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

Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye

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

---

Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violate NPOV and talk page consensus. He has been notified of the Syrian Civil War/ISIL sanctions. I warned him on the article talk page the he should not continue to revert, then warned him level on his talk page of 3 for disruptive editing, then level 4 when he did it again. He seems not to get the wp:point. I suggest a block to prevent further disruption.~Technophant (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for what he has "repeatedly" inserted? I can only see one large insertion. Also, a link to the talk page discussion re the material in question is needed. Thanks, Number 57 17:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated warnings have been placed on my talk page as at User talk:Gregkaye#October 2014. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor has ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist" in this thread then continued the same to the point of disruption on this more recent thread. The editor has also reinserted previously reverted criticism section which he original inserted here in the lead. I'll continue to look for more diffs. Keep in mind that this article has a strict 1RR policy.~Technophant (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Summary:

1. [1] 16:13, 19 October 2014 - inserted paragraph into lead
2. [2] 22:49, 19 October 2014 - reverted by User:Felino123
3. [3] 08:19, 20 October 2014 - User warned on talk page and on user page of disruptive behavior level-3
4. [4] 16:15, 20 October 2014 - material reinserted without edit summary (2 minutes! after 24-hour limit)
5. [5] 16:21, 20 October 2014 - reverted by myself, user warned level-4

The editor also won't "drop the stick" and has continued to argue on the talk page despite being warned to drop it. I think this is enough to warrant some action.~Technophant (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I actually like this editor and he has made some important contributions (see Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Animated_GIF_showing_territorial_evolution). I don't want this editor topic banned, we just need to see this POV pushing and edit warring to stop.~Technophant (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Like me? I suddenly have a host of "Technophant mentioned you" messages in my notifications. Maybe so. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC) sorry to have placed this out of sequence.

Gregkaye I do value and respect your contributions. If you can just agree to stop the discussed behaviors perhaps this whole thing can be closed without any further unpleasantries.~Technophant (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine. You made very very blunt interventions on my talk page and when I raised query you could not be bothered to reply. I have not found you to be too consistent with your pleasantries. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it, this editor seems to be doing exactly what editors are supposed to do. You and he are both very active on both the article page and the talk page, making countless positive contributions to the article and discussions. You appear to have an issue over two things he has done: a single 1RR >24+ hours of a summary of some article material in the lede, and his strong argumentation on the talk page that "jihadist" is an inappropriate label for this group. His reversion without an edit summary is indeed not optimal, but it was after discussion on the talk page. If he is engaging in a non-technical violation of 1RR then so are you by jumping into a revert. It appears that you and some other editors considered the original insertion (which would seem to be simple BRD editing) to be a problem. Am I missing something? The material appears harmless and appropriately sourced, although if consensus is to keep it out of the lead then so be it. As for arguing that "jihadist" is an inappropriate term, again, on the face of that it looks like a reasonable and perhaps correct opinion — I certainly hope the Arabic Wikipedia doesn't use a similarly loaded word, "crusaders", to label every religiously-tinged issue coming from the West. Consensus and sources may fall otherwise, but unless you can show that this has gotten to the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and disrupting the orderly flow of discussion I see nothing wrong with discussing the matter on the talk page. If you think that simply continuing the discussion of the point has gotten disruptive, how is that so? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear it's more like 1RR=24 hours with a +0.14% margin. Also, Felino123 (an editor whom I've no previous interaction) made the first revert and I made the second so I'm not in violation of the 1RR rule. Also the second insertion (#4) was done after he was given a warning not to reinsert both on tha article talk page and user talk page (#3). It show a certain degree of stubborness an unwillingness to respect consensus. Also, it's BRD, not "BRDRD". ~Technophant (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, technically neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things. I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that it's not really clear what the problem is. BR-DDDDDD-RD is probably an acceptable editing pattern even if BRDRR is not: if the intervening discussion establishes either that the revert is for an unexplained or clearly bad reason, or there's consensus for inclusion, then it's fine to re-insert. In this case Felino123 had a well-explained and appropriate reason for rejecting this material in the lede, but I just don't see why Gregkaye was warned against reinserting it, or why any warning not to re-insert it would have any force. Reverting again with the summary "repeted insertion of controversial material" isn't really a good reason, that's saying that BRDRR is preferable BRDR; a second removal based on it being weak content, or against consensus, seems more reasonable. But back to the issue, is Gregkaye really being disruptive here? If so would they agree to take it easy, or is administrative counsel or intervention necessary? I'm not an admin, just passing by. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The material inserted into the in the lead isn't controversial as I stated. It's a summary of information in the Critism section. The reason for removal (clean precise lead) I agree with. This is more of an issue with "technical" 1RR (presumed intent to keep reinserting every 24 hours despite objections). Another user recently received a 3 month topic ban from an univolved admin for just DDDD with no R's without much (if any) warning.~Technophant (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Another clear hypocrisy in this AN/I is shown in that nothing was done in response to the following noted and flagrant violation of 1RR [6][7] Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC) this edit was moved: Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see a problem of a WP:DEADHORSE. Amongst the dead are numbered Iraqis, Syrians, Sunnis, Shias and a whole host of other people who have either lost life, loved ones or liberty. Horses however aren't among the dead. Problems with jihadist terminologies have also been independently raised by other Wikipedians. See: Category talk:Jihadist organizations Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have actually not been involved in the "jihadist debate" at all. I'm on the top contributors on this page however I am mostly involved with gnomish technical issues and participating in discussions. I was just informed of a user problem and did my best to try to deal with it.~Technophant (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have recently been the primary mover in the pushing of the use of "Islamic State" terminology which flies in the face of the example set by great swathes of the Islamic community and world governments. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a completely different topic and isn't relevant to this discussion.~Technophant (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither was there any relevance in your preceding comment nor the surprising gush of the self justifying pleasantries above. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: That was uncalled for. You are just making yourself look bad.~Technophant (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In trying to understand your active campaign here mention of "Islamic State" becomes relevant. Jihadism was never your issue. This was.

All of my comments are justified. Here is a link to the talk page at the time of the AN/I. I am more than happy for editors to take any look they like. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is looking more like a dispute resolution issue. Perhaps that is a better way of dealing with a content dispute. Still, the edit warring must stop.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have been a regular and active editor on the ISIS page since June this year and have become so concerned about this editor who joined the page recently that I even went to the WP:HD about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_October_14#Editing_problem. This outlines my concerns. You will see another request on the Help Desk two above mine from another editor on the ISIS page about this editor and one other, expressing the same concerns. Before I say anything else, let me stress that the specific problems I raise there aside, this is a good editor who has contributed much of value to the page. I haven't had time to sort out any diffs yet, and will confine myself to one issue for the time being, which has caused more grief than any other on the Talk page. The debate over the word "jihadist" has been going on for what seems like weeks, getting nowhere, it has taken up an enormous amount of editorial time, and there are at least four editors who consistently do not agree with the editor that "jihadist" should be kept out of the Lead. The editor rejects WP:RS completely, which WP is supposed to reflect. He disputes the use of the word by Reliable Sources to describe ISIL and sets his own views above theirs, which sounds like WP:OR to me. I have lost count of the number of times he has removed the word from the Lead, against consensus, and warnings lately about editing against consensus have been ignored. My basic objection is that the editor ignores WP:NPOV, which I will give some diffs for tomorrow. I am not very happy about this ANI, but something had to be done to stop the edit-warring and editing against consensus. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The only edit warring, disruption, and ganging up is by Technophant and his (very) small local consensus, including P123ct1, most likely via secret e-mails against Gregkaye. Gregkaye is extremely knowledgeable, is doing what is supposed to do, and has tolerated them more than he should. To be fair, this should have a Boomerang effect on them. I no longer edit the article because of the same (very) small consensus that act as if they own the article and drive away editors, but I could not remain silent in the face of this injustice. I will also not get sucked in into this again. All I had to say, I already said it!. Worldedixor (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Worldedixor has an open (stale) RFC/U with a strong consensus for topic ban on Syrian Civil War/ISIL and a strong dislike for P123ct1 and myself for opening it. It has not yet been formally put in place however.~Technophant (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Check the link - I fail to see a "strong consensus for a topic ban" - which goes to the OPs credibility in this action. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot let that biased comment from Worldedixor go unanswered. Please refer to RFC/U and the Talk page in particular. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The RfC/U has been closed because of inactivity (although I think everything that could have been said had been said, so I'm not sure why that was the reason). Worldedixor has been trying to get several editors sanctions/blocked for some time without IMHO grounds. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - this looks like a thorny question. I see some pages of discussion (which to be honest I didn't read carefully) but I don't see any clear vote where consensus was firmly established. Stronger enforcement is not a good substitute for a better consensus. Put ANI away for at least a week or two and get some third opinions; my thought though is you just say sources X Y Z call them jihadist and I J K disagree, and move on. Sometimes it really is better not to peek at the pig in the poke (not to argue the underlying philosophical point) when making this sort of decision. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I essentially agree with P123ct1's description above regarding POV and OR. Gregkaye has removed jihadist calling it "terminology as bastardised by western media" in his edit summary. Many of us have shown that reliable sources in all newspapers use this word in a particular sense. He insists that Western sources are wrong and his particular Islamic sources should veto our usage. Stats show that jihadist and extremist are the most used terms. He rejects the former and says he can not "morally" allow its usage. As he has just said above "You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine" when it is a question of applying our common standards and not our personal values. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am more than satisfied with that description: http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/12708/Shaykh-ul-Islam-Dr-Tahir-ul-Qadri-speaks-at-Global-PeaceUnity-Event-gpu-2010-Jihad-The-perception-and-the-reality.html Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc What else is it? You mention a few sound bites and bypass any of the reasoning behind it. Jihad, according to Islamic sources, is a struggle for the ideals of Islam which may cover a has a wide range of meanings but not wide enough to cover many of the activities of a wide range of Islamic extremist groups. The word has deep religious connotations and yet many political and other commentators from around the world have taken up usage of the word to apply it largely to more extreme situations of abuse and violence. One of my comments was: "A further radicalisation of Islam that results from the false endorsement of murderers as being "jihadists" will result in a perpetuation of needless death. Its unqualified and needless use of this westernised wording is not something that I can support. I will not have blood on my hands." One of your comments was, "Jihadists do not follow Wikipedia" which completely misses the point and what "stats show" regarding the reach of this encyclopaedia. Wikipedia cannot be a soapbox for a the misrepresentative western interpretation of jihad. The "personal values" that I am presenting in reference to this murderous group are seemingly shared by the majority of the Islamic world. They want nothing to do with it. It's also worth comment that Worldedixor is one of the few Arabic users that we have. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning is (a) theological and (b) activist. You have an agenda to change the usage of the word jihadist as in jihadism when used in the English language in a restricted sense of armed struggle. We discussed this over and over: words have many meanings, jihad is not jihadism as Islam is not Islamism, etc. After long discussions you remind us of what you just said above, that in your opinion the common usage in English of jihadism leads to the ISIL's violence and it is your "jihad" to fight this usage even if you lose your editing rights.[8] Jason from nyc (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have an agenda for the requirement of qualification for an unjustified justification of unjustified death. My arguments are valid and the cause is just. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal - I propose to drop my complaint here if Gregkaye takes his issues to Dispute resolution noticeboard and agrees not to make potentially controversial edits (including furthering talk page disputes) until the DRN is closed.~Technophant (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How in the world did this become "your complaint"? You were never involved in the discussion. At most there is a technical 1RR and that wasn't intended. Discussions took place in the context of the talk page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Jason from nyc's comment. He nails it. RS dictate what we write, not a particular POV favored in some region of the world. We use the terms used in RS, mostly English ones (because this is the English Wikipedia), and English language sources use "jihadist" all the time, and document that these groups use the term themselves, when they encourage jihad. They identify with the term as their prime motive. Gregkaye may need a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In deciding the relevance of the use of Islamic wording in relation to an Islam related topic then Islamic sources may be considered to have some level of reliability - or would you prefer journalists etc. known as they are for the use of a wide variety of sensationalist spins to help them achieve their goals. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If Gregkaye is to be banned from editing then I would prefer it be a ban on editing the article directly; limited to making suggested edits on the Talk page. This may not stop his POV pushing (which is problematic), however it will prevent disruptive editing of the article.~Technophant (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for editing back from "he".[9]

Very politic. Technophant's edit came not long after this constructive edit which somehow wasn't mentioned. Despite misrepresentation above I have not rejected the use of reference to "jihadism" but have stated that it needs qualification and that we cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice to sanction them in this way. I am honestly trying to find routes to resolution and, at any stage, would appreciate help. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the battleground tactics and consider my proposal above.~Technophant (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you dispute anything I have said then feel free to say what. For my part I dispute your claim of "edits that violate NPOV". All I am saying is that the questionable terminology "jihadist" should be given qualification. Above you claimed that a statement with basis was uncalled for and then added "You are just making yourself look bad". Meanwhile this thread is based on weak evidence with regard to which Wikidemon commented, "neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things." Despite this my notifications indicator began blinking with rapid and prolonged regularity with "Technophant mentioned you" messages. You failed to mention my last edit. Absolutely I think by now I have every right to be wary but no, I don't bear a grudge. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no grudge against you. Have you read the comments from other editors here? There's a problem with your approach to editing and resolving disputes and unless you offer up a solution (and quickly) you will most likely face sanctions. I don't want to see you topic banned but that's what may need to happen.~Technophant (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case I really have to question your motivation: when your last claim talks of need of a topic ban despite the context, as presented just three edits up the page in my 07:46, 21 October entry, you saw a link to a constructive and extremely unobtrusive edit for the page; when you have gone into a mass canvassing mode so as to promote this AN/I; when you have refused to answer my personal questions; when you placed content on my talk page that another editor independently highlighted as badgering which, despite repeated opportunities, you failed to remove; when you have placed prejudging links in connection to this page and when this isn't even your issue. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am editing this article since two weeks ago approximately, and I don't know the editors, but I have seen what is happening. It is very clear that Gregkaye is disrupting this article removing the words he doesn't like to read, and messing it up by puting criticism on the Lead, just because of his subjective personal opinion (Jason from nyc nailed it). This is an encyclopedic article and should not be an opinion piece, as Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. Gregkaye has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. So I think something should be done to prevent disruptions. Felino123 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Gregkaye has made positive contributions to the article, which makes it unfortunate that it has come to this, however we have discussed the Jihadist issue at great length and the consensus of other editors is clearly against his stance. Ideally we could all WP:MOVEON, however Gregkaye seems to be taking a very strong POV stance on this word usage which is not appropriate. Gazkthul (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Gazkthul, Its difficult to "get over" the blatant fact that a supposedly "jihadist" group is actively slaughtering Muslims. This is NOT jihad. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Gregkaye, I don't know how many times we can go around in circles, it is not the role of Wikipedia to decide what Jihad is or isn't, we simply reflect what WP:RS use. Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram and the Taliban overwhelmingly kill Muslims too, as did Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's predecessor al-Zarqawi a decade ago. BTW, have you heard of Usman dan Fodio, Tamerlane, Yaqub Beg or Muhammad Ahmad? There are countless famous Muslim Kings and Emperors throughout history who waged Jihad against fellow Muslims. Gazkthul (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While Gregkaye and I have disagreed on content, in my experience around ISIL articles he has been quite a positive contributor who works to reach consensus. Technophant on the other hand has been pushing the use of "Islamic State" even after consensus decided to use ISIL for the title and the article. I requested he stop so he put me on the Syria Civil War sanctions warning list in retaliation. The users here trying to keep an mention of criticisms out of the lead are just misguided. Darn near the entire world is upset with ISIL - a huge part of the story. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Legacypac's criticism is based on a false premise. The ISIL/ISIS consensus had nothing to do with the use of "Islamic State". The discussion was over a move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the ISIS article's text and nothing more. Secondly, editors have not been against criticisms being in the Lead. The dispute was over what weight to give them and how to present them in the Lead. Sorry to keep chipping in, but there has been some serious misrepresentation in this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Quick observation This edit [10] shows that P123ct1 has changed their ANI comment after I, another editor, commented on it below, something that is not permitted by policy. This is not an attack. I am presenting to the closing admin a verifiable pattern of conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping a dossier on me again, Worldedixor? Lol! --P123ct1 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Both of these editors have made valued and verifiable contributions to Wikipedia as its dossier records clearly show. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I am here since only two weeks ago, so I don't what contributions has Gregkaye done to this topic overall. If these contributions are important, then I appreciate them. But unfortunately we can not ignore his continuous disruptions of this article. When I criticized him for this, he answered that the opinion of imams about IS has much more value than the facts stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports on Iraq and Syria, because "Islamic criticisms" are "of more relevance than anything [...]". After this bizarre response, along with the info stated here by Jason from nyc, I can't believe he's editing objectively and in good faith. He's been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. I think something should be done to prevent disruptions, given the fact that warnings and talking to him doesn't work. Felino123 (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Persistent POV-pushing, editing against consensus and disrupting the collaborative work of editors are having a bad effect on this article. all jeopardise the Wikipedia project. I have changed my mind about dispute resolution. I don't think it would work and support a topic ban, in order to protect all Syrian War-related articles. However, I am not at all sure what the best solution is here. I now think a topic ban would be too swingeing, as it would stop Gregkaye from making his otherwise valuable contributions to Syrian War-related articles. Some editors on the Help Desk (see my very first comment in this AN/I for the background) thought AN/I may not be the best approach and that some form of dispute resolution should be tried (no details given). --P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Could we have some guidelines and advice on other ways of settling this dispute, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has nothing to support his claims that the islamic state "isn't jihadist" and "isn't caliphate", his only argument about how "the muslims are against the islamic state" (the only point of his "arguments") are wrong from its core from few reasons:

1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership that can renounce the islamic state in the name of the entire muslims world and islam itself.

2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates.

3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters.

he choose which muslim is "authority" and gives him the authority only in what he himself agree about(like al qaradawi renouncing of shia, alawites and the islamic state), gregkaye relies on "authority" which relies on gregkaye himself.

this is POV, period. and nobody can't deny it even if he ignore other of gregkaye's "arguments" about the islamic state's "morality" as it has anything to do with being jihadist or caliphate.

gregkaye also have obvious hard feelings about them and i already told him on the argument of me with him that he has too much hate for them and that he can't see them in a neutral way.

there is nothing that can serve as an excuse for his aggressive pushing of his POV, even if it wasn't aggressive at all cause wikipedia should be neutral at all cost. so what about the ridiculous accusations of "secret e-mails against Gregkaye" and the pointless talking about how much gregkaye has contributed to wikipedia?, do you get points that give you the right to push your POV? even if there was some "secret e-mails against gregkaye" that still doesn't gives him the right to force his POV.

and by the way i began editing articles only when i joined the discussion(you can see my ip on my first comments to him) and i know gregkaye's opposers as much as i know gregkaye himself, so you can forget from the "secret e-mails" consipracy.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wheels of steel0, Please don't misrepresent me. You put both phrases, "isn't jihadist" and "isn't caliphate", in quotation marks. They are not found in, Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

You say: "1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership..." Thank-you, but when a significant section of Islam worldwide reject this murderous (non-jihad), Muslim killing (non-Jihad), territory hungry (non-jihad) group as being un-Islamic, then that has got to say something.

You say: "2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates." Thank you. They say you "can prove anything with the Bible". The parallel phrase seems to be given a more limited use with the Quran but this does not necessarily place limits on the "interpretation of the quran". Show me a text that says that a Jihadist can be a murderer, a Muslim killer and territorially ambitious.

You say: "3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters." Agreed. ISIL has its Islamic supporters and yet their view are very far from being contested within the Islamic world. Please look up Islamic interpretations of Jihad in a variety of sources and hopefully you will see the point.

My conclusion has long been that we can't speak in an unqualified way in Wikipedia's voice and sanction this murderous group as being "jihadist". Wikipedia, as a neutral source of information, can say that the group is described as being jihadist. We might also put the word in quotes or add a footnote to the text so as to present religiously legitimised alternate views on jihad. The footnote is not intrusive and this is now quite literally a case of "to [b] or not to be" which would be mind meltingly laughable were it not for the fact that, without some form of qualification, we will endorse this most extreme of extremist groups by use of the religious, Islamic terminology "jihadist". We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die. You can claim such a statement as "aggressive pushing" if you like but, please, get some perspective. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye stop writing random mumblings as a comment for what i am saying in order to make it look like you had some argument or anything serious to say:

1.significant section of islam also consider shia and alawites as "heretics", it doesn't mean that you can use it to rewrite the defenition for jihad and caliphate and add new terms according to your own will. almost every caliphate and jihadist group has fought against other muslim groups and each one of them sought to expand their territory as much as they can.

2.show me a text about any kind of jihadist/caliphate that didn't commited murder and wasn't "territorially ambitious". you should also show me the text that appoints you to be the supreme authority in islam and gives you the ability to rewrite and add new stuff to islam as you wish.

3.you already provided an defenition of "jihad" but it has nothing to do with the difference between the islamic state and other caliphates and jihadistic groups, the only "point" in your comments is the new terms that you shove into islam in order to make it fit to your personal feelings on the islamic state organization.

so how you talk about "conclusion" and "qualified"? who qualified you to rewrite islam? who qualified you to dictate the authority of every muslim over islam? you even rewrites history with the way you ignores some parts of it.

that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.

--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Quick Observation: I cannot tolerate injustice especially when I see a pattern of "selective" notification to influence a process. I, for example, was never notified of this ANI even though I was just 'one of the many' witnesses of Gregkaye's insightful contributions and his passionate dedication to the ISIS article. For the record, I am still not convinced of his Jihadist argument, yet I don't have sufficient knowledge or better arguments to convince him otherwise, but I won't just ban editors when I run out of logical arguments or because I don't like their approach to editing, or because he is in the way of my local consensus club of pals. If we want to address perceived disruption, we need to treat all disruptive behavior by all editors equally without any bias, let alone flagrant bias (especially those who bring forth any type of ANI with unclean hands, questionable credibility and a verifiable pattern of falsely asserting consensus and misleading well-meaning admins and editors with half truths).

Most importantly, I just observed something worrisome that is also compromising the normal consensus decision of this ANI process. As per WP:CANVAS, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." P123ct1 is one of Technopant's (very small) "Local tagteam consensus" club at the ISIS article, and they clearly intend to influence the outcome of this ANI in order to ban Gregkaye and get him out of their way. One example of her intent is her unsolicited and inappropriate attempt to dismiss Legacypac's comment above. So, I am reporting what I saw which can independntly be verified at [11] (Specific Ref: WP:Votestacking), and I ask the closing admin to take it into consideration objectively. Worldedixor (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy Re: Technophant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

returning edit, which had been moved without explanatory comment, to its original position.

• Comment Worldedixor should have not been selective in his link. The full link to the exchange between Wheels of Steel0 and I shows that this is not canvassing but a continuation of an attempt made by both us, independently and each without knowledge of either having done so, to bring the very matter raised by this AN/I to the WP:Help Desk to get some guidance on the best way to proceed (their answer was inconclusive). Wheels of Steel0 specifically asks me in that exchange how the matter could be dealt with and I told him an ANI had been started. He is an inexperienced editor, as he said in that exchange, and was asking for help. This is really not the place to digress, but I cannot let these WP:PAs by Worldedixor on Technophant and I pass without comment. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Had Worldedixor been editing the page (he hasn't for over a month), he would have seen the notice Technophant put on the Talk page about this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Worldedixor, why don't just read gregkaye's "arguments"? he has nothing to say other than giving every muslim he wants an authority that no muslim can have over islam and rewriting islamic terms and islam itself as he wishes. just read our argument her and/or on the talk page in the ISIS article.

that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.

so what about stop attacking his opposers as "small group"?, gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Response I will gladly assume good faith as I don't have sufficient information to form an opinion of your conduct. I will also correct you. What you stated "gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article" is non-factual. You cannot lump me as a POV pusher when I clearly oppose his arguments on this particular matter and he has not yet convinced me, just as I oppose this ANI and banning editors who may be more knowledgeable than me in a certain area. I'd rather give them a non-confrontational, comfortable place to think with a clear mind, and give them the chance to improve their arguments, that may or may not influence me to support their contribution.

The ISIL article is a very controversial and heated article, and I am perplexed that we don't have over a 1,000 new editors contributing their diversified and insightful knowledge to the ISIS article. I have my opinion on this but I will keep it to myself for the time being.Worldedixor (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

response Worldedixor i didn't called you a POV pusher, i talked about Legacypac which sided with gregkaye. and why you think that gregkaye know more than you about the subject? he has no special knowledge, he just pushing his POV aggressivly and count on that that people will just let him do whatever he wants.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Response Now, your statement is clearer to me. I stand corrected. Worldedixor (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Quick Comment I remember vividly how clueless I was in my first few weeks on Wikipedia when I was a new inexperienced editor, eight years ago. I am extremely impressed how well versed Wheels of steel0, an inexperienced editor, is in Wikipedia affairs. Kudos.

Also, P123ct1 has changed the order of Gregkaye's comment in an ANI without his permission [12]. This is neither an attack nor a grudge. This is a statement of a verifiable fact of P123ct1's conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

Innocent enough. Trying to put three comments in their proper time sequence. Gregkaye informed. Original order restored. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC) What's so innocent about your writing "RfC/U - The worm has turned.", PA and WP:CANVAS at [13]? I have shown a verifiable pattern of your conduct in this ANI and, at this point, not only am I no longer interested in contributing my knowledge to the ISIL article, I will also recuse myself from this ANI because I clearly do not see editors sanctioned equally when it comes to policy violations. I am out of here!... Worldedixor (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Important Observation This edit [14] shows a P123ct1's conduct that is inconsistent with policy in this ANI. This is not an attack, this is a verifiable pattern of P123ct1's conduct.Worldedixor (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC) (removed my comment not relevant to AN/I) --P123ct1 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Objections

In regard to Technophant's summary as presented above, the first edit clearly shows, contrary to the claim, "inserted paragraph into lead", that the edit involved a simple movement of text. The content, which had previously been placed as the second paragraph of the lead, was returned to this position. Technophant's additional claims that I have 'ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist"' are laughable. As he will have read, and as his edit summary shows, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. In fact one of the effects of my edit was to take the presentation of Jihadist and to correct the grammar to jihadist,. Technophant also failed to present my actual argument which has always been that a declaration of ISIL as being jihadist should be qualified. The simple fact is that a large portion of the world's Muslim population have a view of Jihad that is far distant from the one held, in or out of Iraq and Syria, by supporters of the ISIL government. As a result I have consistently argued it is in contravention of NPOV to use Wikipedia's voice so as to endorse the group as having a religious validation that is in dispute. I have since suggested an extremely unobtrusive format of footnoting that can be used to create a more balanced overall picture. In all my dealings on the talk page I have treated people with relevant respect. There is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines against the presentation of opinion on talk pages and certainly not when a reasoned case is presented. I do not object to accusation of pushing POV (hardly an issue on a talk page) but take serious exception when the accusation comes from an editor who uses a variety of spins to promote his. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye why can't you understand that the whole way you treat islam as a group with monolithic leadership and guidance is wrong from its core?, you talk about "view" of jihad but don't understand that the muslims you talk about can't realy seperate the jihad of the islamic state from other groups(like caliphates) who claimed to do jihad, their only objection to the islamic state is cause of non-religios factors like social pressure and arab goverments propaganda which obviously would be against a caliphate without any relation to its "religious validation". and for that "religious validation" you gave NOTHING to disprove their religious legitimacy as jihadist or caliphate but only talked on the opinion of some muslims and gave them special authority according to your will, and the main fact that made your rhetoric useless on that matter is not the fact that you give them authority which they can't have but the fact that you want to use it only when it fits to your opinion and obviously wouldn't agree to use that proposed "muslim majority" on articles about islamic factions like shia and alawites.

i respect your resistance to the islamic state, but you need to understand that you can't use the opinion of some muslims in order to force YOUR opinion on some article. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 why can't you respond appropriately and in relevant locations to the actual content of the thread. None of the above comments apply to the content that followed the emboldened title "Objections".

I had stated: "The simple fact is that a large portion of the world's Muslim population have a view of Jihad that is far distant from the one held, in or out of Iraq and Syria, by supporters of the ISIL government." Your non-reply fails to address this point.

Did you place these repetitions of previously mentioned content at this point with intent? Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye "Your non-reply fails to address this point" are you even reading my comments to you? like seriously? i commented on your pointless pseudo-arguments over and over and you still don't get it that your rhetoric of mentioning the opinion of some muslims(even as "the majority") as a proof for anything is just stupid and pointless. and it doesn't matter where i comment to you as long as you can see it, now all what you need is to stop with your ridiculous and pointless rhetoric as a defence for your aggressive POV pushing.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am. Again: Did you place these repetitions of previously mentioned content at this point with intent? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support a very, very limited topic ban: where Gregkaye seems to run into to trouble is with attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words. The same thing happened over at Talk:Antisemitism. According to him Jihad (or whatever other word is the subject) originally meant something, and it can never be reappropriated. This is not how languages work, and it is not our role as compilers of an encyclopedia to second-guess the use of terminology by reliable sources. Since Greg does not seem able to get this particular point, I would support a topic ban on all discussions related to the definition or usage of specific words. This would allow Greg to contribute in all the other areas in which he is generally productive. Oppose a broader topic ban, as the level of disruption does not warrant it. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, you are being disingenuous. As you know there was no "attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words" at Talk:Antisemitism. My interventions were to point out the clear weaknesses of "anti-Semitic" terminologies (based, as they are, on a misnomer) and, for instance, stated that, "Sensible terminologies include: Anti-Jewish, Anti-Jewish sentiment, Anti-Jewish racism, Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism and Anti-Zionism". As you know I also clearly stated: "yes the word is in exclusive use for the Jews. So is the word "Jews". Why not use terms like Anti-Jewish sentiment when possible. My simple suggestion is, where possible, editors seriously consider the use of terminologies that are not misnomers in preference for terms that give clearer representation of their subject." I have not argued for a redefinition of "anti-Semitic" terminologies but have rather pointed out their clear failings. At no point have I been involved in edit warring and at no point have I said that the terminologies are not exclusive to the jews. However, searches such as on the word "semites" in the talk:Antisemitism archives just goes to illustrate confusions raised by this particularly highly promoted word usage. However, in my view the use of "anti-Semitic" terminologies places less direct threat to human life (not that this topic ever came up) than the threat to human life that I contest is indirectly posed by the unqualified endorsement of ISIL, a widely alleged wayward group, as being "jihadist". This, as far as I am concerned, is the difference.

Your misrepresentations have previously extended involved edits and an unsubstantiated personal attack. This one remarkably came in the context of your focus on the recognisability aspect of WP:UCRN as displayed in the text of talk:Antisemitism.

In my dealings with Jewish issues I have always advocated the taking on of responsibility by all sides but, whenever possible, through the minimum of embarrassment. This is born out in that, when I was getting to grips with the issue of the "min threads = 3" archive issue at talk:antisemitism I even contacted you privately to enquire about options. Amendments to archive settings were presented on the talk page and yet, despite your clear knowledge of the talk page content, you failed to give notification when you unilaterally reverted to a setting of three threads. I find it distasteful that your misrepresentations continue here and suspect further motives of curtailing discussion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: ANI discussions are tough and I certainly do not fault you for being on the defensive, but demonstrating more WP:IDHT behavior on deadhorse discussions does not help your case. I suggested a much narrower topic ban than the one discussed earlier in the thread, one that would still permit you to contribute in one of your areas of interest. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: you falsely said, "attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words. The same thing happened over at Talk:Antisemitism." I have quoted reasoned and reasonable statements that I have actually said. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support The removal of the word Jihad means a manipulation of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.115.231 (talk • contribs)

(a) who left this comment? (b) did they read the discussion? It concerned removal of the word "jihadist", not "jihad". Big difference. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a further indication, if it were needed, of the biased and erroneous presentation of this AN/I. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment There's a clear consensus that something needs to be done but not a clear idea of what should be done. I support VQuakr's suggestion of a "very, very limited topic" ban, however it does not address problem of potential article disruption by Gregkaye. I would like to propose that in addition to the specific ban on discussing the use of terminology that Gregkaye also be subjected to a "zero-revert rule" (0RR) on the ISIL article or ISIL topic. This would make any editing of the page a very delicate process, with the only clearly safe edits being the addition of new information, which is generally welcomed. The other alternative is that this user be limited to only making edit suggestions on the talk page. Please note that today this user has brought a matter of potential 1R violation to 3RR noticeboard in which one of his edits changing how the term "jihadist" was used was reverted by another user. ~Technophant (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, You fail to set context regarding the both of us that it has been commented that "neither of you violated 1RR", you fail to mention that the "complaint" about the 1RR violation as made at your suggestion and you also fail to mention that this breach involved reversal (by Felino123) of two edits by two different editors which, in both cases, involved the same topic. If this is your concept of a summing up then it approaches the same level of unbalance as the rest of your present campaign. As I have stated on the other page I suggest that you are watched. I also note that in your edit above that you pinged Vquakr and not me. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: I might have missed it in the long back and forth above, but it looks like all the actions by Gregkaye specifically raised here have been related to word definitions - both the 2 minute skirting of 1RR and the DEADHORSE talk page discussion were related to the usage of "jihadist" or similar, no? It seems like the minimally invasive topic ban I proposed above should be tried first, and if edit warring still occurs then a 0RR restriction could then be considered. VQuakr (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr In this second opportunity to check facts you will have seen that the discussion only relates to the word jihad related terminologies and if you had turned to the current situation of the talk page you would have seen, despite seeming attempts by Technophant so shut the discussion down, it is still live at Talk:ISIL with new avenues for constructive development being opened up. Your attempts to jump on a bandwagon and tie in other topics are unsubstantiated. The claim of edit-warring is laughable especially in light of two clear infringements of 1RR mentioned above.

All that having been said and following a fair bit of soul searching and self-reflection, I think that a genuine area in which I have taken things too far relates to WP:SOAPBOX. Since personally realising this a few days ago (and while I made my own enquiries into report related interventions,) I have very deliberately refrained from strong comment on the talk page. I personally view the soapbox arguments as being those of the community whose religion it is and whose communities either have been or are at risk of being attacked. I am a naturally straightforward person whose tendencies can result in blunt comment. However, I deny the accusation that I am trying to change the meanings of jihad related terminologies beyond the extent that I believe it is of relevance to consider the Islamic and arab community perceptions of the subject. Statements by Islamic organisations and various imams as well as presentation by media organisations such as al-Jazeera should, I believe, be considered.

Given this context and given the context of the typically Islamic communities that are involved in this awful situation I find the deadhorse accusations to be both out of touch and offensive. This does not detract from any need I have to tone things down both in terms of the force and pace of my interventions. I am, at least from my point of view, a passionate person but I can, I hope, help the ways in which this is manifest. While continuing to acknowledge the fact of the, I believe warped, perception of jihad as it is both regarded in the west and by many proclaimed jihadic groups, that I can't foresee a route by which I would drop the view of jihad as presented by the wider Islamic community. It is a view that has relevance and, I contend, should be considered.

As mentioned I have done a fair bit of "soul searching" in the last few days but had kept my conclusions to myself in view of the battle ground type tactics that I perceive to have been in operation surrounding this report. I am particularly grateful to editors who have helped with my enquires and to one particular editor who, while continuing to maintain a strong line with me, has kept in good contact and shared some good wisdom. This has really helped.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

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

More WP:OR immediately following a block

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

---

Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following this discussion only two weeks ago, Kkm was blocked for edit-warring and for unapologetically adding his own original research and "analysis" to various corporate articles. Even while the discussion was ongoing, Kkm continued to make the same sort of edits. He was blocked for that and for edit-warring to keep his original research in various articles.

Immediately following his return to editing, he added exactly the same type of original research (raw financial data, disingenuously cited with his own interpretations) to two different articles. I reverted both edits and warned him for those. My reverts were reverted, but with the addition of slightly better sources. But Kkm is at it again, adding the same Google Finance data, calling it an "annual report" and using the raw data to extrapolate year-on-year financial results.

There was a commitment from Kkm during the last ANI discussion that he would discontinue his OR spree. That commitment was obviously as disingenuous as his sourcing. I really don't know what else to do - I've tried warning, discussing, reverting, discussing again, discussing here (for which he was blocked) and more warning. What is it going to take for this disruptive behaviour to be stopped? St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that adding (or subtracting ) numbers together isn't OR. He can show where he got the numbers from, and unless the contention is that google's unreliable, he's doing nothing more that basic addition or subtraction. This doesn't appear to be OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You've lost me. It was established that what he was adding was original research in the last ANI discussion and he agreed to stop doing it. The block was for original research. But he's back at it. It's not simply a matter of "adding (or subtracting) numbers". He's posting raw financial data, extrapolating results and claiming the data is in fact an annual report from the company in question. Completely false. The reliability of Google isn't in question - it's not a source published by Google at all; it's the raw search results Kkm got when he plugged the stock exchange code into Google. The issue here is not the acceptability of the edits themselves (it was established they were completely unacceptable and even Kkm agreed as much while at the same time pleading ignorance). The issue is that the IDHT attitude has continued beyond the original block. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart111, looking at the page he linked to shows the numbers he says are there, and where he says increase or decrease, it's obvious that that indeed is what it is. He's not making up numbers, nor is he comparing source a to source b and coming up with C. He's reporting the numbers on the website (which is google finance) and stating if it's an increase or a decrease. That portion is not OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps this shouldn't be qualifies as the "Annual Report" which is an actual document likely produced by the company and Google Finance does not (as far as I saw) claim to be directly reproducing that report. There may be an issue of if Google Finance is an RS for this type of thing, but assuming it is, the increase/decrease stuff clearly falls within WP:CALC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As Gaijin42 said, it is also disingenuous to call the Google finance search an Annual Report. Anyone who is familiar with financial parlance would know that an Annual Report is released by the company and includes far more than just the numerical data for cash flow, etc. As it is now, the labeling is misleading to the reader as to the true provenance of that source. Blackmane (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As I said on Kosh's talk page - I have no real interest in re-prosecuting the case against Kkm. That was well established in the last thread about exactly the same behaviour. There is no "annual report" - that's an invention of Kkm's who is trying to pass his interpretation (or calculation) of financial results off as the work of the company itself or Google Finance. The sources in question are not either of those things. The issue here is an editor returning after a block and thumbing his nose at the community by immediately re-starting the same sort of editing that got him blocked in the first place. If consensus has changed in the last two weeks and Kkm's actions are no longer a blockable offence (which seems strange without considerable community discussion) then I'll move on and stop putting effort into stopping what is obviously disruptive behaviour. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Err, "There is no annual report...." What's the link he's referring to ? The link shows a report on google finance for that company. It's not an invention by Kkm , unless you want to claim that he put together an OR report, then somehow got google finance to carry it ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What? Where is the report? Annual report means something specific - something a long way away from that which Kkm calls, "2014 Annual Report". ZTE. Retrieved 2014-03-19. Besides the obviously wrong date and wrong attribution, the link isn't to an "Annual Report" at all - it's to a set of google search results - a raw Google Finance data sheet for the company that you get by plugging the relevant stock exchange code into google and hitting "search". It's not an "Annual Report" by any stretch of the imagination (it's not even a published "report" in any sense of the word) and includes specific disclaimers (from Google) that it's not what Kkm claims it to be. You'd get the same data by walking into a stock exchange and copying down the numbers from the board. There is not a single part of that citation which is honest and genuine - every part of it is false. Kkm knows this, has been warned about this and has edit-warred to keep this sort of thing in article to the point where he was blocked. And he's at it again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That link actually has the quarterly and annual data for that particular company, and he's accurately reporting what the numbers say in that annual report without any calculations. Time to drop it Stalwart, there's no OR here. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source". As on your talk page, I genuinely can't work out whether you're just trolling to get a rise out of people or whether you don't understand what's going on. Right now, your are the ONLY person suggesting these are acceptable sources and edits (even Kkm has given up on that ridiculous line). Do you actually think Kkm's conduct (which even he has vowed to discontinue) and editing (which even he has reverted) is acceptable? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source" ' Stalwart, I'm hardly trolling. On the page in question I see a link to google finance, which is not some fringe blog, nor is it a forum, nor is it a user-supplied reference, it appears to be reliable as well. I also see KKM reporting what the page says, without attempting to combine source and with source b to create c, nor do I see him attempting to analyze data, he accurately reports what the annual numbers are (they're actually there on google finance ) , whether it's advancing or declining is obvious, so no, there is no OR. You've offered no evidence of such, so , once again, time to drop it and move on, it's not OR KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just. Plain. Wrong. Nobody suggested it was a "blog" or a "forum" and that's a pointless straw-man. Calling it a "link to Google Finance" is disingenuous - they are just raw search results. Of course its user-generated - you get the same by plugging any stock exchange code into Google or any other word into Google and copy-pasting the URL after hitting "search". It's not even a "source", let alone a reliable one. Google didn't "publish" the content - a search engine tool automatically extracts the data and presents it in that format. If I type "Harry Potter" into Amazon's search engine, the results wouldn't constitute a "report" or a "source, published by Amazon". And again, you're the only person here who thinks its a legitimate source - you're still digging; alone in your hole. Even Google warns against using the results in the way you're advocating. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart, that corpse is beginning to stink, please back away from it. |google finance is not user-contributed data, it's the financial data available in any 8K report (I work in the fiance industry ). It's not a search engine, it's a report. Yes it's reliable , if you believe otherwise prove it otherwise stop beating the horse, it died a long time ago. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not even... you just don't... Facepalm. Your capacity and willingness to argue in the face of overwhelming (like... 0% support for your position) consensus is astonishing. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here but I'm starting to gain an understanding of how the extensive note on the top of your talk page came about. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• As with the last thread, Kkm has refused to explain himself either here or on his talk page (last time we got broken English contributions demanding we explain what he had done wrong, even while he undid his own edits). Nothing here at all. But again, Kkm has quietly acknowledged the issue, reverting himself and replacing the "source". Surely fortnightly ANI reports is an inefficient way of preventing disruption? Can we get some admin action here? Dare I ping DP whose warnings Kkm is ignoring? St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• As I said earlier I will use original company source it could be either annual report or fourth quarter results where financial results are mentioned.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you made that commitment "earlier" and then you were blocked. And you've done it 3 times since your block. We obviously shouldn't have believed you last time. Why should we believe you now? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That is why I need your help. Just remind me where I have failed to put original source I will immediately replace it. Don't worry to much about it, just relax take it easy brother.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, nobody should need to remind you. You've been blocked for it before, isn't that reminder enough? (I don't have firsthand experience, though, so maybe not...) ansh666 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart, you appear to be the only person arguing that his postings are OR. You further claim (up a bit higher in this same area) that Google finance is somehow unreliable and is user-generated. You mentioned the disclaimer - and you're right to do so, google doesn't verify the numbers. However, did you see the first part Data is provided by financial exchanges . It's not user generated, and thus reliable. You claim it isn't, I am stating that it is reliable and that no OR is being done on this , he's posting what the numbers say and the "increase " and "decrease" is obvious, and not OR per WP:CALC. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Financial data and analysis for annual reports most definitely do not fall under WP:CALC. Google results are not reliable sources, annual reports are either from the company or from a 3rd party financial reliable source. Perhaps there should be a discussion on the article Talk pages on how best to update corporate financial numbers. Dave Dial (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• KoshVorlon, his block was for original research so your claim is patently false. He returned after his block to do the same thing. You're free to call it something else (believing that it falls within the confined of CALC, though it clearly doesn't) but that doesn't make it any less disruptive, unrepentant, and blatant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Of course, what is being overlooked here, amidst Kosh's rather strange and insistent assertions, is that it was already established this was unacceptable, and that's why kkm was blocked for it. The instant recidivism is the issue, not some odd relitigation.

Let's leave that to one side, however, and consider something else: Read this diff, from Ponyo: "Religion" and "ethnicity" in infoboxes. Here, on his talkpage, at the time of the block, it was made clear that according to BLP, "religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources".

Here are some examples of ignoring this, after the block, and after the extensive advice: [15],[16],[17],[18],[19]. Every one unsourced. Every one unexplained. There are more.

This is not a user here to edit collaboratively, or abide by our policies. I'm pretty much gone from here these days, but I couldn't leave this without comment. This, along with the above, is blatant flouting of rules in favour of POV unsourced trash, even after good faith warnings and a block. It's a user who wants to edit as they alone see fit, and damn the rules and everyone else. I said that in the last ANI. Do with it as you will. Begoon ^talk 13:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've left a final warning with regard to the infobox issue on Kkm010's talk page. The instances of this editor's "forgetfulness" wherein they agree to address concerns and then continue on as they were are problematic and will only lead to additional blocks under the "fool me once" clause.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know about all the diffs but I believe that Google Finance is a reliable source of date and calculating from the information distributed is perfectly logical and should never fall under WP:OR. Google Finance pulls its data from HKG. I am referring to the ZTE article. The edits are sensible and factually correct. He's not under a TBAN or anything such, so I believe what you call recidivism might just be constructive edits. However, please note. I am yet to see the other differences. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I scanned through the diffs ([20],[21],[22],[23],[24]) and trust me, they are fine. I mean by that - factually correct. For example, Malala Yousafzai - is marked as a follower of Islam. Is it sourced? No. Why do we accept it? Common sense. Come on, you don't need citations for this kind of basic infobox information. Do we question Michael Jackson's religion, do we question Assad's religion? Does Farooq Abdullah sound in anyway Christian or such? The surname Abdullah clearly specifies the fact that's he's a follower of Islam. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Here, on his talkpage, at the time of the block, it was made clear that according to BLP, "religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources".
— User:Begoon

I don't know why I am saying this. But don't tell me that common sense and logic qualify under WP:OR too. And Kkm010 could have sourced all of them but he/she preferred not to. -_- --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• That has to be among the most ridiculous rubbish I've ever seen posted to ANI. Someone should "logically" have particular religious beliefs attributed to them because their name "sounds" Muslim? Are you kidding me? That's the worst kind of original research. And by the way, the claim that Malala Yousafzai was, "born into a Sunni Muslim family" is most definitely sourced. It just doesn't need to be sourced again when included in the infobox. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ankit Maity, you are very much on the wrong side of policy. If you want to include a BLP subject's religion in an article it needs to be supported by reliable sources, there needs to be evidence of self-identification, and it needs to be relevant. I'm sorry, I don't "trust you" that the information "is fine". You may be a wonderful person, but I don't know you from a hole in the ground and Wikipedia readers need to be able to verify the information included in articles. I'm not sure how you can say that "you don't need citations for this kind of basic infobox information" when every single permutation of BLP policy states that you indeed do. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• After edit-warring and OR, a block, some disingenuous apologies, more edit-warring and OR, more disingenuous apologies, more pleading ignorance, final warnings, some off-topic and non-policy blather and some final, final warnings, Kkm has spent the time this thread was open edit-warring in a new area and again feigning ignorance. The lack of administrator attention and action has allowed this thread to degenerate into a string of contributions like the one above from editors seemingly keen to defend Kkm's nonsense on entirely non-policy grounds. Do we need to formally put this to a vote to get some action? I hate having to watch another editor's contributions and I'm sure the other 3-4 people watching Kkm's feel the same. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Wooeyparks' edit war with themselves

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

---

Wooeyparks (talk · contribs) has been adding, deleting or reverting "Gakuen Basara (Yukimura Sanada)" (and sometimes other lines, or subheading names) over and over again. For example there's maybe 50 edits like these [a, b, c] in the Hiro Shimono page history. It almost looks like an automated process. The only reason I can think they might be doing this is to try and increase their edit count.

I've identified at least 5 other articles with this repetitive editing pattern by Wooeyparks: Mamoru Miyano, Nobuhiko Okamoto and (perhaps less extensively) Junichi Suwabe, Kazuyuki Okitsu and Katsuyuki Konishi. I suspect there are more, less-easy-to-identify example. The gaps between edits sometimes span days, and Wooeyparks' contributions show that they alternate between articles, and Wooeyparks often contributes legitimate edits as well as these strange repetitive ones.

I contacted Wooeyparks on their talk page and they deleted my first post [as seen here]. I then contacted them again, and a 3rd time after 3 weeks. They deleted those posts along with others [as seen here]. I am at a loss as to what to do—Msmarmalade (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please advise—Msmarmalade (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Any input appreciated —Msmarmalade (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Any input at all.—Msmarmalade (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here and for your patience. Our admin ranks are getting slightly understaffed, and some harder to handle issues are left to linger. I have now blocked the editor for one week (they had been blocked for disruptive editing in April already), and left a note on his talk page. Let's hope that he'll come back to explain himself and continue his productive editing while dropping the strange edits he makes inbetween. Fram (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to it :). What should I do with this discussion until then? Should it be kept open for Wooeyparks to respond? Or can I leave it to be archived?—Msmarmalade (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We'll just let it be archived. He had his chance to respond here (he made plenty of edits during its course), now he can discuss this on his talk page. If things don't change after the block expires, you can always drop me a note or start a new section here. Fram (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Just a note here; I've changed the block to indefinite. See WP:Long-term abuse/Wooey Parks, this is either a reincarnation or a troll but in either case not here to be useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism

These are, I hope you would agree, a grievous personal attack, and are highly damaging to the encyclopaedia. You are probably not aware that anonymous editors will always be accused of vandalism, and the time it will take for someone to slander them in this way is usually very short. For this IP address, it's taken less than two days.

• Edits with very clear summaries: [25], [26]
• Reverts with false accusations: [27], [28]
• Threatening message left: [29]
• Further spread of false allegations: [30]

Is anyone bothered by this, and if so, what are you prepared to do about it? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that this user is the so-called Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP user, as has been noted by a statement on this user's talk page by someone else. I would suggest having a look at the edit history of BBC Canada and CBC News Network, which both show a history of edit-warring on this particular point by this user. I would argue that the vandalism designation is now appropriate given that vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, which is exactly what I would argue this user has now been doing. I would suggest a lengthy block of this IP address (definitely for the edit warring regardless of the validity of the vandalism designation), given that this user has previously been blocked for 3 months after doing exactly the same thing (see User:187.17.57.15). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the IP is operating whilst his block under another IP [31] is still in force. Not entirely unusual for this individual. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It is obvious that my edits were an attempt to improve the articles. Even if you considered making necessary edits with clear summaries to be disruptive, that is specifically described as not being vandalism. Your ignorance of the policy is troubling. False accusations of vandalism are highly damaging to the project, and in my opinion they should be met with a block if made and not retracted. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean a block that one can ignore, and just pop up immediately under a different IP? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess you think false accusations of vandalism are not a problem then. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They are a problem, and admins will decide how to call this, bearing in mind both sides of the story. Is it a "grievous personal attack"? Biggest laugh I've had all day, considering what you've called me in the past, let alone others. Do I think you're in a good position to decide what's "damaging to the project", "troubling" or "slander"? No. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you like to see a particular person attacked, that's up to you. It doesn't mean that the attack is not an attack. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like to see anyone attacked, which is why I find your behaviour over the years so obnoxious. Do I feel this is an "attack"? No. He's criticising your editing, as far as I can see, and it's up to the admins whether or not he's accurately doing so or not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha, "criticising"? No. He's making an obviously untrue claim. One could, conceivably, use the word "vandalism" as criticism. Journalistic reviews of works of architecture and such have certainly done that. But that would not be accompanied by a "final warning" and the reporting of the architect to the authorities, would it? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP apparently wants the "offending" editor to stop using their user name an edit as an ever-changing IP. Brilliant. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got absolutely no idea what you mean by this. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The primary remedy here is blocking editors. In your world, that means the editor is supposed to continue editing, changing their IP every time they are blocked for evading their block. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not making any sense.186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. The IP is editing in direct defiance of a block. Again. Repeated claims of being the victim based on wikilawyering ("It's not socking because I've never had an account", "How dare you undo my edits made in defiance of a block", "No, I'm not 'banned', I'm merely ignoring every block ever placed on me", "It's not 'vandalism', it's just more of the edit-warring that I've been blocked for", "Calling my edit-warring 'vandalism' is a 'grievous personal attack', which I won't stand for"). I'd suggest a nice boomerang, but I'm just a "fucking retarded little cunt", so what do I know?

Let's try this: Start with the earliest block evasion we can find for this editor. For each evasion after that, make the next block longer and extend the previous block. Then, if the editor waits out the block, we can let them try again in 2020 or so. Or let them continue to edit war, make personal attacks and ignore all blocks and edit all of our policies and guidelines to reflect their special status. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of sock puppetry again? It does amuse me how a complaint about false claims just leads to more false claims. And indeed, I've been blocked several times in the past for no reason other than having complained about false claims being made. Sock puppetry is the act of pretending to be more than one person. A puppet has to be animated by a puppeteer. Perhaps you can point out where I ever pretended to be more than one person. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am accusing you of block evasion. You have been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, personal attacks and block evasion. Hell, you were blocked yesterday for a personal attack. You have also falsely claimed to not be the same editor.[32]

And obviously, you have to trot out yet more false claims. Nowhere in the diff you provide did I claim to be or not to be anyone. I never attempted in any way to conceal my identity. The diff you post is an interesting case, in which you undid a swathe of my edits for no good reason, with no explanation, and clearly to the detriment of the encyclopaedia (for example, restoring peacock words and undefined acronyms). I complained, obviously. I got blocked because of who I am. here. 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You claimed you were not evading a block: "...the block log it claims block evasion. Neither of these are true." As you were blocked at the time, the only reasonable way to read that is as a claim that you are not who you are. You might wikilawyer this into some other explanation, but the obvious intended meaning is as I read it. It is also the reading the declining admin had.[33][34] I did not undo a swathe of your edits "for no good reason". WP:EVADE, as has been repeatedly explained to you, allows any editor to undo any or all of your edits, without giving any further reason. You were blocked because of who you are: a disruptive, edit-warring, block evading editor who is unable and/or unwilling to control their tendency to make vile personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not blocked at the time. You posted a diff showing that the administrator said on 5 September that I was "obviously the same user as 190.162.219.249". That IP address had indeed been blocked, and the block had expired on 2 August. You did indeed undo a swathe of my edits for no good reason. There is no policy that allows you to undo any or all of someone's edits simply because you've developed a grudge against them. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Poor you. You've been blocked so many times that you can't even keep track of the blocks. You were still blocked at the time.[35] I undid your edits because you were evading a block. Boo hoo. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• We can always let positive edits stand, and not revert them for no good reason besides either desire for righteousness or bureaucratic adherence to a guideline that does not itself require we follow it. Or, we can go ahead and indef-block their current IP address, and feel much better about ourselves. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In effect, you are saying the editor in question is untouchable. They can make personal attacks, edit war and ignore any blocks, so long as they are willing to restart their modem. (They have repeatedly stated that they have repeatedly done so to avoid the numerous blocks.) Thus, they were blocked for 3 hours yesterday for calling me an idiot, but only because they chose to ride it out. They were not blocked for any of their other repeated personal attacks (including "fucking retarded little cunt"), edit warring and block evasion. Would you care to clarify Wikipedia:Blocking policy? It seems it should read, "Blocked users can continue to access Wikipedia, but cannot edit any page (including their own user pages), except (in most cases) their own user talk pages or if they are willing to restart their modem and make edits Drmies feels are an improvement. In that case, do whatever the fuck you want at all times." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful to find out if the IP's sockmaster is a banned user. If so, all edits by that user are revertible on-sight, regardless of their alleged quality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah great, another ridiculous false accusation of sock puppetry. You think you're being helpful? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful, you could give us a list of other IP's and/or registered users you've edited under. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're calling for the revert of all my edits, based on a claim you've decided to make on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. And this despite us never, to the best of my knowledge, having ever interacted in any way. Again I'll ask: you think you're being helpful? 190.163.4.132 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I unequivocally call for your edits to be revoked? Or did you just confess to being a banned user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) IP has been blocked for 6 months for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done OhNoitsJamie. I don't know why we waste so much hot air on trolls, vandals etc. Just nail them down and move on. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Jamie, Jim, for reasons noted above this is not going to achieve anything (and we are not dealing with a "troll, vandal, etc."). Note that the editor is not banned--a discussion on AN did not deliver the result some were hoping for. Note also that "LTA" is not some admin- or community-approved page: that they "have" an LTA file does not mean they are a longterm abuser, it means that someone wrote it up. The choice term the IP slung at SummerPhD, that was in March. That doesn't mean it's nothing, of course, but I am not the first one to notice that their abuse follows being reverted time and time and time again. (This does not mean I think it's OK for them to have said that--note that I blocked them for saying "idiot".) The way I see it, we have two options.
  • We block every IP we run into, and revert every one of their edits we run into. The effect of that is that we block a lot of IPs, and revert a lot of good edits in main space; the other effect is that this just keeps going on and on. (I don't see how it can escalate much further; it's pretty much out of control already.)
  • We do not revert their mainspace edits on sight, just because an IP made them, just because this IP editor made them. The effect of that is that many articles will improve; another effect is that a lot of editors will have to swallow their pride and not revert. I don't know if this can be done, but not reverting edits on sight, not reverting their edits with "rv banned ip" (incorrect since they're not banned) or "rvv" (incorrect since not vandalism), well, that would stave off many an edit war, wouldn't it, and many an insult back and forth ("vandal" is an insult, if the person addressed is not a vandal).
  • There is a third option: if the IP got an account, I doubt they'd be reverted as often and as quickly as they are. Of course they're riding hard on this point of principle, which is both admirable and foolish. If they could swallow their pride, though, on this point, well, we could make progress.
• But option two and three can't happen now, and Jamie, I assume you knew that that would be the effect of a six-month block: every time they edit they're block evading in the next six months, and every single time they do simply adds to the notion that the IP editor is a longterm abuser and block evader. I do not believe this is a good thing to do, and if you look into the history here you may realize this too. Basically, the IP keeps getting blocked and reverted because they've been getting blocked and reverted. It's a crazy situation, exacerbated by both sides' increasing antagonism, with a schmuck like me in the middle. What to do? We have chosen the easiest and worst solution: an LTA file, a series of blocks and now a really long one, and an adherence to procedure. And yes, the recurring problem of IP editing where, in this case, an IP editor has too frequently gotten reverted because they didn't have an account. And don't tell me "I reverted them because they're the abusive IP"--the way I see it, they became the abusive IP because they kept getting reverted. But I rest my case: it's hopeless given the intransigence on both sides. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest this to the IP: find an IP address that you haven't used before; create a named account, and resist the temptation to undo your own undone edits so as not to raise red flags. Continue making constructive edits, and avoid incivility and edit-warring. If the IP user does this, I'm fairly certain they could continue editing Wikipedia without incident. The "avoiding incivility and edit-warring" is going to be the biggest challenge for this user, given their history. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jamie, I certainly appreciate the spirit with which you are making this suggestion, but of course a. it remains block evasion for the next six months (unless you lower the block) and b. they're going to have to...what's the word...pretend they're not them, so to speak. I don't know if they're willing to do that. It would be the easiest way out of this mess, no doubt--and yeah, of course they're going to have to keep the cussing down. But I don't know if you've ever been slumming as an IP: the speed with which one gets reverted (and blocked!) sometimes is very disheartening. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that IPs (and redlink named accounts) are sometimes wrongly "profiled"; that's why I suggested that the user create a named account from a non-blocked IP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

So the solution to being falsely accused of disruption, vandalism and sock puppetry is to start sock puppeting. Hilarious.

• find an IP address that you haven't used before - easy enough
• create a named account - no
• resist the temptation to undo your own undone edits so as not to raise red flags - if reinstating edits that have been reverted for absolutely no reason raises "red flags" for you or anyone else, you should consider what your intentions are here. It does not appear that improving the encyclopaedia is among them if reverting for no reason is fine, but re-reverting raises "red flags" for you.
• Continue making constructive edits - as if I ever did anything else.
• avoid incivility and edit-warring - impossible to avoid them - people who love them both are too numerous. I edited for a matter of a couple of hours on the previous IP address before someone reverted an edit of mine for no reason, and it wasn't much longer before someone falsely accused me of vandalism. Just up above here someone entirely unrelated to the conversation blundered in and described me as a vandal and a troll. These are vile personal attacks. If I could be bothered, I could very easily find you 50 editors who've falsely accused me of vandalism. Not one of them was ever blocked. I don't need all the fingers on one hand to count the number who were even warned. Many of them have been explicitly praised by other editors.
• If the IP user does this, I'm fairly certain they could continue editing Wikipedia without incident - you have been enthusiastically blocking me for months, whenever anyone runs to you requesting that you do so. You've blocked leaving dishonest messages every single time, and you've improperly judged my unblock requests for your own blocks. When pressed to give a reason other than the false one you always begin with, you link to the attack page that was created some months ago, the existence of which obviously does not justify a block. You've almost invariably followed that up by removing my talk page access. You've made edits whose only possible intentions could be either or both of a) provoking me, and b) harming the encyclopaedia. And after all this you have the gall to come up with this, having just blocked me for no less than six months. Try to be less ridiculous with your next suggestion.

Here's a simpler way of avoiding problems. Don't revert for no reason. Don't lie about me. And don't ever, ever accuse me of vandalism. Pretty simple, isn't it? But people, including you, prefer harassing and attacking anonymous editors, and they have the explicit encouragement of the community. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that calling someone a liar for making a false accusation of vandalism is considered worth blocking for, but making a false accusation of vandalism isn't. Until people take serious steps to counteract the poisonously discriminatory culture that's developed, you'll continue to see hard working contributors getting angry when repeatedly, endlessly provoked. You yourself have enjoyed taking part in the provocation. I'm sure you got just the result you were looking for. 186.37.203.15 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You are evading a block right now. Until you take that fact seriously, nothing you say here will have any merit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you and your helpful comments. Where would we be without you? And with this, you demonstrate that you have no real idea what vandalism is. My new empirical rule of Wikipedia which you have amply confirmed here is that any complaint about a false accusation of vandalism will trigger at least three further false claims of vandalism. 186.37.203.120 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's called "Administrator intervention against vandalism". However, it is routinely used to enforce blocks in cases of block evasion, such as yours. It is also used in cases of clear personal attacks, such as ones you have made. It is sometimes used in cases of edit-warring, such as yours, but that normally goes to 3RR. Hope this clears up the ambiguity. Do you dispute that you have made numerous personal attacks against numerous editors? Do you dispute that you have edit warred? Do you dispute that you have edited in direct defiance of several blocks? If you can answer yes to all three of these, you are deluding yourself. Otherwise, you have been given the instructions for requesting an unblock. Failing that, you will need to ride out six months or deal with occasionally being uncovered, having your block extended and, boo hoo, having edits reverted without need for explanation by anyone who cares to do so. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no "ambiguity" to clear up. The page itself is extremely clear: "This page is intended for reports about obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". There's even a guide to using the page, which says "Administrator intervention against vandalism is for reporting users currently engaging in persistent, clear vandalism". User:Baseball Bugs's report was a clear and unambiguous accusation of "obvious and persistent" vandalism. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The ambiguity here is that you seem to think there is a meaningful difference between your repeated vile personal attacks, edit warring, and block evasion and "vandalism". Your behavior is not acceptable. Blocking you and reverting your edits without giving any further reason while you are evading the blocks that you can't keep track of is perfectly acceptable. It is soooooooooo sad that a gentle soul such as yourself can't get their way every time and has someone hurt their feelings by not labeling your edit warring, personal attacks and block evasion with exactly the right terms. I realize you find that more offensive than being called a "cunt".[36] Too bad. I'd suggest you take a break, curl up with your blankie and cry about it for a bit. After a good 6 months of crying, maybe we'll see the error of our ways and my signature will read "fucking retarded little cunt", "idiot", "retard", "twat", "fucking idiot", etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. KonveyorBelt 16:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the solution suggested by Drmies, making a regular account is the best one. WP is not a bureaucracy, and if our circular process of blocking and ip editing give a poor result, it should not be continued. The easiest way to avoid it without relying on the knowledge of any admin who may happen to come across the account without knowing the history or the discussion here, it is to remove the existing block(s), and I am prepared to do so if Drmies will help identify them. if the editor will commit themselves to making and using one single named account, and not continue editing as an ip. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to create an account. 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm also prepared to unblock, but I have a different condition in mind. The editor is right: we don't forbid IP editing, and nor should we. We need to remain open to people who may wish to try editing here before they register, or may have their own personal reasons for not registering. Rather, I propose the IP undertake to remain civil. (Which includes recognising that even the best editor occasionally makes a mistake, or runs into something on which reasonable people can disagree.) This is the standard we're all supposed to at least aspire to, and his uncivil remarks have contributed greatly to putting him in this mess. I see improvement in that respect but this is the second time I've seen SummerPhD refer on one of these noticeboards to a really nasty epithet that he flung at her. I'd like to help cut this Gordian knot, but that's my requirement. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I always undertake to remain civil. I never set out to initiate or exacerbate any unpleasant situation. I am, however, under constant attack. The reason I started this discussion was that I was falsely accused of vandalism, but of course that got quickly forgotten, a single comment from the accuser failed to explain why he made false claims, and the discussion degenerated into snide attacks on me and several further accusations of vandalism. If you expect me to remain friendly at all times in the face of this kind of behaviour, you expect too much.

If someone repeatedly pokes me in the eye, and I eventually stab them in the chest, then a reasonable person would surely say I overreacted. They would also surely say that the person shouldn't have poked me in the eye. People like User:SummerPhD and a number of others (User:Wee Curry Monster and User:AlanS spring to mind) specifically set out to poke me in the eye, stalking my edits and reverting them for no reason. If that kind of behaviour were to be actually frowned upon, actually dealt with and actually considered harmful, we would never have had any problems at all. But it's been repeatedly established that their actions are condoned and encouraged by the community. If deliberate and constant provocations are permitted and encouraged, you have to expect that people will either a) leave or b) react. I am certain that most people simply leave. I've been contributing for more than ten years and I have no plans to stop. Every time I randomly browse a few articles I find very basic problems that need correcting. If User:SummerPhD wishes to continue stalking and reverting my edits to the obvious detriment of the encyclopaedia, while leaving immature taunting comments as above, then what is a tireless contributor who isn't going to leave expected to do? 186.37.203.20 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the latest series of destructive and provocative edits by User:SummerPhD: [37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50]; and two other unexplained reverts: [51], [52]. 186.37.203.204 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the latest IP to inexplicably pop up after the first hundred were blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

IP, I'm aware of why you opened this section, but this is AN/I, where things often boomerang, and we have an intractable problem here. I do think you need to realise that occasionally your edit may not be 100% obviously an improvement - the "best known for" thing, for example, clearly evokes differing responses partly depending on whether there are sources actually saying that. However, I do agree that this situation needs to end. Unfortunately your incivility has given you a bad reputation. DGG and Drmies have proposed one solution. If you are willing to take that one, splendid, and I will watchlist your talk page. I'm proposing an alternative and if you will make a declaration here that rather than strike back with incivility, you will do your utmost instead to (a) step back and consider whether part of your edit was indeed based on a misunderstanding or is a matter of taste and (b) if you still believe you are being reverted unjustly, instead of being rude right back, leave a message at my talk page, I will see about unblocking your various IPs so long as you keep your promise to stay civil. That would have to include trying your best not to refer to people or their messages as immature and taunting. I can't promise to be online and editing 24/7 (I have not yet joined the great mobile revolution), but I have talk page stalkers some of whom would also probably be willing to help out. And you could vent on my talk page a bit. It's a bit more private than AN/I, but of course one of the disadvantages to not registering a user name is that you can't use the e-mail function. Perhaps you or someone else can suggest a third way of fixing this? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Poking chests in response to having eyes poked is understandable, maybe, but not helpful. Tit for tat never solves anything--I should know; I'm only slowly learning this. IP, you have seen that your opponents (it's fair to say we're on a battlefield) are not really willing to budge, in part because you're not giving them much reason to. I've stuck my neck out for you more than once, as you know, and now one of my long-time collaborators is no doubt incredibly pissed at me for trying to work with you and, yes, arguing here and elsewhere that you have a point. I understand you're not willing to create an account--well, "understand", no, not really, but OK.

Yngvadottir, for whom I have the utmost respect, has offered you another way, and I offer my talk page as well. You've used that talk page before so you know the way, and you know also that I have reinstated a great many of your positive edits, using my personal judgment about whether it improves the article or not--as we should all do, it bears repeating. Doing that gives you a kind of high ground, or at least equal status. It may not be all that you want, but I don't see how the present situation is much fun for you. It's certainly no fun for me, and I don't enjoy these periodical flare-ups; there comes a time when I will no longer care who's right and who's wrong and I'll just walk away--I can't go on infinitely arguing that your edits are good so those insults should be forgotten. This may well be the time to give up on arguing the morality and righteousness of the various positions and figure out a way forward; I had not realized, until Yngvadottir (and DGG) came along, that there were other options besides the ones I laid out. Really, pragmatism, not idealism. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I must say that, while I'm astonished this IP still has any support at all, it's to the credit of Drmies and Yngvadottir that they are still willing to look for a compromise. It's an insult to them that the IP clearly has, and has always had, no intention of compromising even slightly – even to the point of accepting that sometimes their edits really aren't all that great. I've never seen such peacockery about such run-of-the-mill gnome edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is getting decidedly dull and tedious. In October 2011, I reverted this edit [53] in which the IP editor managed to strangle a sentence so badly he stated that Prince Andrew travelled to the Falklands War as part of the press rather than as a serving officer in the Royal Navy. I gave an informative edit summary but he simply reverted [54] to once again strangle that sentence's meaning. This is fundamentally the problem, he'll revert every single edit to impose his version on an article whether it improves it or not, whether its a matter of editor choice and in most cases fundamentally its down to the fact he just doesn't like it. I have never stalked his edits, systematically reverting them, I have gone to extra lengths to explain myself to him and I am getting heartily sick of him coming to these boards claiming I stalked him; it never happened. I reverted one edit of his with the edit summary "rv IP edits" in 2011 and over 3 years later he is still whining about it. Really does this guy improve the encyclopedia? His content contributions are not going to set the world alight, he tweaks a bit of poor grammar here and there. So what, the heat and light he generates isn't worth the hassle. Drmies do you think we could at least put an end to the persecution complex, its really a broken record and one that more and more people are tiring of. WCM_email 21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is dull and tedious, with intransigence on both sides. That sentence doesn't say what you say it says: the IP's comma usage is quite correct. And if they're still complaining about that edit--well, pot, meet kettle. That an LTA was started (to which you contributed--and yes, I did too) simply means that this is still ongoing. It was never over. Yngvadottir, DGG, and I are trying to find a way out. Unsuccessfully, it seems. You've been upset with me for quite some time over this, as was Bretonbanquet, and my good friend Ritchie333 is on the opposite side, and so is Summer--all editors with whom I'd much rather collaborate than argue. But I am still unwilling to put it all down on one side. I guess that makes me intransigent as well. Still, I hope you know that I never held the IP editor blameless. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, if I've given the impression I'm upset with you, let me be the first to apologise and let you know that isn't the case. You're actually one of the few admins I have any respect for, which sadly does your street cred no good whatsoever. I happen to disagree with you whether this guy is worth the hassle and life would be dull if we all agreed, all the time. But seriously, this guy's persecution complex is getting beyond a joke. WCM_email 22:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and right back at you. We both have been short with each other over this, though that's a while ago now. Let's agree to disagree, and let's hope that in the long run I'm right, that this is not (another) waste of time. :) Drmies (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Update) The user is leaving personal attacks, trolling, and now edit warring even though he is already blocked. Can we revoke TP access for this user now? He is doing at least 3 things now that would lead to a blockable offense, if he wasn't already blocked. Epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD, Wee Curry Monster, AlanS, and Lippolop: The IP also mentioned you guys in their tirade, FYI. Epicgenius (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping but I intend to ignore him. I set out my response to his false claims here 2 years ago and see no need to add to it further. I would suggest leaving him to rant away to himelf, its simply not worth getting stressed about. WCM_email 09:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP can rant on all they like. Me an others appear to be on the right side of history in regards to this debate. Likely they will rant about us again in the future and we will still of been on the right side of history. AlanS^talk 12:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User:SubSeven - Violation of Wiki Civil and more

Used the comment box to refer to me as an idiot. When I warned him of 3rr revert policy he was going to soon violate. [55]

Used the comment box to speak to me in a demeaning manner, called me slow. [56]

Wikihounded me by following me into an article he has never edited at. [57].

Is engaging in an edit war amongst many users in the Royce Gracie article. Seems to be have a claim of ownership. Engaging in Wiki:Own

CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the editor in question for you. Please do so next time when you submit an ANI report. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to give a hoot about UFC, but stuff like this, while not a hanging offence, is really not on, regardless of the circumstances. Note that this discussion would have shown up on User:SubSeven's notifications since the editor who brought this here included his name in the opening post. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC).

• 1) an edit summary on my talk page is not a message directed at you.
• 2) I didn't call you slow, you may want to re-read that.
• 3) you may also want to re-read WP:HOUND, here is a quote with relevant parts bolded: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."
• 4) 'edit war amongst many users'. Nope. Just you, actually. --SubSeven (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling me an idiot was quite unnecessary. [58] CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC) His response to another user who had the same issue was "take it up with the ufc" [59]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen (CrazyAces489—SubSeven), you can't fight in here, this is the octago... oh wait. Don't make me pull out the WP:GS/MMA ceremonial mace and brandish it against both of you. Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Been a while since the MMA articles poked its ugly head up again. @Hasteur: best beat that ugly head down with the mace. Blackmane (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• SubSeven, you are being a pain, if we are honest The problem is that you are taking a disagreement and turning it into antagonizing and ad hominem, per Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. Attacking the individual instead of their argument. That said, I think the "slow" comment wasn't disparaging mentally challenged people, just saying someone isn't paying attention. It could be taken both ways, but I see it in the least offensive light. Calling someone an idiot, however, wasn't smart and is technically actionable. I'm not prone to block you today because it was a singular incident and we all err, but I strongly suggest you avoid being a pain in the future, or a block is more likely. I want to also remind everyone of this [60], which authorizes broad and sweeping powers to admin in the MMA article area, as a General Sanction. That means one warning, then a person can be indef blocked, topic banned, or any other creative sanction the admin decides is appropriate, and only the Arb Committee or the entire community (WP:AN) can override that sanction, and let me tell you, the community isn't kind when it comes to disruption from MMA articles, they are sick of it. The community's patience for problems in MMA articles expired a long time ago. My suggestion is that we all lick our wounds, go write some articles, use the talk page, get a consensus, live with it when most people disagree with you, and try to keep arguments about the merits, not someone's personality. Then you never have to worry about sanctions. Dennis - 2¢ 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

After the 24 hours passed for 3rr violation warning had passed [61], SubSeven simply went right back to deleting all the sourced entries I placed in [62], [63] and one other place. I have no problem taking things to the talk page [64] , I have also asked him to initiate a RFC [65] (I believe would give the community to decide what the article should state). I only want to give an objective article and continue on creating articles for everyone to enjoy. [66] CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, I thought this inquiry was about my lack of civility? I have stated my position exhaustively on the talk page. You just exited the conversation and continued reverting. --SubSeven (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When I first added reliable sources and additions to the page Royce Gracie you simply reverted it and stated that it wasn't a true full rules fight. I placed it on a separate section stating that it was a limited rules fight with a source. You simply reverted it. [67] When I put in a BJJ match with a source in a separate section, you reverted it. [68] You stated it wasn't his total record. Every posting I have made reliable sources are put in. You simply reverted it. At no point did I exit the conversation in the talk page as per [69]. Your last posting was on Oct 26, while I posted on the 27 and the 29th. I have repeatedly asked you to open up an RFC as this is apparently an old issue that has shown up many times on this page. [70][71] [72] [73] CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• You both need to stop editing the article and use the talk page to get a consensus with other editors. I thought I made it clear, but let me make it brutally clear: if you both keep warring, you both will get blocked. Which of you is right? I don't know, I don't care. Let the interested editors on the talk page decide. But the constant reverting isn't going to be tolerated. And to be even more clear: You don't need to pass 3RR to get blocked for edit warring, that is just the bright line where there is no question. There are plenty of people who could join in the discussion. Go drop a NEUTRAL note at MMA Notability and plenty will join in and help you determine what is a real fight/official and what isn't. Or keep reverting and both of you will get blocked or topic banned. Unquestionably, if if keeps up, I will drop General Sanctions warnings on both of your pages, which is one step away from a topic ban. Seriously, I don't want to do that but I absolutely will. You must go and POLITELY work this out on the talk page and stop warring. Dennis - 2¢ 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, Thank you. All I want is other opinions to be placed in. Also how do I do an RFC, which I believe has many editors put an opinion into a topic so a consensus can be made. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Go read up at WP:RFC, there is a template, it isn't that hard. You just have to make sure it is neutral. Dennis - 2¢ 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Dennis Brown I already rattled the saber in the sheath and they continued to misbehave. I've dropped GS/MMA warnings on both of their pages so now these editors are now on notice that they need to significantly shape up. Hasteur (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• No apology needed, I can't blame you and this is exactly what the General Sanctions are there for. Hopefully, nothing more than the warning will be needed. You and I both remember the Great MMA War of 2011-2012, and we certainly don't want to go down that road again. Dennis - 2¢ 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown and Hasteur, Subseven dropped a posting on my talk page to try to get some sort of consensus here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Dispute_on_Royce_Gracie_page So we are finally getting some sort of positive movement on the article. This was before Hasteur dropped his warning on both of our pages. I thought an RFC or third opinion was the only option. Apparently this an option also. I have never heard of the Great MMA War of 2011-2012, can you please show me somewhere I can read it. It seems pretty interesting. Thanks CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The ANI and AN archives are littered with MMA skirmishes from those years. There were virtually weekly appearances by the usual suspects that general sanctions had to be applied. Blackmane (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The MMA War was literally an attack on the project by a faction of people striving to delete as many MMA articles as they could, which sent the entire community into a frenzy. This is... a content dispute that happens to be in an MMA BLP article. If you really think this could launch another war, let me set your mind at ease, because it seems to me that CrazyAces489 and I are the only two editors who care about the state of this article at all. --SubSeven (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you mischaracterize the Great MMA Wars. I did a great deal of mediating back then, as I could give a care less about MMA, so I was neutral. There were plenty of people trying to include the most trivial facts and unsubstantiated articles as well. It wasn't one sided. The main point is that the tolerance for ANY fighting in MMA, whether it is related to that previous war or not, is very low. Overwhelmingly, the community stays out of the notability and content issues there and doesn't force any standard on that area, other than behavior. It boils down to "you stay in your yard, I'll stay in mine". Understandably, the community is very gun shy about any MMA problems that make it all the way to ANI. It isn't even about the individuals, we just know how easy it is for that particular walled garden to burst over into the rest of the place. Once General Sanctions were issues, allowing any admin to swing the hammer as needed, most of the problems magically disappeared, making that decision one of the most successful applications of General Sanctions we've ever seen. As for consensus, however you build it, we are fine with it, as long as it doesn't spill back here. Dennis - 2¢ 14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Any place I could look at the sanctions or just about the wars CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The archives at MMA Notability and the archives here at ANI. There were also a number of SPIs and RFC/Us filed. There is no single archived that catalogs the entire debacle. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown Once the hammers started swinging faster than new soldiers could be recruited to the war, the external communities decided to take their toys and go home by establishing their own wiki where they can nitpick and document to their own heart's content at http://www.mmawiki.com/. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect idea for a topic like this. Dennis - 2¢ 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Stonerism and related pages

For the past day User:Stonerism and User:Fathercloud have been pushing to include an article about Stonerism at Stonerism. They have also duplicated it at their own pages. The actual content may or may not be a hoax, and it is certainly made up. Stonerism was deleted once and recreated. Today User: ‎2601:d:cd80:ae6:1504:2d12:b2a7:bc3c jumped right in with edits to User:Stonerism and the main article. If not socks, they must be some kind of coordinated attack to include this page. KonveyorBelt 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Fathercloud's first edit was to User:Stonerism, it's pretty clear there's some sort of connection. I've deleted the Stonerism article a second time. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The same material has been deleted per WP:CSD#U5 from User:Stonerism and User:Fathercloud. The Stonerism account was set up on 7 November 2011 and edited only on that one day. Fathercloud is new today; I have referred him to WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fathercloud . I think it should be at SPI. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 17:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Article needs deleting immediately for gross violations of WP:BLP policy

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

---

Can someone delete this post-haste. [74] It makes serious allegations of criminality against named individuals, as well as violating pretty well every other principle of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone close (or even simply delete) the AFD that I had started now that the article has, very sensibly, been speedy-deleted? Abecedare (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at recent contributions of User:Nexus000, the creator of the article in question, I think there may be further WP:BLP concerns. Perhaps someone (other than me - I've got steam coming out of my ears) could take a look and decide what if any further action is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(after ec) Also the many redirects and links that User:Nexus000 created to the the now deleted article need to be deleted/rolled-back. Abecedare (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, how many redirects did Nexus000 create to this page? Ridiculous. I think I've nuked all the bad ones but a second set of eyes doesn't hurt. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This should help catch any straglers. Abecedare (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are more problems than just the redirects though. See this blatant WP:BLP violation I've just removed for example. [75] It looks to me like Nexus000 basically created the article just to add unreliably-sourced allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of his mess I also believe he is operating a Sock Diariesofpierce. My thought is they are not here to build an encyclopedia VViking_TalkEdits 07:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's good that this got cleared up - I'd taken a few swipes at the content earlier but hadn't got round to writing it up properly for WP:BLPN.

I'd seen the Diariesofpierce account and idly wondered what it was about, but it hadn't occurred to me that it's likely to be a sock of the article creator. SPI if necessary. As far as I'm aware, Nexus000 is a legitimate alternative account (or rather, successor account - one couldn't really go as far as calling it a cleanstart) of a much earlier account under one of the reasons listed in WP:SOCK#LEGIT.

Among people who pay attention to YouTube "vloggers" and related things, there seems to be a good faith belief that documenting some of these incidents on Wikipedia is appropriate. (See for example the usually-inappropriate material added to Alex Day by a wide variety of editors over a long period of time now.) Some of the incidents do get coverage in reliable sources, e.g. the BBC. So I am seeing this more as an unwise but good faith manifestation of that, rather than a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia to defame. A strong warning might be appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that this isn't sockpuppetry, but I do have a suspicion that this is a case of two people who know each other off of Wikipedia at least somewhat that decided to try to add pages to Wikipedia. I do think that they meant well and I've tried to stress to the users that as long as they are up front about how they know each other (if they do) then being brought in to help with pages doesn't have anything wrong with it per se. However I did warn them that there are ways to check for sockpuppetry, just in case there is some socking going on. 10:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs)

The intention for this article was not to use Wikipedia to defame, it was to provide reliable information on the scenario. There has been controversy surrounding when YouTube "vloggers" were alleged of committing sexual abuse, specifically ones rotating around DFTBA Records. Many of these allegations were anonymous and people were getting curious and jumping to conclusions.

I wanted a more reliable alternative to this list: http://unpleasantmyles.tumblr.com/post/79455706244/tom-milsom-hexachordal-heres-the-post-olga

I figured news outlets which covered this topic such as BBC, The Daily Dot, TenEighty, Independent, The Daily Mail, Channel 4 were reliable sources for this information. I have used news articles for references before on other articles. I never made false allegations towards anyone. I simply provided information on what was accused, who made the accusation and how the situation played out and the impact of it. Although, I admit several such as Gregory Jackson are questionable for being on the list overall. I have had to leave out information because it was never covered by a news outlet.

I have no affiliation with User:Diariesofpierce. I live in a university so there is a possibly we share the IP, though I would highly doubt that. We simply have been editing similar articles, I'm assuming it is because we have a mutual interest in Alex Day's work since we both appeared on The Underground Storyteller also.

Admittedly, the abundance of redirect links was bad of me. They were all names and usernames of people who have been known to be involved with any of the incidents. My intention with that was to have many people find it.

I apologise for any trouble I have caused or any unwise or inappropriate edits made. I assure you this was with good faith. --Nexus000 (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2014 (NZT)

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

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

There is a full-scale edit warring in the article involving multiple users. I am not suggesting (yet) that the users be sanctioned, but I would appreciate if someone takes a look and takes some action like e.g. page protection or discretionary sanctions. I did edit the article long time ago, so that I am involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• 6 edits yesterday, 1 today, 1 the day before. Looks like they are sticking to 1RR. I don't see the need for any drastic action yet. Dennis - 2¢ 14:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of content that had references being repeatedly removed for what appears to be WP:I just don't like it reasons. 20 pages of talk archive! And really, how many times does Volunteer Marek have to repeat the link WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT before someone starts to scream? He's done it 14 times so far in the active talk page and it is no substitute for actual discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, indeed I guess they self-oganized to stick to 1RR. There was some attempt on the action a week ago, but it was suddenly stopped by TParis (who was afraid that an intervention of an American admin could be unwanted).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be some tag teaming, hard to prove, I'm just saying the article edit volume is manageable and I can't see any action to take there. As for the talk page, that is a mess, but better the talk page than the article. Being an American (and ex-military to boot), I'm not sure my input is any more welcome. Dennis - 2¢ 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point, Dennis. I know we have an admin teaching English in China right now. Perhaps they'd be the least biased here. Or an Australian admin? Do we have any sysops from South America maybe?--v/r - TP 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia lost a lot of people in the incident and imposed sanctions on Russia. China, Latin America, India, Pakistan, or South Africa would be the best locations for an admin willing to do anything there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am South American. I think I could help then? → Call me Hahc21 16:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your intervention will be certainly welcome in any case, but what I mean is that a South American users run considerably lower chances to be accused in affiliation with one side of the conflict than Americans, Australians, Europeans, or Russians.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently a user wanted to report this matter to WP:AE (where it belongs), but changed his mind [76]. Given that, I think reporting this here (or anywhere) was not such a good idea. And yes, I agree with Dennis. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this discussion. I personally have no problem with an American admin. I would have a serious problem with someone who claims that tag teaming is "hard to prove" when there is very obvious and very serious OWNership by editors who insist they know "the truth" even though there's an ongoing investigation. Do they know something the investigators don't know? USchick (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If so, how many "tag teams" do you think operate here, who exactly are members of each "team", and what exactly proofs of "tag-teaming" (as opposed to collaborative editing in good faith) do you have? My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting a new sanctions request about this. Do you think now is a good time? USchick (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I think that casting aspersions is a very bad idea, unless you have evidence to support your claims. I do not really see anything except a few people acting in a good faith. I think you should either remove your comment above (this is my suggestion) or provide your evidence at WP:AE, which would be a proper noticeboard for such case. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I will think about it. USchick (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the process. To ask for Sanctions to be enforced, can I ask on the talk page or somewhere else? USchick (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ask an advice from any administrator who you think would be knowledgeable and uninvolved in editing pages on Eastern Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The admins here have acknowledged that there's a problem on the talk page. Can you please provide some guidance on how to proceed? Thank you. USchick (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. When it's time to block people, admins have a lot to say, but when it's time to offer constructive advice, there's no one to be found? I bet admins would get a lot more respect if they were wiling to take on a leadership role instead of acting like jailers. Just saying. USchick (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bgwhite refuses to acknowledge issue, is uncommunicative

On Sunday, I attempted twice to add paragraph (<p>) tags inside a list item per Help:List#Paragraphs inside list items 'cause the text was too long. I was reverted both times by Bgwhite, for doing it 'incorrectly', apparently. I've tried again and again to explain what was wrong with his fix, only to be brushed off and accused of trying to own the article on his talk page (which I think is very silly -- I did not even revert him a third time). A little while ago he said he'd stop answering to me. Would someone perhaps be able to mediate? Thank you. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, you were reverted because the <p> tag works differently in Wikipedia (it is tantamount to pressing the Enter key twice, which is a paragraph break, and besides, it's unnecessary even if they worked as expected). You also did not break up the paragraphs; instead you put them ahead of each list entry. <p> tags are only to be used if it's the same entry with multiple parapraphs, not multiple one-paragraph entries as is the case here. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Epicgenius, but I think you should take a closer look. Firstly, I added p tags inside a list item; we can't have blank lines inside a list item. Secondly, the 2nd list item did have multiple paragraphs. I've explained why I added p tags to all of them on Bgwhite's talk page. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see the problem. You do not need <p> tags on all the list entries, just those that need breaking. Epicgenius (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, technically, I don't. I wouldn't have protested if they hadn't been also removed from the item that needed them. (But for the reason that there's no margin between list items, I think they should've been kept....which is one reason why I ultimately suggested we create a template.) 31.153.72.171 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

<br> could also be used, if <p> is too big. – Diverse genius (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To be frank, what bothered me the most was that he basically refused to listen to anything I said. It's not the end of the world if it's not semantic or if the margins aren't quite right. Granted, I was a little blunt the first couple of times, but I don't see what it is I did to deserve to be treated this way. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Next time, if you need opinions, you can ask for help at village pump (assistance) or reference desk. – Infinite genius (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

These types don't have time to listen because they're too busy making sure everything project-wide has semantic pushdown context-free cleanliness depth or whatever it is they care about. If you use {{paragraph break}} instead of < p>, they'll leave you alone. EEng (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: WP:VPA was closed 6 years ago... though I can't quite bring to mind what the alternative would be for opinion-asking... *is also a tad confused because refdesk is supposed to reject opinion questions...* (Is this a joke I'm not getting?) - Purplewowies (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's now been reverted a 3rd time (after Epicgenius put it back), for "breaking accessibly guidelines". [77] Where are these guidelines? Why does the Help page suggest we do something that's not accessible? I also like his spin on it: "You were told at ANI not to do this". Where was that? 31.153.72.171 (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

<p> are not allowed in "ul" elements per w3c recommendations. See [78] for informal explanation. If you run a test page with "p" in the "ul" through w3c validator it will tell you it's an error. NE Ent 09:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph tags are allowed inside li's and the validator won't complain about it. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And for proof: [79]. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Weird, my very similar test page appeared to fail the first time I tested -- I blame a cache somewhere. Anyway, Talk:Larnaca_International_Airport, not Bgwhite's talk page, is the place to discuss the content of Larnaca_International_Airport. NE Ent 10:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, but there isn't a disagreement over any of the content of the page. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Just in case it muddles the discussion, in regard with this edit, I wanna make clear that that wasn't my doing. There weren't blank lines there on Sunday, and I'd have taken them out if I noticed they'd been added. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I did these. If they are not correct, I apologize. <br> should be used instead. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the {{paragraph break}} suggestion above was actually probably the best, as it takes both appearance and accessibility into account. (Unless I've confused the issue at hand here and/or the the template's purpose.) - Purplewowies (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please just indef this person already?

Caramella1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account that seems to exist solely for the purposes of disruption: edit warring at Two envelopes problem for the purposes of pushing obvious original research and generally creating needless and drama for everyone (see user contributions, sockpuppet reports, etc, and the quacking IP 89.31.176.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Does anyone actually think this person is here to build an encyclopedia? Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I say unto thee administrators: go forth and administrate! Verily, the disruption and wasting of time continueth. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, User:Caramella1 has continued to harass a fellow editor User:INic as in this edit even after User:Caramella1's SP charges against User:INic have been dismissed. Tkuvho (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for one week, to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Debresser conduct at Jewish seminary

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

---

I intend to impose a short block User:Debresser for an absolutely exasperating level of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at Jewish seminary, where he has repeatedly reverted my efforts to resolve problems with the page by adding appropriate cleanup tags and formatting it in accordance with WP:MOSDAB. I have tried very patiently to explain to this editor that extra links other than the actual ambiguous terms are not permitted on disambiguation pages, and that these links cause incorrect results to come up in the tools that disambiguators use to determine possible fixes for incoming links. I feel that the situation escalated uncomfortably quickly (my first effort to bring the page into compliance with WP:MOSDAB was reverted with a "warning" from this editor). Another editor has commented that this exemplifies User:Debresser "attempting to claim WP:Ownership on all articles relating to Judaism with what could be seen as an almost autocratic editing style", which suggests that this is a pattern of conduct now being extended to the content of a disambiguation page, despite the very different and very strict requirements established for disambiguation pages as minimal navigational tools. If there is an intermediate means of resolution, I'd be all for it - I try to avoid Wikidrama of this sort. bd2412 T 20:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

BD2412 has been behaving below standard for an admin on Wikipedia.

1. He has been edit warring with me, reverting my edits.
2. He is trying to impose rules or a rule that is or are not in any of the pertaining guideline he quotes.
3. He fails to explain himself when challenged. When I show him that his point of view is not reflected in the guideline, he posts this request to block me.
4. He posts intimidating messages on my talk page and on the Jewish seminary talk page, mentioning that he is an admin. See [80] and [81]. Note also the edit summaries.

The most interesting thing, is that the deletion discussion of the page in question is not even closed, and already he wants to model it to his liking.

In any case, I am a long-time and experienced editor, in good standing, and will not have myself bullied by an admin who doesn't even behave like one. I propose to decline BD2412's request and to reprimand him for his ungentlemanly behavior, not befitting an admin. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• To be clear, I have reverted one edit by Debresser on this article, and and that was for his unilateral removal of a cleanup tag. He promptly (and again, unilaterally) reverted that edit based on his incorrect belief that the page needed no cleanup. Any other regular disambiguator looking at the page will see the problems with it immediately. I have explained to this editor that my editing of the page is not in my capacity as a content editor, but as an administrator seeking to clear up a problem with the conformance of the page to WP:MOSDAB, so that it functions properly as a disambiguation page. I may have been a bit taken aback by this editor "warning" me for bringing the page into compliance, which preceded any communication that I had with this editor. Finally, although the page has been nominated for deletion, it is currently tagged as a disambiguation page, and will cause all of the problems improperly formatted disambiguation pages cause for so long as it remains tagged as one. This is the part of the dispute that the editor in question seems unwilling to hear and understand. bd2412 T 21:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  BD2412: I would strongly advise against blocking Debresser yourself, as it would almost certainly create the impression of an "involved" admin action. Just because you are bringing something in line with a style guideline doesn't make it an "admin action" that would not create "involved" status when challenged. However, I'll gladly look into Debresser's conduct myself and apply measures if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• What Fut. Perf. says, with the emphasis on strongly. You may have reverted only once, but you're clearly in an editorial dispute of some kind. I also don't think it's an admin's job to bring something in line with a MOS guideline, so as far as I'm concerned you did that as an editor. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• How is making changes to meet the MOS happen under your admin hat vs editor hat? Or did you get those mixed up (above)?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• BD2412 seems incredibly anal about applying his "proper formatting" to disambiguation pages over the objections of those working on them. Not an admin matter, except for his attempted bullying by blocking. --NE2 02:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  Another irregular verb:

• I am seriously focused
• You are too concerned about details that don't matter.
• He/she is "incredibly anal".

--Floquenbeam (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• BD2412, this was not your finest hour. That's clearly editing, not adminning. I'm glad to see you brought this here instead of blocking yourself, but even the threats of blocking (and the tiresome labeling of another editor's work as "vandalism", a tactic that seems to be gaining popularity every day) were not good. At all. Please don't do stuff like that anymore. Also, if you two could just wait until the AFD closes to decide what direction to take the page, it will become clearer how to handle it. Oh, yeah, before I forget, Debresser was acting sub-optimally too; "destructive edit" is essentially the same kind of lame name calling and reaction-seeking as "vandalism". --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. In the nine years I have been editing here, I have never been as exasperated as this. I believe I have overreacted to the initial revert and "warning", and I therefore withdraw from the situation. Thanks. bd2412 T 13:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

BD2412, I'll be happy to continue working with you constructively on improving this page and others on this encyclopedia. In this regard, please let me know if the current version, which has been edited in the mean time by multiple editors, isn't much better than what we had before? Is there any other problem you see with it other than the link in the first line? Please use my talk page, as we did before. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Improper talk page reversions

I followed-up on a request at Editor Assistance/Requests [82], and found that user:Charlesdrakew had deleted three talk page posts by user:Astbam. See [83] [84] [85]. I asked Charlesdrakew about this, and he claimed that the posts he deleted were WP:soapboxing, and stood by his reverts.[86]

Astbam's talkpage posts were clearly a legitimate attempt to resolve an article content dispute.(See the editor assistance request at [87].) WP has a well developed set of dispute resolution processes, but they do not include deleting other editor's talk page comments when you disagree with them (claims of soapboxing notwithstanding.) (See WP:TPO.)

Per ArbCom, "Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable."[88]

Charlesdrakew is a prolific and well-known WP editor, whose contributions appear to be very valuable to the project. This does not let him off the hook for hostile conduct.

As a matter of background, the only involvement I have in this matter is discussing it with Charlesdrakew, and bringing it here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The posts he removed don't meet Wikipedia's definition of soapboxing, and the OP is not violating any other guideline or rule that would allow his posts to be removed, so Charelsdrakew is violating TPO guidelines by removing the post. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that soapboxing should ever be removed. While a careful reading of the talk page guidelines mentions that some things can be removed such as personal attacks, and soap boxing arguably falls into the category of items allowed to be removed, I do not think this is a good idea primarily because the borderline between soap boxing and legitimate discussion is gray.

I accept that personal attacks should be removed even though there can be some question of definition. However if someone is soap boxing I think it would be best to simply have to discussion. If someone doesn't persistently they should be warned and eventually blocked or band but I see no value in attempting to remove any soapboxing from the talk page as opposed to simply hatting it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Along the lines of what I said on Charles's talk page: Odd that Charles should supposedly be in trouble for reverting edits that other editors have completely agreed do not belong on the site. Strange also that arbitration on the highly politicized topic of gun control is being applied to a rather non-political topic of housekeeping. If both the letter and the spirit of that arbcom ruling (derived from WP:NOTBATTLE) was being followed there, it's not about winning arguments so much as keeping the site working. The site is not helped by talk pages cluttered by people reposting paragraphs from policy pages without no real discussion of relevance, with little to nothing to do with article improvement. It is helped by focusing the talk pages to article improvement only.

Multiple editors had explained to Astbam why his changes were not needed. Instead, he tried a disruptive wikilawyering equivalent of filibustering and went forum shopping when he didn't get his way. There is a disruptive editor here, and it's not Charles. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I fully stand behind Charles's removal - IMHO Astbam warred and warred on the article and when he didn't get what he wanted he simply went to cause disruption on the talkpage instead. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) From what I can see, this is a long-term edit war between new user Astbam wanting to add innocuous information about bus route connections to an article and two established users Charlesdrakew and Davey2010 who want to maintain the existing version. Per the edit summaries and talk pages, Charles and Davey have made little effort to explain their position to Astbam, instead simply reverting and throwing guideline wikilinks at the user, expecting compliance, and refusing to elaborate when asked (see Fearofreprisal's diffs above). That's not consensus-building, that's being unnecessarily hostile to a newcomer, as Fearofreprisal said above. I agree with Astbam that there is no foundation in our guidelines for removing this information, and the two experienced users' explanation that we don't add easily-dated information is flimsy and a bit silly. Also, apparently because of this edit war, Charles has hammered Astbam's talk page with level 4 warnings, which is extremely inappropriate.

Astbam's request for an explanation should not have been waved off, however that doesn't justify the new user's repeatedly adding the information back to the article without discussion, and that in turn does not justify the experienced users' hostility. All of this could likely have been avoided with proper discussion.

Charles and Davey should read the "arguments to avoid" essays, particularly WP:UNENCYC, WP:BELONG and WP:VAGUEWAVE, as well as WP:BITE. All three users should read and be sure to clearly understand WP:BRD. Ivanvector (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore with respect to Ian.thomson's comments, the "multiple other editors" were just Charles and Davey. With respect to Davey's comment and the Fearofreprisal's reason for opening the thread, it was probably unnecessary for Astbam to cut-and-paste the guidelines onto the talk page but we give new users a pretty wide latitude to make mistakes, but it was not soapboxing and calling it that was hostile. Even if it was soapboxing, that doesn't justify refactoring another user's talk page comments. Hatting with an explanation would have been better. Actually discussing with the new user would have been best. Ivanvector (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There is something strange going on when an editor I never heard of comes trawling through my old edits looking for something, anything, to attack me over. Strange too that only three reverts are being complained of here when the original complaint at my talkpage was of six reverts; [89] [90] [91], [92] [93], [94]

I suspect the motivation behind this has more to do with the latter three in the area of evolution. The creation, by creationists of course, of walls of text and circular arguments designed to drive out bonafide editors is an ongoing problem there and has to be controlled to maintain any sanity. It was mainly those posts I was referring to as soapboxing. They were.

Astbam is just one of a never-ending supply of transport obsessives who want to turn Wikipedia into a travel directory. The information he kept adding is not innocuous. It is original research compiled from ever changing primary sources, contrary to WP:NOT. It is not stable or of encyclopedic interest to anyone outside an immediate area. A policy titled WP:NOTTRAVEL surely speaks for itself. Trying to claim immunity from it on the grounds that something is not speciffically mentioned by the policy is just wikilayering.Charles (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adding my support, for what it's worth, to Ivanvector's observations. I'm sure it wouldn't have been that hard for one of the more experienced editors to explain to the newbie exactly how the information being added violated WP:NOTTRAVEL, rather than blowing the newbie off with "add the info to another site IE Wikia." Also, I'm fairly certain neither "Give it a rest" nor "Rv unencyclopedic" is a valid reason to remove a talk page comment, especially a fairly innocuous (if overly long and copy-pasted) comment from a newcomer. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thing: If listing bus routes is verboten because it violates WP:OR and WP:NOTTRAVEL then we have a LOT of pages to get rid of. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we do.Charles (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

ArbCom's statement of principles on standards of editor behavior:

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own.[95] (Emphasis added)

ArbCom's statement of principles on consistent standards:

All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Experienced administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.[96] (Emphasis added)

The clear community consensus here is that Charlesdrakew's reversions of Astbam's talk page comments were inappropriate conduct. Charlesdrakew has not denied this, nor has he shown remorse or recognition that what he did was inappropriate. All he has done is attempt to blame other editors for the situation - Astbam for being "just one of a never-ending supply of transport obsessives who want to turn Wikipedia into a travel directory," and me, for raising this ANI.

My suggestion is that the minimum remedy appropriate to prevent further disruption is for Charlesdrakew to be indefinitely restricted from reverting talk pages. Alternatively, if he's willing to accept that his behavior has been inappropriately hostile, and agree to lighten the fuck up, possibly a better solution would be to make him an administrator. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Levdr1lostpassword

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

---

I feel something needs to be done about @Levdr1lostpassword:. He seems to have made it his mission in life to follow me around and act as my personal "judge, jury, and executioner" on any article I seem to edit. This has been going on WAY TOO LONG, and needs to stop. Not only that, he made a baseless, and false sock puppet accusation against me, which I feel crossed the line. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Last time I tried to help with this situation, you both seemed to feel there was no problem. Gloss 17:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: I was wrong. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it just goes on and on and on. Notice, it always starts the same way..I make an edit, and he's on me like white on rice. The straw that broke the camel's back was on the Firelands article. I added numerous sources to back up my point that the area known as the "Firelands" has in the 20th century also become known as "Vacationland". I added (no joke) double digit sources to back up my claim (just so no one can accuse me of WP:OR or WP:V), and Levdr REJECTED THEM ALL and reverted back. Then the obvious vandal editor "Fruit" came in and raised hell (not only on Firelands, but numerous other articles as well), and Levdr accused me of being the sock. That I felt was going over the line. So I'm just at the point that something...anything needs to be done to get him off my back. It's almost a hybrid of WP:Hound and WP:Bully with this guy. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out by Gloss in the proposed IBAN thread linked above, these two editors have a long and tumultuous interaction history, but mostly aren't doing any harm outside of their own talk pages. Levdr1 opened a SPI on Vjmlhds in response to socks appearing at Firelands where the two were edit warring, and honestly under the circumstances the SPI seems to be justified. Vjmlhds is offended, naturally, but should probably just let it run its course rather than opening an obviously retaliatory SPI and then coming here to complain when it got shut down. Unless Vjmlhds can provide diffs showing a sustained history of abusive behaviour by Levdr1, the user should take a break and have a cup of tea. Ivanvector (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is already at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vjmlhds, and ANI is a lousy place to determine the likelihood of socking. By virtue of him filling, he is saying you are a sock, but he is putting his money where his mouth is by doing so in a formal SPI report. If he is being abusive in his claims, they can handle that at SPI. Regardless, we can't work an SPI case at ANI, so this report needs archiving. Dennis - 2¢ 19:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

He made a false accusation and has long had a reputation of harassing me. Something has to be done about him...he is the bad guy, not me, and I'm tired of being treated like the villain around here. I should take a walk...easy for you to say - you're not the one whose character is being assassinated! Vjmlhds (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To add to my comment here and on my talk, if you would like you can open a request for comments on Levdr1's conduct, but you will have to provide a lot of evidence in the form of diffs to demonstrate the user's pattern of inappropriate interaction with you, and be prepared to have your own history dragged through the mud. It seems to me that Levdr1 has been blunt with you but not any more so than they are blunt with everyone, so you may not get the result you want if you go down that route. Ivanvector (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's a lot to take in here, and I won't be able to respond to it all right at this moment. For now, I will stop editing the Firelands article due to Ivanvector's concern of edit-warring w/ Vjmlhds. As for the SPI on Vjmlhds, I did not rush through my decision to open that case-- I think anyone who reviews the supporting evidence will see that. I'm confident that if Vjmlhds has nothing to hide, then he shouldn't have anything to worry about, and should simply let the process play out. As for my overall interactions w/ Vjmlhds, yes, they are sometimes contentious, but we practically always resolve our disputes on each of our talk pages w/o incident (clearly this is one those rare exceptions). What Gloss apparently see as a problem, I see as a positive and beneficial exercise (talking on our own talk pages). Vjmlhds and I sometimes disagree, but more often we collaborate in a constructive way. Unfortunately, I think this ANI discussion has more to do with the backlog of cases at SPI than anything else (I doubt Vjmlhds would have started this thread if his SPI case were closed by now). Levdr1lp / talk 20:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lostpassword: Then why on God's green earth did you open the SPI to start with?!? You yourself said there's no direct connection between me and "Fruit", so why did you go ahead with it in NOT for pure personal pettiness? Vjmlhds (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah...all that sounds like is Wiki bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. I swear to God, you gotta jump through so many frigging hoops around here to get anything done. Too much red tape, not enough boots up rear ends. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is at SPI. I can't block him for calling you a sock, then have SPI block you as a sock. When the issue revolves around sockpuppetry, SPI takes precedence. Until that is over, you won't likely find people willing to do anything here. And the admin there are fully capable of dealing behavior issues as well. What we DON'T do is drag a problem over multiple venues. Dennis - 2¢ 20:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Vjmlhds has gone on a bit of a rampage at his own SPI, first posting an angry diatribe and then simply blanking the page as a stated attempt to gain attention. It may be time to block this WP:POINTy user. Ivanvector (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm THE VICTIM here...why should I get blocked when all I want is a resolution to clear my name. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's going to take some time, that's all there is to it. There is a backlog at SPI. I posted a notice at WP:AN to try to draw some attention to the backlog, but beyond that there isn't much that anyone can do to expedite the process. You can watchlist it and safely ignore it in the meantime, and continue constructively as it looks like you have been doing. But I absolutely 100% promise and guarantee you that running around breaking things isn't going to close it one second faster, and is likely to get you much more serious repercussions. That's why I suggested you take a break earlier, before your actions get one forced on you. Ivanvector (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I just love how the guy who is in the right has to always "calm down, and let the process play out" yada, yada, yada...well you know what, the process sucks. Instead of being so worried about the "precious" process, just get stuff done. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Vjmlhds, SPI is backed up a few weeks, so you aren't going to get instant results. I will say this, you need to calm down, go undo your all bold caps, and quit blanking and being disruptive, or you will be blocked. You adding the reams of material will just slow the process down. SPI is not ANI. Opinions don't matter, they do a full investigation using behavioral analysis. They have zero tolerance for drama, and it will get you blocked in a skippy minute. Dennis - 2¢ 02:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As a favor, I've found diffs that will justify a CU and requested they look at it, which should speed it up a little. It won't guarantee you are or aren't a sock, but will provide additional evidence. Dennis - 2¢ 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Levdr1lostpassword: has apologized to me for all the hullaballoo regarding the SPI case (which - as I knew I would be - I was cleared of). Therefore I want to pull the plug on this ANI... nothing to see here. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry that Vjmlhds had to undergo the added scrutiny at SPI. I stand by my decision to open that case, however. I just wish there hadn't been such a long backlog. I wouldn't be lying if I said that I considered withdrawing the case just before the CheckUser, if that's even a thing (is withdrawing a case permitted at WP:SPI?). Things seemed to be escalating pretty quickly just as Dennis_Brown, thankfully, intervened and requested that CU. Unfortunately, I didn't think there was enough behavioral evidence to justify a CU in the first place-- now I'm wishing I had. Levdr1lp / talk 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

JoseAziz78

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

---

Hi

Legal threat at User talk:JoseAziz78 probably aimed at me, C.Fred and Ian.thomson. Amortias (T)(C) 19:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just advised the user of WP:NLT and am waiting for his/her reaction. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

See you beat me to it. Was about to do the same. Amortias (T)(C) 19:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I assumed he meant the administrators by "the proper authorities," but regardless I don't see him being any use to the site since his singular purpose is to right great wrongs. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"I will report you to the proper authorities" is a big vague and may or may not be a legal threat. Regardless, C.Fred is on the ball here and I'm confident he can make the call whether to block or not, without additional input. Dennis - 2¢ 19:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Ian thomson, you are keeping defamation directed at Acharya S in. I have added absolutely no religious biases whatsoever so, that is just a lie. You are degrading and abusing Acharya S by insisting on false information to smear her. Plus, she has always insisted upon using the name Acharya S or DM Murdock ONLY so, please change it immediately as explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S#Personal_name

https://www.facebook.com/acharyasanning/posts/709849762361439

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28736#p28736

JoseAziz78 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am new here at Wiki but, i am absolutely disgusted and appalled with the defamation and abuse directed at Acharya S by Wikipedia and some editors and it must be changed. Please help me fix the false information at her Wiki article too at here:

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

I cannot believe how badly her article is written. It reads like it was written by anti-Acharya S critics. This should help:

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28736#p28736

Wikipedia and some editors should be sued it's so bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseAziz78 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

JoseAziz78 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I get the feeling this isn't going to end well. I could link GREATWRONGS and the like, but I just don't see the point after the claims of defamation and the like. Again, I'm happy to leave C.Fred in the driver's seat, but I don't see me arguing against whatever he does here. Dennis - 2¢ 19:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• The definite legal threat in the users last comment should just about finish this one off. Amortias (T)(C) 19:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• "Should be sued" is not the same as "I will sue". There is no legal threat. There is also, however, no sign the editor understands UNDUE, NPOV, and that Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs. KillerChihuahua 19:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  Maybe not but is how I read into it considering other posts. Amortias (T)(C) 19:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  I have left some (hopefully) helpful links. It is up to the editor whether he chooses to heed the good advice given him. KillerChihuahua 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• User blocked indefinitely. It may not be a direct threat, but the chilling effect (an implication that editors work at the peril of being sued) is still there. Any administrator is free to unblock if the threat is rescinded and (/or) the user understands that s/he cannot unilaterally overturn the previous RFC and must engage in civil discussions to reach consensus if a change in the article is desired. —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  No argument here; I would not have blocked given the lack of statement of intent, but I'm notoriously soft on newbies. I have already opined to the offending party that he's not likely to make headway by belligerently stating that you "had no right" to block, and have advised him instead to seek to understand and correct his behavior. I have scant hope he will listen, however, I have made the attempt. KillerChihuahua 19:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Indefinite community ban of myself

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

---

Might as well let you that in spite of my indefinite community ban I'm editing your encyclopedia but will stop after hanging myself. 79.79.141.212 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Reported to emergency@. Amortias (T)(C) 20:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your concern but I wasn't serious about hanging myself! Therefore I've struck that comment out. 79.79.141.212 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather report a threat that turns out to be a bad taste joke than not report one.

The self confessed block evasion should be fairly self resolving here. Amortias (T)(C) 20:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Toxic Editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChamithN

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

---

If you look at the talks of this editor... I would suggest that he will be disbanded from his role as an editor. He is unreceptive, proud, and he seems to be so busy to ask a talk but delete the talk and could not get a reply from him... He is immature and toxic and loves to design his user page as if to show his abilities but he is toxic and James don't like that (a part of his speech in London's wikimania- I read it). Better remove him from the administrative board, - it's not worth paying him from the people's donation because of his character and let him sulk in his pride in his own country where he can vent out his anger unconstructively not in wikipedia.124.104.182.35 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1. You need to notify editors when you bring them up here or at ANI.
2. You need to give specific links to specific comments made by the editor, and also show that you've made any sort of effort to solve your problem yourself.
3. He's not an admin.
4. I don't exactly see the problem. What policies is he breaking? What is he doing that warrants a block at all, let alone an indefinite one? Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi, few points need clarifying,

1. What exactly is the problem this editor has caused I can't see anything actionable here.
2. You need to provide diffs to back up your claims.
3. Their not an administrator.
4. Administrators arent paid.

Amortias (T)(C) 22:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note [97] this report at WP:AN is very close to being a personal attack. Theres a risk of a self-returning block stick coming into play here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) This report is baseless. The IP made an unconstructive edit which the "toxic editor" reverted on vandalism patrol. ChamithN's page is already semiprotected because of IP vandalism, which continues on the user's talk page, and which this IP is no doubt involved in. I suggest our anonymous user should find something better to do. Ivanvector (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So what this IP user trying to say is this edit is constructive?. He hasn't even realized that his edits won't be display even if I didn't revert it.--Chamith (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

BLP problem on user talk page

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

---

A blocked user is using their talk page to accuse a public figure.[98] I brought it here because I'm guessing someone should block them from editing their talk page, and just in case this is one of those edits that should be deleted from the page history. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Best report it to oversight via the link at the top of the page, they tend to have a quicker response time to libelious posts. Amortias (T)(C) 22:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Stoning in Iran and other articles

User:Qizilbash123 has been systematically removing text from articles that portray Iran in a less-than-positive light, in particular regarding the existence of stoning as a judicial punishment, even when this is supported by sources such as Amnesty International or BBC News. Other articles involved include My Stealthy Freedom and Application of sharia law by country, where he has removed any mention of the use of flogging and stoning by Iran. He has been warned against edit warring by multiple users in several articles over a period of months (see talk) and briefly blocked for this behaviour. Repeated attempts to discuss perceived issues on talk pages have proved fruitless, and now he has also taken to name-calling ('rv propagandist bigot', 'POV-pusher + extensive bigotry').--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Qizilbash also has 3 previous blocks for edit warring on similar topics, and ragequit once (he came back). Origamite^ⓣⓒ 11:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. Thank you both for reporting. Ragequitting is not a crime, but the block log for edit warring on Iran and My Stealthy Freedom in June-July certainly constitutes "form" with regard to these tendentious removals of sourced content. I take an especially dim view of their repeat removals of the same material again in My Stealthy Freedom,[99][100] for which they were blocked in July. The edit warring blocks in the summer were escalated appropriately: 31 hours —> 5 days —> two weeks. All in all, I think it's time for a 3-month block for this stubborn POV-pusher. Done. Bishonen | talk 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: (and CambridgeBayWeather) perhaps it would now be okay remove the full protection from Stoning now that Qizilbash123 has been blocked (since he was the only one removing content in that edit-war). Stickee (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I've unprotected. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. User:CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), sunasuttuq 16:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User K7L

As a newer/inexperienced user I've had to take some time to try and get all the info and procedure together. I feel that I am being somewhat harassed and bullied by the user K7L. The user does not discuss changes that are incorrect, and instead finds ways to divert attention away from their actions by pointing out things like "bringing up past mistakes" instead of discussing and following guidelines - I have never denied that I have made mistakes and done things that were not exactly to the guidelines, as there seems to be so many and often contradictory, but I have learned a few things over time. User had an issue with my original phonetic spelling of my username, filed a complaint and I had to change it, even though one year earlier an admin had said there was no problem with my name. User then decided to find fault with a mistake that I made in my early says of editing - I had wanted to clear my talk page, did not know exactly how and ended up renaming it instead. When I tried to have this undone - by requesting a deletion with the history put back into original page - to satisfy the users demands for "you can't hide your past" - I was then harassed on my talk page by this user, who kept reverting it. On a few of the articles that he/she/it was constantly reverting my corrections, the user was even told by another to "Use common sense" and to stop with the nonsense. User has now taken to trolling my edits, pages that he/she/it has never even done a minor edit are all of a sudden being reverted at my first minor correction - even when the same reverts by others are ignored (Cities in Ontario recent municipal elections results for example). User refuses to follow own preachings of "follow the Wikipedia Guidelines", when asked to discuss the reverts before unilaterally re-introducing them. I have to go through my history to find the differences that are requested here, but anyone who takes a look at the edit histories will see that it has become some sort of a personal vendetta against me being able to contribute. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd complained validly about User:NotWillyWonka for multiple issues:

1. A violation of our username policy for the name "not willy wanka", an inappropriate reference to wanking a willy which had already earned talk page warnings from other users. The user had not only repeatedly blanked the user talk page to make the warnings go away, but sneakily moved it to a subpage User talk:NotWillyWanka/delete and attempted to get that page deleted.
2. An edit war repeatedly applying an invalid {{db-author}} tag to User talk:NotWillyWanka/delete. This was no accident. The user isn't trying to archive warnings, but is attempting to hide them or even delete the history. An admin eventually did repair the history by pasting everything back together at User talk:NotWillyWonka and User talk:NotWillyWonka/Archive 1. The user responding by blanking the talk page to remove the {{archives}} link.
3. A sockpuppetry incident in which the user was using two accounts, User:NoGoodOnesLeft and User:NotWillyWonka, in parallel. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NotWillyWonka/Archive.

The user has been blocked twice, once for the offensive username and once for the sockpuppetry. This person is now attempting to retaliate by following me from one article to another, everything from Toll-free telephone numbers in the United States to Area code 664 (Montserrat), with pointless revert warring which is sitting below WP:3RR but hitting multiple unrelated topics in a seeming attempt to intimidate me into leaving the project. This is not "a newer/inexperienced user" as first edit as "NotWillyWanka" was in 2012. I have no idea why this user removed the municipal election outcome in Kirkland Lake but this is not helping build an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we have an instance of WP:BOOMERANG here, since recent edits of NotWillyWonka show mainly edit warring. In particular, the edit history of Province of Canada is very impressive. I know very little about history and legal status of Canada, but a user who is only edit-warring and refuses to accept consensus on the basis of IDONOTLIKEIT should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I keep getting EC'ed, in an effort to ask Wonka if he really wants to file this report, for what is now obvious reasons. Dennis - 2¢ 13:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out, I think, that NotWillyWonka is entitled to blank his talk page if he wants and is not obliged to retain any archives or maintain links to archives (it should all be in the history of the talk page), and K7L should not be edit warring with him on his own talk page to try to force him to. Neatsfoot (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• K7L, let me strengthen Neatsfoot's warning: you have no right to be harassing Willy for blanking his talk page. Moreover, you appear not to observe that this username has been changed; it is now "NotWillyWonka". This user is Canadian: the term "wank" is completely unknown in the USA, and unless there's a strong transition at the border, what reason do we have to take the original username as anything but a misspelling of Willy Wonka? On top of this, you filed an SPI after Notwillywanka had been given a {{usernameblock}}. Have you observed that the template explicitly states You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.? He did exactly what he was told, but you filed an SPI for the new username: were you to realise your error and not mention the issue, it wouldn't be a huge deal, but you continue bringing up the issue as a black mark against him. Regardless of what NotWillyWonka is doing, you have been harassing him repeatedly against multiple user conduct policies; you may consider this your only warning before a block. Nyttend (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The SPI was for the simultaneous use of User:NotWillyWonka and User:NoGoodOnesLeft after the {{usernameblock}} name Notwillywanka had been renamed and unblocked. It is valid. Furthermore, this deletion is badly out of process; why was it made? K7L (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Report user 199.116.81.46

Not sure how to report someone, but this new user (199.116.81.46) appears to be putting a lot of rubbish into articles. All their edits need to be undone and the user warned or banned.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 14:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Knocked the IP on the head for 48 hours. John, for future reference, reports like this belong at WP:AIV rather than here. Thanks for flagging it, though. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):199.116.81.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to have stopped and edits have been reverted. WP:AIV is the proper place to report this kind of thing. Don't forget to apply the appropriate WP:WARNings before reporting. Yunshui got here first but the link to the warning page may be of help to SJ as well MarnetteD|Talk 15:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A good admin knows that a true vandal does not require warnings, and will block if the IP's activity is ongoing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That might be the case if the editor is an automated spambot, but usually the items which end up here are less straightforward. K7L (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I would have taken it straight to AIV, and assuming it wasn't "stale" and that the random admin that showed up there was willing to do his job, the IP would have been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of 3O

• Nellyhan (talk · contribs): a WP:SPA whose only article edited is Ahn Sahng-hong
• Mischief7 (talk · contribs): an editor registered Nov 2013 with about 15 edits. Mischief7 responded to a '3O' request by Nellyhan.
• Ahn Sahng-hong (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch (ASH): an article on the deceased, self-proclaimed messiah and founder of Witnesses of Jesus Church of God which split into two groups one being World Mission Society Church of God.
  

The ASH article has the potential for being a contentious article as it contains criticism of ASH which seems to be what all this is about. There are numerous removals and restores of criticism and contentious material.

Nellyhan made a 3O request directly to Mischief7 instead of posting the request on WP:3O. Besides avoiding the random editor selection, the choice of Mischief7 seems highly unusual given Mischief7's edit history.

ASH article recent history

Essntially, Nellyhan removed content from ASH, was reverted by Sam Sailor (talk · contribs) 1 2. Nellyhan reverted SamSailor 1 and removed more content from ASH 2 3. I reverted Nellyhan's 3 edits 1, where the article stands at this time. After discussions on talk:Ahn Sahng-hong and my suggestion that Nellyhan open a ticket on WP:DR, WP:RFC, or WP:3O, Nellyhan made a direct 3O request to Mischief7 who posted talk:ASH repeating Nellyhan's criticism of me, but not concerned with Nellyhan's removal of sourced content. Mischief7 then replied to Nellyhan on Nellyhan's talk.

Nellyhan seems to have read my user page and BRD, but misunderstood WP:3O?

Mischief7's history

Mischief7 after being inactive for nearly a year, (last edit November 2013} edits Vicky Vale at 27 October 2014 19:22 about 45 minutes after Nellyhan edits my talk page at 27 October 2014 06:36. The next day, Mischief7 creates an article in the user's sandbox which is declined and moved to Draft:Aether. Then, at 02:44, 29 October 2014, Mischief7 receives a "3O" request from Nellyhan 3O request who, less than two hours later, posts on talk:ASH at 04:25, 30 October 2014 Mischief7's edit to talk:ASH. Interestingly, Mischief7's concern's seem to reflect Nellyhan's.

Conclusion / request

Both editors seem to take my statement that "I have not edited the article in at least a year" (I had only checked the latest 500 edits) that have edited before under a different username and that I am a sock and am lying. Interesting similarity in bolding on this in talk:ASH.

Would it be possible to get another set of eyes on this? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For a starter, I fully protected the article for a week, but unfortunately I do not have much time to figure out the details of what is going on. I hope someone will find some time. Feel free to remove protection if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Certainly looks very fishy. I'd like to hear from one of the suspected editors on why he or she was specifically singled out for the 3O opinion. I want to assume good faith here, but I can't find any logical reason (beyond, maybe the editor randomly picked someone who came up on the recent changes list) that doesn't involve some kind of SPA or improper collusion. I was thinking maybe they had interacted in the past and so Nellyhan just picked an editor they were familiar with (which would still be an improper use of 3O but would not have the same canvassing or SPA issues) but this does not seem to be the case.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the intersecting articles that both editors worked on [101] you basically found nothing, so from that point of view, there is no reason to think that Nellyhan and Mischief7 knew each other at all. That doesn't explain why it wasn't filed at WP:3O, but they weren't editing buddies. Dennis - 2¢ 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is some significant socking going on here. Nellyhan is  Confirmed to Vanessaliam (talk · contribs), Maintain1 (talk · contribs) and Willsturn (talk · contribs). On the other side of the coin Mischief7 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed to Thomathe81 (talk · contribs) and is  possibly related to the first group of socks, though via direct socking or meat is unknown.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised; behaviorally it's 100% guaranteed that they are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other. Before seeing Ponyo's CU info, I left a pointed question for Nellyhan on their talk page, but events have overtaken me. I've collapsed the "3O", although if someone want to delete in instead I won't care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) and Midnight Syndicate

I don't really want to open a can of worms here, and I have no experience dealing with ArbCom sanctions. Given Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate#Remedies (which is still noted on Talk:Midnight Syndicate), I am unclear on whether it is appropriate for Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) to be editing Midnight Syndicate and a host of related articles (including Dungeons & Dragons (album), Out of the Darkness (Retrospective: 1994–1999), Monsters of Legend, HalloWeekends, Andrew Divoff, The Dead Matter and others), especially when at least some of these edits (see this) relate to the contentious relationship between Midnight Syndicate and Joseph Vargo (which was a big part of the original ArbCom case). Could someone who is more familiar with these matters please look into this? J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong quacking sensation.

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

---

Hi,

Nothing concrete but I'm hearing an increasingly loud quacking over at Lisa Christine Holmberg from some fairly new accounts that have cropped up. If there not socks thees a definite meaty flavour to it. Anyone able to take a look. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ginger1774 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been around since 2012 but has no edits before yesterday, while Grandma.ricky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created today, and both are editing that one article exclusively. They may be two people who know each other IRL but they don't seem to be actually doing any of the things that get you in trouble at WP:SOCK at this point, so probably best to leave them be. If they start causing trouble, WP:SPI is your venue. Ivanvector (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Fari enough. Appeared to be tag-teaming on a unsourced article but if they've brought it up to standard then fair enough.

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

Vandalism and Paid Self-Promotion by Equine Canada aka user:CanadianEquestrianTeam

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

---

The corporation Equine Canada has been using an account user:CanadianEquestrianTeam (after previously editing anonymously from the Equine Canada owned IP address 173.195.59.242) to remove fully sourced and referenced information, and to replace it with unreferenced self-promotional material, in the articles Canadian Equestrian Team and Equine Canada.

(1) It has blatantly violated WP:SELFPROMOTION policy by the fact that these these edits by the corporation Equine Canada, all designed to either hide unflattering information about itself or to hide positive information about other equestrian organizations

(2) It has violated WP:PAY because these edits originate from Equine Canada's corporate office and are therefore made by Equine Canada's paid communications staff

(3) Its username CanadianEquestrianTeam blatantly violates WP:ORGNAME against corporate names, and attempts to act as if it is uniquely authoritative on all matters of equestrian athletes, instead of being just one amongst a large number of Canadian equestrian federations.

(4) Its only edits are for self promotion to two closely related articles, Equine Canada and Canadian Equestrian Team violating WP:SPA policy against single purpose accounts

CanFan57 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like it would be an appropriate report for WP:UAA. Ivanvector (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

n/m - you did already. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Longterm IP spammer

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

---

Since January 2014, 195.47.226.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been exclusively spamming content from http://www.listofwonders.com/ to multiple articles despite many warnings. Today the IP created the named account Bellresolve who also started adding the spam link to the article of Colossus of Rhodes and edit-warred about it in support of the IP. The named account has been blocked. I think the longterm IP spammer should also be blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for three months by User:Materialscientist. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC).

• Thank you both. Nice seeing you Bish. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

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

---

Hi, Warned the user about their statement on my talk page [102] as it felt like it was meant to have a chilling effect. Then responded with this [103]. have asked them to read WP:CHILL and WP:NLT to see if they will respond. Amortias (T)(C) 20:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Admin attention needed on Talk:Gamergate controversy

YellowSandals (talk · contribs) (an SPA) has this evening been repeatedly attempting to draw comparisons between citing reliable sources noting the misogyny and sexism that is present in the gaming community and, of all things, homophobia. This last is particularly inflammatory on multiple levels: the editor is not only attempting to depict gamers as an 'oppressed group' on the level of the LGBTQ community, which is problematic enough, but is actually referring to some sort of supposed "degeneracy in the homosexual community," comparing it to the cited and verifiable examples of misogynistic behavior in the gaming community. The implication that verified examples of misogynistic behavior are equivalent to supposed "degeneracy in the homosexual community" is just mind-blowingly inappropriate. Could an uninvolved admin please review the page's general sanctions and determine if they apply here? -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed a call to maintain the policy of WP: IMPARTIAL. Accusing a group of misogyny is a slur. There has been no factual verification that the gaming community is broadly misogynistic. There is no way to verify such a slur as truthful, as the definition of misogyny is dependent on context and other factors. Many people find it offensive to be called misogynist. In the interest of WP: IMPARTIAL, Wikipedia does not refer to homosexuals as "degenerates" or "sinners" even though the Catholic Church canonically views homosexuality as sin. We do not call the Klu Klux Klan a hate group, but merely state it is classified as such by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. We do not call Hitler evil, though we describe his actions.

This is the meaning of WP: IMPARTIAL. If TaraInDC wishes to establish the derogatory nature of a group or movement, they should do so in an independent blog. Not here on Wikipedia. This is my stance. YellowSandals (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick addendum here: the press, by and large, considers the group misogynistic, and the issue that has been raised over and over on that page is saying the claim "Gamergate is misogynistic" in WP's voice, and saying "The media broadly considers Gamergate is misogynistic", which appropriately identifies this as a claim and by whom, without assigning the claim in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia speaks with the voice of verifiable and reliable sources. If mainstream sources say something, there is no requirement for wikipedia to say "verifiable and reliable sources say..." aprock (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The page is simply not 'saying the claim "Gamergate is misogynistic" in WP's voice,' Masem. Please either give exact quotes or cite diffs for past revisions where that text was added to the article or stop making the claim. Regardless, the issue here is not whether or not YellowSandals is right to claim that the page is biased. This is about a conduct problem, not the ongoing content dispute. -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Content disputes do not belong at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about the content dispute. It doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion if YellowSandals is right or wrong to claim that the page is biased - the problem is the inflammatory language being used. As the page sanctions require the intervention of an uninvolved administrator, this would seem to be the best place to have the conduct evaluated. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out to you that, in spite of the Catholic Church holding it as canon that homosexuality is a sin, the Wikipedia page does not describe homosexuals as a "group concerned by sin" or other such negativity. Because the homosexuality page is WP: IMPARTIAL. YellowSandals (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And that comparison is completely inappropriate. Your repeated comments about "degeneracy in the homosexual community," even if you sometimes (though not always) attribute them to the catholic church, are at best needlessly inflammatory. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is my view that this is worthy of a short block, as the comments are quite clearly inappropriate and provocative, and the editor continuing to make the claims, even after being informed that general sanctions apply to this area, and even after being informed that that particular statement is not appropriate. The only concern I'd have is that even though it's happening on a GamerGate page, it's only tangentially related to the topic itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC).

Attention needed on Botswana Democratic Party

Botswana Democratic Party, currently on the Main Page in the In the news section, is experiencing vandalism; also, some election results numbers have been changed. Don't have time to monitor this one myself; could someone take a look? -- Djembayz (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User explicitly claims that they are using sockpuppets and sophisticated tools to deliberately introduce copyrighted material into articles

I was looking back through some discussions when I landed on User:Kainaw's talk page. This user, who I know used to be extremely active on Wikipedia, and a very competent Wikipedia user, has taken on what seems to be a personal vendetta against Wikipedia as a result of the blackout a couple years ago that protested certain bills in the US Congress. While I understand that this claim was made more than a year ago, I feel like I should bring it to your attention. In particular, what I find concerning is the following statement, which I am copying directly from their user page here.

"So, instead of editing Wikipedia, I develop tools to convert Wikipedia pages into copyright infringement pages by using multiple registered accounts in multiple passes, changing only a few words at a time. I made multiple offers to make tools to help Wikipedia in exchange for an honest answer as to why Wikipedia was blacked out, but I only called many terrible names for not worshipping Jimbo. I figure that eventually someone will figure out that there is tons of copyrighted material on Wikipedia, but as open as I am about it, I don't think they will make the connection that it is being put there on purpose. -- kainaw™ 17:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)"

Given the fact that this claim, in which Kainaw appears to admit to vandalizing Wikipedia in a sophisticated way, was made at least 1½ years after the blackout, it clearly is not just a momentary temper tantrum. I have no idea if Kainaw is still active in this way, or if they still have strong feelings, but I do think that it may be worth at least a bit of investigation. If Kainaw spent 1½ years stewing over this, it is possible that they may still not have worked past their obsession.

I have not been a very active editor the past couple years, and I really have been away from most of the drama and politics of Wikipedia during that time. I do not plan to personally pursue this any further (and really, I wouldn't know where to begin), and I make no claim that I feel like I personally need some kind of resolution in this matter. I am just leaving this with you on this board to do with as you wish.

Here is the permanent link to the page as it is at the time I am making this post.

Falconus^{p t c} 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The user has not been around for 1 year and 3 months since their last edit. I would say a warning for suspected sockpuppetry and vandalism (and even a block if necessary) would be in order if they were active, but the user is inactive, making even an indefinite block pointless.

Why is this being brought up now instead of when this was posted anyway? Isn't it a little late for any action now? Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) He said he would use multiple accounts to carry it out, so, lack of activity on the Kainaw account wouldn't necessarily mean that he hadn't followed through. --SubSeven (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius: of course I would have mentioned something sooner... Except I didn't read that until yesterday. SubSeven: That's exactly my concern, that the other accounts may still be active (assuming that Kainaw was serious about that in the first place). Falconus^{p t c} 10:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It sounds fair to block the sockpuppet accounts, if they can be found. Falconus, do you have a list of any suspected sockpuppets? A list and diffs may help make your case for a possible sanction of Kainaw. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist with watch/ignore talk page threads

As an IEG proposal, I have proposed making a user script which permits you to watch or ignore threads on talk pages. With this script, for talk pages your watchlist will only show the threads you have chosen to watch. Alternately it will show all threads except those which you have indicated you desire to ignore. In addition, the script will permit you to display entries from your watchlist on other Wikipedia projects and languages. If would like to see this functionality happen, please go to the IEG page and indicate your support (endorse).

I have put this notification on this page because the times when I have watched this page, I very much desired this functionality as I was only interested in a very limited number of threads. — Makyen (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Exellent! I will definitely endorse this; I have been looking for this functionality for some time. Good luck! Huldra (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute about oblasts of Ukraine

Derianus, is, well, a sock of a banned user Tobias Conradi. He quacks pretty loudly, and an SPI was filed, but closed for technical reason, since the last sock of Conradi was blocked too long ago. He must be then blocked based on the behavioral evidence, which is for me pretty much obvious. Irrespectively, Derianus creates too much disruption. He got interested in the administrative division of the post-USSR states (similarly to Androoox, the last blocked sock of Conradi), and he is not really interested in discussing anything, and following WP:BRD. Whereas some of his edits are not disruptive, most of them are, and I have to correct them every morning (he usually edits while I sleep). There are plenty of edits and the matter is getting out of hand. One example of his modus operandi: he is not aware of the fact that all republics of the USSR were divided into raions (district) and insists Ezhiki and me need to send a scan of a source to him [104]. Here is another, outrageous example of his modus operandi. He listens to the discussion between Ezhiki and me whether a bunch of redirects should be created, and how the targets are best sourced (Talk:Administrative divisions of Crimea#X Municipality). I create the rediects. Then he removed sourced material from the article I just added [105] and nominates the redirect for deletion since it is not mentioned in the target [106]. Of course it is not mentioned, because he just removed it from the target with the source. And, sure, he then accuses Iryna Harpy and me in vandalism [107]. This needs to be stopped, and I obviuosly can not just block this sock since his attacks are directed at me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for coming already fourth or fifth time this month to ANI. For whatever reason, we have a steady stream of dormant and new users editing disruptively in Russian and Ukrainian topics. Whereas this one seems to be unrelated to the others, it is really very depressing when a bunch of new users start introducing issues to the articles which have been already discussed to death previously and rejected, and then start to teach other users Wikipedia policies - when they themselves are not ready to even accept WP:CONSENSUS. This makes editing in these areas — which is my main business here — very uncomfortable.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Derianus is probably not a new editor - his sixth edit was to start a requested move, and he was clearly familiar with Wikipedia processes. As I have been involved in the unpleasant RM discussion at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine (can someone please close it), I don't think I can take any action, but it would be good if someone else could (as I mentioned on WP:ANRFC, there's also a case of WP:TWINKLEABUSE here [108]). Number 57 10:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RM is closed. I believe Oblasts of Ukraine falls under the ARBCOM restrictions for Eastern Europe and warned him as such. Rather than an outright block, I wonder if a topic ban would be productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban will certainly solve all the problems we have with this user in Eastern European articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBEE exists, one warning, then any reasonable sanction. Dennis - 2¢ 17:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter is constantly harassing me. He reverts well sourced edits [109] [110] [111] claiming "get consensus first" and "UNDUE". This has been brought up at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine#Fact removal by User:Ymblanter. Above he complains about me asking for sources, but that is the way I thought Wikipedia works - providing verifiable sources? Then Ymblanter invents claims about me: 1) "he is not aware of the fact that all republics of the USSR were divided into raions" - I am and was. I don't know why he made that up. In fact, I am the one who added many of these entities to the article raion. 2) On Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine he invented another story about me "They also renamed all Belarusian raions to districts" - which is a blatant lie.

Regarding the larger issue concerning Eastern Europe I would like to quote User:RGloucester, directed towards Ymblanter: You'll notice that these disputes only apply to administrative divisions in Eastern-Central Europe, indicative of the problem we face here. No one anywhere suggests that we move Provinces of China to shěng of China. The vast majority of articles on administrative divisions in countries use English-language terminology. The only ones that do not are these few Eastern-Central European ones. Krais, oblasts, voivodeships. I'm surprised we're not being made to refer to Russian federal subjects as "subyekty of Russia". I'm also surprised that Polish editors like the bizarrely half-translated "Voivodeship", which seems more insulting than either no translation or a full translation.

There is a wall around articles about Ukraine and partially Belarus and Russia, that User:Ymblanter and User:Ezhiki are defending. They work against using the most common English terminology for several articles. Almost all media sources name the oblasts "regions". But even that fact is removed by Ymblanter. Where is the difference to vandalism here?

I am fine with a topic ban for six months on terminology for administrative entities of post-USSR area, but it should be applied to Ymblanter too. Also, there should be sanctions against him for content removal. Derianus (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban for this user, even though I support using English-language terminology. His behaviour has been out-of-line, and has veered consistently into the realm of personal attacks. I may disagree with both Ymblanter and Ezhiki, but I respect them as editors and administrators. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • User:RGloucester - Can you show a source where my behavior was "out-of-line"? Or are you now just joining those that make things up, because they are you friends? Do you "respect" Ymblanter for making up false statements about me? For removing well sourced content? For his personal attacks on me? Derianus (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• The edit-arring of Derianus in this very topic demonstrates that a block is really needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  Continued edit-warring [112] (WP:POINT)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Ahmedzaibaloch1121 (talk · contribs) was blocked 3 times between August and September this year (last time for 1 month) for disrupting Wikipedia, but he continued to carry on with the same work, filling Baloch-related articles with very large amount of unsourced nonsense that is based on WP:OR. When it was blocked IPs starting with 39.48. [113] as well as Balochfaisalyar (talk · contribs) and Mohammadhassanibaloch (talk · contribs) were editing the same articles it was editing. I'm very sure these are all the same person, promoting Balochism by whatever means necessary.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a giant hatchet to Baloch people so I expect to see these editors come out of the woodwork soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, it was beyond repairable for me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

IP user 190.53.66.14

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

---

190.53.66.14 (talk · contribs), while certainly not a vandal, is apparently incapable of reading his/her talk page or recognizing that each instance of adding rowspans to sortable tables has to be reverted. This is a long-standing, continuing issue despite several reminders. I'm requesting that this IP be blocked for a few weeks to get this editor's attention. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 10:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I really stepped into it: South-east Asian association football article problems

• Druryfire (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), particularly with edits like this after I offered a step-by-step explanation of each problem (see the history) and a detailed rebuttal of why restoring the material is incorrect.
• Tommy1933 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Two other editors have accused him of vandalizing articles for removing material and the editor has been generally uncivil in his responses.
• SveinFalk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Has been concerned with Tommy1933's edits and has been uncivil in his descriptions of that behaviour.

It's all a mess, like this edit. And there are even more anonymous editors who are involved, almost none of whom speak English as their first language and who are reluctant to discuss their edits: they just "know they're right".

I agree to leave all of the articles alone if someone with blocking ability can take these three editors and explain why their behaviour is not constructive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view the edit history at User talk:Tommy1933, specifically the mass posting warnings and reverting when they are deleted (8 times for one editor, 13 times for another, within 24 hours) constitutes harrassment, or close enough. I've warned Druryfire and SveinFalk accordingly. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've had conversations with Druryfire and Tommy1933 at WP:AIV and at my talk page. Both seem to be making good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. An unfamiliarity with some of Wikipedia's policies combined with a lack of communication seem to be the real issue. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

...Hm. That did not go as planned. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Nukefirestadium

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

---

This relates to the old football stadium in Leipzig, primarily located at Zentralstadion (1956). Instead of starting move discussion(s), the above user is unilaterally creating content forks at new pages (Central Stadium (Leipzig, GDR)‎ and Central Stadium, Leipzig (1956-2000)). When these controversial pastes and redirects are reverted, the user is just constantly reverting despite repeated warnings. The user has also frequently removed discussion templates. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nukefirestadium has triggered a sockpuppet investigation already: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fox53. The behaviour of NFS looks very similar, including editwarring and conspiracy theories. The Banner talk 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • And blocked indef as sockpuppet, so this case can be closed. The Banner talk 18:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

72.49.36.201 - promotional spam in article text

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

IP promoting a book called "Threads of Faithfulness" along with some odd conspiracy theories:

• At Mothman [114] [115]
• At Silver Bridge [116] [117]

I've reverted twice and warned on the IPs Talk page but it may not stick. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Let us wait a bit, they did not edit after warning. Additionally, it is awlways a good practice to add the welcome template, may be they could read the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Denial of an RfC on proposed General Sanctions

• (diff) 10:13, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Turn the debate it into an RfC so that a broader consensus can be sought)
• (diff) 12:27, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (→‎Moving forward: I never put forth an RfC. Don't use my wording with an RfC.)
• (diff) PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
• (diff) 13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)

From the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain

From the history of the page:

• 13:31, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
• 13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)

I don't believer that this section belongs to you! So under what right are you reverting edits made by me? If I create another section for an RfC, opinions will be split over two different sections. This is not fair on people who have already made their opinions clear, and needlessly complicates the RfC, but if you insist I will create a section below this one. -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are adding an RfC template in conjunction with my words, in a way that would be misleading. It implies that I support this so-called "RfC". I have repeatedly said I do not. In fact, I believe that any opening of an RfC at this stage would be disruptive. No RfC is necessary. The only one that seems to think so is you, and furthermore, no other general sanctions ever were established by RfC. If you want to start an RfC, you should draft a proposal. Do not use my proposal for your RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester For someone who is seeking the consensus of the community to bring in some general sanctions, I find it extraordinary that you would not want to include as many people as possible in building that consensus and are trying to block an RfC on the issue!

The RfC does not in any way alter what you have said. It does not imply that you support the RfC, and that is not the issue. Your have twice removed an RfC what the RfC process says is "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator." My emphasis. You are free to state under the RfC that you do not support the RfC if you so wish but you are not free to removed it for that reason.

If you will not let me place the RfC banner at the top of this section then I will create a new one at the bottom and I will use you proposed wording because that is for which you are seeking to gain consensus. As I have said it will be inconvenient for those who have already expressed an opinion in this straw poll and could easily lead to confusion, hence the reason I think it better to convert this section into a RfC. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it shows bad faith on your part. It singles my proposal out amongst all other general sanctions proposals, and puts a bureaucratic block in front of it. Not because of any particular policy or guideline, but because of one editor's opposition. You do not have a right to filibuster this proposal, nor do you have a right to unilaterally force bureaucratic measures on it. I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you. I will follow the established procedure for general sanctions proposals. I will not be made to jump through hoops at your behest. If you continue to disrupt this proposal, I will be forced to open a thread at WP:AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never been put in a situation before where an editor claims copyright on wording such the proposals for general sanctions to prevent an RfC being held on whether those general sanctions are acceptable to the wider Wikipedia community. But how else is one meant to understand I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you.

I think that the proposed general sanctions are badly drafted because the UK is not defined and potentially covers hundreds of thousands of articles. If one looks at list of general sanctions they are tightly focused on an issue or on a specific area, this proposal is neither. Therefore I think that a decision on whether to impose the sanctions should not be restricted to the dozen or so editors who have expressed an opinion so far.

Now that there is a definite draft I think it should be put to the community via a widely adversed RfC. User:RGloucester had twice reverted my attempts to start an RfC and seems to be determined to continue to do so. I think that this is unreasonable and I would like to see what the consensus is here at ANI is:

1. On whether the language highlighted in Green is reasonable
2. Whether it is desirable to hold an RfC on such a wide ranging (and I think badly drafted General Sanction)

-- PBS (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are an informal process, as it says at the RfC page. Such a process cannot be forced upon a proposal by one heavily-involved editor. You've expressed your objection to the proposal, as is your right. However, that does not overwrite the views of other editors who do support the proposal, and do think that the UK is adequately defined. Your one objection does not trigger an RfC, nor does it overwrite the standard procedure for establishing general sanctions, which is to start a discussion at WP:AN. There is no reason why this proposal is any different from any other general sanctions proposal. I will not take part in any farcical RfC requested at your behest. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I will not accept one editor's insertion of an RfC template before my words, without my consent. RGloucester — ☎ 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS, I can't see any evidence of anyone 'claiming copyright' on anything. What I can however see is an out-of-sequence construction of a RfC around a comment made in another context. I'm not surprised that RGloucester objects to you misrepresenting his posting in this way. If you think an RfC is merited, start one in the appropriate manner, in your own words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the general sanctions proposal is to stop the bizarre disruption of UK related pages by advocates and opponents of the metric system of measurement in the UK. Both sides have often paralysed a series of articles, whilst converting backward and forward to / from their favoured measurement system. A clear consensus had formed at WT:MOSNUM there was a need for this, there was a clear consensus at WP:AN to enact it and now progress is being prevented by PBS in what I can only describe as filibustering. This wasn't an RFC, it was refactioring another editors comments - something that in normal circumstances could well lead to a block. It is a bizarre demand by any standards that you be allowed to refactor another editors post to become an RFC; so much so that I question whether PBS still has the WP:COMPETENCE to be an administrator.

1. Yes the proposal is reasonable and there was no need to forum shop it elsewhere.
2. No, I don't see a need for an RFC on the proposal. WCM_email 17:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

64.183.48.206 A repeat offender

I have been in an unfortunate editing war with this user on two articles. The user insists on adding unsourced material to these articles.

The particular pages on which I am having a problem with this user are:

1. Marrakesh Express (The user keeps adding the unsourced line "On the album version, there is a few seconds of Nash whispering in Arabic gibberish before the music starts." Besides the trivial nature of the insertion, sources indicate a different person doing the gibberish. The user has been encouraged to provide a source, but has not done so.)

2. Our House (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song). (The user keeps adding "Joni Mitchell had two cats roaming around in her back yard that she owned, which became the basis of the lyric line in the Chorus of the song: "With two cats in the yard"." Again, I encouraged providing a source, but he/she has not done so.)

Looking through the user's talk pages, this person has been warned about this behavior in the past and was temporarily blocked a year ago. Also, there is apparently a current complaint about the user's persistent edit wars on that administrator page.

I posted to the user's talk page. The only response I got was for him/her to go back and add the same unsourced edits.

In my opinion, this person should be banned from Wikipedia. He/she obviously has no regard for the integrity of the system. A quick look through the talk page demonstrates this.

Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading the policies, it seems that I have been guilty of an edit war with this user in that I have reverted his edits three times within 24 hours. I did not know that rule before. I apologize for this and will not do so in the future. When I run across an abusive editor, I will report it instead, as I am doing here.

Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick search of Google indicates that Graham Nash and Joni Mitchell were indeed a couple living together, and that she indeed had cats. Shouldn't be too hard to source properly. Don't know about the whispering, though I think I've heard that story before. The whispering might be obvious, but a proper source would be needed to confirm who it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Flaawless

Flaawless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Could someone please take a look, this seems to be a vandalism-only account, adding weird content to multiple articles. I don't see much point in a notification or warning, they seem to know they're acting up. Thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it might be a compromised account, or somebody having a weird breakdown. Anyway, a number of recent edits need to be rolled back. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably the latter. Looking through the contributions, I think this individual was promoting himself (assuming "Regardless Devon Victory" is a male editor's pseudonym). When his article(s?) were deleted he started vandalizing other articles. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Mike V--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User: NazariyKaminski -- Disruptive behavior and edit warring over multiple articles

User being reported: NazariyKaminski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please take a look at this user's behavior. After quickly removing a section tag from a BLP [118] and then copying and pasting his edit warring warning to my talk page [119] I soon realized I needed to take further action. Thanks. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As it happens, I just filed a 3RR report on NazariyKaminski before noticing this. He's an editor who has been blocked 4 times this year (3 for edit-warring and one for harassment/personal attacks). The most recent edit-warring block was a month long, but he jumped right back in once it expired with more edit-warring. His contribution history consists of solely of relentlessly tendentious, combative, hyperpartisan edit-warring and invective. If there is a clearer example of someone unsuited to retain editing privileges on this site, it's been awhile since I've seen one. At this point, there's ample evidence that NazariyKaminski's behavior is not going to change and he's not going to suddenly start respecting our conduct policies, so we should probably not put him in a position to waste any more of other editors' time. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Look let's cut to the chase. Somedifferentstuff placed a BLP tag on the article in retaliation for edits that I was making that he did not like. Now, before you go blocking me please note that I have been attempting to work with Cwobeel to come to a compromise. All of the discussion right there in the notes of the talk page. There is a disagreement on what is a primary source and what is a secondary source. I believe that the Federal Election Commission filings are primary and OpenSecrets.org is a secondary source. They claim that OpenSecrets.org is a primary source. However, OpenSecrets.org is a private entity owned and operated by Center for Responsive Politics. It is not a government agency and the information that they have is not original but merely information that is filed with the FEC in the first place. Now, when the admin goes through and counts the number of edits and reverts and all of the rest then you will see that all three of us, Cwobeel, Somedifferentstuff, and myself ALL violated 3RR. This is fact. Now, I am more than willing to take my block, but it needs to be applied fairly which means that the two editors who were reverting me, Cwobeel and Somedifferentstuff, need to be blocked also. I believe the rule is "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", right? Now, Greg Orman has given campaign money to Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, that can't be disputed because it is right there in the FEC files and it is reported in the secondary source OpenSecrets.org. Also, the Kansas City Star and Roll Call also report that Orman has given to Reid and Clinton so that fact is not in dispute. So go ahead and block me but you need to block those folks also. Oh, by the way, Cwobeel went out and talked Somedifferentstuff into making his way over to Orman to support Cwobeel's position. Somedifferentstuff has written this note as if he is an innocent child, but he was engaging in the edit war also. Actually, Cwobeel and myself were making tons of progress toward a compromise until Somedifferentstuff got involved in a big way and decided to inappropriately tag the article "BLP" when there was not "BLP" issue. There were clearly other issues that needed to be worked on but not BLP. Also, Somedifferentstuff was removing material that Cwobeel and myself agreed belong in the article. So there you have it. Remember it takes two (in this case three) to tango. You can't have an edit war without two sides reverting each other. Each of them reverted as often as I did. But as I said this went on most of the day. It was just Cwobeel and myself until Somedifferentstuff decided to get involved. Its too bad because we were getting to a compromise.--NK (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not a completely uninvolved editor, as I've also been involved in some of the related talk page discussions. However, the issue raised does pose a broader issue that comes up in regards to polarizing articles. There is nothing wrong with holding your own political views, and if we're being realistic we have to expect that editors' views will impact the changes they oppose or support in controversial articles. However, there comes a point in which, if an editors sole purpose is to push towards one POV and against another, even if this is done through actions that are individually not problematic (such as asking for additional verification, arguing about the reliability of sources, or arguing about the relative of significance of specific points) we can include that they are NOT here to build an encyclopedia. My general test for this is to look at the last 1000 edits for an editor. If these are entirely concerned with pushing or pulling on the POV of a specific event in one direction, even if done under the claims of encouraging neutrality, then I don't believe the user is a benefit to the encyclopedia. The user in question's past contributions seem to indicate this is the case in regards to current American political elections.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd note, however that the user posting this incident is also not perfect in this regard, with a strong focus on POV in political issues. However, applying the same standard to his or her edits does indicate a much wider variety of articles edited, to the point where I wouldn't say they are only here for one sole purpose.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)