have seen in looking through it who in my experience generally behaves in a reasonable manner is User:Ian.thomson, and he agreed with Toddy1 on the content (although I have only briefly examined the dispute at Karaite). Whoever is right on the content, edit-warring is never good, placing the blame for edit wars solely on the side one disagrees with for the sole reason that one disagrees with them is even worse than edit-warring, engaging in a vindictive war of attrition against someone who embarrassed you months ago by not being the sockpuppet you wanted them to be is worse still, and trying to dox users one disagrees with is the worst of all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vadcat/Archive. As you can see above, YuHuw is still accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being puppets.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

So both sides have been throwing bad sockpuppet allegations at each other for months -- so what? In this thread the OP doesn't appear to have accused you of being a sockpuppet, but rather a meatpuppet/"paid bodyguard". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If people are accusing other me of making sock puppet allegations after the closing the of the SPI in late March 2016, they should provide diffs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You said, without evidence, that you were accused of sockpuppetry in this thread. You appear to be also attempting to link the OP to one or more named accounts, and defending several rev-del-ed doxxing attempts. I'm not calling anyone here a sockpuppet, so the burden of proof is not on me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the burden is on both of the IPs who have, for the past several months failed to prove that anyone was a sockpuppet of anyone. Since this is the case, I would suggest that if none of them can drop the stick, they should be blocked for harassment. As it stands however, 94.119.64.0/24 has an oversight block. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI: 87.69.184.128 no one is making you edit under an IP. You should not be forced to reveal this information. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If I do not edit using my IP they will call me a sock of that UK based editor which they do one way or another almost every single time I tried to edit any article since January. I am not accusing anyone here of being a sockpuppet I am not even calling for anyone to be blocked. I am simply asking that the edits of the editor I named whenever he tries to post a name which he hopes might identify me that those posts be redacted please. In fact I would appreciate the same being done to any editor who has tried/will try to do something similar. Wikipedia should be about content not about facing personal attacks. But some editors don't seem to have a clue on how to respond to content challenges except to harass those who challenge them. I have been harassed for far too long. Indeed I have lost my temper on a couple of occaisions over the months but I have always tried to make amends afterwards. But the constand hounding and attempts to identify who I am in real life are more than anyone should be expected to endure. I think I deserve at least one administrator to take my side and give me the benefit of the doubt once. Best regards. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You were cleared by the sock-puppet investigation. So drop the stick.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It was more 'Not Proven.' _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit war on Jonathan Mann page escalated to personal attacks

IP 129.67.16.1 (talk) added a notability tag to the Jonathan Mann page, and when I added additional information and removed the tag, they reverted me twice without any edit summary or discussion. They also removed my message on their talk page asking for discussion, and twice removed Jonathan Mann from a disambiguation page, again without any explanation or discussion. Now they have left a hateful message on my talk page, and reverted me again, without an edit summary or discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

He's been issued a one-month block. They can't indef IP's, but that one's pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Funcrunch's userpage could benefit from the eyes of a few helpful admins. This IP is now block-evading to target them with hateful comments. Thanks -Thibbs (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Funcrunch should request semi-protection of his user page and talk page, either here or at WP:RFPP. If attacks occur on the article talk page, that could be temporarily semi'd also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Watchlisted both the article and Funcrunch's user page. Agree that this is a case worthy of temporary protection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A lengthy block of the latest IP should also be considered. The IP went dormant once the newer IP came along, and now the previous one has been resurrected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this while I was out, folks. (BTW I'm a "they," not a "he.") I figured the IP that added the notability tag this morning (PDT) might be a sock, but I had to go out and someone had already reverted, so I didn't report them. (And now I see that was actually a different IP from the one who later vandalized my page.) In any case, yes, if I can request semi-protection of my user and talk page here, I would like to do so. Funcrunch (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Another IP just re-added the notability tag and trolled my talk page, in rapid succession. Funcrunch (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Since my user page was just vandalized again and I haven't seen any formal response from an admin on this incident report, I've submitted a request for page protection. Funcrunch (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

My user page has been semi-protected, but the harassment has continued on my talk page, and has escalated to deadnaming. (That user has been temporarily blocked.) I'm not sure what other options I have to thwart these attacks at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and outing attempts by an IP editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfeise#Who_is_Jfeise This is most likely the same person as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfeise#comments_on_Victoria_Switzerland jfeise (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In relation to WP:NLT threats in several sections of User talk:Jfeise, I indef'ed User:Msselnamaki and gave User:156.196.81.11 a 1-week block. Msselnamaki has a self-declared[27] COI for the article in question (Victoria University, Switzerland), adding extra credibility/directness to his threats, rathar than any chance of being read as a "be careful, someone might get upset" third-party warning. DMacks (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Likely the same person vandalizing my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/105.182.184.234 jfeise (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have switched from his broadband to his mobile. Blocked for one week a la that for User:156.196.81.11. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

An OS worked some magic on one of the edits as well (feel free to ask if others need deeper burial). Undoing NAC, as I need to update after that time and not sure the problem is actually solved yet. DMacks (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I also semi'ed Victoria University, Switzerland 1 week. This is not the first flare-up of IP disruption there. DMacks (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Another related IP edit on my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jfeise&diff=prev&oldid=720370029 jfeise (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked IP 156.196.138.6 for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I blocked User:105.39.65.226 per NLT on my userpage,[28] presumably part of the same sockfest. DMacks (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced changes made by 73.133.140.233

This is the last [29] edit of a series of unsourced changes made by 73.133.140.233 (talk · contribs). IP had enough warnings regarding the introduction of unsourced material, yet they keep making unreferenced changes along a number of airline crash articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe the IP isn't aware they have a talkpage, and so hasn't seen the warnings. I've blocked for 31 hours to get their attention and help them find their talkpage. If they reply there in a constructive way, please unblock, any admin who sees it. Thanks for reporting, Jetstreamer. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. I'll let you know if the IP replies at their talk.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Every IP editor sees an orange bar across the screen the first time they access the site after the message has been posted. It includes a link for accessing the message (i.e. clicking on it takes them to the talk page whether or not they know of its existence). The system is very efficient - I sometimes receive notification of messages posted nine years ago when nobody has edited in the interim. 78.145.24.30 (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

User "The Quixotic Potato" engaged in an inappropriate, off-topic discussion in a reference desk thread..I asked about how to collapse it in the reference desk talk page...He then filled that thread with disruptive editing. I then collapsed the discussion after learning how, whereby he reverted it in bad faith multiple times...I then asked for help in dealing with him in the reference desk talk page...he then filled that thread up with even more disruptive editing...the collapse isn't itself that big of a deal but his apparent belief that he can do whatever he wants is more important in regards to the Wikipedia project...thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=history68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:STICK & WP:BOOMERANG. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

not relevant..the admins can look at the record...and it's all right there for them to see..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What you're trying to collapse is NOT "off-topic". The original poster in that section made some statements about what he thinks "God" is. That opens the discussion to anything about what "God" might be. If anything should be collapsed, it's the entire section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

that's simply untrue..the section I'm collapsing is no way directly related to the original question and is insulting back and forth about individual religious beliefs...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The original question is also insulting to religious beliefs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Refdesks should handle philosophy, and while normally this sort of question would fall under the category of Humanities, the OP thought it was a scientific question because he didn't really think through the hypothesis he/she was making and whether the proposed experiment was a suitable test of it. I don't think we should put topics out of bounds just because people disagree on them. Quixotic Potato has some odd ways of editing, but I haven't noticed anything requiring administrator intervention. Any issue about hatting the thread can be handled by local talk page consensus if necessary. Eventually everyone will either calm down or someone will go over a bright line, but for now there's no need for admins to get involved. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP here originally brought it up on the ref desk talk page and was told to bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on commenting here again but Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked 151.226.217.27 because it is LTA User:Vote (X) for Change, which confirms my suspicions. 68.48.241.158 will be blocked again soon, probably for being disruptive and exhausting everyone's patience. I don't know if they are the same person. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

nope, not same person, obviously..but that's who you engaged inappropriately with in that thread (and which I properly tried to collapse) whereby you again and again and again in bad faith uncollapsed...68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. It doesn't really matter if you are the same person as 151.226.217.27 or not, the end result is the same. If you continue behaving like this you will keep getting blocked. It is 6 AM right now in the place your IP geolocates to. Are you in Michigan? Are you using a proxy? 151.226.217.27 is from the UK, and the people in the UK are awake already. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as the thread itself, an admin went in and removed one half of the inappropriate back and forth...so now just "quixotic potato's" inappropriate words remain, as though he's talking to himelf...but, again, this is about "quixotic potato's" continued disruptive editing when I originally tried to deal with the problem..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't so boring I would check when you are active, and look at the time in the location your IP geolocates to. The Rambling Man already pointed out to you that my name is "The Quixotic Potato". Just like A Tribe Called Quest and A Pimp Named Slickback. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be using the correct ENGVAR and you've claimed you went to the university of Michigan so you probably woke up really early. You've pissed quite a few people off in your short wikicareer. 5.150.93.133 has been blocked as well btw. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand you're grasping at straws and trying really, really hard to change the subject to try to distract away from what this is about, which is your inappropriate behavior (so in that sense it's just more inappropriate behavior and continued evidence of a bad Wikipedia attitude)..If you go reinstate the collapse and post a quick "my bad" in the talk then this thread can be ended..this will suggest you understand the inappropriateness of some of your "odd ways of editing" (which was another editor's generous way of referring to your inappropriate editing behavior)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hahahaha. That is the second time you made me laugh out loud. Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments states ...these templates [collapsing discussion] should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. If this applies to the Science refdesk, then IMHO the IP and TQP are as guilty as each other. Having said this, such behaviour does not require admin action - but perhaps a case of "toss 'em a trout". DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

note: I wasn't an involved party to the inappropriate/off-topic tangent the two editors went on..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your claim of it being "off-topic" is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

that's just a ridiculous claim..not only was it off-topic (as Wnt basically agreed in the talk page) but it was INAPPROPRIATE too (ad hominem attacks/tanuts etc etc)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It is your claim that is ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

is there any logic to rationale to your belief? do you simply think ad hominem attacks/taunts are appropriate?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Woah, you are great at making friends. Wnt is (obviously) not on your side, no one is. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

note: the quote posted by DrChrissy doesn't mention anything about being involved in tangents (off- or ontopic). You were involved in that thread. I don't think trouting you would be useful, and I don't care if you get blocked now, because your behavior clearly shows a pattern that will get you blocked over and over again unless you drastically change your behavior. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

repeating again and again that you hope I be blocked one day in the future is off-topic in itself and is disruptive to this discussion..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what the word disruptive means? Maybe you do not want to hear my advice, but I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE: the only remedy I really desire is that a good-faith admin caution "Quixotic Potato" on his talk page to try to stay on topic in reference desk discussions, to avoid ad hominem attacks/taunts etc in reference desk discussions, and to not disruptively revert edits in bad faith ways by other editors who are trying to mitigate the damage (ie collapsing the inappropriate discussion)..thank you for your time.68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, for the third time, it's "The Quixotic Potato". Do you have a problem with my username? Administrators are unlikely to do what you tell them to do; they are experienced Wikipedia users and they are working to protect people like me against people like Vote (X) for Change and yourself. Remember when you posted on clpo13's talkpage and clpo13 ignored you? We are trying to make an encyclopedia, and your disruptive behavior and your refusal to drop your stick is not helpful. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, he believed this was worthy of being in ANI and apparently stuck to that belief..again, this is about specific behavior of yours (which is in the record to be looked at)..your repeated nervous attempts to change the subject are not relevant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Nervous". Hahahaha. That is the third time you made me laugh out loud. Thanks again. Clpo13 is also not on your side, no one is, but it is true that this deserves to be on ANI because that makes it easier to demonstrate the pattern in your behavior in the future. Everything is accessible in the page history, even the removed posts by that banned user, that is the reason why no one is on your side. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, everything is in the record to be looked at...my hope is a good-faith admin or two will be along to do just that..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I predict that you will claim that any admin who disagrees with you is not a "good-faith admin". In reality everyone who has disagreed with you on Wikipedia is good-faithed afaik, but people simply get sick and tired of your behavior, and I can't blame 'em. That is why your talkpage is full of complaints, block notifications and declined unblock requests. Like I said many times before, I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. Drop your stick, stop harassing people, stop insulting people, stop wasting peoples time and stop being disruptive. If you can't do that then you are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I see another attempt to change the topic of this discussion (don't worry, I'll keep seeing them if you want to keep repeating yourself, as I'm watching this of course)...interestingly, you haven't once yet addressed what this is about, which makes sense as it's indefensible...an Admin will hopefully be along..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I did link to WP:BOOMERANG, so you can't say you haven't been warned. Quote: "There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report." I don't think you will be blocked based on this ANI discussion, but I am pretty sure that your history will be brought up the next time you behave like this, and it is quite easy to see the pattern. You keep making new enemies, and at some point people will have had enough. BTW, The Rambling Man is an admin, and The Rambling Man told you that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

boomerang just not relevant here..all of this was entirely necessitated by you simply not allowing the proper collapse in the first place...and then another editor ending the discussion on the relevant talk page due to believing it belonged here...I don't particularly make "friends" or "enemies" here as I don't view it as a social networking site...I do insist policy be consistently implemented..which, unfortunately, has caused some bother for certain people..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Whoohoooo! You learned how to indent correctly. Thank you. You don't particularly make friends here, that is true. You obviously do not understand the policies and guidelines and unwritten rules here, I cannot blame you for that because that would take you a very long time, but luckily people like you are unable to pass an RFA so you don't have to understand many of them. Here are some quotes from stuff I wrote earlier: Go do something useful, write an article. You can see my todo-list here: User:The_Quixotic_Potato/todo. If you write a decent article about Thierry Legault I will give you a barnstar. The French Wikipedia has an article about Thierry Legault. If you want me to I can give you some sources you can base the article on. If you do not want to write an article then maybe you can help me fix some typos? Click here for a list of possible typos. Write an article about Thierry Legault, or fix some typos, or do something else that is useful. I have already sent you a link to WP:STICK. My offer still stands, if you write a decent article about Thierry Legault then I will give you a barnstar. He is a very interesting guy, he is notable, and this could be your first barnstar ever. Are you going to write an article? Are you going to improve existing articles? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the person who keeps putting irrelevant content into this thread (and having it reverted) the same person "Quixotic Potato" engaged with inappropriately (and which I properly attempted to collapse but was disrupted in my attempt by the continued inappropriate behavior of "Quixotic Potato"??).68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You know that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". According to WP:DUCK you are a troll, just like your banned "friend". I am going to stop interacting with you (except maybe to mock you), because that is what Professor Elemental told me to do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

my friend? the person who was one half of the inappropriate conversation I tried to collapse (the other half being you)..excellent logic..notice his half has been properly removed whereas your against policy and silly posts remain for all to see...(anyway, it's clear to me you get the message...there may not be enough admins with enough time to deal with you right now)68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Boomerang/Indef Ban IP editor clearly is not here to contribute to Wikipedia, only waste time, of which they have already accomplished that goal. --Tarage (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

my hundreds upon hundreds of beneficial contributions can be looked at...my collapsing of the off-topic and totally inappropriate discussion between two editors in the reference desk thread was one of these beneficial contributions..."Quixotic Potato's" disruptive behavior after I did this (which eventually necessitated this thread here) on the other hand..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you keep using quotes around his name and keep getting his name wrong is proof positive that you are not here to be civil or contribute, you are simply here to waste time. Go away before you are forced to go away. --Tarage (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

the fact that he insists again and again in a silly manner that I include "The" is more demonstration of his childish/inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia...what's wrong with using quotes when referring to a username? I'm still awaiting an Admin...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins have talked to you already if you cared to pay attention. This will not end well for you. That you lack even the proper respect to call someone the way they want to be called is proof of your own childishness, but you refuse to see that. I'm sure your attacks will soon turn my direction, but that's fine. You've been given enough rope. --Tarage (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

never once have I ever attacked anyone on Wikipedia...who is an admin that has addressed this? (Have you bothered to look into what this thread is actually about or have you only read the mostly irrelevant content contained within this thread?)68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

68.48.241.158 did attack (at least) one person, and administrator Coffee addressed this (by blocking 68.48.241.158).

21:36, 1 March 2016 Coffee (talk | contribs) blocked 68.48.241.158 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment)

68.48.241.158 will probably claim that Coffee is not a "good-faith admin". Tarage has been a Wikipedia user for over a decade and has a clean blocklog. It seems to be really difficult for 68.48.241.158 to find a "good-faith admin" (despite the fact that someone sent him this link which lists hundreds of them) so it is not clear how Tarage managed to avoid getting blocked all this time.</sarcasm>

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

the reasoning for that improper block was supposed "failure to get the point" in a talk page content discussion...ad admin then incorrectly listed it as "personal attack"...I immediately objected to the block and the incorrect stated reason (as can be seen) but it was not addressed...but, again, this hasabsolutely nothing to do with what this thread is about...this thread is about your specific conduct (which actually included personally attacking another user...which can all objectively be seen right in the record)..you haven't once addressed what this is about (which is understandable, as you have no defense) but disruptively changed the subject again and again (which is also inappropriate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyone you have interacted with on Wikipedia is wrong and you are right. The fact that the vast majority of your interactions with other people are less than pleasant is our fault. All admins are acting in bad faith. We should all be blocked, except you of course, so that you can edit Wikipedia in peace. We are all crazy, and we are simply not smart enough to understand you. Are you aware that MediaWiki is totally free? You can install it on your own webserver, that way you won't have to deal with idiots like me. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please Note: I was originally seeking some real-time help in dealing with inappropriate content in a reference desk thread (and a user's inappropriate interference with my dealing with it); so this has become moot as that thread is receding into the history in the reference desk...that same user has now filled this thread up with a wall of content that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread (and not once addressed the matter), which is also totally inappropriate...the only thing to potentially do is have an admin admonish this user about his general inappropriate behavior, as described in the OP and seen in this thread...If an admin doesn't find the time for this particular matter then suppose it can be wrapped up sometime soon, as becoming moot..thank you for your time..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you become nervous now that you've finally realized that this ANI report has backfired in a rather spectacular way? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

there are not enough police officers to deal with every crime and there are not enough admins to deal with every infraction, simple as that (it's backfired only in how you've filled it inappropriately...be nice to see you admonished for that in itself, which would be appropriate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what the word appropriate means? You seem to be using your own definition of the word disruptive. Tarage wrote: "Go away before you are forced to go away". That is an appropriate response to someone who behaves like you do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

no, I'd say his input, including that kind of statement is also entirely inappropriate..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And your recent block for editing disruptively, was that block also inappropriate? Was that admin also not a "good-faith admin"? And is the fact that you are editing disruptively again, only 2 weeks after your most recent block for the same offense ended, appropriate or inappropriate? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

see my talk page for what I think about that block; it's all right there, clearly explained (I'm going to stop engaging with you along irrelevant lines..so I'll allow you to put in one more irrelevant post, but I won't respond, no matter what's contained in it)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note Allow me to advise collegiality and a willingness to actually listen with open ear from all parties. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

a problem is that 90% of this thread can literally be deleted as being totally irrelevant to the OP/original issue..what admin wants to read through all that? I think there are just not enough admins to have attention at everything...as ideally this would have been looked at immediately and solved thereby avoiding "The Quixotic Potato's" repetitive disruption of this thread...but at this point it's largely a lost cause..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Potguru

We seem to have a bit of a problem with an editor that seems to not be here. The editor in question User:Potguru has been making controversial edits and moves. The editor has been asked a few times to slow down and to see what other think about the edits and moves but to no avail. Potguru has a very strict POV on the meaning of the word "Marijuana" and has been changing the word Cannabis to "marijuana" all over despite concerns raised. They have also moved articles with titles containing Cannabis to marijuana again despite concerns raised by many. They have also proposed invalid mergers and draft proposal for the purpose of content forking all based on one POV. Moxy (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I object to this characterization. I have discovered a number of articles that were incorrectly titled based in some cases on incorrect text and in other cases I cannot determine the reason but in every single edit I was careful to represent the cited reference which, in all cases where I made these edits, read "marijuana" instead of "cannabis". I have not made any war edits and in any case where there was some concern with my edit I made my case on the talk page and walked away while we await concensus on the matter. I also object to being thrown into this page without the OP following hte clear directions above which clearly state "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." Your comments were not on my talk page, but somewhere I could never find them [here] instead. If you have a grievance with me, please follow the prescription on this page and discuss it with me directly. You left my talk page with many unanswered questions. --Potguru (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So let me give some examples of this behavior....

• Moves despite concerns raised on talk page.

On each page where there was any controversy I brought the issue to the talk page. On each page where I have made edits my edits are clear and precise. --Potguru (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Proposed merger because they think Draft:Marijuana (cannabis) should be the articles title.

No, the reason for the proposed merger is that cannabis(drug) and cannabis(the plant) seem to be the same issue to me. Rather than controversially move or make a change I am asking for concensus, which is what we are supposed to do on wikipedia. --Potguru (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If this is what you believe then I question your competence to edit the topic at all. -- Moxy (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, where is this coming from? We were having a perfectly meaningful conversation about the meaning of the word marijuana and now you decide to attack me personally as incompetent? --Potguru (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an attack ... a POV statement that your not knowledgeable enough to edit this topic at this point in time. I have seen to much wrong guess work at this point to believe otherwise.-- 03:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You challenged my competence and presume I am guessing at things, that is an unwelcome personal attack. --Potguru (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misleading edit summaries despite no discussion actually talking place...just a notice of intent.

You are mistaken. I called for concensus on a merge of this article back in January. Consensus was no comment for or against and so I carefully merged the pages. Then another editor came in and undid all my work without comment so I largely undid his reversions in favor of the concensus version. (And I took a great deal of effort on my merge). --Potguru (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Editing an article to one POV despite the talk they were involved in about just this fact Talk:Marijuana (word)#Continuing conversation.

My edit on this page is consistent with other articles that talk about marijuana or cannabis. There was no nefarious intent in that edit, please assume my edits are for the betterment of the readers as they are --Potguru (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edits of this nature shows a clear preferences for a term despite being told otherwise User talk:Potguru#The official name on Wikipedia is Cannabis

Where is the notice that the official word for marijuana on wikipedia is cannabis? Again, my edits are consitent with the sources. There is no 420 "cannabis holiday", it is a "marijuana holiday". If there is concensus on this issue please point me to it because I do not see where we all came to agree that every instance of marijuana should be replaced with cannabis. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like this lead me to believe they are not actually reading up on the topic....as the term is Cannabis is clearly used as seen here and in the ACT.

As I said the move was and is consistent with the content on the page. If you have sources that talk about a "cannabis policy in Colorado" please share them, otherwise we must stick to the cited references because Wikipedia is no place for original work. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I did show you sources....enough is enough. -- Moxy (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, where did you show me sources that talk about a cannabis policy in Colorado? You showed me the definition of industrial hemp in Colorado, is that what you are referring to? --Potguru (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Lets quote the act that has been show to you a few times now and is the topic of the article " Colorado Amendment 64- In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product. -- Moxy (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Text of amendment 64 can be found here: http://www.fcgov.com/mmj/pdf/amendment64.pdf In the text, as I have pointed out to you several times, the defintion of marijuana is: "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS, OR ITS RESIN, INCLUDING MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE. "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS, OIL, OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEED OF THE PLANT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK, OR OTHER PRODUCT. I emphasise the second sentence to highlight why marijuana is not the same as cannabis... cannabis with less than 0.03% THC is hemp and hemp is not marijuana per the above definition. --04:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok I am puzzled then...your aware both text above that the term Cannabis is used then further defined by the terms MJ and hemp.....and that the article talks about both MJ and hemp but you think its best to call it " marijuana" when its clear cannabis is being used as the parent term in the act then sub-defined? Can you explain this logic to me pls. -- Moxy (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Puzzled? Perhaps we should continue talking about this then, rather that you suggesting I be banned because you do not understand what I am saying. I have been saying the same thing for days that marijuana (per the above definition and the original 1937 definition) is a portion of the cannabis plant and the remainder is hemp. That is what most of the articles say and that is what my edits are about. --Potguru (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what to do here....looking for input. -- Moxy (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oh vey, pot guru for sure. Suggest final warning for the editor to stop the nonsense or else a topic ban from all naming suggestions. That's been really nice and assuming there's a sensible person behind the ego there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review of the prior ANI discussion, skip the warning, propose topic ban on all content related to marijuana and cannibus for six months. If the editor shows that they aren't just going to bull-in-a-china-shop elsewhere, they can go back to that topic but the prior history shows little need for patience. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be specific about the "nonsense" you are referring to. --Potguru (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest topic ban now, enough with the warnings (which are being ignored anyway). Mlpearc (open channel) 02:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please give me an example of a warning I have ignored I am unaware that I have ignored any administrators warnings. I respect wikipedia policy which is why I must insist that the text of articles be supported by the actual citations used not some other unknown reason. --Potguru (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not insult our intelligence here. There have been tens if not hundreds of editors on these topics for years, either you believe you have some brilliant insights about how these things should be worded and your ego needs a check or you're just an jerk who's going to push whatever they believe regardless of other people but neither of which is helpful here. If you don't see a problem, then we should just block you right now and move on. You've already wasted more of our time than is necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Strike that. Slow down and learn the proper processes here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any edits since I started responding to this and my talk thread. I learned how to take a walk a long time ago, which is why I do not edit war. --Potguru (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Too bad you struck out the nail which you hit squarely on the head. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been chewed out enough over "Admin conduct" and incivility for calling people. I'm trying to be nicer although it ruins the bluntless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban as-well ....I see no end to this other wise ....no inclination at all they will change the behavior. -- Moxy (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy I'm surprised at this post on the heals of your statement "I think you think your doing the right thing" just hours ago. Please take the time to respond to my replies above. Your call for me to be banned would only serve to end any meaningful discussion of the term marijuana vs the term cannabis which you admitted just yesterday is an important discussion that we need to have. --Potguru (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is a topic we need to talk about.....but we are having trouble moving forward because we are dealing with you and your edits all the time. --Moxy (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If it is an mportant discussion we will have it. If we require you around to discuss it, it probably isnt very important. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what you hope to gain by attacking me. Please refrain from attacking other editors or assuming the worst about their intentions. --Potguru (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree re a formal warning and if no progress a topic ban, user seems to be only interested in cannabis. I thought his attempts to merge cannabis and cannabis (drug), two enormous articles, to be spurious. he or she is better off learning the ropes of wikipedia before engagng controversially wth ths topic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User has updated countless articles on various topics. User authored the original "Drumpf" article which was covered by major media (later merged into another article). You are hasty in your review, you should take more time to see what I have contributed to the site because your assessment is far too narrow. Your premature ending of the merge was also hasty, you seem to have a pattern. --Potguru (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We can talk about that merge if you like. You wanted to merge a huge biology article on the genus Cannabis with an even larger article on cannabis as a drug. After six editors opposed your proposal, with not one supporting, which we call a WP:SNOWBALL result, and after I asked you why you had made such an odd merge proposal, and with no justification for doing so in your opening comments, you admitted that it was to test consensus, ie you had no reasn for making such a proposal. So I would argue that the pattern and the disruptive editing is comng from you, and the fact that you are blaming me is part of the pattern. No other editor is supporting your comments re me but a whole host of editor are complaining about your behaviour on the cannabis articles. You seem to be attacking me in order to try to divert attenton from yourself. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see where I have attacked you at all. I have made clear that I think your edits are edit warring but I made my reasoning very clear on your talk page. It is more than clear that you act in haste, as you did to revert more than a half dozen articles I carefully verified and then you (willy nilly) reverted my considered edits. Have you even looked at the cited material in any of those articles? They all refer to marijuana, not cannabis as your edits would have us believe. --Potguru (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussions for reference. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this editor has been using WikiP as a WP:FORUM since, at least, the end of March. You can see various threads beginning here Talk:Colorado Springs, Colorado#March 2016 Marijuana Industry section content dispute. This is but one of several edit summaries where they reinserted info in spite of the discussion on the talk page pointing out the problematic nature of the edits. They have had the "WikiP ropes" explained again and again. I am not sure whether they will ever understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a WP:SOAPBOX. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Above editor unreasonably removed several posts about [marijuana] from Colorado Springs article until same editor was forced to follow concensus. We all agreed on specific text and that text is in the Colorado Springs article today. Marijuana is a huge industry and daily news item in Colorado Springs. But we came to consensus and that is where the article stands today with a short blurb about marijuana in the culture section. --Potguru (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice job on getting it backwards. You were the one inserting items against the consensus and the short blurb is what was agreed upon my the rest of us that were commenting on that talk page. This illustrates, quite well the reason that this topic ban is now being discussed. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually what I was doing was boldly editing an article. Then you would remove what I wrote because you thought there was no place in the Colorado Springs article for any discussion of marijuana. Then I'd write something else and then you'd remove what I wrote. Then we got other editors to look at the situation and once we all came to concensus the article was updated. Since then I added this unchallenged timely [edit]. --Potguru (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No remorse, no willingness to concede to work with other editors. Editor desperately needs a timeout, especially considering past trip to ANI. Definitely has a very specific POV agenda and WP:NOTHERE I personally think 6 months is harsh, everyone deserves a second chance, but the nonsense has to end. Lipsquid (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to accept concensus, as I stated clearly above. Why should I show remorse? I do not believe I am doing anything wrong by insisting every article follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. --Potguru (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think you have done anything wrong, then maybe 6 months is appropriate so you can use the time to figure out how to collaborate on Wikipedia. Lipsquid (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think if you study my interaction with MarnetteD on the Colorado_Springs,_Colorado article specifically you can see that I used the talk page to have a conversation with other editors and we achieved concensus, which was not what MarnetteD wanted. I think this incident demonstrated perfectly my willingness to listen, learn and consider others and concensus in my editing as I learn to work as a newbie in this complicated website. --Potguru (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would stop misrepresenting what happened. First, I wanted consensus to be reached - I have a long history of working with others in situations like this - that is why I took part in the discussion. Next, I was not the only editor to remove your problematic edits as can be seen here. Next, "after" consensus was reached you continued to ignore it with edits like this and this. Most of us work hard to achieve WP:CONSENSUS in situations like this - please do not misstate what happened then or now. MarnetteD|Talk 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOLD cannot be used as a carte blanche for POV pushing. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

These edits are not about my point of view, but about the sourced content. In each and every edit I've made "since march" I believe I have been extremely careful to make edits that follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If I have not, please show me that edit and I will immediately update it. If we all follow the same policy of making sure the articles reflect their sources and that the articles all have Wikipedia:Verifiability you will see my edits are all "correct". If an article says "cannabis" then the cited source must say cannabis but if the cited source says marijuana then the article body must reflect that. Unless there is some rule that we must always use cannabis in a sentence, even when such a use is wrong or unsupported by citation. --Potguru (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Far from calming down Potguru has come to my talk page accusing me of dsruptive editing, after trying to tidy upafter him and doing general linkng changes here. IMO this is just part of a pattern and that he needs to calm down or face consequences right now. He is complaning about my fixing some of his moves from cannabis to marijuana in article titles but he made those changes against consesnsus, and it is this ignoring consensus that has resulted in him being here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect you did not "tidy up", you reverted edits based on no concensus and in all articles you seem to have ignored the talk pages. As I clearly stated on your talk page I think your edits are disruptive and instead of reporting your activities here on this page I followed the policy on this page and brought the issue to your attention directly. Now tell me why did you change the text of articles without first following the Wikipedia:Verifiability or the Wikipedia:Article_titles policy? You just moved [| this page] from Marijuana in Maine State to Cannabis in Maine State yet the article NEVER mentions the word cannabis, instead all the references and text clearly state "marijuana". Your moving the page makes no sense based on the article content. Please explain. --Potguru (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was at cannabis for over a year, is based off Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction and Cannabis in the United States so I'm not sure how you can say there's a consensus for your move so a reversion is fine. I'd say your attacks are not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because a low interest article sits incorrectly for some period of time does not mean, in any way, that it is "right". There are a whole series of nearly identical articles all created by the same original author all at about the same time and almost all of them use the word cannabis incorrectly based upon the cited sources. What I did is go through the sources to verify the text of the article and low and behold the article text did not match the citation. The Cannabis in Kansas state is a really good example of a bad article. I went through and changed all occuranced of cannabis to marijuana (where they were wrong) and left the one occurrence of the word cannabis alone as it was correct. Then another editor (who is really angry about the issue) came through and reverted all my well considered edits. At almost exactly this same time I moved the article to the more appropriate namespace marijuana in Kansas State. So seeing the edit, rather than start an edit war, I posted very carefully on the talk page trying to achieve concensus. Then, without contributing to that conversation, RichardWeiss moved the article back to the former namespace in what I consider an edit war. (He later commented on the talk page). --Potguru (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Potguru, yu are completely ignoring that this thread is about you. And you didnt have consensus, I checked, as is clear here too. You dont seem to be listening. You need to go and edit other topics for a while until you calm down, I am not being threatened with a topic ban. And the fact that you are so insensitive to the threat you are facing isnt a good sign. If you make a complaint here about me it will be taken as part of your campaign of bad behaviour that brought you here and an insistence on not following advice by taking a break from the issue. This thread is about getting you to calm down and you are refusing and getting more worked up instead. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"And you didnt have consensus, I checked" editors are not required to have any concensus when moving an article that is not contentious. The reason I moved the page was that, at the time, the content did not support the article title and moving it was the best way to make sense of it. " getting more worked up instead." I am not getting 'worked up' at all. I am very calmly making my case. I do wish you would revert disruptive half dozen or so namespace moves you have made without a good reason to do so and with little to no support in the body of the articles to support your [hasty moves]. --Potguru (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Chill, man. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• You are misreading policy. You don't need consensus if it is not contentious, meaning a consensus would agree. In this case, you should have known that moving highly edited article titles is going to be contentious. If you really felt that no one would object to this radical change, then this calls your judgement into question, reinforcing the reason you need to be topic banned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose a topic ban for Potguru, it is not cool to disallow a Wikipedia editor to edit certain articles. Please be impartial and look through his edits and his rationale before you decide to jump on the bandwagon of whoever complains first. HempFan (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - I'm involved so can't act administratively, but there seems to be more than few over the years that want to war over the name Marijuana vs. the proper botanical name Cannabis, and Potguru has already been given fair warning. Cannabis is a busy topic and we don't need people who can't edit collaboratively editing them. Enough is enough. I would also note that voting to NOT support the ban due to not liking topic bans in general is pretty much a non-vote. This isn't about the politics of Wikipedia, it is about the behavior of ONE editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note There is a significant editing interaction overlap between Potguru and HempFan. Making no judgment on that overlap. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have filed this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potguru, i think there is quite a strong case. Potguru has made over 3000 edits in 4 months, which is a lot for a new user, and his early edits dont indicate a new user. Wouldnt surprise me at all if he isnt a new user. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Given their names, I wouldn't read too much into that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss and Dennis Brown: Funnily enough, it was that which encouraged me to investigate, Dennis  ;) Richard, I've commented at the SPI page. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

there is a distinctly cospiratorial 'us and them' interaction here, with borderline canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Pin _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Potguru seems to mean well, and it is quite surprising that the word "marijuana" does not appear in the lead, or almost anywhere, in the main Cannabis article, so I can see his frustration and confusion as to why some of the edits have been reversed and others do not perceive that some changes may be for the better. It seems that even direct quotes have been changed to remove the "m" word, which does seem to indicate a tilt towards accuracy on this editor's part. Potguru should take it slower, and maybe do an WP:RM at the 'Cannabis (drug)' page to create a wider discussion, which could help to explain his objections and hoped-for-additions. But a topic ban seems a bit extreme for an editor who, from indications, wants to expand reader knowledge on the subject. If everyone backs off a step, and Potguru takes his time, some of what he is concerned about may work itself out.Randy Kryn 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

However the Cannabis (drug) article does mention the word "marijuana" in the lead, and the drug article is 'hatnoted' on the plant page. Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

True, but the main Cannabis article does not although it mentions other plant-based uses and products. The point I'm making is that Potguru, too, was probably surprised at that and maybe went gung-ho in trying to add things like that in Cannabis pages. He does seem to have some good points, which is why my oppose on the topic ban (although he should be continued to be guided by the Wikipedia project members and not jump full-body into the changes he would like to see). Randy Kryn 14:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think he should be guided by WP project members and to follow collaboration standards and yet he blatantly says that he is right and that all other opinions on this subject are wrong and he won't stop changing article names. Then how can someone oppose a topic ban? What other choice is there if he isn't going to stop? Lipsquid (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: A topic ban for someone who's right and fighting against silly renaming of all cannabis related articles being renamed to Cannabis (insert use here), is wrong. That's why I oppose a topic ban. You have to understand that some editors, take Wikipedia seriously and do their best to keep other Wikipedia editors from ruining articles. Topic banning such editors from editing articles (or banning them altogether), is wrong, and well, it's Wikipedia's loss at the end of the day. HempFan (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"A topic ban for someone who's right"....and that is where I drifted off. Topic bans are not about who is right or wrong, they are about behavior that is inconsistent with a collaborative, collegiate environment. Everyone thinks they are "right", so being "right" isn't a license to behave poorly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Well if so, then the burden is on you and everyone else who want Potguru topic banned, to provide valid examples where he has been highly disruptive, because just voting yes to a topic ban doesn't count, it has to be substantiated with examples. From the little experience I've had with Potguru, he's been very collaborative, and totally unproblematic. I also oppose his topic ban for those reasons. Granted, I haven't seen much of his editing history, so it's possible I'm wrong, but from what I've seen, he's been totally professional, and that should count as far as I'm concerned. HempFan (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue at hand is about consensus, not burden. I didn't propose the topic ban, I have no burden. Each person participating has their own burden to look closely at his history or don't participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus, burden, I say potato, you say potahto... Consensus should be reached by providing valid examples, not opinion dropping based on, well, nothing? HempFan (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban Wait a sec. Why are the articles about Marijuana use/ laws in XYZ State being titled, incorrectly, as Cannabis use in XYZ state? This make no sense! If the sources say "marijuana" then so should article title. Readers are looking for the commonly used terminology, and this odd "cannabis" article title looks like some sort of censorship imposed by WP. Look at Cannabis policy of Colorado- marijuana is used throughout the article, and marijuana is used in the sources. Same with Maine State and Kansas Sate. "Cannabis in Maine State" sounds like it is referring a flora growing season, or some such. Is consensus required in order to reflect the sources and thus make articles accessible to the public?? Cannabis is the genus name of a plant, certain species of which are used to make drugs, (i.e. marijuana). Other species produce "hemp", the seeds of which I can purchase at Costco and natural food stores, here in the USA. The article titles should reflect the sources, please! Tribe of Tiger (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC) ( my mistake, see note below)Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the same problem that got us here in the first place...please read the legislation ...where is talks about Cannabis that is then sub-defined by MJ and hemp (be that right or wrong) ...why would the title only reflect one sub topic..only makes sense to use the parent term. To quote the Colorado act again In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product....the act then goes on to talk about what MJ is. its clear....Cannabis is the main term that is then sub-defined by its parts (or lets say THC levels) as MJ or hemp.-- Moxy (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, I apologize. I see your point (Well, I "saw" it with difficulty! Could you please not use the tiny letters? They are hard to read for us older folk) and have struck Cannabis policy of Colorado from my "oppose" above. An article about a "policy" is different from the articles about Kansas and Maine, to which I still object. Thank you for your courtesy and patience. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments 1) As far as I could find yesterday, all legal contexts in UK and Europe refer to 'cannabis' in its various forms, resin, herbal (ie 'grass') etc. I presume they do so as 'marijuana' is a less defined term (often used here to refer to the resin only, and more of a 'street term'). So there are consistency arguments for the more formal term, plus cannabis is the main term I believe used in medical contexts. 2) A lot of argument is going on about the definition used by 1 US state, that definition exists for the purposes of that specific legislation only. So long as the article is clear that this is the term used in the legislation, and how defined by them, it doesn't have that much bearing on how WE use either. 3) This ANI is about behaviour not when/how to use either word. There are mechanisms for resolving such matters, where ALL arguments can be put, and 'I/he is right', isn't a very convincing argument. Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - For the editing habits of this user, be them right or wrong, continued disruptive editing and WP:OWN are the issues. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or Final warning. Comments here and elsewhere strongly suggest this editor is more interested in pushing an agenda than working collaboratively. Some of his science seems muddled, but that is hardly the point. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban too passionate an advocate to work collaboratively. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban User has been advocating this change since their start here. That in itself isn't a problem, but once you stop being collaborative then it's time for a ban till you can demonstrate that you will start listening to other's opinions. Valeince (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Jytdog. BMK (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing civility and ownership problems at Obergefell v. Hodges

• Obergefell v. Hodges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have an ongoing problem with WP:CIVILITY and WP:OWNERSHIP at Obergefell v. Hodges‎, a page on a vital US Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage. User Antinoos69 is bullying those who would edit an article which he has admittedly put a fair amount of work into, insulting them via the talk page and via edit summaries.

Civility

• "May I be so presumptuous as to interrupt you legal geniuses and venerable scholars long enough to present a couple sources and some brief comments?"
• "Wow. I really can't believe you are this dense and clueless. No, really."
• "your absurdity needs to stop."
• "Get over yourself." (This, I should note, was for restoring another editors MOS:LQ corrections.)

Ownership

• Calls for article to stick with his version
• Refers to attempts to edit the article to meet MOS:LQ as "trying to annoy me"
• His most recent five edits as of this posting 1 (2 3 4 5) are all undoing other users' attempts to get the article closer to guidelines MOS:LQ and WP:SEEALSO), variations from standards for which he has not only not achieved consensus, but received zero support for on the talk page.

Problems noted

• lack of civility and ownership noted by Neutrality (talk · contribs)
• ownership noted by Jonathunder (talk · contribs) (who noted them other times as well.)

I've deliberately kept the listing above to the past month, but looking at the talk page will show you that this is not a new situation; the user has called editors "ignoramus", saying "I can see you're being doggedly irrational and there's simply no talking with you", "You have clearly lost your mind and need to be stopped.", etc. The net effect is the creation of a toxic environment which discourages the involvement of other editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• More "bullying". When does rudeness or incivility or whatever become bullying? Sorry, side note I suppose, but doesn't one have to be in a position of power to be a bully? Drmies (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We could split on terminology; in physical world situations, I'd say that the willingness to use physical aggression is often what creates that power. In an online situation like this, it's the willingness to be uncivil. But if you wish to find a different term, I likely have no complaint. In any case, your attention is appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• At the very least Antinoos is guilty of edit warring, having made this edit three times in the past week. And there's fighting over a word, here and on a few more occasions. Antinoos, I'm beginning to think there is something to this. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Antinoos is clearly aware of this discussion, not just because it was on his user page, but because he responded to a mention of it on the article's talk page (with "Was I meant to be impressed?") During that time, he has engaged in substantive editing on a couple of talk pages. Seemingly, whatever is to be done here will need be done without his input. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

And, in the face of a lack of substantive response from this board, Antinoos continues to exert ownership, undoing yet another editor's attempt to make MOS:LQ corrections, in the wake of a Talk page discussion in which he's the only one advocating ignoring the LQ standards. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• I shouldn't be surprised to see there's an open case about this. Antinoos refuses to respect our consensus-based guidelines and refuses even to acknowledge the local consensus to follow those guidelines. He's still at it. I don't know about bullying, but this is canonical disruptive behavior. As Antinoos appears to see nothing wrong with his approach, administrative intervention is appropriate to return him to reality.  Rebbing  16:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• Ownership, incivility, and edit warring, stretching back months. The GA failure wasn't enough to persuade Antinoos to behave better; perhaps admin attention would. Lagrange613 19:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• I have unarchived this thread as Antinoos continues to sneak in changes to punctuation style (diff) that violate our clear consensus to follow the style guideline (which, by the way, isn't supposed to be a mere suggestion that requires a local decision on whether or not it's valid). Antinoos has characterized protests about this as "intimidation and harassment" and suggested that we "would do well to get over it."

  I'm not asking for a specific remedy here. Antinoos' behavior on the article's talk page and his explicit refusal to follow consensus make me doubt a warning would be meaningful, but I also recognize that he is here to build an encyclopedia. The problem is balancing his talent against a his refusal to cooperate with others.  Rebbing  17:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Rebbing--having looked into this again--that Antinoos's behavior is disruptive. I do not know what to do about it. Someone could block for further LQ violations, if it is clear--as it is in this case--that the article in question is no exception to the regular MOS. But it sucks to have to block a good but hardheaded editorDrmies (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Assuming anyone wants reading material: See discussions on the talk page here, here, here, here, here and the failed Good Article review - which from my reading is almost entirely down to the ownership issues of Antinoos Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm particularly concerned by Antinoos' insistence that anyone who opposes him is making the article worse. A few hours ago, he had this to say about other editors removing redundant links—topics already discussed in the prose—from our long "See also" section: "I simply cannot understand the dogged and legalistic insistence with which some editors are hellbent on making readers' lives more difficult and less enlightened." There's nothing sanctionable in that comment alone, but he's needlessly making it difficult for others to improve this article.  Rebbing  16:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• I find the picture issues regarding the 1950's courthouse particularly ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Only in death, you mean as in "why would someone edit war to keep those irrelevant pictures in"? Cause if yes, I'm with you. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I *like* pictures, but there is no situation where a picture of a courthouse from the 1950's helps a reader to understand the article on a ruling about gay marriage that happened to be made in the courthouse 60+ years later. Its completely nonsensical. The portrait gallery of the judges is bad enough - its not a biography of them. Knowing what Judge X looks like in no way helps understanding of the ruling. There would be a decent argument if for example it was a black judge writing a dissenting opinion on something race related, but that just isnt the case here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversial content added by User:Escravoes

Can any administrators take some action on this user. This user is known for his habit who like to put nonsense criticism section on every articles he interested. For example like (which have been reverted) this on Kuala Lumpur, this on Samutprakarn Crocodile Farm, this on Malaysian ringgit, Claude Shannon and this on Lawal Kaita articles. Herman Jaka (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Propose boomerang on the OP at the Kuala Lumpa article: for making offensive edit-summaries, not assuming good faith, lack of civility, etc; but mainly for his tendentious editing, effectively vadalising the article by removing sourced material (on grounds of WP:DONTLIKEIT), then making tiny edits to prevent rollback, and finally for then bringing this spurious report. Those other refs might need a touch of copy-editing, but again, they are all sourced, and in any case constitute a content dispute which is not the purpose of AN/I. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

Support boomerang per fortuna.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Replies by User:Escravoes to Herman Jaka

Which part of the content that I posted are , in your opinion, controversial, especially regarding Kuala Lumpur. Note that the points that I did posted were sourced from major websites; CNN, Huffington Post (Canada) and from several Malaysian newspapers, all of which are cited online and provided as references. Your accusations are not only baseless, but they are unfounded and reflected POV color on your part, and there were no intent of vandalisms on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escravoes (talk • contribs)

To be honest, most of the content added by you has no relevance at all as an enyclopedic content. Most of your criticism addition have been reverted not just by me but other users too who see your addition as not neutral at all. I have given example of some your edits that was reverted for the same reason above. You can ask @Chipmunkdavis: on why your content was removed. Herman Jaka (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Again I asked, (as I did with @Chipmunkdavis:) - Which part of the content that I posted are , in your opinion, controversial, especially regarding Kuala Lumpur.

Your accusation of vandalism are unfounded and baseless and reflected your partial POV, the ranking of the city are well-documented (CNN, Reuters, several local major newspapers) and directly relevant to the encylopedic content of the article, which itself listed several similar rankings!Escravoes (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editings by user:Tnguyen4321

I'm here to report following issues in the article Battle of Ia Drang:

• He's conducting disruptive editing/vandalism on the article without consensus with me and some other editors. When I raise the issue on the talk page,[30] he just keep ignoring it and continue his editing.
• I also want to explain about my use of various IPs, as it seems that some other Wikipedians have been misunderstood about this: At the beginning of the incident, I forgot to sign in, so my intentity is under IP form. Because I've already use IP for my comments on the talk page, I decide not to use my account to avoid misleading about my identification. However, what I unexpected is that each time I sign in with a device, my IP turned out to be a different one; I haven't realized this until several days ago. So my use of various IPs was totally unintentional, and in fact I've never done anything to conceal the fact that it belongs to the same person. I also regularly leave comments and explanations on the talk page about my view and editing. However, it seems that user:Tnguyen4321 is making use of this accident to slander that I'm conducting vandalism (violating WP:BULLY and WP:NPA). Theoretically, my editing with those IPs was always followed by explanations, so it hadn't even reached the threshold of the definition of WP:VANDAL.[31][32] In fact, I think user:Tnguyen4321 himself is the one who's conducting either disruptive editing or vandalism, because many of his editing came without explanation or consensus with other editors; and had the habit of regularly removing OR tags before reaching consensus[33] (example here [34]).

p/s: To avoid the further misunderstanding of my conduct as sock puppetry, I ensure that from now on this account will be my only identity that I use on the article. Please consider and sorry for the inconvenience. Dino nam (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the circumstances surrounding your socking... By means of a confession to socking. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: even without a "improper purpose"? I think that if I had used my real account by then, it would have been misleading and thus constituting socking? Dino nam (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes improper. The misleading creation of an appearance of consensus. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: OK well. By the way no one have to worry about that anymore because I don't use those IPs at least for this article; you've got my word. I think we should rather concentrate on user:Tnguyen4321's conducts then. Thanks for provide me more info about sock puppetry. Dino nam (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Dino nam is lying through his teeth! A wolf in sheep's clothing. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• OK then prove its a lie. Prove the link that I've shared above about your tag-removing habit is a lie! Dino nam (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Do I have to? It's so obvious! You underestimate other people's, especially admin's intelligence.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Zefr

I would like to file a complaint about User:Zefr. I came across him (and I'm assuming the user is a male) when I created a protein stub (and that article, is irrelevant and off topic to the complaint I'm making, just pointing out how my interaction with him began). He immediately removed the sources I provided and called them nonsensical. So I reverted it back and encouraged him to use the talk page of the stub. Granted, the two sources he removed may not have been the best sources ever, but it's a bit difficult to find peer-reviewed sources on hemp protein, and I'm using what's around. The sources in question, was one from "Hemp Line Journal" from 1992 (you can read it here or here), which I'll admit I have yet to find it published in something like pubmed, but I'm looking around for it. So I added another one, and this was actually a peer-reviewed source from a journal, and he removed it too. His reason for removing it? "Please review WP:SCIRS for sourcing and WP:REFB for how to format your references." This is not constructive collaboration, it was a totally valid source, and I'm just beginning on a stub here, I don't have time to meticulously format every source I add, but I will do it later, and he's not being constructive by removing sources, and he's removing any attempt I'm making to improve a new article, doesn't matter if the source is or isn't reliable (personally I think they were all fine sources). So anyway, all that said and explained (and again, this is actually off topic to the complaint I'm making), I decided to look into this user's editing history and so on. What I found, was that his contribution history reveals that this account's sole purpose is basically removing sources and revert warring on various articles, a lot of them nutrition based. What's worse, when other Wikipedia editors complain on his talk page (like here), he just blanks the page (example). He constantly blanks his page. Another Wikipedia member complained about his revert warring and told him not to blank his page, here, but he did so anyway. The limited experience I've had so far with him on the stub I started, was not positive. When I reverted his removal of the sources, I told him to use the talk page to reach a consensus, but he didn't bother, and instead posted on my talk page and accused me based on my user name of being biased and not neutral, instead of discussing his removal of the sources I added in the Hemp protein article. This is not collaboration, he's basically dictating that sources he doesn't like, must be removed, and if you disagree, he throws links to Wikipedia policies and dubious accusations instead of discussing what's wrong with the sources on the article's talk page. I don't know why he's not using the article's talk page to discuss disagreements and reach a consensus, perhaps he doesn't have time to do that because he's totally focused on removing sources from all kinds of articles, but this is not good collaboration. Moreover, he has actually been blocked before from what I can see, back in 2011, perhaps that's why he's constantly blanking his talk page nowadays, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure many more Wikipedia editors have been complaining about his edit warring aside from the examples I provided. So, I personally suggest a block of this user, not sure how long it should be, but he needs to cool down with this behavior. HempFan (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You really should discuss this on the talk page before bringing it here; you are basing this on a plain content dispute. Why haven't you started the talk page discussion? I'm pretty sure Zefr would have engaged there. Directing him to start it and then escalating immediately when he doesn't, isn't really the way to go about this. Make your case and if he doesn't respond, you can look to further measures. - FWIW, I agree that apart from the essential amino acid statement (which apparently got swept up in the removal), the material you added was rather far-fetched and dodgily sourced, and Zefr was correct in removing it.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I told him to use the article's talk page, but he refused. I was at first going to post on his talk page, but then I noticed it was empty. After looking through his talk page's history, it appeared he's not interested in discussing much really, he just reverts and goes into edit war mode on various articles, hence this complaint, because I'm not the only one bothered by his behavior. Again, this complaint is not about the hemp protein article (I just provided background to my complaint). Valid concerns can be made about the sources I used, sure, and I'm also sure he has removed other crappy sources in other articles, but shouldn't he use one of those "not reliable source" tags instead of just removing it altogether? In any case, his edit warring is discouraging, and he's not being helpful with collaboration, at all. I'm not trying to escalate things, I'm just saying, this seems to be a problematic user and he's constantly blanking his talk page to remove the criticism he gets from time to time. HempFan (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not in your remit to decide whether to talk to him or not; and the fact that he blanks messages is taken here to indicate that an editor has received and understood them. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been responding to him when he's been posting on my talk page, but he shouldn't be edit warring like he does (not just on the article I started). How is blanking his talk page acceptable? Other Wikipedia editors who aren't paying attention and don't have time to go through every message that was left on his talk page, may easily get the impression that this not a problematic user, because his talk page is hiding the obviously problematic editing history of this user by blanking it. HempFan (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Blanking user talk pages is acceptable because user talk pages are mostly intended for user to user communication, and so we don't require editors to keep comments around. And discussions about article content should generally be held on article talk pages. There's normally no need to discuss content on user talk pages and plenty of people prefer not to so will give only minimal attention to content related comments on their talk pages. And you shouldn't really need to tell someone to take it to the talk page. There's no reason why you can't initiate discussion. If the person completely ignores the discussion and continues to revert, perhaps a complaint about them refusing to discuss may have merit. And as always, if the editor does respond but you two can't reach WP:Consensus, there are several avenues of WP:Dispute resolution. But as it stands, the talk page of Talk:Hemp protein remains a red link, so it's going to be quite difficult for you to claim you've tried to discuss this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we please forget about the hemp protein article? I didn't bring this complaint here to get assistance against his reverts on that article, I will take it on that article's talk page. The hemp protein article isn't the issue or topic here; I just used it as an example and now everyone is clearly focusing on that article instead of Zefr. I shouldn't have brought up that article. The point here isn't the hemp protein article, the point is that his behavior is persistent all across Wikiepdia, he does the same thing on every article, obsessively and very strictly removes sources. I understand that the reliability of the source in question is important, but not everything has to be super peer-reviewed (and even that wasn't good enough for him anyway on the hemp protein article). He also just reverted my edit here, on the banana article. Last I checked, USDA.gov was a perfectly reliable source (even though, some of its nutrition content is a bit flawed from time to time, but hey, no one is perfect, right?). Someone else reverted back my edit on the banana article, and told him to take it on the talk page, and what does he do? He reverted again and described my edit as "original research". His edit was subsequently reverted by that same member, who told Zefr once again to use the talk page. Clearly, this is not a constructive Wikipedia editor. I don't care how "experienced" he is or how well he has done his homework on Wikipedia's policy pages, because he doesn't actually add anything to the articles, all he does is remove sources. That's all I've seen from his edit history, and I've gone through several pages of his contribution log. It's all the same, continuous edit warring by removing and reverting sources and other content. HempFan (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• User:HempFan per your username and the message on your Userpage and your contribs, your account is a WP:SPA (please read that essay) and you are here to advocate for cannabis. Please read WP:ADVOCACY. Please read WP:SOAPBOX. (that last one is policy). Now, when more experienced editors tell you how you are screwing up, stop what you are doing and listen to them, instead of having a cow and bringing garbage ANI cases. If you keep on the path you are on, you are going to leave Wikipedia angry or get thrown out of here. You need to try to check your advocacy at the login page and learn how to edit like a Wikipedian. OK? Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not a single purpose account, and I'm not here to promote cannabis, but my focus is hemp/cannabis, and I will mostly edit hemp related articles (I will also edit other stuff, like nutrition articles not related to cannabis, but my main area of interest right now is cannabis and I'm not really interested in editing other topics save for nutrition). I have not glorified hemp in any of my edits, so you can't say I'm promoting it. I'm also not screwing up. And why such a hostile tone anyway? I'm bringing a perfectly valid case here of a problematic member (again, disregard the background story of how me and him came across, "content dispute" is not the point; the point is that he's engaging in disruptive behavior that's really not collaborative, at all, and he's doing this on many, many articles, and many Wikipedians have been complaining on his talk page, but he keeps blanking it all the time). I suspect a bias on your part, that you're taking his side when he's obviously the one who's in the wrong here with his behavior. HempFan (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is it's difficult to see the behaviour you're referring to. As I said above, Talk:Hemp protein remains a red link. You can't complain about another editor not collaborating when you yourself have failed to do the basics. The most recently reverted comments on Zefr's talk page is this [35]. But there's no obvious problem with that since Zefr did join the discussion Talk:Banana#Storage and transport image. I see other comments from Zefr on that talk page which is a double whammy for the claim they aren't collaborating.

Most of the comments I see on Zefr's talk page before that are not the sort of thing where a reply may be necessarily. The next one I find is [36]. Responses were left on the editor's talk page User talk:Isacab0613#Coconut oil so again no problem. There are also comments (prior to this issue) at Talk:Coconut oil. So again another sign that they are collaborating.

Note as mentioned above, anyone who says their message shouldn't be deleted is likely to be the one at fault, since editors are explicitly allowed to delete the majority of messages on their talk pages. See WP:OWNTALK. Although the message you linked to didn't actually say the comment shouldn't be deleted, but simply that it would be evidence. Which is true but only to the extent that it's an indication the editor should be aware of our COI policy as they read the comment informing them. However even ignoring that, the message you linked to with a COI allegation sounds like threatening nonsense. Enforcing MEDRS compliance isn't indication of a COI.

So where you claim a problematic user who refuses to collaborate, I see a good editor who understand better than you how to collaborate and is working to keep junk out of our articles. The editors complaining seem to often have more fault.

BTW, seeing some of these comments reminds me of something I intended to mention earlier. You really need to take a read of WP:MEDRS and make sure you comply with it if you're going to add health related information. Actually you probably should read WP:RS in general since I'm not sure some of your sources will be acceptable even if there weren't medical claims being made.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Did you actually read WP:SPA? Because what you're describing sounds a lot like an SPA. Also your name and editing does strongly suggest you are promoting, whether intended or not. You did make very bold medical claims with very poor sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I only paraphrased what the study wrote, it wasn't about promotion, it's what the study said pretty much. Is there a way here to find out if certain sources are or aren't reliable enough? Because it seemed like a serious study to me, published in a journal that has been cited numerous times in various books on Google books. In any case, my complaint isn't about the Hemp protein article (I have to mention this every time now), it's about Zefr, and his behavior is in no way limited to the Hemp protein article and it's not only me who's bothered by his edit warring. And please don't accuse me of being an SPA, I'm just here to casually edit hemp articles and also some nutrition, I may expand to something else later, but right now my priority is hemp articles. My interest in hemp is its nutritional content primarily, hence the Hemp protein article. HempFan (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Instead of listening to people who have been around a long time and trying to learn, you are not listening and arguing that everything you are doing is fine and the problems are with others. This too is what advocates often do in Wikipedia. You will choose your own path. It is not leading to a happy place for you and other people's time is going to get sucked up along the way, but that is how things go here. We are just asking you to be more self-aware and take some time to learn how to edit Wikipedia better. That's all. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about copyright and referencing

The contributions of User:Rberchie is troubling and concerning. The user is not only a serial copyright violator but have also added numerous fake references to Wikipedia articles. Like user:Wikicology, they created hundreds of articles that are either unsourced or fortified with fake references. see my comment on their talk page. I followed Wikicology case from the now archived messy ANI thread to the Arbitration request. (Redacted) I discovered that User:Rberchie is part of Wiki Loves Women as a Wikipedian in residence. Having editors like Rberchie to serve as Wikipedian in residence will be counter-productive. Peter Damian and User:Mendaliv may be interested in this discussion. Idiot Guruman (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That was your ninth post??? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, it seems to be a fair question. Most of the images (except that one of him in Wikicology's his office, and that other) seem OK; but he is totally gilding his sources. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may be a fair question, but it also seems fair that Rberchie gets a chance of actually answering the questions posed. He has last been active on the 16th and the questions were all posted today (the 17th), some four to five hours ago. There's more than a small chance that Rberchie simply isn't aware of any of these questions, let alone this ANI-thread. At least one of the alleged copyright infringements on commons wasn't even uploaded by that user. All in all, way too soon and way too sloppy for WP:ANI. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not bad for a ninth post though. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest a thread title change. "Second Wikicology" is just going to get you blocked for harassing Wikicology, and probably get this thread prematurely closed as started for divisive reasons. My suggestion is that if there are copyvio images, tag them for speedy as such (or nominate for WP:PUF or a Commons DR if it's not blatant). Make a note of those images. As to the hundreds of bad articles, it might be worth taking a look. Still I agree with Kleuske that giving Rberchie a chance to respond before coming to ANI would have been a good idea. But now that we're here, well... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the thread title to the actual issues at hand. Also, Idiot Guruman, I'm offended by your smear of "hundreds of editors like Wikicology from Global South" which maligns many editors without any evidence and also verges on colonial racism. I suggest you strike that accusation. It is especially galling to see such sweeping insults from an editor with 12 edits! Did you create this account just to make this complaint? Liz 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh Christ, I didn't even process that. I've redacted that sentence as flat out inappropriate and distracting from the point of this thread. OP may merit sanctioning here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I came to this via UAA. I have no opinion on the underlying issue, but this editor who appears out of nowhere to harass a user, that's not OK and I blocked them indefinitely. DoRD, you know about this already; Mike V, you looked into one of the IPs before. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have re-opened the case, since the underlying matter has not been resolved. I have no comment on the details. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• The now-blocked OP asked a series of questions on Rberchie's talk page. the answers were ....not promising. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• For sure, Rberchie's media uploads on Commons are concerning. Some images are his own, that is not in reasonable doubt. However, here he claims that an image of the Ghanaian declaration of independence (which happened in 1957) was his own work: note the file information template says it was done in 2015. This suggests at minimum a lack of understanding of the rules on derivative works. Still, that's no worse than the incompetence demonstrated by several WMF staff who do not seem to realise that CC BY-SA requires you to attribute the authors of things you screenshot. BethNaught (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User OptimusView

In the article Kyaram Sloyan user OptimusView removes POV tag[37][38] despite there is no any consensus that the neutrality of article is OK. Discussion still ongoing on a talk. I think such edits are against WP:Disrupt. Please return the tag back and take administrative measures in relation to this user who was already warned by me, but preferred to continue removing the tag without any consensus. --Interfase (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The article represents all the points of view, including Azerbaijani accusations. Today another user even added the Azerbaijani position to the lead section and removed the POV tag as baseless. But Interfase (who was blocked twice for editwarrings [39]) adds it back claiming the article is still not neutral, he calls sources like The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Regnum, etc. yellow journalism and refuses to ask for another third-opinion comment. OptimusView (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This just might be a classic case of WP:BOOMERANG. Interfase is a topic-banned user that has been violating his topic ban for quite some time now. Consistent edit-warring and POV pushing appears to be the theme. Interfase has been edit-warring over several users at Kyaram Sloyan to maintain a POV tag ([40][41][42][43]) and there's no sense of compromise when it comes to his beliefs. He is the sole user at that article who deems it necessary to have the POV tag placed. Tiptoethrutheminefield's good faith efforts at the article to make it as neutral as possible (going as far as to place the Azerbaijani perspective in the lead) has been subjugated to constant edit-warring and reluctance by Interfase to accept the consensus against him. Some of Interfase's additions are complete POV OR and the user even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. These two particular edits ([44][45]) which I came across recently are disruptive and in complete violation of his topic ban. He did not explain about this addition on the talk page before making his revert as his topic ban requires. Above all, the claim is completely OR, and is entirely untrue and Interfase even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. This needs to stop. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Support boomerang. Rabid nationalists have no place on Wikipedia.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually there are several proArmenian users who POVpush the article with non-neutral information. Despite there is no any serious reliable sources about beheading (accusitions of Azerbaijan' army (UN member by the way) are very serious accusitions to present it as a fact replying just on media). Also I don't think that reporters of The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Regnum saw the beheading scenes themselves to reply these media. They just shared that info that was taken from social networks and shared by Armenian sources. Of course it makes them "yellow journalism". This issue was not covered by serious media (like BBC or CNN e.g.) and there is no any condemnations of Azerbaijan by serious organisation (UN e.g.). I think untill neutrality of the article is not corrected (frase such "beheaded" should be replaced with "reportedly beheaded") the "POV" tag should be in place and should not be removed by force. I will not repeat my mistake and will not make a reverts, but the neutrality of the article should be corrected. P.S. Claims that Ramil Safarov is "National hero of Azerbaijan" in entirely untrue. Web-site safarov.org is not reliable source but just some fan site. Show the text of order in official source or president's website (like this one about ordering Mubariz Ibrahimov). --Interfase (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

And how do you explain your violations of your topic bans and restrictions? --Tarage (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I already said that it was my mistake. I will not make a reverts again but initiate a discussion on a talk (both discussions on talk were initiated by me btw). But the tag should not be removed untill consensus on neutrality is reached. --Interfase (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you not under restrictions preventing you from editing in those topics? --Tarage (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not under such restrictions. I am able to edit those topics and duscuss them on a talk. --Interfase (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The full topic ban has been rescinded, but under continuing editing restrictions Interfase is required to make a talk page explanation for any revert he makes, and do it before making the actual revert. I think that just making a general post on the talk page, or initiating a discussion, or continuing an active discussion, is not really a revert edit explanation; surely the post made has to cite the actual edit that is about to be made and explain why that specific revert is needed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification for a mass use of the word "reportedly" to characterize the events covered in this article. Where opinions or statements have been expressed in only one source, such as the identification of one of the soldiers posing with the severed head, those have been described in the article using wording like "according to". However, almost all the sources are in agreement: Sloyan was killed during the conflict, his body was returned minus its head, his head was returned later, photos showing various Azerbaijani soldiers posing with the severed head of an Armenian soldier were posted online, video material of a crowd of Azeri-speaking civilians gathered around an individual who them produces a severed head from a bag was also posted online, and this severed head was that of Sloyan. The few sources that disagree are Azerbaijan-based sources (they include one official statement, supporting the lede wording that Azerbaijan has denied the incident happened). Actually there seem to be very few such Azerbaijani sources, the article has just two and Interfase has failed to provide any more. I think that the content in all of the sources cited have been expressed neutrally and accurately and in proportion. Interfase's objections really have no substance behind them, and his solution, to place the word "reportedly" in front of every item of content, cannot seriously be followed. There is not a case to be made for the article to remain pov tagged because there is not a problem that needs correcting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The information about "his body was returned minus its head, his head was returned later" seems very dubious. The body was returned with the presence of international observers from Red Cross. If it was without head, there should be some reaction or strongly condemnations of Azerbaijan, UN member. The photos and videos taken from social networks with dubious background may also be falsicicated (off-line Azeri speech as well). Neither reliable experts nor serious media paid an attention on them. All these make us not to present such kind of information as a fact but just reports and accusitions on alleged actions. --Interfase (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And in Azerbaijan people regularly carry around severed heads in plastic bags, just in case one is required for a photo shoot or a public presentation. There is no content in the article that says his body was returned with the presence of international observers from Red Cross. The speed of the burial suggests his body was recovered from the battlefield by Armenian forces as they regained territory lost during the initial assault. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, there is no any evidence that the video was taken in Azerbaijan. Secondly, Armenian side said that Sloyan's head, as they claimed, was handed over with the presence of observers from Red Cross[46]. As I said if it was really so, there would be serious sensation and condemnations of Azerbaijan by serious organisations. But we see nothing that makes us not to use that info as a fact. --Interfase (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The only organization that participated in the process of transmission, was Red Cross, which, according to the source you provided "has no right to comment publicly on the circumstances of the incidents in the course of military operations". It was a serious sensation as The Open Society Institute, The Sunday Times and others write about it. And the interim public report of the Human Right's defender (ombudsman) of NKR confirms that at the European Ombudsman Institute Official Site. OptimusView (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ombudsman of NKR is not reliable and neutral source. The article of Marianna Grigoryan in eurasianet.org also by the way. The Sunday Times' report was based on the info from social networks (dubious and not reliable as its reporters were no there). Still no any evidence of "beheading", no any serious sensation. Just claims and accusitions without real facts and consequences for Azerbaijan. So, if there is no any evidence, why should we turn our project to yellow journalism? --Interfase (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal refspam

I meant this to be added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Reference spam (I actually did add it, and had to revert myself after I realized it was an archive). @Doug Weller, Liz, SpacemanSpiff, Deli nk, DMacks, and David Eppstein: notifying those who took part in that discussion.

The original ANI complaint was about 39.37.116.188 (talk · contribs) and 119.158.13.23 (talk · contribs), but many more IPs have been involved—all, I believe, used by one editor.

Several of these IPs were reported at SPI, but I think it's clear that he's not any kind of sock; he's just editing Wikipedia anonymously, with each session a different IP. He may be hopping IPs to stay below the radar, but I have no way to know that.

I put together a table of his history, as far as I've found it. I was going take it to WP:Spam, but here seems more appropriate, and might get more eyes and skills into deciding what to do.

I've been checking every edit, meaning to hit them all eventually, working forward in time. I've been able to work through the first four IPs, but I have spot-checked all of the rest. During the hours and days I've spent looking at his edits, this is what I've found:

• Each IP has edits for one date, sometimes two.
• EVERY SINGLE EDIT has to do with a citation to a reference by Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal; usually adding it, sometimes reformatting slightly, or updating a doi, or replacing his thesis with a published article.
• Except for one account, there is very, very little else (text or whatever) added to the articles edited. That one account is the oldest and has the longest history, though there's no way of knowing if it's the same person. Likely not.
• I have found ONE edit that was not his that cited one of his articles.
• Each editing session gives the appearance of looking for articles that might have anything to do with one of his subjects of "expertise" and planting citations in any spot that looks even slightly likely. (I'm aware this view is definitely not AGF.)
• Many of the citations are to articles he's written in encyclopedias while he was still in graduate school.
• The books are mostly(?) published by Mellen Press, which apparently has a reputation of being an academic vanity press.
• He is very patient and persistent, often re-adding a ref a few days or weeks after it's been reverted or removed.
• He has been spamming like this since at least March 2013.
• The total count of these edits is 627.

I think all his refs should be deleted; he should not be rewarded in any way for this behavior. I have no idea what else could be done to stop him. He hasn't replied to the few times he's been warned. — Gorthian (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TParis you were asking at WT:COI the other day about WP:SELFCITE. Here at ANI there is this case, and there is one above that was just closed with a community site-ban. Academics refspam pretty regularly, cause disruption doing it, and folks find it... upsetting. I am not sure what to do with the kind of dedicated longterm spamming described here. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't just simple refspam, e.g. the grad student / now post doc is a contributor to this book but they have used it and added their name as a reference here where the problem is that the person is NOT a contributing author to that referred section. I came to this a second time courtesy of RegentsPark who started this discussion on my talk page, and it was then that I found out that DVdm, Oshwah, and Ogress among others were already spending their time cleaning up this mess. This has happened for over three years, longer than the average lifecycle of a Wikipedia editor and it's wasting the time of many. Owing to the single minded devotion of the IPs, an edit filter is probably required to prevent further disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a good candidate for an edit filter. — Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, preferably a smart one, as there's 4276 ways to come up with variations of the name. - DVdm (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This sounds similar (although different subject matter) to the persistent efforts of Krantmlverma (talk · contribs), who was eventually indef'd or some such across multiple projects. Dvdm is correct re: the spelling issue - Indic articles are routinely manipulated by persistent abusers who adopt alternate spellings to continue pushing their agenda. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it definitely te case that an edit filter won't help? Doug Weller talk 14:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. This stuff will end up flowing back into Wikipedia indirectly. For example this book on Azerbaijan uses Mughal as a reference but that's because they've lifted it from our Azerbaijan article. Someone else will cite Mughal indirectly through this book and, before you know it, we're going to be indirectly citing him as well. He's using Wikipedia to get his citation count up. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Until the capable folk who write edit filters do something I can block the IPs as they show up (which itself seems to be difficult to track). Or maybe someone could train Cluebot to revert this stuff as it shows up. —SpacemanSpiff 16:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@DVdm: I doubt very much whether this guy would ever deliberately misspell, or even shorten, his name. If I understand edit filters correctly, it seems a good filter would be an effective solution. — Gorthian (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

A good filter, yes, probably. - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm still finding more, and updating the table here (the edit count is now 734). Feel free to edit it for any more IPs you find, or to mark a set of edits checked. At least one editor has been using it to track down articles to clean out. I'm really grateful to all of you who have been helping! — Gorthian (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Page moves by Athishjenith

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

The user Athishjenith recently moved his user and user talk page, which should not have been done. An administrator should move Wikipedia:Athish Jenith to User:Athishjenith and Wikipedia talk:Athish Jenith to User talk:Athishjenith, suppressing redirects by unchecking the "Leave a redirect behind" box. Also, the same administrator should delete Wikipedia:K.M.Ravi Chandran, Wikipedia talk:K.M.Ravi Chandran, Athish Jenith, Talk:Athish Jenith, and User:Athish Jenith. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? Seen; multi-redirects. Suggest block of substantial if not indefinite duration, as this seems to be part of a campaign to have his autobiography in article space, which had previously resulted in a block. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 02:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the user talk page back to its correct location and deleted the redirects and advised the user not to attempt any more page moves. — Diannaa (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a replay of the user's 2012 actions, presumably in the hope that it'll escape notice now. (Good job catching it, GeoffreyT2000.) Athish jenith was creation protected already in 2012, and he also repeatedly moved his userpage there in 2012, see the contribs. Admins can also see his deleted contribs, a rather longer list. I've creation protected a couple more of the versions he has created of his bio, AthishJenith and Athish Jenith. I really don't think he's here for any other purpose, or will be impressed by advice now, Diannaa, since he was blocked for 72 hours for these moves etc in 2012 and wasn't impressed by that. Time for indef, surely. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC).

Support indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts

• Angelgotti5 (talk · contribs)
• Da1988347 (talk · contribs)
• Dannyhrgl (talk · contribs)

Can a check-user take a look into a possible link between these accounts. IP's cannot open SPI cases (so I had to file it here...). These accounts were created less than a half-hour apart from one another, and they all have edited the same page with similar editing patters. Thanks. 172.58.41.35 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

But Da1988347 and Angelgotti5 don't have the same editing pattern on John A. Gotti, on the contrary. 172, possibly you misread Da1988347's long edit summary here: they're actually removing the unsourced claim that Gotti helped the FBI. A little later, the pro-Gotti editor Angelgotti5, who claims to be Gotti's sister,[47] reinstates the statement about helping the FBI, as well as removes a lot of negative information. And while Dannyhrgl also removed negative stuff, their single edit isn't much in the style of Angelgotti5. So I don't really see any of them as related. Bishonen | talk 05:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC).

And the user Dannyhrgl, whilst perhaps being overly fond of his caps-lock, has made one edit, about nothing that touched on the edits of the other two (that is, nicknames). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 05:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Alleged Soapboxing VS Gatekeeping: Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking

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

---

CYBERBULLYING AND CYBERSTALKING

I am disturbed at the prospect that Wikipedia would provide users with the tools to track other users across pages, no matter how experienced or trusted or how respected within the in crowd of wikipedians. If this is the case, then this is a policy that enables cyberbullying and cyberstalking.

On the Glycemic index page, User:Grayfell arrived, assessed my wording and the veracity of my cited sources and reverted my edit within 1 minute of it being posted. Grayfell's edit comment on the Glycemic index: Revision history reads, "Edit warring, overly promotional wording, one of those sources is far, far too spammy to be usable." Previously, I had heard of edit warring but I am not familiar with how an edit war is conducted. Citing it as an excuse to justify a revert is alarming.

I am not interested in playing silly games with other wikipedia users.

Yet warring with other users appears to be Grayfell's goal. I had previously noted, he has been engaging in this activity for over 18 months. The very next section on Grayfell's Talk below where I advised him of this post is titled Michael Wiseman. It too is telling. The thrust and counter thrust of blocking and reverting each others work might be fun for dedicated users but I have no interest in it. I feel that as users involved continue to seek out new targets to keep themselves entertained, a dangerous atmosphere that promotes cyberbullying and cyberstalking will inevitably develop. At 23:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)User:WriterWithNoName says

“Why not use your magical powers to suspend my account?”.

My answer is simple, grayfell is playing a game and WriterWithNoName is just another playtoy victim.

I have now looked at Grayfell's user page and found that he does have a connection with multi-level marketing and Utah as I suspected. Whether Grayfell has an existing negative association with the Usana company, the supplements industry, multi-level marketing, the state of Utah or whether he is so deeply attached to his edits that he cannot tolerate changes being made by others or whether he has become too wrapped up in the world of wikipeadia that he needs to revert other users edits to get some kind of satisfaction, he clearly has demonstrated a personal vested interest in his dealings with me. This interest has obscured his ability to maintain a detached impartiality in his dealings with the Usana page or with me. Furthermore, his comments have become personal as they have addressed me directly.

I fear that Grayfell has spent too long in the wikipedia culture without a compass. I expect he has lost sight of the fact that wikipedia was established as a source of information for the benefit of humanity. This is an unrestricted resource that children use. If grayfell wants to play games, then perhaps a massively multiplayer online role-playing game would be a more appropriate pursuit. Having him and others of his ilk preying unidentified users is a recipe for disaster.

It is time for grayfell to be blocked and leave the wikipedia community. He needs to take a better look at the world outside.

ORIGINAL POST TO THIS PAGE STARTS HERE:

Alleged Soapboxing VS Gatekeeping on the Usana Health Sciences page over the past 18 months

I would like Administrator intervention because I don't understand what have I done to justify a revert let alone threats of blocking? Furthermore, I reiterate my request of 5 May 2016 that Grayfell be blocked from editing the Usana Health Sciences page and if he is found to have engaged in anything more serious I ask that he be blocked entirely.

I am not the first user to have difficulty with Grayfell while editing the Usana Health Sciences page. Over the last 18 months, Grayfell has reverted every significant revision and I note that many of those users no longer appear active, so perhaps you could look into whether they have been erroneously blocked.

ON THIS OCCASION:

Grayfell asked for more context about the TGA. He deleted the context I originally provided, so I provided an alternative from multiple sources both primary and secondary. (The government agency itself and a journal article about the government agency. Surely a government regulator is a viable source but I provided the other source as well.)

I provided more material, up to date material from sources that were already listed on the page. (I went to the ConsumerLab website and found a 2016 survey the results of which I added with the 2011 materials.)

I deleted a report by a non-scientifically trained journalist (yes, I have looked up his bio on the Time website) who is the author, experimenter & only test subject of his own non-clinical non-peer reviewed trial because that report has the encyclopedic veracity of a unicorn.

I added a reference to the GI symbol program and outlined its veracity. In particular that it is a not-for-profit foundation run by the University of Sydney and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. (In my original edit, I also included data from their testing.)

I also added similar details to the Glycemic Index page and elevated the GI Symbol Program to it's own section (given that it is a widely accepted Australian and now international standardised testing procedure). Rather than just revert the page, on this occasion, the entire section on the GI symbol has been removed by Grayfell.

Previously he has cited comments that cast individuals in an unreasonably positive light and reverted any changes that provide an opposing point of view. Grayfell has cited an article titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" to say that Minkow is a fruad-buster and pastor, even though the theme of the article makes the point that he is in fact a serial-swindler. The article establishes a long standing pattern of deception and distortion against companies over the decade in question. Grayfell only deleted this reference when this hypocrisy was pointed out on a post 5 May 2016.

WHEN IS SOUND JUDGEMENT OBSCURED BY VESTED INTEREST If we look at the edits made on the Glycemic index: Revision history, Grayfell would have barely had time to read the changes made to the page that I edited, let alone determine if the sources I provided are reputable in the one minute between my post and his revert. Grayfell stated on his talk page, "The edits to Glycemic index were sourced to the main gisymbol.com page (which doesn't discuss the symbol and is a primary source) and totalwellbeingdiet.com, which appears to be pure spam. " The gisymbol.com page is the non-profit health promotion foundation established by the University of Sydney, Diabetes Australia and JDRF Australia (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation). This is a reputable source. The totalwellbeingdiet.com is a program run by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which is the peak research body in Australia. This too is a reputable source. Both of these would have been obvious and easy to confirm if Grayfell was acting with detached professionalism. Yet he was getting personal.

The article by John Cloud is about a non-clinical, non-peer reviewed trial with a sample size of one conducted by a non-scientifically trained journalist who is the author, experimenter & only test subject of this trial. As such he is the primary source, who has a financial interest in writing stories that engage readers on behalf of his employer who has a financial interest in publishing such stories. The article would make for a good movie along the lines of "Supersize Me" or "That Sugar Film" however it has no encyclopedic value.

According to guidelines as demonstrated by Grayfell's edits and edit comments, it is a primary source and primary sources are completely inappropriate as can be seen by his deletions and comments. Therefore by Grayfell's rationale references to the John Cloud article is also completely inappropriate. Yet, over the past 18 months, Grayfell has chosen to retain this article and has consistantly reverted attempts by myself and others to delete it or edit it to highlight its less than encylopedic nature.

MY VIEW: Granted, I may not have adhered to policy all of the time. (My interactions with Grayfell have made me aware of many policy areas I had never even considered might be relevant to my edits.) However, I have not acted vindictively or with malice. I have simply tried to expand the available knowledge base. I have always tried to delete elements that have limited veracity. Where unsubstantiated opinion has been offered, I have tried to provide an alternate point of view. I have listed things, because lists simplify understanding and seem to abound on Wikipedia.

I expect that this has become something personal for Grayfell. Stalking me around on other pages and deleting my work is not exactly impartial, particularly when my last edit was a simple edit to the Glycemic Index page. I feel that Grayfell has educated himself in the rules and procedures and placed himself in a position where he can erroneously revert any change made to the Usana page. It makes wonder if other users have experienced this problem in the past. It also makes me wonder what personal connection he has with Usana, supplements and the state of Utah. Perhaps a review of his edit history might shed some light on that.

CONCLUSION: I would like a sockpuppet check of the following user IP addresses: 172.58.41.35 and 113.172.26.48 in association with Grayfell. I would like Grayfell blocked from the USANA Health Sciences page if not Wikipedia as a whole. I will be notifying Grayfell of this post via his talk page.

Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry.

Kind regards 122.148.118.18

PREVIOUSLY ON 5 MAY I WROTE: As both an informational and financial contributor I understand how important it is that this source be open and free. I understand that it is not possible to employ vast numbers of editors to fix problems and that it is necessary to have well meaning, community minded individuals to volunteer their time to make Wikipedia great. I acknowledge that I have made errors at times and am grateful that we have a wonderful community who have quickly picked them up.

Sadly, from time to time it becomes apparent that one of these users has their own cause to pursue: in particular, highly regarded User:Grayfell and his interest in the USANA Health Sciences page.

Since December 2014 User:Grayfell has consistently reverted changes made by various users. User:Grayfell has cited things such as "Previous version was more in line with WP:NPOV. Removing bit about sports certification, which would need WP:SECONDARY sources." "WP:NPOV" "Trivial. Needs more than just PR to be worth mentioning." and "What exactly does that have to do with USANA?" to justify these changes. These have resulted in responses such as "Opinions are not facts. If you are going to post opinion, post opposing opinion also."

Of particular note, User:Grayfell has cited an article by Fortune [Forbes] titled "Barry Minkow: All-American con man" (at 01:55, 5 December 2014). User:Grayfell has cited this article to reference that Minkow was a senior pastor at the Community Bible Church and executive of the Fraud Discovery Institute (FDI). (Without reading the title of the cite, one would assume from this that Minkow is a respectable individual.) Yet attempts to cite the same article to give an opposing point of view about Minkow are reverted. For example: The opening line of the article describes him as "entrepreneur, fraud fighter, pastor, movie actor – and serial swindler." The story goes on to say that Minkow has been convicted of embezzling $3 million from the above mentioned church and of using his position at the FDI to make false statements.

I suspect User:Grayfell has also incorrectly cited a story by "La Fracture" (http://ici.radio-canada.ca/emissions/la_facture/2008-2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=75158). However my French is not good enough to be sure of this.

And then there was the "possible vandalism" by 113.172.26.48, a Mobile edit / Mobile web edit. This simply added "Which don't work" to the end of the product description. Perhaps just a coincidence that it should occur so soon after my revision.

I respectfully request that a review of the USANA Health Sciences page and its edit history be undertaken. I further suggest that User:Grayfell be blocked from making further edits to the page.

I will also be forwarding a copy of this to USANA for their information. Given that Wikipedia is the world's top online encyclopedia, I expect that USANA will be keen to see a fair and neutral point of view adopted for their entry.

Kind regards 122.148.118.18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Who's going to close this one? Awful report. Doc talk 06:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconded.

As someone recently said, "Holy wall of text Batman!" Which was funny.

Unlike this report.

Actually, on a re-read, that closing paragraph has a possibly threatening undertone...?

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The relevant article is at USANA Health Sciences. USANA has no direct control over their article, and forwarding it to them will probably do little more than confuse someone in their office for a few minutes. Beyond that, this is a content dispute. I agree, there's a bit of menace in that last paragraph, but not a legal threat as such. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"A bit of menace;" just so. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by User:Richard allokendek

• The editor replaced Ghoul with a phrase in a foreign language [48].
• He moved Kema to Kema Districts, but there are no such districts, it's a district. Compare Kauditan, corrected by other editors, but not understood by the author. His texts should probably be verified before publishing.Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Batu (village), Kokoleh I - disasters rather than pages. Kokoleh I used to be removed and recreated.Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• over-wrote a redirect to redirect to a page he was creating. Appears not to have adequate English language skills to be a useful editor here: doesn't seem to know difference between singular and plural nouns. PamD 07:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, agree with Xx236 that they're disasters rather than pages. I just tagged the near incomprehensible Batu (village) for cleanup. Sample sentence: "Batus original name is Wadli Itang named by dotu ruruwares came from tikala ares 1378 years old, wife ruruwares a name pingkan, she a first tread wadli itang." Google translate, I presume. It's far worse now than when it was just a stub (and was tagged for speedy). If we ever block editors for not knowing English, now is the time. But I'll hold off blocking until I see if PamD's warning has any effect. (Though I'm not sure they know they have a talkpage. I seem to be saying this all over ANI, but it's a fact that new users don't necessarily know. If you think it's intuitive, no, it only becomes so with habit.) Bishonen | talk 08:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC).

The phrase he replaced "Ghoul" with appears to be an Indonesean language. It translated to "ghoul is a monster or evil spirit in Arabian mythology". His English appears to be sub-par, I'm pinging Aldnonymous on Meta as he shows up in the Embassy list as an Indonesean speaker, he's also an admin on the Indonesean Wikipedia and might recognize this user , based on interest and writing from his Wikipedia . KoshVorlon 15:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

IP Hopper on Social work

Does this constitute a legal threat? Regardless, user is part of a range of IP that have been disruptive on the talk for quite a while. For example, I have warned them previously against editing others comments, which they have continued to do, after a long hiatus and pinky promising not to. They seem intent on wasting the time of all involved, in addition to general disruption and vandalism.

Previous posts here have accomplished nothing ([49], [50], [51]). So...if something could be done that would be super. TimothyJosephWood 10:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• On the surface, there certainly is a problem but I'm out the door. I don't know that range blocks would work, it covers a few ranges. It may require protection on the talk pages and affected articles. It is an inconvenience to other IPs, but before doing it, someone would need to look at it how much of an inconvenience and maybe a subpage for IPs, plus a month worth of semiprotection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand the ip is continuing to vandalize the talk page in a "I wish I had rollback" kindof way. Can someone at least semi? TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the protection log, this problem has continued for a long time. I've applied two months of semiprotection. If another admin believes that any meaningful negotiation is possible with the IP, they can modify or remove the semi. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: @Dennis Brown: Kindly check:[52] this [53], [54] was an attempt to solve issues following Timothyjosephwood example:[55] base on this info:Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed. To see the other side of this others have to look into:[56] and see:[57], [58]...etc. Above all I am not very wiki-savvy so only found this now. The previous ANI is also a conspire using similar deceptive tactics by other editors and most probable this is an off wiki tag team attack (judging by similarity in actions). Other requests of privileges are for misuse of similar nature. Deletion of disruptive content that intents to attack others or shows characteristics of manipulative and maladaptive practice could be deleted this was confirmed by administrators. So this actions were taken:[59], [60]. Instituting a range block is an attack to certain region specific editors, these sort of requests should be seen as hostility rather than in good faith plus there is no pinky promise with disruptive and mal-intent editors or the editor has to show this statement. This is a wasting of time of all involved when editor who contested for this block is not open for discussions and chooses other means. Calling any editor a vandal is strictly prohibited in the article talk page still Timothyjosephwood intends to claim WP:IDHT when details are explicit in the article: [61] about the changes made and reasoning. I request all the editors involved in this ANI Notice to check whether there are any disruptions on the basis of the information seen on this comment and links provided or a through investigation (if time allows). I hope everyone included in this will consider the ip and the registered editor in equal weight and judgement will only be based on the actions of these editors.59.89.239.32 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So yeah, this is pretty much the MO of the user. Long winded diatribes that don't really boil down to much. Perfectly able to cite multiple diffs as well as WP policy, but "oh please don't bite I'm new". Refusing to register an account while advancing an argument that any IP edit, no matter how obviously related, was someone else. They at one point got Diannaa to unprotected the page arguing that the disruptive edits were from a conference they were at (a conference of people in Kerala editing a single WP page?).

But the page for the past few months has just been a series of protections. Not sure what a more permanent solution is given the ranges of the IPs, but I have good confidence that a month semi is just going to see us back here in June. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay dear, let others please read the statement and reply they don't need your interpretations, do they now. They are also able to think and see for what it is. citing multiple diffs is a recent skill i found. But your claim that all ips are one is a bit obtuse. Dont attack users like Diannaa for your ends and yes the page social work was edited when irregularities where cited in a conference with the lead section and further viewing the talk page only confirmed those actions, I was there. Above all you are the one who has initiated this block using manipulated evidence any blind can see this fact.

• Attempt to resolve certain issues based on Any contributions should focus on how to improve the article and consensus should be respected. Off-topic comments that do not discuss how to improve the article are likely to be removed:[62], this was done when redaction was not possible.
• Attempt to resolve rv game by following your example: [63]
• Two time rv attempt by you, one:[64]
• Talk initiated to solve the issue if your actions where based on policy: [65]
• Deceptive move by you to ascertain authority or your position: [66] and [67] and this done while we were talking and you didn't inform for giving a say when i was active:[68].
• Resultant block from misunderstanding and your abuse of good faith by trying to glory hog and seek favors of privileges: [69]

If checked every other blocks might also have certain history of deceptive tacts and this might be the MO used for the protections. Answer your actions and abuse of privileges, then we can talk about wonders of the world. I am certain if this sort of malpractice isn't stopped we will be seeing back here, if notified in the talk page. Either me(most probably) or others will be there to reduce disruptions.59.89.239.32 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have made significant investments in the rope industry, and stand to gain financially from this thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, what is rope industry (https://www.google.be/#q=rope+industry%2Bwikipedia%2Bpolicy), I don't see anything if it is related to the policy. But may i note one thing if Timothyjosephwood is implying from gain and from this thread for winning the consensus of other editors involved: If the actions are not of an responsible editor then warning to not disrupt and notification on the user's page of the editor's actions for the see of other editors before handing privileges is enough. Thank you.

Note:This is not forum shopping, this is just empathy for the other editor.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a tongue-in-cheek reference to WP:ROPE. TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Good-one, :D 117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@59.89.239.32: You need to back off. You are working yourself into a position that could end up in a block. Take your next step very carefully. --TJH2018talk 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you for the threatening your actions are clear as the sky is blue. Others see FIMs talk page and [70]

For anyone in any doubt as to the extent of WP:SHOPPING going on here, please see my talk page (not countining the repeated attempts to take Timothy Joseph to AN3. This is getting mildly surreal. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Imperatrix Mundi, we were talking about your actions in removal of AN3 I added and it is similar to that of Timothy Joseph added and you were clear you don't want to talk about it:[71] so which is surreal. After Floquenbeam statement:[72] I am not going to involve with you same courtesy would be followed by you I hope.59.89.239.32 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@59.89.239.32 Refactoring other's comments again, I see. Perhaps a minor move, but you have been through this repeatedly, so why won't you leave other's comments alone? Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Our Kerala friend has been asked not to comment on several user's talk pages, sometimes does so anyway Diannaa example. wp:Editor integrity is applicable on many points. The IP has alienated a number of editors and seems convinced that it is their fault and not his.

Is there a way to do a range block combined with a set of articles? i.e. IPs geolocating to Kerala, India and articles relating to social work?

Barring this, can this Kerala, India IP be declared WP:NOTHERE and edits rolled back per WP:DENY without comment? All of this has been a great waste of time and frustration. Jim1138 (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of racism Friendly Talk Jim1138 (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Kerala is way, way too broad - it's a city of more than 33 million people. That'd be like range-blocking Canada. AusLondonder (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Now there's an idea 😉 _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I do recall a recent suggestion to range block Australia. TimothyJosephWood 10:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that Kerala is too large, and Kerala *AND* social work related articles is probably not implemented. Perhaps range blocking Pathanamthitta, Kerala, India. Population 37,538. As the IP's edits often geolocate (~75%) to Pathanamthitta, blocking that range might alleviate some of the problem. Jim1138 (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

THIS COMMENT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE RAISED AGAINST TIMOTHY.It is an reply to Jim's non-relevant ANI comment. Jim1138 actions are like a wolf in sheep's clothing their intent is very clear, I normally wp:deny his case. Maybe for some its easy to look through this edit and identify which is which, i am not so-it becomes a bit confusing when answering; the comments are only given spaces to answer them clearly so where does refactoring comes in or is it an excuse to somehow pin down the ip editor. Reading Diannaa's comment states "I should have read your post more closely." from the editor itself and the conversation seems to end with civility and integrity.- so what is this soul trying to pin is unclear. There is an another ANI going on to topic ban this editor who seem to have unreal convictions about social work and engage in subsequent disruptive actions which clearly indicates WP:NOTHERE. I don't know why racism is mentioned in this[73] Racism:Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person's social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. and the actions seems to show clearly when the editor asks to initiate a wiki-ban for Kerala is from a sense of superiority and considering others as inferior and the definition might extend to the rest of the part only jim1138 and the other editor knows what transpired there. But the definition seems to fit in some places very well and this is an antisocial behavior. I myself ask others insight when i am not sure - this is to learn, understand and collaborate if possible, and it is a positive learning behavior. This doesn't warrant for wp:deny, it warrants when edits have reached to a level of absurdity as the editor have displayed in the social work article.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is also a thing: making inappropriate comments and then disparaging their own inappropriate comments as being from someone else. Doesn't pass the duck test...i.e. another random IP from a different person engaging in discussion on user talks related to disruption on Social work.

I wasn't a part of this when it originally started, so I can't speak to that, but for my part I put a bit of effort into assuming good faith. If you are being blamed for others' disruption, register an account and clear up the whole issue, voila. This has been suggested a dozen or more times. Their persistent refusal to do something so easy says to me either 1) they are avoiding registration purposefully to sew confusion, and/or 2) they are a previously blocked user and expect their account would be quickly blocked as evasionary. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

May I say that I partially concur with the Jim's nature to that of a racist and I guess it would might be right and why I too feel is explained in that comment. I am seeing blocks initiated in admin action page along with your request most of them were right like for deleting entire pages and adding silly words. injecting names in between the articles...etc. Most of this is done in a second. Mostly this also seems by having good faith with the editor who requests them, this is the loop hole you used. When such practice is present how can someone who witness' this register. But if you ask directly your question about the edits i would say it is mine or it is not. But is this the problem over social work page.-No. What is your comment on recent irrelevant shrine upgrading in the talk page. See my edit:[74] would have stopped this childish play. If your intentions were to solve the issue and not to express your dislike to ip editors work, this wouldn't have happened. Good luck and please don't drag the real talk to something-else to distract other editors.61.0.77.81 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well timothy's abusive actions seems to flyover with co-conspiring editors discussion for block.(probably a witch hunt) I hope the work here is clearly seen by other skilled editors. If timothy's actions are considered as a good practice those in the higher ranks please inform and with a patient valid reasoning, so that i may move on with understanding to other issues. If not, move with what should be done. By looking at the protection blocks don't be misguided those were initiated by abuse of good faith with the blocking editors.-But they did solve the indifference and hostility of all the other involved registered editors. Going through the both sides the issue is clearly seen. Even you can see the new player FIM who doesnt have anything to do with this page injects themselves to avenge because earlier my ip wasnt blocked and this made the editor possibly uncomfortable and there seems similar sort of history with others claims, the problem is not with edits or the actions but origin of edits and wiki-status as an ip-editor- this is what the registered editors are communicating in one way or other. In my viewpoint this is clear violation to what wikipedia stands for and for the same I try to fend-off this disruptive editors.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

One may think the abuse ends here see the history and unobstructed griefer behaviors:[75] now you know the intention behind the block.117.248.62.212 (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me. Are we meant to believe that these two tag teaming IPs (User:117.248.62.212 and User:61.0.77.81) are actually different people?! Unbelievable. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty funny. It seems like these two may have previous WP experience...I wonder...TJH2018talk 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler, we've found the first documented case of Dissociative identity disorder Wikipedia editing. They are the same person, but they aren't. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Consistent incivility by user Vormeph

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

---

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

User @Vormeph: has been consistently disrespectful to other users, with a history (over the last two months) of edit warring, WP:NPA, POV-pushing and failing to get the point. He has been warned, blocked, etc. several times, at some point listing a "naughty list" of other editors (disclaimer: including myself) on his user page, which was forcibly removed by an admin.

Offensive behavior:

• "UCaetano is Iranian himself (it says so on his userpage) so he naturally has a bias towards Iran and his argument that Iran and Persia are used interchangeably. For argument's sake, he needs to terminate his bias and execute the actions of the majority faithfully lest he be discredited as being a worthy diplomat" here
• "Just a few more steps and you'll come to your senses with reality." here
• "When are you going to come out of your shell and realise that a bit of UV light won't harm ya?" here
• "His comments borderline on trolling, therefore I've resorted to blanking him until he appeals to reason.", " It may have been in your hay days, but no longer. If you cannot grasp this reality, then burying your head underground as the world goes by is your only option I'm afraid. If need be, I can provide a shovel free of charge at your disposal." here
• "Unfortunately, such editors are nationalists and have abused the concept of consensus to advance their interests. It is a growing worry that editors such as @Rwenonah:, @LjL: have become swayed over this." here
• His previous "naughty list" on his user page, removed by @KrakatoaKatie:
• Other editors who have been subject of his WP:NPA attacks: @LouisAragon:, @McGeddon:, @Aidepikiwnirotide:

Before his current wave of offensive behavior, he previously called other editors eunuchs, told them to bend over, for which he was blocked. This isn't a single occurrence, this is consistent incivility despite multiple warning and blocks. Here's my latest warning to him, which he just removed shortly after. He's been brought up here multiple times as well. This is besides the consistent POV-pushing over several months in Talk:Iran, which I won't go over. Please take a careful look at this situation. Thanks. UCaetano (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@UCaetano: You must love me so much to the degree that you'd follow whatever I do on Wikipedia. If you would like to go on a date some time, then I suggest good conscience and perhaps some more from you than posterior poking. Vormeph (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That's enough – not going to put up with comments like this one. Blocked one month for NPA and harassment. Katie^talk 12:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You beat me to it! I've removed personal attacks from their user page and warned that they'll face an indef block if I see such attacks again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your swift action. Best, UCaetano (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• ...and since he took it upon himself to threaten retaliation on his talk page, I increased his block to indefinite and revoked both email and talk page access. Katie^talk 14:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Constant additions of unsourced content

Reporting Qaz102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for constant additions of unsourced fan-based content after multiple reverts over several days, and after being told to discuss it on the talk page, which they have not. The added content is [76], and the reverts are [77], [78], [79], [80], listed at The Doctor (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they haven't repeated it since their final warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The final warning was added after their last revert, which was only an hour ago. As mentioned, this has been going on over the past few days. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I take that back. They added it again, this time with further unsourced fan-based content [81]. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, 24-hour block issued for edit warring to insert OR. Will escalate if it continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:HeroChaos

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

---

Please have a look at this user page. Particularly administrators. But be careful, he'll take you to ArbCom just for lookin' at him. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, see this template he seems to have created, and already used once at Moxy's page. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they also edited as 146.0.229.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per the continuing of this thread -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers User:Samtar. God only knows how come he's still here! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a single edit to the encyclopedia, and he's definitely earned the NOTHERE block I just gave him. It's my day, I guess. Katie^talk 13:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, in this life, we get the vandals we deserve eh _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Bomb Threat to Wikipedia

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

---

[82] contains a threat to blow up Wikipedia headquarters. This was issued by a school IP address, contains a grammatical mistake, and does not appear credible. I have emailed emergency@wikimedia.org as per Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm to ensure they are aware of the threat. They have acknowledged receipt. I believe no further action is required. --Yamla (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems that someone suppressed the revision in which the unblock request that contained the threat was made, but they did not redact it from or suppress the subsequent revision containing the declined unblock request - and so it was still there in the latest revision for all to see. I've now redacted the threat and have rev-deleted the revision containing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Some1asks

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

---

Blocked by User:Yamla, is now threatening to sock. can someone please revoke T/P access please; I gently advised him as to undesirability of his actions but WP:NOTHERE at all, any more. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats, too. Can someone swing the banhammer, please? Kleuske (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Bbb23. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

new sock - Mum Bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 87.112.150.22 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked by Mike V. --Yamla (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

"originally now residing in from of the U.S. state of "

Might not be the place for this, but can't think where else to put it.

An anon, trying to help has added the phrase "originally now residing in from of the U.S. state of " in front the state of birth of various US public figures through many of the "XXXX in the United States" articles... quite some time ago. Unpicking this will take ages. Are there automated tools that can do it? Or some special wand someone can wave that I don't know about? Trey Maturin (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we can use mass rollback, but we need the IP. ;-) Katie^talk 16:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If the IP is dynamic, what happens to the edits made under it before that particular individual operated it, and likewise, what about if he moved on to another address (which I'm guessing he probably did, as on one IP his edits stop in November 2015)? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So I happened to be bored enough to go back and check through and I found this problem all the way back in the early 1800's and leading up to the late 1990's at least. I didn't check each and every year but I checked a pretty strong sampling maybe thirty or so. (Yeah it's a slow day at work.) The IP does appear to be dynamic so I don't know if there's an easy fix for it. Jlahnum (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed 21 instancs of this, and no new ones are showing up in a search, so perhaps they're all gone now? BMK (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed 16 instances. Hopefully, that's all! --Tribe of Tiger (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I also removed several instances (manually; not sure how many, count went I started was 102). Pretty sure they're all gone now. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So, there are more. Do a search on "originally now residing" and they'll come up. BMK (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible error in Wikipedia

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

---

please verify: Illustris project This page displays different content in ""overview"" section than available in edit form and also it violates NPOV (it advocates creationist pov).--Asterixf2 (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

How does it advocate that? I suggest it does no such thing (it wouldn't even mention the Big Bang if it did!). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It did, because of template vandalism, but doesn't anymore. Thanks for the report, User:Asterixf2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah it had already been removed. See what you mean. Nice one. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Alert! There's a possible error in Wikipedia! EEng 07:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Questionable editing?

The editor Robsinden appears to be removing relevant content from navboxes and articles. From navboxes, text that is pertinent, but not in redlink form is being removed. For examples, please see:

• Template:Are You Being Served?
• Template:Chris Rea
• Dave Early

I've notified user that redlinks are permissible as stated in Wikipedia:EXISTING. That policy states, "Red links can be retained in navigation templates". Would like opinions of admins. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you show us the discussions you've had with the user in question regarding this issue? Can you also show us prior attempts at dispute resolution such as an RFC or other method of bringing in outside voices? --Jayron32 17:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I've left posts at two article talk pages. However, in reviewing other edits by the user I wasn't sure if they warrant attention by an administrator. The two talk pages are:

• Template talk:Sade in section Removing red links from template
• Template talk:Civil Rights Memorial in section Civil Rights Memorial

In regards to using RFC or other voices, I posted this for a cursory review of edits of user on several or more articles or templates. Not one or two particular articles or templates. Thanks for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Asadmoeen

Continues to add a site they appear to be associated with. Was also editing under 202.163.125.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: I had created a report at WT:WPSPAM#trypophobia.co prior to seeing the report here. The accounts are adding two different URLs (to two different articles), and both URLs are tracing back to the same IP address. Appears a clear case of spam/site-promotion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's disruptive conduct is preventing content creation on Orgelbüchlein

There are several articles on the organ music of J.S. Bach and G.F. Handel that I have created. I created the articles Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", Clavier-Übung_III, Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Handel organ concertos Op. 7 and Handel organ concertos Op. 4 amongst others. Since 2012 I have intermittently been working on Orgelbüchlein (OB), a collection of 46 chorale preludes for organ by Bach. These are musical compositions based on Lutheran hymns which Bach intended for 4 purposes: church services, a treatise on composition, a religious statement and a pedagogical manual. Thus religion plays a fundamental part in the work; and these compositions are part of the standard church repertoire. There are two standard texts on OB: one by Peter Williams (Cambridge University Press); and one by Russell Stinson (Oxford University Press), with 250 pages between them on OB. The writers are both organists (as am I). I have completed one fifth of the descriptions of the chorale preludes. Each involves musical quotations, a midi file in lilypond giving an audio version of the piece, part of the text of the hymn, North German images to illustrate the liturgical significance of the piece and a musical analysis. It is a rather slow and painstaking process adding new chorale preludes.

Francis Schonken has recently arrived on the scene. He appears to have an intense dislike of the fact that the pieces chart the liturgical year and have liturgical significance. He has been claiming that the article is POV pushing becauase of HEDOESNTLIKEIT. He does not feel he has to make any reference to the two main sources when discussing the article: just his own prejudices. He has attempted to add a small of content by copy-pasting from outdated sources (by Charles Sanford Terry (historian), a bio that I created) and duplicating content already in the article.

At the moment as I am busy adding content in a significant way, he has does everything possible to interrupt that content creation. Each chorale prelude requires preparation and thought. It cannot be rushed. Francis Schonken is aware that I was hospitalised last week as an emergency; and probably is aware that I have not fully recovered. Yet he has decided to create an impossible and toxic editing environment: in that environment he refuses to discuss the sources and simply reiterates his prejudices about religion and makes absurd statements about POV-pushing. The musical iconography in Bach's sacred music is a large part of Bach scholarship, even if Francis Schonken dislikes that. His likes and dislikes should not enter into the picture: the aim of wikipedia is just to summarise the best possible sources, which is what I do.

At the moment, if I take a three or four hour break between editing chorale preludes, he comes back to vandalise the article; while I am in full flow but recuperating. He mostly removes content, including musical quotation. I am busy adding content for the 37 remaining chorale preludes. In the two sources Williams and Stinson, that can mean there are 3 to 5 pages to summarise, often involving extra material from elsewhere. Francis Schonken want to prevent that editing and, so it seems, frighten me away from the article.

He is disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Please could he be topic banned from this article while it is being created?

His unwillingness to discuss sources shows extreme bad faith on his part. It runs completely counter to the way wikipedia articles are written. He has played the same game of harassment on other editors (e.g. Gerda Arendt). As far as I am concerned, if doesn't want to look at the sources or doesn't have access to them, he should not be editing the article and certainly should not be preventing the main person responsible for the article completing its creation. Of course no article is in a finished state, but in this case the basic structure of the article has been clear from the outset. It is similar to the other articles on organ works by Bach and Handel that I have created; although each has its special flavour. Mathsci (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken has now stated that using the two main sources (Stinson and Williams) to write the article is unacceptable. He says that relying on these as the main sources is POV-pushing. But on the other hand he has not proposed any other comparable sources at all. Indeed the reason is simple: there are none (at least in English). His stance is indefensible: he is rejecting modern musicological scholarship in this topic. There seems to be no rational reason behind his statements. Here are the books that he says are POV-pushing:

• Stinson, Russell (1999), Bach: the Orgelbüchlein, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-386214-2
• Williams, Peter (2003), The Organ Music of J. S. Bach (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 227–316, ISBN 0-521-89115-9

I never expected to be told on wikipedia that books like these are POV-pushing. The academic reviews of the books certainly don't say that. Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In March I did this edit on Clavier-Übung III, i.e. moving a hymn text to the article on the hymn.

Now a few days ago I did a similar edit to Orgelbüchlein, that is: besides moving the hymn text to the related hymn article also replacing one image as explained in the edit summary. All at once this seemed for some reason problematic, thus I explained myself on the talk page of that article.

I tried to reason with Mathsci, to no avail thus far. Example: I pointed this editor to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines explaining that naming other editors in talk page headers is not allowed, after I removed it, Mathsci reverted it back in, added another one with the same problem, and after removal yet again

I understand Mathsci is still under some ArbCom remedy for engaging in battlefield conduct. I've seen plenty of battlefield conduct in their behaviour in these few days. Some of their contentions above are all but a correct assessment of the situation (that is an understatement), so I hope nobody is taking this for true without checking. E.g., re. liturgical year / liturgical significance: I sorted the Church cantata article according to liturgical function recently, I don't think Mathsci is really aware what they accuse me of. Similar: talking about sources: that is what I put first in talk page discussions, so a fantastic accusation, with no base, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe you mischaracterize Mathsci's current sanctions. He has mutual interaction bans with a number of editors, and cannot edit in the "Race and intelligence" subject area. (The exact wording can be found here; search for "Mathsci".) BMK (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Mathsci: remedies: "1.1) Mathsci is admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct. —Passed 5 to 3, 01:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)". AFAIK that remedy is still active and it is stated in general, without being limited to the area of conflict of the case. And indeed, again, in a few days I've seen plenty of "battlefield conduct" by Mathsci whom I never met before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Unlike a block, a topic ban, an interaction ban, or a site ban, an admonishment is not an active sanction. He isn't editing "under admonishment by ArbCom", like a Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, he was admonished by ArbCom for his editing up to the time of the closing of the case. You'll note that he was site banned in that decision, and ArbCom just recently unbanned him, and the unban announcement made specific note of the iBans and topic bans that are still in effect, but made no mention of the admonishment, because, again, it's not an active sanction. BMK (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand all that, that's why I used the word "remedy", not "sanction" (which is a qualification you came up with and which is indeed irrelevant to the remedy I referred to). Being admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct should make someone refrain from battlefield conduct immediately after some other remedies (those others of the "sanction" type) were lifted and/or otherwise alleviated or modified (i.e. at a time when the admonishment for engaging in battlefield conduct has not been modified or alleviated or whatever at all). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the question here is who is exhibiting "battlefield conduct". Is it simply Mathsci, or is it both Mathsci and you, or is it just you? Clearly, you believe it's just Mathsci, but you're hardly an unbiased observer. It's for others to determine who is misbehaving (if anyone), not you. BMK (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On the article talk page Francis Schonken just wrote:

Adapted some section header levels above as all of this is still part of the problems first outlined some years ago by Zwart. I'll be placing a NPOV related tag on the article now, linking to this section. The latest drive for unbalance seems to be tilting this article too much towards one or two sources (as if they were the only ones writing on individual chorale preludes in this collection). The NPOV policy and other core content policies demand to let all rpresentative reliable sources speak for themselves, and not filter them through the perspective of one or two of them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

In other words using the two major references (there are no others) is POV-pushing and the use of these OUP and CUP books warrants a giant NPOV tag on the article. Good grief. I've rarely seen anything so disruptive. Francis Schonken presumably will now claim that somebody else wrote that, not him. Mathsci (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this situation needs a third-opinion type of resolution. It's basically a content-dispute between two editors who don't see eye-to-eye, and trying to decipher who is causing the log-jam is I think really too long of an endeavor for ANI to figure out. Therefore I would suggest posting an appeal for opinions on the WP:WikiProject Classical Music talk page, or go directly to WP:3O and post a request for a third opinion there. Alternatively, invite another editor(s) in who commonly edits on Bach articles -- say, Gerda Arendt, etc. -- and have them opine. From my own casual observation, I've noticed that Francis Schonken can go both ways in his editing style -- he can indeed sometimes create a toxic and domineering editing environment, or he can edit reasonably and rationally and collaboratively. To the OP I might have suggested that wholesale revision of an article is usually done best and easiest on a user-page draft rather than live, and that taking years to implement one kind of update is not ideal -- it should be done of a piece, so that the article stays coherent. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not really. When I wrote Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, I used the above book of Williams and Stinson's book "The Great Eighteen". For the Handel organ concertos I used the book of Stanley Sadie, etc, etc. Despite the smearing remarks of Francis Schonken, arbcom has praised my articles on baroque music. On the other hand Francis Schonken was warned recently by two administrators about harassing Gerda Arendt, another Bach editor.[83] He's just repeating that behaviour towards another unfortunate victim. He seems to resent my expertise. Mathsci (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2016 (UT

You say "Not really" but you fail to refute a single thing I've said, and are indulging in repetitious self-justification. This is why I think this is a two-editor merry-go-round which needs a third opinion. Please stop arguing your content-dispute case here and take it to the proper venues as I've suggested. ANI is the wrong venue. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Observations of article talk-page behavior: For the heck of it, I just took an objective look at the article talk-page dialogue between the two editors (which has all occurred within the past week), and these edits are particularly egregious: [84], [85], [86], [87]. And they are all by Mathsci, and all from the past 24 hours. Mathsci, if you have been on Wikipedia for 10 years and have made 40,000 edits, and you still don't know how to behave in article talk-page discussions, I'd say you are a large part of, if not the source of, the problem here. Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Mathsci should direct comments towards content and not contributors. It doesn't matter so much at ANI, but this section should be titled "Disruption at Orgelbüchlein" without naming an editor. Before the current excitement, Mathsci had made 492 edits to Orgelbüchlein from May 2010 to June 2013, while Francis Schonken made one edit in February 2015. Francis Schonken should find someone who is actually damaging the encyclopedia before going into attack mode—leave the article alone and return in a month. Then ask for opinions at a wikiproject. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, because they are intended to deal with behavioral issues, section titles on AN and AN/I are exceptions to the proscription against naming names. BMK (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed, but it's not necessary in this case and does not help the situation. My comment was after skimming Talk:Orgelbüchlein and a better statement would have included that after the finger-pointing at that page, it would be better to tone down the drama here (hmmm, that's not right for ANI either!). Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Re: To Johnuniq's points: I think the OP fails utterly in his OP to make his case (not a single WP:DIFF of evidence, and definitely no substantiating of this bit of mind-reading: "Francis Schonken is aware that I was hospitalised last week as an emergency; and probably is aware that I have not fully recovered"). Moreover, Mathsci had not edited the article in three years [Edited to add: likely due to his recently rescinded site ban] before Francis Schonken came by this week and made a large removal: [88]. That said, Francis Schonken should not be removing text from a stable article (having the same material covered in the main article and the fork article is fine and there is no stricture at all against that), or quarreling against established reliable sources, or (what appears to be deliberately) interfering with what is now ongoing work on the article by an expert in the field who has apparently been adding to and organizing it for quite some time now, or making snarky comments on the talk page (Francis started the snark and attacks [89], and Mathsci then responded in kind). I agree with Johnuniq that Francis Schonken should probably leave the article alone, Mathsci should be able to return it to how he had it, and Francis Schonken should work somewhere else on Wikipedia. I don't think he should return to the article in less than two months, if at all, and if so at that point then only under the condition of engaging in formal WP:DR with the other editor. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC); edited 05:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with your summary. I have resumed editing the article after 2 1/2 years away from it. At the top of one of the main sections Orgelbüchlein#Chorale_Preludes_BWV_599–644 is written: The brief descriptions of the chorale preludes are based on the detailed analysis in Williams (2003) and Stinson (1999) with harvtxt links. 9 of the brief descriptions are complete and I have started adding the remaining 37. Those two sources are the main sources in the English language within current Bach scholarship. The act of putting a POV tag on an anodyne and scholarly article was disruptive; equally disruptive was the charge that major sources in current Bach scholarship were being deliberately excluded in favour of biased sources. To restore some balance from the real world, here is Williams' obituary in The Guardian, written by the Bach scholar John Butt; Peter Williams died in April. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• I deem the organisation Mathsci proposes for the article problematic (explained in part here). Instead of engaging in the discussion of that issue, Mathsci tries to govern the article content by {{in use}} templates (i.e. keeping them up between editing sessions), ignoring the topic when discussed (instead adding walls of text in talk pages unrelated to the topic at hand), engaging in inadmissible talk page behavior (see diffs above, repeated by Softlavender), removing tags without addressing the issue at hand, and the like. I'd suggest not to reinforce the editor's self-assigned presumptions w.r.t. to article content, but instead invite them to take part in reasonable discussion of the article structure topic. Mathsci has been there before, compare Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 41#Discussion of Clavier-Übung III at AN/I, and for the Orgelbüchlein: Talk:Orgelbüchlein#Religious POV.

Re. "large removal": nah, moving two stanzas to a hymn article as I did on Orgelbüchlein (see diff above) wasn't a "large removal". I performed similar moves (of more than two stanzas) in March (diff above) and also this one from 2014: [90]. If contesting the edit and there is an ongoing talk page discussion about it then take part in that discussion with reasonable arguments: pasting a {{in use}} template and filling the talk page with off-topic replies (crying woolf about "blanking" and the like) is far from an appropriate response.

That being said, I'm of course glad Mathsci expands the article with analyses and references, but that hardly solves the "excess of vaguely related primary sources" problem: if anything it makes that issue unavoidable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't signify what or how you personally "deem" the current organization of the article -- that is the status quo and has been for years. Your coming in and trying to bully and edit-war your way to change it without consensus or WP:DR is not acceptable, and the current consensus here on this thread is that you need to bow out and stop interfering with the logical progression of the article by the expert in the subject matter who has been steadily adding to and improving it over the years [with an involuntary hiatus] and is following a well-explained plan. At this point both your large and small edits to the article are looking like harassment, especially given your talk-page characterization of them, and it would be to everyone's advantage if you bow out for now, wait a few months as Mathsci has requested (and now two other editors here have as well), and find something else on Wikipedia to do. Your "religious POV" tag on the article is the height of disruptiveness, in my opinion, and indicative of the unrealistic and battleground attitude you are taking. I think it best that you voluntarily leave the article now. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. While being typical behavior for quite a lot of editors, it is farcical that someone might become so indignant about Mathsci's development of the article as to create all the bluster. If Mathsci is adding too much detail, that is hardly a great wiki sin. I mentioned above that Mathsci has commented too much about an editor rather than content, so there is some blame for everyone, including myself who should be working elsewhere. The solution is for Francis Schonken to forget about the article, and to get other opinions after a couple of months rather than taking it upon himself to be the judge and executioner. It's fine to disrupt someone who is adding misleading or poorly sourced material to degrade an article, but that is definitely not the case here. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest you all look at Francis Schonken's behaviour on Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 and his behaviour on Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4, including unacceptably copying to that page editors' comments on other talk pages with their signatures, refactoring them as he saw fit, and failing to provide links to the original context [91]. They are indicative of the kinds of problems Mathsci is facing. Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 is a Featured Article promoted only two months ago. One month after its promotion Francis started making swingeing changes to the content with no prior discussion [92]. This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title [93] and edit-warring [94], [95] to keep it there. The main editor objected to the page move and participated in the post hoc discussion on the talk page but Francis refused to participate any further in that discussion after less than a day and then unilaterally closed it. Instead of initiating a proper requested move discussion with wider participation, he festooned the article with maintenance tags and said he was taking it to FAR with the intent of getting it demoted [96]. The FAR was closed as out of process but he continued his bulldozing. The article is still festooned with tags and virtually all of its previous editors, including its main editor have been driven away. Its talk page is a now an unreadable mess and a place where Francis talks only to himself. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• I have been pinged here, I place I try to avoid (otherwise I might have come for the reasons Voceditenore outlined above). I understand Mathsci's point fully. Look just at one diff of many: the fourth (central) stanza of the chorale replaced by a link to the chorale article, leaving the image and text without its base, - no improvement if you ask me, on top of no consistency with the other pieces of the book.

I just returned from vacation where I had another chance to listen to BWV 565. Francis Schonken wrote that article, I respect it and stay away from it. I think if Francis offered the same respect to the articles of others (BWV - now a redirect to one of the longest articles on Wikipedia instead of a brief explanation of how Bach's works are arranged in the catalogue, Church cantata (Bach), see that discussion where I said first that I have no time to deal with it, and I could name more articles), we all had a better time. "Man liveth and endureth but a short time." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

2.25.129.11's disruptive editing

2.25.129.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive editing for quite some time now. They go back to late April. This IP has been constantly adding the episode order a cast appears in a show per season most notably on Criminal Minds and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit's season pages, which disregards WP:TVCAST. They are most active on Criminal Minds (season 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). They've been warned about their editing; and they have been reverted by other users besides me. They have not engaged in any conversation to build consensus. They only edit war by adding their edit on and on. If any diffs are required, please let me know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:AN3 may be a better place to address these concerns. 172.56.42.13 (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of userpage polemics

I don't think it's any secret that there is bad blood between WilliamJE and Nyttend. Last November I removed this [97] and this [98] after being approached by Nyttend about it. Discussion here: [99] [100] and more on my talkpage [101] et seq. Nyttend asked that WilliamJE be blocked for this. I declined, and after receiving no response from WilliamJE to requests by myself and Sphilbrick I went ahead and removed the commentary in accordance with WP:POLEMIC. Today I was again approached by Nyttend [102], who pointed out content that was added in November [103] by WiilliamJE and asking that WilliamJE be blocked. This content was added about the time that Jehochman warned [104] WilliamJE about their behavior toward Nyttend . I have removed this commentary as well. WilliamJE's response to this [105] [106] is an over-the-top expression of a sustained grudge against Nyttend that is far outside the bounds of acceptable irritation or venting. WilliamJE alludes to some sort of recent interaction between them that I have not yet discovered: there is a history of back-and-forth and allegations of edit-stalking on geographical content between them, but it had been my impression that that had largely died down. I haven't found anything recent.

I have long been concerned about WilliamJE's grudge-cherishing. He's a productive editor and I wish he could let this go but it keeps coming up every few months. The level of antipathy on WilliamJE's part against Nyttend and others is a source of continuing concern. The vituperation he posted today on my talkpage is block-worthy, but I think community consensus is called for in this case given the intensely personalized attitude that's being exhibited. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't found anything recent, either. Today, I thought I'd seen him go back to following me: I checked Special:Contributions/Nyttend for some reason, and I noticed that WilliamJE had edited one page I'd just edited, but a quick review of his other contributions demonstrated that he'd been editing a group of related pages, and it was a pure coincidence. This reminded me of the userpage polemic; I looked at his userpage and saw that the same type of content was once again present on his userpage. Note that everything discussed above is talking about his words regarding me; the diffs demonstrate WilliamJE's grudge toward Orlady, who's not been particularly active lately (just 22 edits in the last year, including just 2 in the last month), and even toward DangerousPanda, who hasn't edited since the era of his arbitration case in 2014! Now...When you post this kind of content on your userpage, sanctions are entirely reasonable, and it's merciful merely to remove the content with a firm warning. When you re-post it months later, and when sanctions are requested you continue saying the same kind of stuff, you've demonstrated that you don't care about the warning and that the mercy wasn't warranted. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just going by the evidence linked from here: Y'all should let sleeping dogs lie. Nyttend should not be seeking a block for a post made in November, and User:Acroterion shouldn't be entertaining it. The last diff I see mentioning those other two users is from November and does NOT demonstrate a grudge against them. The recent diffs are a response to Nyttend and Acroterion poking him - refusing to let sleeping dogs lie. And WilliamJE didn't take kindly to the poking. Jehochman, what is seeking a block for a post made in November, if not the hounding you asked to be alerted of? Jehochman, warned, "Please don't interact with Nyttend at all from now on." and I don't see diffs showing he's ignored that. I've no basis on which to believe or disbelieve the accusations against Nyttend; I haven't looked into them and will let sleeping dogs lie. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts

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

---

• Blackhammer27 (talk · contribs)
• Ibet1234 (talk · contribs)

These two accounts are both editing the same two pages, and the accounts were created at the same time. (IP's cannot open SPI investigations, so I brought it here instead). Can a check-user confirm a link between these two accounts? Thanks. 172.56.42.13 (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Who cares? But seriously, thank you for bringing them to attention here. Both are vandalism-only accounts, so I've blocked both of them indefinitely, regardless of any socking issues. Given the backlogs at SPI and the ease of dealing with simple vandals, you'll probably get faster responses if you vandals as vandals rather than as socks. That's not a complaint about what you're doing (keep it up, and you shouldn't get anything except thanks); it's simply an observation about the speed with which we tend to deal with different types of problematic editors. Nyttend (talk)

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

Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking

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

---

Holy wall of text... here, I have broken it down to a smaller section.

CYBERBULLYING AND CYBERSTALKING

I am disturbed at the prospect that Wikipedia would provide users with the tools to track other users across pages, no matter how experienced or trusted or how respected within the in crowd of wikipedians. If this is the case, then this is a policy that enables cyberbullying and cyberstalking.

On the Glycemic index page, User:Grayfell arrived, assessed my wording and the veracity of my cited sources and reverted my edit within 1 minute of it being posted. Grayfell's edit comment on the Glycemic index: Revision history reads, "Edit warring, overly promotional wording, one of those sources is far, far too spammy to be usable." Previously, I had heard of edit warring but I am not familiar with how an edit war is conducted. Citing it as an excuse to justify a revert is alarming.

I am not interested in playing silly games with other wikipedia users.

Yet warring with other users appears to be Grayfell's goal. I had previously noted, he has been engaging in this activity for over 18 months. The very next section on Grayfell's Talk below where I advised him of this post is titled Michael Wiseman. It too is telling. The thrust and counter thrust of blocking and reverting each others work might be fun for dedicated users but I have no interest in it. I feel that as users involved continue to seek out new targets to keep themselves entertained, a dangerous atmosphere that promotes cyberbullying and cyberstalking will inevitably develop. At 23:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)User:WriterWithNoName says

“Why not use your magical powers to suspend my account?”.

My answer is simple, grayfell is playing a game and WriterWithNoName is just another playtoy victim.

I have now looked at Grayfell's user page and found that he does have a connection with multi-level marketing and Utah as I suspected. Whether Grayfell has an existing negative association with the Usana company, the supplements industry, multi-level marketing, the state of Utah or whether he is so deeply attached to his edits that he cannot tolerate changes being made by others or whether he has become too wrapped up in the world of wikipeadia that he needs to revert other users edits to get some kind of satisfaction, he clearly has demonstrated a personal vested interest in his dealings with me. This interest has obscured his ability to maintain a detached impartiality in his dealings with the Usana page or with me. Furthermore, his comments have become personal as they have addressed me directly.

I fear that Grayfell has spent too long in the wikipedia culture without a compass. I expect he has lost sight of the fact that wikipedia was established as a source of information for the benefit of humanity. This is an unrestricted resource that children use. If grayfell wants to play games, then perhaps a massively multiplayer online role-playing game would be a more appropriate pursuit. Having him and others of his ilk preying unidentified users is a recipe for disaster.

It is time for grayfell to be blocked and leave the wikipedia community. He needs to take a better look at the world outside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.118.18 (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Can either of you provide specific diffs as to where the problem is? John from Idegon (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see a single problem or infraction in Grayfell's editing, and he has explained his actions to you when queried. It looks like you are very very new to Wikipedia and have a lot to learn about how it works. You might want to register an account and receive mentoring if you want to stick around. I suggest this thread be closed with no action. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • See above here: [107]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Suspected stealth canvassing / meatpuppetry

My recent request as follows to User:Hchc2009 made to his talk page on 21:27 13 May 2016 [108] ("Editing patterns") has not received an answer as I requested:

"Your recent edits on Kirkham House (15:23, 8 May 2016‎), The Grange, Broadhembury (06:46, 10 May 2016‎ ), Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury (06:46, 10 May 2016); John Wadham (died 1578) (06:28, 12 May 2016‎); Manor of Orleigh (11:17, 13 May 2016‎) display signs and edit patterns which might reasonably be interpreted as contravening certain of Wikipedia's policies. This message is not an accusation of any contravention, but merely a request for clarification of the position".

I should be grateful to have some admin oversight to this matter, which also concerns User:Smalljim. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC))

As a disinterested party- in that (I'd like to think) I get on with both Lobs and Hchc- I've got to say, I think this is a really bad idea. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As someone uninvolved in the above-mentioned issues, and having looked them over, I must say that this request is preposterous. There are WP editors who are here to do good, encyclopedic work. And there are WP editors who are here to follow their every whim, and then generate time-wasting drama when their editing is checked. I think it's clear who's who. Eric ^talk 13:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can now address the specific matter I have raised? If you think the editing patterns I have raised are pure coincidence, say so. Otherwise let's at least make it appear that WP rules are there to be followed and sanctions applied where appropriate.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, I wouldn't have responded to your accusations if they'd been posted on my talk page. Despite the wording it does come off as quite stand-offish. You just threw out a bunch of accusations at the two users who seem to have been here a while. Even with the edits you are referencing I'm not seeing anything that is glaringly out of policy. If anything I'm seeing some WP:OWN issues from the OP. And I don't think this quite meets the standard for Stealth Canvasing. But thats just me. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 19:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please revoke talkpage access

Please can you revoke the talkpage access of User:LeonRaper? He was blocked for only being here to self-promote, and no evidence of competency, and all he's done since being blocked is spout his same promotional arguments. He doesn't understand that he fails WP:GNG, and shows no evidence of ever stopping his complaints unless his talkpage access is revoked. Frankly, editors have wasted too much time on him already. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OPPOSE: this elderly individual is firm in his belief that he is notable (it is an erroneous belief in regards to Wikipedia notability) but he only keeps restating this belief because others keep responding and telling him that he's not....if people stop, he'll stop...I just very recently tried to change the topic to see if he'd be interested in editing other articles, like "swing dancing"...see how that goes...no need to revoke his talk page...he may grow to understand, and make an unblock request to work on other articles...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

He is not being disruptive, he is talking. If you don't want it popping up on your watchlist, take his page off your watchlist. Please allow editors to determine when they have spent to much time and then they can walk away. -- GB fan 13:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Just leaving his talkpage, and him, alone is a much better solution to the problem, if there even is a problem. Thomas.W ^talk 14:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose it should be a last resort to remove talk page access from a blocked user. As was said earlier, if you don't like the ramblings don't stay around and listen. He's not bothering anyone other than those reading his page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand where Joseph2302 is coming from. I, too, was becoming annoyed that LeonRaper doesn't seem to be able or want to get what's being told him. I caught myself in the middle of a response to him and deleted it without posting, simply removing his talk page from my watchlist. I think that's the best course for everyone. If LeonRaper wants to continue to participate in a constructive way, all the information he needs is there on his talk page, he just has to choose to follow it. In the meantime, just let him alone. He's indef blocked, and I doubt very much that any admin is going to unblock him once they look at the circumstances surrounding the block, and at LeonRaper's comments. Unless he starts being disruptive in some way, removing his talk page access doesn't seem like a necessary step. BMK (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Extra eyes on Yuri Kochiyama

Today's Google Doodle has brought lots of attention to the Yuri Kochiyama article. It's already been semi-protected due to blatant vandalism, but there is currently a dispute (which I'm about to disengage myself from) regarding the language used to described Kochiyama's activism (e.g., describing her as non-black supporter of Black separatism vs Black nationalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Large List of School / Shared IP's (Avoiding Massive WP:AIV Disruption)

Hi all, I've been doing a lot of patrolling and have come across a very long list of school / shared IP addresses that may (or may not...) need blocks. I'm posting this here instead of at WP:AIV because I don't want to create a significant backlog there. I hope this doesn't come across as being disruptive, but I thought it'd be better to post this here than create a huge mess to clean up at AIV. Thanks. 2607:FB90:8023:4CDB:0:3B:FA1:101 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the list:

UPDATE: All IP's have been blocked. Discussion may now be closed.

Basically Hoax Article?

not sure if right place for this..there's a RfC going on here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_supremacy wherein people are literally arguing that white supremacy is racist whereas black supremacy is not racist...I took a look at the topic itself though...I think it is basically made-up and perhaps largely contributed to by some of the people making the ridiculous arguments in the RfC...if search google news for "black supremacy" absolutely nothing comes up...if search google web get a few superficial uses of the term....is this just a matter for RfD? If so, I'll have to look into how to do that...68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Its a content dispute... Looking at the RfC it seems to have meaningful discussion in progress. What exactly is it you want done? It doesn't seem to be a hoax to me... --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 19:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, but it appears the article shouldn't exist at all (see the final few posts in the RfC related to this)..someone appears to have gathered a few groups together in one article, decided on their own to label these groups "black supremacism" and created a Wikipedia article...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Then AfD it. AN/I is for behavioral disputes, not content disputes. BMK (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there is good discussion going on on the talk page there, which is the way that issues like this should be handled. It's definitely not a hoax article, and the discussion on the page should be used to better flush out how the language on the page should read. I don't think there is any need for admin activity on this at this time, the community is doing exactly what SHOULD be done, talking it out civilly on the talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC) (replacing comment that was accidently deleted)

no, no I agree as far as the content dispute...but in engaging in that I came to realize that perhaps the article shouldn't even exist at all (and was created totally against policy)!! I thought if an Admin saw this they might be able to handle that more quickly, competently as I've never done a RfD..68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not going to happen. Nobody seriously disputes the the concept of black supremacy exists—even if it arguably only exists as a meme among paranoid white people rather than an actual movement—and we don't delete articles on grounds of being badly written. We certainly don't delete one of Wikipedia's earliest articles, dating back to Larry Sanger's time, out-of-process without a deletion discussion following a request at ANI. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

but the article creates its own concept of "black supremacy" by just putting a bunch of groups together and arbitrarily deciding to label these particular groups "black supremacy"...there's no sourcing for this whatsoever...It's pure original research/original opinion ideas!! See what I mean?68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Then discuss this on the talk page, NOT here. ANI isn't for content disputes, as stated earlier. This is an issue that the page needs to be better cited or cleaned up, not an issue for ANI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

see, I'm not seeing this as a content dispute but as an article that itself exists clearly against policy..so thought might be worth admin attention, even speedy deletion type thing...I only referenced the content dispute to explain how I became aware of this...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well two of the best things about wikipedia are WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY SO if it makes the community/project better we can ignore a specific policy in favor of bettering the project. As far as I can tell the article has a valid topic worth being noted. We don't get rid of something because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want to get rid of the article you are going to need to do an AfD and develop consensus that it needs to go. No editor or admin (At least I don't think they would) delete it against consensus or while there is ongoing meaningful discussion as to the article's existence, except under a few extreme circumstances. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 20:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I say just rename the article black racism. While Black supremacy or structural racism might not be a thing (except in Zimbabwe), there are clearly groups that thing Blacks are superior and hate other. Read, for instance, Elijah Muhammads Message to the Black man in America and its chapter on whites.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Getting way out of ANI's remit now, but "supremacy" and "racism" aren't synonyms. There are plenty of attitudes that don't imply inferiority but are clearly racist ("Asians are harder workers" and so forth). ‑ Iridescent 20:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The thing is supremacy can be an observed structure, such as, for instance, white supremacy in the US South in the 1920s. Racism can be an attitude or ideology. Elijah Muhammad and others created a belief system that believed blacks were superior. You could call that black supremacy, but that wouldn't be supremacy as in blacks can observationally be proven to be dominant in society or are systematically violating other ethnic groups rights. The only place were that could be said to happen is in Zimbabwe. (Of course, different black groups has fought and discriminated against each other in places like Haiti, Liberia, Rwanda, and you might include the killing of Arab during the Zanzibar "revolution", but that is not what we are talking about here.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We have ourselves a situation where someone has decided on their own that several different groups should be known as "black supremcism," and created a Wikipedia article (that is disasterously put together) based on their arbitrary belief...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest at this point it's time to put down the stick and walk away. This is NOT the venue for the discussion of deletiing the page. If you feel this page should be deleted, have a look at WP:AFD and the instructions on how to do so there. If there is information in the article that shouldn't be there you feel, discuss it on the talk page. NOTHING is going to be done on ANI however, please understand that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the IP editor has already brought several topics here, and has been told multiple times to drop the stick. We are reaching sanction level. I ask that an admin look into this IP editor's battleground behavior. --Tarage (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Single purpose, disruptive account related to Bill Cosby

User talk:66.235.36.153 seems to be a Single-purpose account that has been making disruptive edits and large, undiscussed deletions in the articles related to the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. I think this editor should be blocked.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have diffs? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Diffs? What do you mean?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Diff, basically you need to show the edits you are saying are disruptive. You can view page history and then get the diffs from there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=718953858&oldid=718530856

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=720648062&oldid=720202654

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations&diff=703033453&oldid=703004913

--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

CEOBryantR

User talk:CEOBryantR also needs to be blocked as it is apparently just a PR firm used to handle Dre Rich Kidd. It contravenes Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, Wikipedia:Advertising, Wikipedia:Ownership of content--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dre Rich Kidd is clearly heading for deletion, which will give CEOBryantR nothing to edit. BMK (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the editor's statement that he works for a major record label and that his job is to get their artists (including Dre Rich Kidd) onto Wikipedia: [109] Here is his request to protect the page showing ownership and his connection to the performer [110] Has removed the AFD notice [111], the entire AFD [112], and maintenance templates [113] Meters (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Article snow deleted by Iridescent. BMK (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Salted as well. BMK (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Baseball bugs and FPAS harassing me

Today, I received a malicious message on Facebook signed by two people, one of them saying that he's baseball bugs, and the other saying that he's FPAS. I don't know how they found out my real identity, but anyways the message contained a legal threat because of my on-wiki activity. Can something be done about this, cuz I'm really scared of returning to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.213.174 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Even in the vanishingly unlikely event that this is true (BB and FPAS live on opposite sides of the world) Facebook is not a part of Wikipedia. If you've received an abusive message on Facebook, report it to their abuse department. ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: This is an obvious proxy IP Ref. Desk troll that I've reported to WP:AIV. They'll be blocked shortly. 2607:FB90:8038:780A:0:25:9B1B:1401 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This is at least the third time in recent memory that a ref-desk troll has posted lies about being harassed off-wiki. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow... it's sad that they have nothing else to do with their life... 2607:FB90:8038:780A:0:25:9B1B:1401 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No big deal, just another gnat to swat. In this case, it's only the one entry, so the admins might not bother blocking it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The troll made a similar complaint about FPAS on about April 15, and as 74.73.255.60 (talk · contribs)on May 8 about Jayron32 allegedly telephoning him.[114] Those are admins. He's probably dragging me into it because of a revert war that he was involved with on one of the ref desk pages a day or two ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, everyone needs a hobby. ... I never said it was a good one. HalfShadow 23:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The April 15 incident was from 108.29.169.88 (talk · contribs), since rev-del'd as I think it included a false claim of a threat of violence from an admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Single-purpose account circumventing block

The user Mikequfv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Today, with the block still active, he is doing the same style of disruptive editing and vandalizing climate charts with erroneous numbers,[115] from an IP address. 2001:569:BDD4:2700:F1D2:5191:2484:1E06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (Every edit is a good example of past behaviour linking him to this IP.) Vandalism report from yesterday: [116]. (The reason given for the block was different than the reason reported.) Air.light (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit-Warrior at Jim Morrison

WP:SPA Poofdragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is edit-warring to insert odd, in some cases WP:BLP-dicey content at Jim Morrison. Diff:[117] . The user is claiming it's "sourced" as they are inserting bare urls of blogs, fanzines, google search results and interviews with human-interest reporters at small town newspapers in place of stable content sourced to books on major publishing houses, which they are deleting. I have attempted to explain WP:RS and WP:IRS and have now warned them three times, but they refuse to engage on either their talk page or the article talk page, insisting in edit summaries every time that they hit "undo" that they are "sourcing." This is the diff they are reverting to:[118]. I could revert again and take them to 3RR, but I'd prefer an uninvolved admin intervene. They seem obsessed with defaming living people mentioned in that article, while pushing the interests of a living person who seems nn to me. There may well be a COI issue here as well, as there often is with SPAs who behave this way. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Making this real easy for you @Poofdragon: and adding a ping. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of the Jim Morrison page is not sourced properly based on your criteria. Mary Werbelow is undisputedly Jim Morrison's girlfriend in Florida recognized by his bandmate Ray Manzarek in the quote "He was crazy about her" and Bryan Gates called Mary "The love of his life" referring to Jim. Poofdragon (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The place to discuss the relative notability, or lack thereof, of one of Jim Morrison's High School girlfriends was on the talk page of the article, where you refused to engage. Now this is about your refusal to follow Wikipedia policies. Butler is not a credible source, fwiw, but that's not the issue here, your edit-warring is. You've also been reported for violating WP:3RR at that noticeboard now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to block this WP:SPA. The disruptive editing has veered into personal attacks on WP:BLP subjects in connected articles:[119], along with the 3RR violations and continuing to remove sourced content to dump in google books search results that don't source the content the disruptive SPA is adding. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)