Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Page moves of DC Metro stations.

I recently closed Talk:Greenbelt station#Requested move 7 February 2015, a multi-move seeking to use a lowercase "s" for the names of various DC Metro stations, as not moved for lack of consensus after a two-month discussion. There were valid points made on both sides, including the existence of sources using both capitalized and uncapitalized forms, so I felt that a clear consensus was needed. At the time of the discussion, the titles with the capitalized "S" were fairly new, resulting from a December 2014 multi-move request primarily aimed at removing "(WMATA station)" from these titles. Following my closure, other editors moved the various pages at issue to the lowercase "s" title, primarily based on WP:USSTATION. I have no dog in this hunt (other than having closed the last discussion, and being a frequent Metro rider from living in the DC Metro area), but as my closure could be deemed involvement, I leave it to the community to determine the appropriate resolution of the matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably you meant to notify me and also note that in addition to these moves I opened and continued discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations) designed to break the impasse for which the RM process failed, and linked to it from after the RM you closed noting "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution". That would be a constructive place for people who care to weigh in. What was most clear at the RM is that there's a consensus that the capped titles were wrong; we're just not aligned yet on the best fix. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the RM result, you should've filed yet another move review. This seems to be a disaster in terms of procedural errors. There was the first request, which moved to the articles to the capitalised title. There was the move review for that request, which you withdrew in the face of opposition. There was this new RM for the lowercased titles by you, which was yesterday closed as no consensus. In merely hours after the RM was closed as "no consensus" to move to the lowercase title, all of the articles involved in the RM had been moved to that title by Dicklyon (talk · contribs). He should've known not to defy the RM result. He should've given up, which would've been the right thing to do, or should've filed a move review or RM. This is absurd. The articles need to go back to where they were. RGloucester — ☎ 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to revert Dicklyon's and my moves of these articles from lowercase "station" back to uppercase "Station". (e.g. move L'Enfant Plaza station back to L'Enfant Plaza Station) since obviously they're against consensus. I didn't realize it until another user brought up the issue at my talk page. Epic Genius (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Epic Genius it's the responsibility of you and Dicklyon to revert your own moves> GregKaye 12:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did what I could, but there are some pages that I can't move. Epic Genius (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think another point to make is that an admin moved the Greenbelt station page after a request at WP:RM for uncontroversial moves, despite the fact that it was clearly controversial, there having been numerous RMs and an MR. Surely there's some duty of care for admins to check that "uncontroversial" requests are actually uncontroversial (e.g. by looking at the talk page for RMs) in order to weed out editors looking to game the system after they've failed in other avenues. @Epicgenius: you should be able to move the pages back yourself, unless someone has tagged the redirects created by the move (sadly there are some editors that do this in order to prevent moves back) – certainly the L'Enfant Plaza station should be moveable. Number 57 18:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The re-moves are proceeding rather slowly on my end, so I may need help with the re-moving of the articles. Admin help is needed to move Potomac Avenue station to Potomac Avenue Station. Epic Genius (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to see how you consider moving back to the least favored titles as progress, but I'm going to step back from this mess now that you've taken that on. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I made that mess? We both commented at WT:USSTATION and you supported the move to lowercase titles while I opposed it. The !vote ended with a decision of no consensus. Yet you moved the pages anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And you followed up and moved the others, the controversial ones that I had skipped. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I corrected my stupid mistake of wanting a uniform naming convention. BTW, I only moved five or six of the articles that you skipped, so that's hardly a strong point. Epic Genius (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, admin help is needed to move Potomac Avenue station back to Potomac Avenue Station because we now have Potomac Ave Station and Potomac Ave station due to a naming error. Epic Genius (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC) There is a RM in progress at Talk:Potomac Avenue station. Epic Genius (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon and mass moves

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

---

Let me quote what I wrote at a recent AE request that failed because the scope of the applicable DS apparently didn't cover this matter.

I've been tempted to file this request for a while. Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year. The two issues that have been most controversial are the removal of the comma from names using the "Jr." or "Sr." suffixes, and the unilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles. His conduct in this area has been nothing but unacceptable. He has had no regard for consensus, and has continually casted WP:ASPERSIONS against editors opposed to his mass changes. His point-of-view on these editors, who he terms "zealots", can be found in this comment, which started a discussion about how to canvas editors that support his viewpoint. His effort is ongoing. Just yesterday, he made a mass of unilateral moves, modifying the redirects so that regular editors could not revert him. When I subsequently asked for a reversion of these edits at WP:RM/TR, Dicklyon began to move war to retain his favoured version, labelling the capitalisation as "junk", and necessitating a second RM/TR request. What do I want from this AE request? I simply want Dicklyon to stop this mass unilateral moves, and to stop gaming the system. There are many, many more that have gone unnoticed. These moves have caused rows at numerous pages. The RM procedure should suffice, and he should know that these changes are controversial. He moves hundreds of little-watched pages a week, with little scrutiny of his edits.

I suggest that all users that comment here read the AE request, which is laden with evidence of similar mass changes by Dicklyon. In many cases he is correct, and in many cases he is incorrect. In either case, he has no concern for consensus and is content to flout it. Something needs to be done. This mess is evidence of larger procedural failings in Wikipedia processes, and proof that Dicklyon simply hasn't got the message. A user proposed at the AE request that Dicklyon be banned from moving pages outside the RM process. I now agree with that notion. Whilst the matter is out of the scope of discretionary sanctions, the community may impose such a restriction. I believe that enough is enough. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support – as proposer. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

They also recommended an interaction ban between us, which would be welcome relief. If you're going to stalk me and try to get me sanctioned, you should at least find moves that are not ones that you supported; makes you sound kind of lawyerish, at best. And note my good-faith efforts to resolve the problem, as linked above. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The reverted change to the wording of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) was not a good-faith effort to resolve a problem, but appears to have been disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

He admitted as much. He described it as "provoking action". RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's never OK to try to provoke action? Or that no action is need here? Or what? Is it always wrong to make a point? Was my edit in any was disruptive, in changing the naming convention to reflect actual practice? Why don't you think of a constructive way to work on the problem if you don't like my attempts? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester , Dicklyon while valuing both of your contributions on different issues I would prefer to see one or both of you banned or topic banned than for you to have an IBAN in place while still being able to work on the same articles. GregKaye 11:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I beg your pardon. I saw the RM/TR request, as that's on my watchlist. I also had the Greenbelt Station page on my watchlist, as I participated in a previous RM there. I participate in many RMs. Once I arrived at the page, It quickly became clear that a disaster was occurring. "Good faith efforts to resolve the problem" mean little considering that you knowingly caused the problem. Please explain, then, why you moved the articles directly after the RM was closed against such a move? What in your mind gave you the right to do such a thing? RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you recall supporting the overturn of the botched RM that created the mess in the first place? See Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December#Greenbelt_Station. Dicklyon (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do. My opinion on that matter remains the same. That does not mean that one should circumvent consensus. That battle was lost, and the page should've remained where it was. There is no excuse for making a mass move of tens of Washington Metro station articles directly after a move discussion closed as "no consensus". You've already been warned about making mass moves plenty of times. From a purely strategising perspective, it really didn't make sense to make these moves directly after the RM closed, when you should've known that there would've been scrutiny on the articles in question, and that your moves would likely be reverted. Given that you've been around the block a few times, that you're no mass move virgin, what exactly compelled you to make these moves? Was it to make a point, as with when you essentially vandalised the WP:USSTATION guideline, and then edit-warred with a user to "deride the project"? RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do trout me for that pointy edit. It was a pretty good point though, wouldn't you agree? Not vandalism at all, but an embarrassing reflection of actual practice that people seem unable to deal with and fix. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support a restriction on moves without consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support a temporary restriction, with the length to be decided later. It's obvious that Dicklyon has done this repeatedly, moving pages against consensus (or the lack thereof). Epic Genius (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Obvious? Without evidence? Where have I moved pages against any consensus or against any lack of consensus? Certainly there was no consensus for these articles to have uppercase Station (if you think there was, please try to find it and point it out). Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... let's see. On Talk:Greenbelt Station, the 2nd move request closed as: Not moved. After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution at 00:29, 6 April 2015. Then, you performed 81 moves that were specifically against the non-consensus. One time is an oversight, two times is probably a mistake, but 81 times is far enough. Epic Genius (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Look in the AE request. He has done this before, and has been warned about it before. A notable example that was found in that request is the case of the Blackfriars Massacre. Here is what I had written in the request:

Blackfriars Massacre – What happened at this article is a telling example of Dicklyon-style tactics. In this case, he unilaterally moved the page on 6 December 2014. This move was part of a huge series of concurrent moves, which I subsequently reverted per WP:BRD. The decapitalisation was subsequently discussed at a mass RM, where it was voted down. That didn't stop Dicklyon from coming back months later and trying to do the same thing again. I asked him to file an RM, and reverted his changes. He reverted me again, calling me "silly", and this time modified the redirect so that I could not change it back. I was forced to make a request at RM/TR, which ended the issue".

This is not new behaviour for Dicklyon. I asked above, why, Dicklyon, did you think that making 81 moves like this was acceptable? You've been warned about it before. You must've known you were going to be reverted. Why did you do it? RGloucester — ☎ 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did it to try to resolve the problem (which you had supported doing); I was surprised to see the reverted by Epicgenius, especially after he originally jumped in to help complete the process. Most of the people who opposed fixing this said "weak oppose"; there was no significant support for the idea that leaving them at capitalized Station would be better, so I thought this might actually work. When processes fail, one needs to look outside standard processes to try to fix it. I can remind you about how the process failed here again if you need. Your reluctance to let me attempt to fix it still baffles me. Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did it because I originally didn't see the closed RfC. After I saw it, I reverted myself. Epic Genius (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I see, you literally meant "against non-consensus". OK, guilty of that, but not of moving against consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

RG, it's not clear why you think your warring behavior on Blackfriars massacre is so much better than mine, or why your having it moved back to improper capitalization settles the matter. The article does not cite a single source that capitalizes it, and does not use caps in the article, so why the caps in the title? We can still fix this, but your insistence on a full RM discussion on each thing you over-capitalize has been a pain, and I haven't gotten around to this one. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added some sources to Blackfriars massacre, since it had none, and moved it to lowercase again since the sources don't support an interpretation as a proper name. Let's see if anyone is bothered by this. Please don't claim that there was ever an examination that ended in a suggestion that it should be capitalized; it has never been looked at, except by me, and reverted by you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. It was part of the mass RM. There was no consensus to move the page at that time. You have made a bold move yet again, skipping the discussion phase of WP:BRD, forcing through your own changes without regard for standard Wikipedia processes. This utter disregard for the RM procedure has not gone unnoticed. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: First of all, I don't understand how you could construe a move discussion closed as "not moved" as meaning anything other than that there was no consensus to move the article. I've pinged the closer, so he can provided his opinion.

Second, I reverted your bold move per WP:BRD. The burden of evidence lies on the person making a bold change, not the person maintaining the status quo. An RM involving the article failed, just as in this case. There clearly wasn't any consensus for you to come back and do the same thing gain, modifying the redirect so that no one could challenge you. I did not "over-capitalise" anything. I did not write the article. I did not place it at the capitalised title. That was the stable title for years, and I simply restored it pending justification. Your attempt at gaining justification in the RM failed, and you never filed another. RGloucester — ☎ 20:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course we all understand that. It was very explicit in his closing statement where he said we're still no closer to consensus. My point is that the capitalized Station left them even further from consensus that moving them to lowercase would. The lowercase station did at least once achieve consensus at the original Greenbelt move, if you recall, but then the RM got editted and the closer didn't notice and closed to uppercase by mistake. If you know a process for trying to get this fixed finally, please do speak up since my attempts (MR, RM, just doing it) are still being thwarted. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's already fixed. The move review determined that there was no problem. The second move request was closed as "not moved". Accept that consensus is against a move, and find something else to do for a while. RGloucester — ☎ 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. No such determination was made, and the recent closer said "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution." It's very clearly unresolved; why won't you help fix what you agreed needed to be fixed? Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to resolve the problem. That's why I'm suggesting that you be banned from page moves outside of the RM process. This will resolve all of our problems. It will allow the moves to be carried out, if they are justified, and it will allow the endless disruption of mass unilateral no-consensus page moves and reverts to end. I hope you realise that even when you are right, your approach destroys any credibility you might've had. Other editors have told you so. This needs to stop. RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for prioritizing my credibility over the real problem. Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. What I see from the links here, and from other recent threads on this subject, is that Dicklyon's been attempting to impose his preferred style, regardless of what the vast majority of editors think and wish. It looks as if he cares more about The Truth on formatting/capitalisation/commas than about collaboration with others. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  I have only been trying to correct the flawed RM that capitalized these station articles against the clear support for lowercase at the original RM (see this diff for how that RM got perverted before being closed wrongly). And it is not my preferred style; my preference would be to go back to before the attempt to meet the new WP:USSTATION guidelines, but my impression was that those guideline have consensus, so I was not going to fight that. Just looking for a way to fix the error, or get some attention on it from someone who can. Is anyone listening? Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  Yeah, and you filed a new RM for that. It was closed as not moved (emphasis not mine). So you shouldn't have moved the pages, yet you did anyway. Epic Genius (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, you have said truth now. By any reasonable standard of normal process, I shouldn't have moved the pages, yet I did anyway. Acknowledged and explained in detail already. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• To demonstrate the clear callousness and lack of WP:HEARing in Dicklyon's heart, one must only look at the Blackfriars Massacre article I mentioned above, now having been promptly moved to the lowercase in defiance of the previous RM. RGloucester — ☎ 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  I wonder is there is any substantive objection to this move now that it has sources and it's more obvious that sources support lowercase. It has never been examined in an RM, has it? I can't find a place where anyone has mentioned it in an RM besides me, in a withdrawn RM. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide substance, not the other way around. Regardless, it was examined in an RM, the mass RM at the Watts Riots talk page. There was clearly no consensus for the move. The close wrote "closing without prejudice against reopening move requests individually or in small groups as described below. Editors who contributed to this discussion should be pinged to alert them to any subsequent discussions". Where did you notify all of the editors that participated in the mass move of the change to Blackfriars Massacre? Where is the discussion? How many times must you be reverted? RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The substance is there, in the references. The discussion at a previous RM does not exist. Nobody but you has expressed an opinion against this move, and even you have not made any specific claim of a reason, as far as I can find, just a revert edit summary claiming "English failure". Most other massacres and riots were lowercases after being brought to RM; this one was not brought to an RM where it was discussed, just the original multi-RM that was withdrawn over objection of too many to look at. Such are simple facts. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of editors took issue with the basis for all the moves, let alone this one. There was clearly no consensus, and regardless, you did not follow the process set about by the closer of the mass RM. Please revert your non-consensus change (again) and start an RM. RGloucester — ☎ 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, nobody objected but you, and you've move warred it again to the uppercase title contradicted by the sources. Just saying... Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "war" anything. The stable title for years is the default title. There is no consensus for a move, and you've not followed any of the appropriate processes. You are ignoring the "D" in BRD, and you are ignoring the previous RM result. Read the RM, and read the objections of editors left and right. Read the statement by the closer. This behaviour by Dicklyon is unacceptable. He has now just moved the article again to his preferred title, contravening the RM, and has modified the redirect to prevent reversion. Dicklyon is so bold as to continue this behaviour amidst an ongoing AN/I thread on the same behaviour. This is a clear message to the community on Dicklyon's part. He doesn't care. He'll do what he wants, regardless of any processes, consensuses, guidelines, or policies. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support any and all restrictions to Dicklyon's mass moves, moves against consensus, and generally disruptive, callous and arrogant behavior toward other editors. Red Harvest (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note that I just left the following on Dicklyon's talk page:

:::4 2 move reverts in one day at Blackfriars massacre, plus "freezing" the move in place with an edit to the redirect, all while there is an active ANI thread about your moves, plus a long history of edit warring blocks, including two recent ones... something has got to give. I was all set to block you for 3 weeks until I saw CBW's comment here. Although I don't think your participation in a discussion about this is that important a consideration (because whether it's lowercase or uppercase doesn't matter), I'll defer to CBW's judgement.

However, you should be aware that I will block you from editing if you revert anyone else's page move (or revert their revert of your page move) on any page in the next 3 weeks (the duration of the intended block). So that's a 0RR restriction for page moves in April.

This is in lieu of blocking for the single incident mentioned above, not as closure of the wider-ranging ANI thread. Another admin, who spends more time reviewing and closing that thread, may determine that additional constraints are necessary. -Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note the last sentence; this is not closing this thread, it's an FYI for people participating in this discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also note that I'm an idiot and miscounted; it was actually 2 move reverts yesterday, the other 2 were in March. Apologies to Dicklyon. Still, I think 0RR is still justified, and I'm pleased to see Dicklyon has agreed to it on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It would of course be much better to apply the same restriction symmetrically to the other warring party. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not a "warring party". I did nothing other than revert your change to the Blackfriars Massacre article, which was against a previous RM consensus. You still haven't started an RM to gain consensus. What's more, the particularly slimly way you started moving this article again after I made explicit mention of it above does not bode well for your character. I have never initiated mass moves to a preferred style. Never. All that I did here was revert a change that had no consensus per WP:BRD. I never made any bold moves. Zero. I am not the problem. You are. Do not attack the people that are forced to clean up your messes, as you did to those that were forced to restore tens of "S/station" pages in line with the RM result there. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very "slimly" of me. As we discussed above, you had claimed to have "fixed" and "settled" something by reverting my move. You called attention to the state of it, which you had left broken. So I fixed it again, and said let's see if anyone besides you objects; you didn't give anyone a chance, so we still don't know. We could do an RM, but it seems like overkill for such a simple fix, don't you think? Not every simple fix needs to be made controversial, though you keep stalking me and doing that. Why do you want to capitalize things when so few sources do? Why do you assert "English failure" when things are rendered in the normal case used by sources? Like I said, you yank my chain, I yank back. I'm not saying I'm proud of it, or that it's not a bit disruptive, just that you are part of this war, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It was resolved. After the first revert, an RM was properly opened by you. There was no consensus for a move, though the closer set out a process by which moves at individual pages could be carried out. You did not follow that process. Instead, you came back months later and tried to move the page unilaterally again, against consensus in the RM. All you needed to do was follow the procedure set out by the closer, namely starting an RM and notifying all participants in the mass RM. If you had done that, there would've been no problem. RGloucester — ☎ 23:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's right. There was no consensus at that time, and the closer suggested a process that I did not follow for this one since the result would appear to be uncontroversial. I have now opened that RM; perhaps you're right and it will be controversial. Seems like just a waste of time, like the 26 ohters that needed RMs to fix the over-capitalization due to your objections, but let's see: Talk:Blackfriars Massacre#Requested move 9 April 2015. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Dick has to learn that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is childish nonsense and he must learn to abide by consensus. His reading of guidelines is not automatically right, as he seems to think, nor is his behavior in any way collaborative. He should be required to use the RM process for any pageoves and abide by the consensus decision regardless if he agrees with it or not. And he must also not come back three months later again just to try to get the answer he wants if consensus disagrees with him. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I admit to the childish nonsense part with respect to my recent behavior (or at least that being an acceptable interpretation of my out-of-process attempt to fix a problem), and to my reading of guidelines not necessarily being right. But as far as I know I have not dis-abided any consensus, nor come back to mess with something after consensus was achieved; if you think I have, please point to where. Nobody has shown such a case. Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Ban him for two hours, that'll teach him. As I've said before (under oath, with Goddess as my witness - or was that a dream?), Dicklyon does good work on Wikipedia, and when he stirs the pot the pot stays stirred. Some mistakes and an adamant attitude, sure, but in the process he has done hundreds if not thousands of good page moves which haven't been questioned, probably considered himself on a roll, and when a few 'Stop' signs pop up he plows right on through them. Given that he's likely learned a little more about 'Stop' signs, I would say that a ban of any length of time be limited to a very small length of time, and maybe ask him to not make controversial moves with a little wider perspective of what might be controversial. But a long ban, as has been implied? In almost all instances, give or take a few capital letters, Wikipedia is better with him here. Randy Kryn 00:06 9 April, 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: No one suggested a "ban" in the sense that you're talking about. The only thing that was suggested was a ban on making page moves outside of the RM process, which would allow Dicklyon to continue to work in his chosen topic areas without the significant disruption caused by unilateral mass page moves. I do not want Dicklyon "banned" (blocked) either, and recognise his contributions to the project. That's exactly why this solution is the best, as it will ensure that he follows the proper procedures, making his edits beyond reproach. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Good,'and never mind. Randy Kryn 00:12 10 April, 2015 (UTC)

• Support a ban from moving pages outside of the RM process. Keri (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose unilateral lockup - it is clear that there are several parties involved in the protracted tug of war, but two stand out in particular as being recalcitrant. It seems rather disingenuous that one party in the ongoing dispute is seeking to outmanoeuvre another by having a unilateral move ban imposed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose—Is this a continuation of the campaign of stalking and harrassment of Dicklyon by RGloucester? It looks like it. In my view, RGloucester is the disruptor—he has a personal dislike of downcasing, and has stated at MOS he wants to see upcased titles generally, contrary to our long-standing practice. This is taking the campaign far too far, RGloucester. Tony (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against downcasing, when it is done with community consensus. Without it, there is no justification. I cannot be a disruptor. I have not made hundreds of mass moves against results in RM discussions. I haven't. Never. Who's done that? That's Dicklyon. I have never capitalised an article. Not one. Who's removed capital letters from hundreds of articles, even ones where an RM result rejected that removal? That's Dicklyon. I do not want "upcased articles". There is no evidence of me ever having made such a change. I've started many articles with lowercased titles. All that I want is a level playing field, not one rigged by one editor and his associates. I hope other editors are aware that two above editors are part of a longstanding group, together with Dicklyon, and that they may well have had an influence on the present behaviour. I'd also like to inform that "Tony1's" canard about "longstanding practice" is incorrect. Please see the section below, where it is made apparent that the present wording was introduced unilaterally by Dicklyon in 2011, with no community consensus behind him. It just so happens that other two most strident editors at the time of that change were these two editors. I'd also note that both Tony and Dicklyon were parties to an ArbCom case related to such matters. There is a long pattern here, and it doesn't involve me. In so far as "harassment" is concerned, I was made aware of this thread because AN/I is on my watchlist, and because I had the Greenbelt station page on my watchlist. I had previously participated in the move review there, and in other USSTATION moves. There is a clear problem here. Editors can choose either to listen to Tony and his ilk, or one can look at what uninvolved administrators, such as Nyttend, have said. It is clear that the present problem has very little do with me, if anything. Do not let a group dominate Wikipedia processes. RGloucester — ☎ 13:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel compelled to correct Tony a bit, while thanking him for his support. He is right that this is "a continuation of the campaign of stalking and harrassment of Dicklyon by RGloucester", as should be evident from the box at the top of this section, quoting his last failed attempt to shut me down. And he's right that RGloucester is on record for his "personal dislike of downcasing", as well as for statements of support from God in his effort to capitalize things he considers to be proper names. But the issue here is a bit different, since it's a case where he stated his explicit support for downcasing to fix the procedural error that capitalized these station titles, twice. The point is that even though he supported the substance of the case fixes that I did in my admittedly out-of-process moves, he took the opportunity of this incident report to pile on and complain about everything he could in another attempt to get me stopped from doing the sort of routine and usually uncontroversial moves that I usually do. If you look back at all my case-related RMs since December, you'll see that almost all were necessitated by his reverts of my routine fixes, and that of those the vast majority finally settled in favor of lowercase, since that's what both the sources and our MOS and most of our editors support. Have I taken him to task for challenging these and causing so much work by so many to fix what was so obvious? Well, maybe I complain a bit, but it's his God-given right to drag me through the process, so he does.

Anyway, having stipulated that the basic accusation of out-of-process moves is true, and having accepted a voluntary ban on page moves through the end of April, I'm back working on an RFC process to get this fixed the way both of us supported (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions where he now claims there's no problem). I have refuted the accusations of those who say I have made moves "against consensus", which nobody has been able to show; in the particular case of my out-of-process moves, there was a clear plurality for lowercase over uppercase, and enough other distractors that the closer declared it far from consensus, which is fair. But lacking consensus there, maybe we should go back to the last time we had anything like a consensus, which was unanimous here, and fix it. But my long-time enemies RGloucester and Born2cycle oppose fixing it, just to annoy me I think. What do you think? Should we go ahead and punish me some more for my efforts, or is working with these guys punishment enough? Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This is outrageous. Talk about WP:ASPERSIONS. My request at AE only "failed" because of the scope of the DS. The evidence was valid then, as now. I am not "stalking" anyone. If you stopped causing disruption across so many pages, we would not be here. As I asked before, what in the heck compelled you to make these stupid moves? You still haven't answered. The only thing that I can think is that you wanted this kind of dust up to occur. You must've known what was going to happen. Regardless, now that we're here, the evidence is clear. Your moves are neither routine nor uncontroversial. This not a pile on. It is not my fault that your behaviour has been below par, and blaming me for your own problems indicates a lack of responsibility on your part. You are wrong to say that most were "settled" in lowercase. Many were rejected, and others were supported by myself. In other cases, as with the Watts Riots move, you only succeeded after launching multiple RMs in quick succession, tiring out those that were forced repeatedly oppose you. You moved against consensus. The consensus in the RM was to "not move". If you wanted to move the articles, or disagreed with the closure, you should've filed a move review. What is so hard to understand? I agree, those articles should've been lowercased. However, consensus was against it. This is more ignoring consensus on your part. You've done this since day one, and there are pages of evidence as such. You have railed on about "zealots" and people who oppose your "routine" moves. I think you need to understand that your moves are not routine. The fact that most of them are carried out on the basis of one small line of text that you yourself inserted into the MoS without any kind of community backing says a lot about your character. If you want to make moves, please do so in the manner that everyone else is required to do. I may take my orders from God, but you don't take orders from anyone. You simply do what you want to do, regardless of consensus, and rail on about "zealots" (more recently) and about "domains" (in 2011). Never mind that the 2011-era comment was made right after you yourself inserted a no-consensus phrase in the MoS to give yourself a leg up in RMs. I wonder, at that point, who was actually part of a "domain" or a "local consensus"? The actual consensuses of editors at article talk pages, or the unilateral MoS change by Dicklyon? RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, he did not accept a "one month ban on page moves". He is referring to the restriction imposed by Floquenbeam, which is WP:0RR on unilateral page moves for one month. Floq explicitly said that this was not a substitute for the closure of this discussion. Again, the only thing being asked for here by me and other editors above is a temporary (maybe 6 months) ban on unilateral moves. Dicklyon would be free to move pages through the usual RM channels, as with everyone else. His attitude is clear, the evidence is clear. Let's curtail the disruption and get back to work. RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban from page moves - absolutely fine to use WP:RM. GiantSnowman 18:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support, regrettably. This is disruptive, and apparently it isn't going to stop. No problem with starting move requests through WP:RM.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

WTF do you mean by "it isn't going to stop". It has stopped some time ago. What are you referring to? Look at all the good-faith discussion and attempts to resolve the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And please continue engaging in good faith discussion and problem resolution, as well as the RM process. But the mass moves are disruptive and it's a pattern with you. Your comments suggest it's not going to stop, so unfortunately preventative steps need to be taken to preserve everyone's sanity.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on page moves, RM is fine. Enormous amount of recent discussion (dozens of threads on boards and talkpages) related to this one user's single-minded approach to MOS issues. User has been blocked several times recently for this approach. I have yet to read a statement by Dicklyon accepting any part in this set of conflicts. It's always somebody else's fault, and editor seems often to unfairly characterize and personalize discussion. BusterD (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  Buster, "dozens of threads on boards and talkpages" is not misbehavior. Especially on talk pages. Please either strike "boards" or say what you're referring to; if it's just RGloucester's harrassment campaign against me, that's not something I should be dinged for, don't you think? And if you read below you'll see that I have completely admitted to the wrongdoing of which I am accused, along with an explanation of why, which, yes, does include discussion of some faults of others. Are there parts of that account that you think are unfair or inaccurate? Please say; your vague accusations are annoying. As for the 2 blocks in the last 4 years, one was Dreadstar blocking me for reverting his hatting of a discussion I was trying to participate in (nothing to do with the current accusations; this edit in an RM discussion unrelated to MOS); the other was an edit war with Randy Kryn, short of 3RR, on some case issues that ending up being settled by the community the way I suggested; I'm not saying I should have done those things, but these blocks do not really support your accusation of "blocked several times recently for this approach". Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  I offer into evidence Dicklyon's above response to my support of the proposal, personalizing and mischaracterizing my comments. My mention of the multitude of discussions relating to this user's choices was not intended to represent misbehavior, but instead clearly demonstrate the editor cannot accurately judge whether a move will be controversial without discussion. I have no reason to doubt the editor's good faith, but his judgment as it regards page moves has been shown to be poor. I'm not saying the editor can't move pages; I'm just saying he needs outside opinion in order to successfully make that call. BusterD (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  That's some evidence! Thanks for clarifying that you want to punish me for bad judgement and for engaging in RM discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  I rest my case and appreciate Dicklyon's assistance in making it. My interest is neither personal nor punitive. My interest is in preventing all the move wars caused by his rapid, undiscussed pagemoves. I'm clearly not alone in my concern. For the sake of moving this discussion forward, I'll deign not to reply further to Dicklyon's hectoring. BusterD (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support restriction from page moves without a RM discussion. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
• Request for closure – Would an administrator please close this longer-than-needed mess? RGloucester — ☎ 00:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And if a ban of some sort is enacted, an admin should log it to WP:EDR. Epic Genius (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The user in question has a history of making disruptive moves, whether it be for capitalization, commas, etc. If a restriction is enacted, he should not be allowed to request moves at WP:RMT either. Calidum T|C 04:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

what in the heck compelled you to make these stupid moves?

I thought this was asked and answered, but RGloucester insists in his tirade above that I explain myself better. So I'll try.

A couple of points:

1. I agree that these were out-of-process moves, a case of WP:IAR on my part, for sure, as I have amply admitted.
2. I am not sorry I did it; possibly I'm stupid about that, but I did it in good faith.

So what compelled me, and why am I not sorry? Am I just pushing a personal preference for lowercase? Did my move cause any trouble? Let's look closely.

What "compelled" me was a combination of a need and an opportunity:

• The need was based on the original corrupt RM discussion that moved these pages to uppercase, and the raft of other RMs that cited that one as precedent and closed without waiting for the move review, even though I had asked for a hold until then. The corruption was very simple: this edit by BDD converted the support for lowercase to look like support for uppercase.
• The opportunity was based on the recent RM that closed with no consensus, but in which by any measure the lowercase was favored over uppercase; the lack of consensus was specifically "weak" opposition from BDD and two seconding that, and from a couple who were evidently not paying attention and saw the situation as "not broken", and from those who wanted a different kind of name like before the moves to uppercase Station, rather than either upper or lower case. So now we have a situation where the support for lowercase is clearly still strong compared to uppercase, and a list of red links sitting there ready to implement the recent apparent consensus decided at WP:USSTATION; even RGloucester registered his support for fixing this to lowercase. So, there was an opportunity to just do the moves on most of them, which would implement the majority will on the case question, and see if anyone would object.

Given this need and opportunity, and lacking any prospect of getting the usual RM process to do anything sensible, I felt "compelled" to make the moves. So I did. And I also started conversations about what I did, both below the closed RM and on the corresponding naming conventions page, in case anyone wanted to either help or object. Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So what happened? At first, the only one who showed any notice was Epicgenious, who jumped in and helped, in his usual unaware naive way, causing trouble as he had done before in the other direction on 5 Jan. (see [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)#Determining_official_station_name]). By taking his consistency campaign to asking for "uncontroversial" moves at WP:RM he provoked WP's immune system to react to this out-of-process change before we could actually see whether anyone who cared about the articles would react. See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Greenbelt "s/Station". So, busted! Here we are, having given RGloucester more ammo to complain about me, even though this time it is just a technical IAR type thing in implementing a fix that was favored by him and by the majority of those who expressed an opinion on the case problem.

What trouble was caused? Epicgenius spent a lot of time moving articles, and moving them back. I don't feel sorry for him, given how much he has contributed to the problem over the last several months. And a bunch of us spent a lot of time at AN/I. For that noise and distraction I apologize. But not for my attempt to fix a problem that has been oddly intractable so far.

And what next? Will all this attention bring any neutral and knowledgeable editors to actually look into the problem and try to help fix it? Or will I just be punished for trying? For all those who buy in to RG's bullshit and want to help him shut me down, consider contributing instead to a solution of the problem I was trying to work on, at the new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. However, for an editor as well versed in the RM process as you, I cannot see how you thought this was acceptable. I still cannot see what the problem is. Yes, I agree that the original RM was flawed. However, the move review determined otherwise, and that's that. The process did what it did, and the result should've been accepted. However, you filed a new RM. Not surprisingly, this resulted in more stalemate. Fine. There was no justification for the subsequent unilateral move. You must understand, Wikipedia has a long history of successive requested move proposals, usually with a significant period of time between them. Your friend Born2Cycle has often been a "participant" in such discussions, so imagine you must be aware of them. You never wait, however You simply ram through your changes, and that's your problem. You think of the articles' "incorrect" capitalisation as an urgent problem that must be dealt with now, when it isn't. If you actually followed the standard processes, your moves would never receive this much attention. If you waited a few months and opened an RM, perhaps a new consensus would develop. Perhaps, in the meantime, you could go to WP:RS/N, where they'd certainly verify that station sign pylons should not be used for these matters. There are a thousand potential options in the Wikipedia toolkit, and most people follow them. Why can't you? That's exactly why the proposed restriction is ideal. All it does is ensure you follow the procedures. If you follow them, you'll have no trouble with anyone, let alone me. There will be no ramming, merely the usual Wikipedia processes. That's what we need here, that's why I've proposed, and that's why I believe it should be enacted. It will do no great harm to you. In fact, I imagine it will assist you in your drive. RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"the move review determined otherwise" is false. Stop making shit up. See Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December. I withdrew it after two months of not being able to find an admin to close it, after trying at requests for closure for a month or more, and after Calidum complained that it was still open when we tried to move on. It was after another two months of not being able to get an admin to close the new RM that I made my "stupid" move. And "If you follow them, you'll have no trouble with anyone, let alone me" is just a lie. Dicklyon (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, reviewing that Move Review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December, I see that the original closer proposed: "I'd hope that a compromise position--e.g., opening a new move request to lowercase titles, and having 'no consensus' default to moving the pages to lowercase titles--might be sufficient in this case. Dekimasu". Now I feel doubly stupid, as I could have just asked the new and old closers to look at this and do the right thing. I'll ping them and see if they will now, which would resolve all this. @BD2412: @Dekimasu:. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It "determined otherwise" in the sense that it was not closed in favour of our view on the matter. Leaving it be would've been a wiser decision. As I said above, patience is a useful virtue in these matters. As for the words of Dekimasu, I'm not sure anyone agreed to that. If it were to be done, it should've been introduced at the start of the new RM. We can see what others say on that matter. RGloucester — ☎ 21:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I treasure your hindsight about what would have been wiser and what some good virtues are, but why not just take this opportunity to support a resolution? Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Epicgenius spent a lot of time moving articles, and moving them back. I don't feel sorry for him, given how much he has contributed to the problem over the last several months. OHMYGOSH!!! I have contributed to the problem?!?! I really didn't know that!! Wait, I thought it was supposed to just be a RM two RMs four RMs and three RfCs!!!! Total time spent moving the articles both times: 30 minutes. Total time wasted at AN/I instead of doing something useful: countless hours. Last I checked, this was just a guideline, not a policy, so while it should be followed, it doesn't need to be enforced like the end of the world. Epic Genius (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You contributed by moving things without knowing what was going on. First to uppercase, then to lowercase, then you felt compelled to go to uppercase again. Without having any opinion of your own, you caused a lot of thrashing in the pursuit of consistency, for the sake of your template. No big deal, just pointing out that I don't feel sorry for the time you wasted. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm pointing out the specific phrase how much he has contributed to the problem over the last several months. No big deal, just pointing out that you still moved against decision. Epic Genius (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did, as I admitted. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing error?

By the way BD2412, though I do appreciate your good-faith effort in closing this thing at Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February 2015, the longest ever backlogged RM item, probably, that nobody wanted to touch, I do think you got it wrong when you said "After nearly two months, we seem no closer to a clear consensus for any resolution." If you look closely, I think you'll see that we are indeed quite a bit closer on how to fix the chaos that BDD created with this ubelievably stupid and out-of-process edit back in December that caused that RM to close to the opposite case of what most of its supporters supported. In the recent RM, you can neglect the ones who were complaining about their dislike of the WP:USSTATION guideline more generally, and take it to just be about the case fixing question as intended (that is, ignore the objections of DanTD and SmokeyJoe, as well as the spurious procedural objection by Calidum, as orthogonal to the question that the RM is about). Then consider the objections to lowercasing. BDD himself wrote "If a bunch of editors agree with me, cool, but otherwise, I don't want the closer giving this comment too much weight." This was followed by two more "Weak Oppose per BDD" (one even struck out his Oppose to change it to Weak Oppose). The other three opposes seem to prefer uppercase, but give no coherent reasons; just "NOTBROKEN" and "local differences". Obviously "NOTBROKEN" means they haven't been paying attention, since the process that capitalized these was massively broken.

Six respondents supported fixing the case error per WP:USSTATION, backing out of the original corrupted RM. On the basis of either numbers or strength of argument, it is clear that we are closer to a resolution to fix this.

In light of this, I went out on a limb, and went ahead with the fix to see who would object. Originally, nobody did. Epicgenious jumped in to help. Then Dohn joe noticed when Epicgenius started on the more controversial ones (which I had not touched), and bugged him, and he started going the other way. It finally came out that Epic's only or main concern is not the title per se, just his ability to manipulate it in his Template:WMATA stations, which doesn't deal with case variability. So he was frantic.

So, DB2412, any ideas what to try next to get out of this mess? Are you suggesting we just leave the massive breakage that BDD caused by changing case in an RM after people had supported his original proposed move to lowercase station? I did try to modify WP:USSTATION to say we would just leave it broken, but that got reverted as the pointy snarkiness that it was. Maybe you can come up with something better, like revising your close to put an end to this nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate way to challenge an RM result is to file a move review, not to write essays at AN/I or unilaterally overturn the closure. RGloucester — ☎ 03:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I know, and we saw how well that worked last time, when after weeks of comments and weeks of request for closure we abandoned it since that WP:MR is a deserted wasteland where nothing happens. Are you suggesting I try that again? I could, but I'm told it's polite to give the closer a chance to rethink the close first, so here we are. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am suggesting that you follow the established processes. If you had questions about the closure, you should've asked the closer on his talk page. You should not've moved 80 some-odd articles against that closure. RGloucester — ☎ 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, lots of should'ves. I already confessed to ignoring some rules and making a bunch of out-of-process moves. So if you have no substantive reason to think anything I did was actually a bad thing, and it's just about following rules, move along. You did after all support all these moves. Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone argues for something per support in a guideline, it is perfectly reasonable to counter by criticising the guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and I am not objecting to your objection. Just noting that since it was orthogonal to the question, it does not necessarily detract from resolving that problem; it still leaves the problem you object to, either way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Um.. OK. Good. There's a lot of fuss, and I am not entirely sure what fuss this one is. You pinged me, but I am not sure if you are asking for my input? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• To be clear, there were legitimate arguments on both sides of the proposal, including citations that could reasonably be interpreted as showing that "Station" was part of the proper name of the locations. Where the policy allows for flexibility in light of the evidence, and the evidence is inconclusive, then you need consensus to effect a change. In this case, there were eight editors supporting the proposed move and eight editors opposing the proposed move, which is hardly consensus for any change of the status quo. bd2412 T 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  I believe you may have hallucinated the "citations that could reasonably be interpreted as showing that 'Station' was part of the proper name of the locations"; if I missed it, can you point it out? But my main point is that we ARE much closer to a consensus to fix the problem that BDD's outrageous out-of-process subterfuge created, even if there's not quite a clear consensus yet; which is why I attempted to resolve it by an out-of-process fix. Thanks again for closing it anyway. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Dick, please tone down your language. You seem to be the only one fuming about my "outrageous" "subterfuge", which in fact was a good faith edit based on the course of that original discussion. Please keep the pejoratives to yourself. You'd think I was committing BLP violations left and right, not preferring a different capitalization than you, where both forms are acceptable. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that I thought it was not done in good faith, or that it was subterfuge, but it was invisible to the closer who didn't see the switcharoo there. It was outrageously out-of-process to convert the support for lowercase station to look like support for uppercase, and it caused the mess that we are still unable to find a way to recover from. Yes, I am the only one fuming, and I'm only fuming because I'm weak and fall for RGloucester's baiting and thwarting my every attempt to make progress. I think maybe I'll just start ignoring the station mess, and let you all live with this stupid thing you did that became precedent for continuing overcapitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Dick, if you really feel that these articles should be moved, file another RM or move review. Don't unilaterally move the pages, and don't move them against consensus. Epic Genius (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you hear how stupid you're being with those admonitions? Obviously the RM process did not and cannot be the fix here, due to the continued confusion caused by people who want to use it to discuss other problems than the one I am trying to fix. And the MR process never does anything. And I would never move pages against a consensus; never have, never will, so stop implying I would or did unless you're going to show where. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately for me, I put in earbuds while editing Wikipedia. And a non-consensus is still a consensus to "not do anything". Nothing to do unless you want to have a new, useless, protracted RfC about what the new names for the articles should be. Epic Genius (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, a failure to find consensus is not a consensus to "not do anything"; never has been that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The closer has made clear that "not moved" means "not moved". There was no consensus in favour of move, meaning that a move should not've been carried out. RGloucester — ☎ 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have already agreed and stipulated that I shouldn't have made those moves, per normal processes. But I did not move against any consensus. There was no consensus to move, and no consensus to not move. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read where it said "not moved" in the RM? This means that there was since there was no consensus to move, there was a lack of consensus at all, which follows that the next decision would be not to move. Epic Genius (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The pylon outside the Federal Triangle station

To answer the earlier question, it was noted in the discussion by User:BDD that the fully capitalized form is used on the pylons, for example the one pictured to the right. Whatever interpretation may be given to this, it is a legitimate basis to believe that this is the proper full name of the station. bd2412 T 16:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

However, "Federal Triangle" is the only actual proper name. The station named "Federal Triangle" may have the "Station" in its name capitalized in some sources, lowercase in other sources, and missing altogether in yet other sources. Epic Genius (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, hard to fathom that anyone fell for or repeated that idea that the pylon makes it a proper name. What next, articles on Police Station, Nurse Station, First Aid Station, Fingernail Glamming Station, Eye Wash Station, etc. that I pointed out on signs at the USSTATION RFC? Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said at WT:USSTATION. Nice try. The difference is that "Nurse" isn't actually a proper name, and neither is "Police", "Eye Wash", "First Aid", "Fingernail Glamming", or "Train". Epic Genius (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying that appearing capitalized on a sign does not make them proper names? What was I thinking? Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. This is not the correct venue for discussing the RM result. Either file a new RM or file a move review. Do something. Discussing it here accomplishes nothing. RGloucester — ☎ 23:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Do something" is what brought us here. Why don't you open the next RM or MR? You want this fixed, too, don't you, as you said in a few places already? Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• In light of this, I went out on a limb, and went ahead with the fix to see who would object. Originally, nobody did. Epicgenious jumped in to help. Then Dohn joe noticed when Epicgenius started on the more controversial ones (which I had not touched), and bugged him, and he started going the other way. It finally came out that Epic's only or main concern is not the title per se, just his ability to manipulate it in his Template:WMATA stations, which doesn't deal with case variability. So he was frantic. To be clear, no I was not "frantic", I just wasn't notified of the RM's closure and rushed to correct my error. The mass renaming has little to do with the template, just that it creates a lot of holey redirect loops for no reason. Epic Genius (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

---

All of this came about because of two requests at WP:RFPP.

I left a message at User talk:RGloucester. I left the exact same message at User talk:Dicklyon. A few minutes later I had to leave a second message at RGloucester, who replied with this and then removed everything while indicating that I should not post on his talk page again. That's his choice and I have no problem with it.

RGloucester then left a message at my talk page to which I replied. As you can see, RGloucester had some concerns about what I had said. He asked me to "rescind these attacks and apologise, lest you be blocked yourself."

Now, obviously I don't see any personal attack there and I'm not going to rescind anything and I'm not apologising either. However, if anyone feels that I did make a personal attack then please block me. I'm going to be gone for about 3 hours. This is a real 3 hours and not back in 10 minutes because someone replies here.

Notified the two editors, Dicklyon and RGloucester. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a superfluous thread. If you want history and context, it should appear in the above and extant thread. If you were not aware of that thread, that might be why you were unaware of the nature of your comments. Please read it, and all will be clear. I would suggest that this be merged with the other thread. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving this thread to a subsection of the existing thread. If you want to understand why I consider these remarks "personal attacks" you can read my response above. In short, a posted a note about Dicklyon's earlier behaviour at the Blackfriars Massacre page above. Following that posting, Dicklyon promptly moved the page to his preferred title, in retaliation for my posting. I reverted, in line with the previous RM result and BRD. He then reverted me again, modified the redirect, and necessitated a RM/TR request. Nothing I did was out of order, and suggestions that I should be blocked for reverting clearly disruptive page moves is nothing less than an attack. Now that I realise that Mr Weather was not aware of this thread, I understand why he would've made such an error. Luckily, this is now resolved. RGloucester — ☎ 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes one gets a bit strident when trying to right perceived wrongs. Happens to us all. Take the warning, admit the problem, and get back to work. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am as pure as a lily, and I hardly want to be perceived otherwise. I wonder who's the strident one here? The one who moved the article, after it had just been brought up at AN/I, or the one who maintained the status quo in line with our policies? RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, very hard to tell the difference; and I wonder what policies you mean. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

How many times must I repeat myself? I think it is very clear what I mean. Other editors above understood, and I imagine you can too. Don't be coy. RGloucester — ☎ 23:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You may stop repeating yourself whenever you wish. And I will stop being coy when you stop claiming your side of the war was directed by policy. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, in response to your original question, nothing in your messages can be read as a personal attack. Your warning two users to stop move warring on a page (and warning that they may be blocked if they continue) is not a personal attack, it is an administrator doing an administrator's job. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. I did not "move war". An administrator properly admonishes the person doing wrong, not the person doing what an administrator should've done (and did eventually do), and protects the page to stop disruption. Please cease with these personal attacks. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am engaging in personal attacks by assessing CBW's message as not being a personal attack? That sounds like a personal attack to me, please desist, lest you be blocked from editing. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You implied that I was "move warring". That's a personal attack, as it is a pure fiction. Please do not repeat falsities. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I did not imply you were move warring, I explicitly said that you were move warring, because you were move warring. That isn't a personal attack. Now would you please cut the holier than thou BS, CambridgeBayWeather asked for an opinion and I gave it. Your disagreeing with it doesn't make it a personal attack. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not "move warring". I do not "disagree" with you, for there is nothing to "disagree" about. There was no "move warring". I did not "war". I made a grand total of ONE revert of Dicklyon at that page yesterday. One. Over the months where he has tried the same tactics, I've implored him to file an RM. I've been forced to go to RM/TR multiple times, because he freezes article at his preferred title by modifying redirects. The only one waging a war is him. If he had simply filed an RM, as was appropriate, we would not be here now. The article would be at one title or another, consensus would be clear, and there would be none of this. Do not put any burden on me. I've not done anything. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is a continuation of problematic behavior by RGloucester (e.g., see previous block for behavior), especially the templating of an admin, the accusations of personal attacks when there are no actual ones, and the threat of blocking someone. This is on top of the refactoring of Dickyon's RPP (mentioned here) as well as other unbecoming behavior in this ANI. In my opinion, RGloucester needs to immediately stop this sort of behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed his "RPP request" because it wasn't an actual request. It was a disruptive attempt at mocking me. I filed this RPP request to stop the nonsense going on at that page. Dicklyon quickly followed with this, copying my wording. I removed his duplicate request here, specifying as a "nonsense request" because it was a nonsense, and because it was nothing other than retaliatory disruption. CBW decided to "decline" both requests here. However, note that Dicklyon continued with his retaliatory mocking, removing my request after CBW had declined it, restoring his own "request" without CBW's decline, and copying my edit summary. Please, scrutinise what I did here. It is clear that I'm not that one who was being disruptive. I "templated" the administrator because he threatened to block me without grounds, which was a form of chilling behaviour. The actual sequence of what happened makes it clear that I was not wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 01:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I see you are right that Dicklyon added the RPP after you did and it did seem to be in bad faith. I don't think you removing it was the most prudent given all the turmoil around that page, but it's at least somewhat understandable given the discussion above. I've struck that part from my original comment. Thank you for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it bad faith to second his request but in favor of my own version instead of his? I was serious. Protecting the correct version seemed like a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't "my version", it was the version that was stable for years and maintained in the Watts riots mass RM. RGloucester — ☎ 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:RGloucester, I started a new section because this was about my actions rather than yours or Dicklyon. If I had seen this edit that User:Dicklyon made then they too would have got a follow up warning. As to being templated I really don't care if people want to use templates or not. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, Dicklyon is the origin of this whole calamity

Having read a comment by Randy Kyrn, I decided to do a little digging and see how the present lead of MOS:CAPS came to be. I was shocked at what I found. The sole justification used in many of Dicklyon's moves and elsewhere was added by him, was never put to a community RfC, and clearly had no consensus in the relevant but brief talk page discussion. I would remind editors that the WP:CONSENSUS policy requires a very strong consensus for changes community guidelines. How the heck can what's been going on here be tolerated? It seems as if subterfuge has been ongoing since at least 2011. Dicklyon has abused Wikipedia to promote his own preferences. He likes to claim that an item must be "100%" capitalised to remain that way, as that's how he defines "consistent". Guess what, he's the one that authored the sufficiently loose "consistent" phrasing, so as to ensure that he would always have success. This is gaming the system, if I've ever seen it. Please, tell me what there is to be done about this. These mass moves, carried out by him, are based in a sentence written by him, one that was never approved by community consensus. This pattern of behaviour shows right through. RGloucester — ☎ 03:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read the discussion that you linked, you'll see that I never advocated a 100% sources criterion. "Consistently" was clearly accepted as meaning significantly more than "majority", however, as should be clear there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It was not "clearly accepted" as anything. There was no community discussion on this major change to the guideline, nor any advertisement. Even in that individual discussion itself, ignoring community consensus, there was no clear consensus to implement the change, and no consensus as to what "consistently" means. In other words, it is just loose enough to allow you get away with whatever the heck you want, to the point where it might as well be a "100%" requirement. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This was not a major change. The avoidance of unnecessary capitalization dates from 2007 or earlier. This minor change took out an odd section inserted in 2009 by permabanned editor Pmanderson, as the discussion link clearly shows. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It was a major change. The question is not whether we should avoid unnecessary capitalisation, as everyone would agree with that principle. The question is: "What is unnecessary?" Your change introduced the "consistency in sources" wording, which was never present before. In the Pmanderson 2009-era wording, the lead merely said to consult Wikipedia:Proper names. The addition of the "general principles" section took place here, and merely said to "follow common usage", which is a much more sensible and usual wording. Prior to that change, the page said nothing about "consistency in sources" or "common usage". In fact, the only guidance about what was a proper noun was "consult Wikipedia:Proper names". Your change completely changed the guideline, and also essentially depreciated another guideline, i.e. Wikipedia:Proper names, which is no longer even linked on the MOS:CAPS page. This is a travesty. It is pure gaming the system. The fact that no one has caught this until is amazing. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It was a minor change, and a measured compromise between the anti-MOS types like Pmanderson who favored "follow the sources" and the more theoretical and principled types like Noetica who favored a more strict determination of what's a proper name. Noetica tried to change it later, in a time of relative turmoil, and found a backlash for it. Pmanderson fought him via a sock puppet after being banned, and htat didn't work out well for him. The "consistently capitalized in sources" concept was discussed on the talk page, before and after the change, and found no real objection. I think it was a pretty successful compromise, though I agree it has its problem in its ambiguity of interpretation by people like you who take 50% to be "consistently", which is clearly not how it was interpreted in the conversation at the time. Feel free to propose some other criterion for how to decide when caps are unnecessary, but do not accuse me of anything but implementing consensus here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Where was the community RfC for this change? What uninvolved person assessed consensus on the talk page? I'd say that any of the administrators here who looked at that discussion would not've closed it in favour of this change. It clearly did not meet the level of consensus required to change a major guideline. It was not "measured", it was not a "compromise", it was not "minor". The fact that it is not "minor" is made apparent by sheer amount of unilateral moves you've made with solely that wording as your justification. You have gamed the system from then. You added a change without any kind of consensus, certainly not the kind required for a change to the guidelines, deprecated another guideline, and then went on to make tons and tons of unilateral page moves on the basis of that change over the course of years, using that wording as your sole justification. There was no consensus for this change, and it should be removed. The old version should be restored. There is no way that this can be viewed as anything other than an attack on the Wikipedia community and consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 05:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The actual calamity was started here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd rather the two of you either kept it on your user talk pages, or avoided each other. When it starts getting out into project space, it becomes disruptive. — Ched :  ?  11:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me. I posted it here so that all the project could see the travesty that has been caused by Dicklyon, since 2011. What will the community do to fix it? The evidence is plain to see. The system has been rigged. Please, administrators, fix this grave error. RGloucester — ☎ 13:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester—I wish you would desist from this incessant campaign against Dicklyon. It is astounding how far you will go to discredit factual evidence concerning sources ... and then the meaning of the opening of MOSCAPS ... anything to "win" your argument. Tony (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't an argument. I don't need one. The evidence is clear. The system has been rigged with no consensus changes to the MoS. I'm not the one mass moving pages to decapitalised/capitalised titles. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Some further review of the previous close

User:Dicklyon has pointed out that the December 2014 close, while based on a consensus for the pages to be moved away from their titles at the time, did not establish a clear consensus as to whether the target pages should capitalize "station". I would propose a broader RFC to determine that question, which does not assume a preference for either. Granted, those are a bit harder to close, but there should not be a presumption of a default were there is no longstanding title. I know that sometimes it seems like we retread certain issues tirelessly, but there is value to getting the most thoroughly vetted result. bd2412 T 16:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should revert all this mess and move back to the titles as of December 2014, before the RfC, then host another RfC. Epic Genius (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That may be the fairest and soundest way to do things. bd2412 T 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be consistent with the RFC ongoing at WT:USSTATION#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions, but not with the result of the original move and move review.

I went further and pointed out the words of the original RM closer, in that Move Review. He wrote:

Closer comments: I am not able to be very active at the moment, so it's good that so much discussion was able to be done here; I don't mind that this wasn't discussed with me beforehand. At any rate, I do not have particularly strong feelings about this. The proposal was changed with 5.5 days left in the request, and no one objected over those 5.5 days, but it does seem like it would have been helpful to ping the editors who had already expressed opinions. If a single page was involved, relisting would seem to have been an option, but moving all the pages back and reopening in this case seems like a lot of work for questionable benefit. I'd hope that a compromise position--e.g., opening a new move request to lowercase titles, and having "no consensus" default to moving the pages to lowercase titles--might be sufficient in this case. Dekimasu

If I had recalled at the right time and pointed this out to BD2412 immediately after his close, he probably would have amended as no consensus and thus revert to the original intent of the previous RM, which would have fixed things. But I spaced it, as we all know by now. So, we have these options:

• BD2412 can summarily amend his close based on this. Easy; then we're done.
• We can do a move review of BD2412's close and see if we agree that it should be amended; harder, as move reviews seldom go anywhere and have a hard time getting closed.
• We can complete the RFC I started at WT:USSTATION#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions and implement whatever fix is most supported there; this takes an admin with a willingness to help. It looks like it might be a revert to the original parenthetical (WMATA station) names as Epicgenius suggests above.
• We can complete the RFC and based on what we learn, then open another RM discussion. This is unlikely to have a different outcome from before, since there's a strong consensus to move, but a mix of which directions; nobody likes the present mess (nobody being primary B2C).

So, suggestions? Actions? BD2412, if you take step 1 we're done for now, and then Epicgenius and others who want to roll back USSTATION completely can have a clean go of it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to "roll back" the USSTATION guidelines. The matter of whether the articles should have upper or lowercased titles is separate. Deprecating the USSTATION guidelines would require a widely-advertised RfC on that question alone. As such, this hasn't happened. Keep in mind that RfCs are supposed to run for thirty days. RGloucester — ☎ 18:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not contemplating an RFC as to those guidelines, but as to the treatment of stations in the DC Metro system. Despite the absence of a clear consensus in the move discussion, I am uncomfortable with the fiat of Wikipedia deeming these the proper names of these stations without really having a clear consensus one way or the other. To be clear, I don't think a change to the close of the previous discussion is warranted, as the close properly described the absence of consensus to move. I think what is needed is a new and broader discussion, with all of the relevant evidence being laid out beforehand, and no presumption being given in favor of one title or the other. I also do not think that it is necessary to move these titles to any particular waypoint during such a discussion, so long as participants know that the current titles hold no precedential value. bd2412 T 18:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

There is almost no support for those titles as the proper names of the station; that's why a fix is needed. You are in a position to summarily fix it per the originally unanimous support at the first RM and the opinion of the original closer that it should be fixed to lower case if no consensus was found for upper case; that is, amending the outcome as suggested would be consistent with your finding of no consensus. Very few would object if you fixed it at this point (just B2C maybe). Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that an RfC is an acceptable idea, but that the likely result would be what we've already seen: a stalemate. It might be better if USSTATION was simply amended to prefer solely capitalised or solely lowercased "station" appendages. Note that the British station guidelines specify solely lowercased appendages, even for major stations like Edinburgh Waverley. RGloucester — ☎ 18:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it is necessarily sound policy to impose consistent capitalization on things that are inconsistent in the real world. If one system uses "Station" as part of the proper name of its stations, and another does not, then that should be an overriding consideration. Are these British station guidelines to which you refer guidelines within Wikipedia, or guidelines propounded by the British government? bd2412 T 20:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

They are Wikipedia guidelines. The government has no such regulations. We use universal lowercase of the "railway station" appendage. This may be because British railway stations do not traditionally include "railway station" as part of their official/proper names, i.e. "Edinburgh Waverley" is usually referred to as "Edinburgh Waverley", "Paddington" is referred to as "Paddington", &c. RGloucester — ☎ 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Which is meaningless for the US. Any guideline that calls for decapitalizing Pennsylvania Station is completely foolish. It's simply is a proper noun in universal usage and the word "Station" must be capitalized of else Wikipedia is completely out of step with actual usage and looks dumber than a box of rocks. That's why a universal imposition one way or the other is I'll advised at best. That's why the USSTATION guideline is written the way it is. With that said, we really have an issue here of interpreting sources, not the phrasing of the guideline. But we also have an issue where in retrospect the guideline was adopted without road enough input from interested editors. At least that's what is seems based on the pushback. oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no "Pennsylvania Station" in the DC Metro system. bd2412 T 00:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

But there is an "Union Station". Two of them, actually, in DC. Epic Genius (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

See what I mean, BD? People will talk for the sake of talking, will spread negativity and hypotheticals all day, but will not actually object if you just do the fix that was clearly in order in the last RM and MR and again more supported than any other alternative in the recent RM. Just do it and put us out of our misery. In fact, when I just did it myself, nobody actually objected to the fixed titles, just to the process by which it came about. Am I right? As far as I see reviewing the complaints above, none were about the title being moved to lower case; the main complainant, RGloucester, was among those explicitly supporting those moves. The only complaint was that I did it without consensus. But if you look back at the history, especially in light of what Dekimasu said, you'll see that the real move against consensus was when they went to upper case, and as the closer who made that error he suggested reverting to lowercase if no consensus could be achieved in this second RM discussion. So that's where are we. You can fix it, and everyone will be happy (except those who would prefer to roll back USSTATION altogether, but that's an orthogonal issue). Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't make the discussion mean something other than what it meant, and I can't go back and "fix" the 2014 closer's close. I can only suggest a path that goes forward. bd2412 T 00:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You could easily follow the original closer's instruction to fix the caps error if the new RM did not result in a consensus to capitalize, which it did not. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon has been resorting to sock puppetry

I never thought he would sink this low. Please see the SPI that I opened. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And which has since been Declined by a clerk as evidence is not convincing (according to Bbb23). Blackmane (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nothing is declined. This is a clear case. Some people are merely blind. Look at the evidence yourself. RGloucester — ☎ 03:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

CheckUsers can't connect IPs to named accounts, so they only can guess via behavioral evidence. Any conclusions would be circumstantial. Epic Genius (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

48 hours later, Dicklyon is blocked for sockpuppetry. RGloucester was right. BusterD (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, RGloucester is also blocked for the rest of the month. Maybe his block can be shortened, because his actions did prove fruitful. If RGloucester was being unconstructive with what he did, then I wouldn't be saying this. Not saying that either of them were right or wrong, but they both ended up blocked for a petty reason. Epic Genius (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Actually, it was discussed below and then rejected. Epic Genius (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

While WP:CheckUsers usually do not publicly connect IPs to named accounts, they do so in certain cases; the WP:CheckUser page is clear about that. And they certainly block after comparing IP and registered account evidence, without publicly stating that the two are connected. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

He didn't asked CU to connect with the IP, he rather claimed that there is evidence that they are same. Noteswork (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeM and Islam, a safe combination?

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

We've got a user who, after returning from a ban, is:

• Claiming that ISIL represents true Islam
• Announcing and carrying out plans to giving artificial validity to claims disproven by independent sources, in particular claims that the United State government plans on murdering its citizens, even using a completely false edit summary to try and sneak this conspiracy theory by.

The overwhelming majority of his edits today and yesterday focus on those two ideas. However, he's not a PR guy for Daesh. JoeM has a history of problematic edits to articles on politics and Islam. He's also got problems with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, in addition to some WP:CIR issues (as seen here and here).

The only conclusions I can reach are that JoeM is either a troll, here to use the site as a blog for his own personal bigotry, or not in a right frame of mind necessary to edit here. I challenge anyone to find a useful edit by him that meets WP:V.

At a minimum, I'm thinking that a topic ban from anything relating to politics and Islam is in order, if not a community ban for general WP:CIR when it comes to restraining their personal bigotry. Of course, I'll also completely support an indef block followed by a community ban discussion.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting and giving him some WP:ROPE, but yes, his return does not look promising so far. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian, please assume good faith. I am open to discussing with everyone involved ways to improve articles on Islam and Islamic movements. My goal is to widen the discussion of present day issues in the article about Islam, which is weighted too much on pre-modern times. In articles on ISIS, I would like more emphasis on the religious doctrinal underpinnings of the movement. My goal is merely to make the realm of discussion more relevant and to write factual content.

In the meantime, as we work together, please assume good faith on my part; and I will do the same for you. Also, I think it's frankly unfair to bring up past issues when I started as a contributor over a decade ago. I behaved in a way I regretted; and I personally apologized to Jimmy Wales. I was young and still very emotional about the recent events of 9/11. JoeM (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits, then and now, are problematic. If you cannot see that, then I think you won't like it very much here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can assume good faith or competence, but not both. The diffs I've provided clearly show that you're here to push your own misunderstandings onto articles instead of neutrally sticking to academic and journalistic sources. I bring up your past behavior not as some sort of double jeopardy, but to show that you are incapable of learning from mistakes made a decade ago.

If emotion prevents you from being neutral in a topic, stay away from it. It's clear that you're overly emotional about the death panel myth and about ISIL. You should stay away from those topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not getting emotional about those topics now. As mentioned, my goal is to (1) widen discussion about modern Islam and modern Islamic movements in the Islam article and (2) to widen discussion about the doctrinal underpinnings of ISIS. I can see that even simple matter of fact statements can be thorny issues around here. So I will adjust my plans accordingly. I will instead see what people think about adding some respected scholarship that could widen the discussion in the ways I think are needed, such as the work of Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, etc-- all TRUE experts on Islam and the Arab world. JoeM (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I've linked to show what your intentions are, even if you retroactively white wash them as WP:Civil POV pushing to avoid trouble. You're certain you weren't getting emotional here or here?

Daniel Pipes spreads conspiracy theories about Obama being a Muslim, and is widely regarded as an propagandist by even the people who agree with him. That you cite him shows clear POV problems on your part. Besides that, there's the issue of WP:DUE weight. If their views were mainstream, they'd be supported by a wide variety of sources that would already be cited in those articles. Gee, wonder why you would want the article to reflect their views more, then.

The article on Islam does cover movements that are active in modern times. It does not cover movements that might just be a flash in the pan, like ISIL; nor does it promote such movements as being the true form of the religion. The article on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant does discuss their ideology and beliefs, and there's even an article on the Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Your edits clearly were not simply about that, but an attempt to equate Islam and ISIL, and create artificial balance between the death panel hoax and independent dismissal of said hoax. If we are going to expand it, we do so through citing mainstream journalistic or academic sources, instead of just repeating propaganda. That should have been a lesson you should have learned a decade ago.

This edit by you makes it hard to believe you know how to compromise. This edit by you makes your shift in tone on this page seem insincere. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this guy, but just read up on his ban, and it seems he has exactly the same attitude towards editing Wikipedia that he had when he was banned ten years ago. He views Wikipedia as a tool for promoting views discredited or ignored by reliable sources in the interest of righting great wrongs. End it here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of Zad68's suggestion that any kind of short and/or voluntary ban would suffice, since again, the user has returned after ten years with exactly the same attitude as before. I support either a full site ban or a broad topic ban from politics and religion, both indefinite. If the latter, I advise that a month (or three? find a suitable timeframe) after the imposition of the topic ban, his post-ban contributions be scrutinized to see if he's behaved himself or found other topics to right great wrongs in, necessitating a siteban. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban from.... everything? I noticed this editor at Death panel, which is at an intersection of medical care and politics. Just read through his contribs of the past few days, there's only been 50 since he came back. They evidence fundamental problems with characterizing and representing sources properly, and with WP:WEIGHT. Adding (based on last few edits): WP:LEAD, WP:NOR and citing sources properly too. Sure, AGF and ROPE if you'd like but I think you'd just be postponing the inevitable by a few days. Zad68 01:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support He hasn't learned a thing. Edits made with the last couple hours: Misrepresentation of source, synthesis in lede, he's "sure", "scholarly source" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - A site ban, this user has no regard for anything, save their POV. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. This user is definitely WP:NOTHERE. They do not even understand the basics, and are brainwashed/too emotionally connected with these topics to edit sensibly. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  I might consider restricting the ban to main space if the user adheres to his comment below and if others agree. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 12:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Question: at his block log I see only "17:58, 22 July 2005 Angela unblocked JoeM (Jimbo has unbanned JoeM. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026676.html)" Where can I see the original block and any discussion explaining the reason for the block? Also, what's up with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JoeM? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be at User_talk:JoeM/ban, with the result here. Seems he was put on some early version of blocking. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban at this time, based on JoeM's response below. Squinge (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per statements made above. AcidSnow (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per below. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I sense an attempt to silence an editor for ulterior partisan reasons. For instance, in one of the edit examples provided above, JoeM's changes are demonstrably more neutral-toned than the blatantly POV version it replaced. Pax 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban per response below. Noteswork (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Response

I would like to say to everyone I've dealt with over the past few days, I really sincerely do apologize for the response my edits have generated. It's clear to me that my edits have been too bold to build the consensus needed to improve articles. While I'm probably not alone in thinking that many articles on Wikipedia exhibit a clear leftwing bias, I am going to take a break from editing high profile articles on politics for now until I re-familiarize myself with the way things work here. I ask everyone monitoring this discussion to please hold off for now on making any sweeping bans. Please, watch my contributions over the next few days; and I will prove worthy of another chance. Thanks. JoeM (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeM I'd be willing to change my !vote if you'd commit to a voluntary topic-ban from politics and religion, broadly construed, for six months. In that time, show in other areas that you understand how to develop articles according Wikipedia's principles. If you can commit to that, I'd support giving it a go. Zad68 13:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeM I want to say that I genuinely and truly appreciate your response above. While disagreeing with various pieces of content I also appreciate a fair bit of the sentiment that you expressed, going back into some time, at Talk:Homelessness/Archive 1. I can also add comment as the editor that was instrumental in the addition of the Islamic extremist reference to the Isil article. Please try to understand the views of the Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims that this group fights against and please consider the perspective as to why editors consider it inappropriate to describe it as just another Muslim group. Having been a regular editor on ISIL related topics I can also vouch, while not making excuses, that you are far from being the only editor that has edited in that direction. Despite disagreement in regard editing content and direction I personally see no reason not to assume good faith in regard to intention. I hope that experience here does not leave you feeling too badly. I hope also that you can find great ways to invest your energies wherever they may be. All of these things can be learning experiences. I don't regularly see people making positive responses at AN/I so, believe me, you are doing better than most. GregKaye 22:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

JoeM (talk · contribs) has been emotionally unstable. He's pushed his POV with no verifiable sources and kept up with it. Hence, assuming good faith, I put forth my proposal:

The community forbids the editor JoeM indefinitely from making edits related to the topics and pages of Islam, Islamic states, Islamic militant groups and death panel, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, block JoeM for a period of upto one year, if he edits in any of these fields after the ban is enacted. The topic ban may be appealed after a period of 6 months here. If the community finds that he's breached his topic ban or he's not fit for constructive editing, he must wait 6 months before appealing again. Sanctions can only be appealed to administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee shall he not wish to do it here.

Please support this proposal only if you agree to it fully. It has been worded to the best of my abilities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 15:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Erm, should you really be diagnosing another editor as "clearly emotionally unstable"? It comes across as a personal attack to me (although I'm sure you didn't intend it as such), and I think you should remove it. Squinge (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not diagnosing him as "emotionally unstable". And I don't see how, how you even call it a personal attack. All I meant that a few edits of his were affected as emotional and he might make the same mistakes, all over again. Calling this is a personal attack is overkill as I clearly meant it in good faith referring to his past activities. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

My point is that you are not in a position to judge the reason he posted as he did and whether or not it was due to emotional instability, and you should not be doing so. Squinge (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, assuming good faith, that was the best I could come up with. You got any better motives? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban at this time based on JoeM's response above, which essentially seems to be a voluntary topic ban for an unspecified period. Squinge (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I'm doing this is because voluntary ones are a lot harder to maintain that community-enforced ones. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but ease of enforcement should not be our priority. Our priority should be getting an editor to edit constructively with the best good faith we can muster and with the minimum of sanctions. And if they're willing to do what the community wants anyway, there's no need for force. Squinge (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think that we've given him enough rope? This is merely a fallback to prevent him from drawing all the rope. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support due to his response: the topic ban merely holds him to his word. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban and not site ban. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• report back after leaving my comment above JoeM left a note of appreciation on my talk page also requesting intervention regarding some of his "minor copyedits on articles". I recommended giving assurances here on lessons that he had learned learned and also also made substantial intervention at Talk:Iraq#T. E. Lawrence in order to give some involved editor mentoring (I'm very involved with Islamic themed topics). I am pleased that my interventions may have left the impression that not editors could be on his side but would have hoped for more of a response here. Quite a lot of issues have been covered. GregKaye 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment please check Special:Contributions/JoeM. It is possible (or not) that JoeM has been shaken up enough by coming through this procedure. He is also communicating as shown and is hesitant in regard to editing. His edits show, by his own statement, that he doesn't want to get blocked. Does Wikipedia have a parole or pending system? I would suggest a one day block on topics mentioned but with wording on the block to say that if there was a further situation that strong action would be taken. GregKaye 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  A one-day block wouldn't be appropriate if he's not editing problematically now, as blocks are only for preventative purposes and it wouldn't be preventing anything. (And there's no such thing as a "block on topics mentioned" anyway - you're either blocked or you're not.) Squinge (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved from archive. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per statements made above. AcidSnow (talk)
• Oppose per Joe's response. You cannot hold what happened 12 years ago against him - if anything, I'm stunned he remembers his handle and password. What Joe does need is a firm warning (which he has received and acknowledged the lesson learned here) and, in my opinion, a WP:MENTOR. --DawnDusk (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Overly harsh proposal. JoeM has demonstrated that he has taken heed of the feedback given to him. I think with an appropriate mentor JoeM will be able to contribute to his areas of interest but within the acceptable bounds. Mbcap (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support, although I think broader wording may be desirable (see my comment above). It is clear from Joe's response above that he does not understand why a change of behavior is necessary ("too bold to build consensus" - he isn't a brave maverick, he's just editing disruptively). Moreover, I think his absence for the past week cannot be taken as evidence that he will edit neutrally in the future; rather, to me it shows that he either edits disruptively, or doesn't edit at all. Topic-ban him and see if he finds anything to do when he can't push his agenda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support, I don't see any JoeM edits that improve articles, and his edits create unnecessary work for those who would improve articles. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reason stated earlier. Pax 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A more lenient proposal

Because JoeM seems to have demonstrated that he is taking the feedback given to him, however others are still concerned, I suggest a temporary topic ban:

The community forbids the editor JoeM for six months from making edits related to the topics and pages of Islam, Islamic states, Islamic militant groups and death panel, broadly construed. Any uninvolved administrator may, acting on their own discretion, block JoeM for a period of up to one year, unilaterally enforce an indefinite topic ban, or both, if he/she edits in the foregoing fields during his/her topic ban. If an indefinite topic ban under the foregoing terms is enacted, then JoeM may discuss the ban with the banning administrator, or appeal the indefinite topic ban immediately here. If, after an appeal at WP:ANI, the community does not wish to vacate the ban, then JoeM must wait another 6 months, then another 6 months thereafter.

- Esquivalience ^t 21:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support though not withdrawing my support for an indefinite ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reason stated earlier. Pax 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon posting large identical text blocks in growing number of venues

This user apparently has a single issue that he is now concerning himself with, which takes a discussion from November 2014 (may have been an RfC) as his inspiration for changing the infobox entry of every atheist and similarly convinced person he can find to "religion: none". I questioned that choice on an article I happened to be watching, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as this person is notable because of her change of faith. His latest action was to post an approximately two-page (printed ones, remember those? ;) ) exposé of his motivations. In the meantime, I had contacted the closer of the debate who seemed to think the closure was less prescriptive than interpreted by Guy Macon. The twist is that Macon has now met opposition to his changes on several articles, and seems to be pasting the same boilerplate into the talk pages of all atheist/agnostic/etc. biographies where this has occurred. It looks to me like a situation that could spin out of control, and I didn't want to have to tell myself that I saw it coming and did nothing, so I'm raising a flag here. As far as my "involvement" is concerned, I'm not really interested in pursuing this debate any more, but for obvious reasons will not be posting advice or suggest sanctions or anything like that. However, like I said, in my view this could be a problem in the making. Samsara 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've encountered this at Christopher Hitchens, and was inclined to agree with Guy that atheism is not a religion. The closing statement on the discussion notes: "There is also a consensus that the phrase 'Religion: Atheist' should not appear, being a contradiction in terms". Is your concern with this (which sounds pretty prescriptive to me) or rather with the way in which Guy is going about the task? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As the title states, the concern is the posting of text blocks. The fact that this is happening in a growing number of venues suggests a certain likelihood to become disruptive. Samsara 12:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Guy's post at Talk:Christopher Hitchens was rather overwhelming. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Samsara: are you referring to the use of ""Non-religious" is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby." in the edit summary? Because other than that, the edits themselves don't look like a large block of text, but rather the removal of one or two words from the infobox. I can't see anything particularly problematic about the edits myself at the moment. It's probably worth having a conversation with the user on his/her talk page first as well - many disputes or worries can be resolved that way without needing to come here to ANI.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Look for the article talk page edits that add 13k characters. Cheers, Samsara 12:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The appropriateness of Guy's article edits in this regard seems pretty clear. The only issue is whether it's appropriate to post the same lengthy explanation on the talk pages of articles where he's met resistance. Based on a look at his history, it seems this text has only been added 11 times. That doesn't seem ideal but doesn't quite seem disruptive either. Still, imagine if e.g. Giraffedata copy/pasted his "comprises of" essay into the talk pages of every article where someone took issue with it :) Maybe the best thing for Guy to do would be to put the text on a page in his userspace or even as an essay in the Wikipedia namespace, and point people to that? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree that it would be better for Guy to link to this text if it's basically the same thing, rather than to post it to many different places. 11 places isn't that many, but it is starting to get up there. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

My own view is that Guy should take a step back from editing the Religion boxes. If you take a look at his contributions, he has made dozens (hundreds?) of edits, including a couple of dozen reverts, to eliminate with extreme prejudice "Atheist" from infoboxes, on at least two separate occasions, at the end of last year, and again more recently. I personally think this is borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Even if Guy is right, is replacing "Religon = None (atheist)" with "Religion = None" really the most useful thing he could be spending his time on? Even if this is a true reflection of consensus? And I would personally dispute that anyway, see Talk:Johann Hari if you particularly care about the content dispute. But I think the issue here is more to do with conduct than content. The content dispute can hopefully be resolved by discussion and introducing a new field for non-religious spiritual beliefs. The way Guy has gone about his campaign suggests (to me at least) that he is too emotionally involved and should find something else to spend his time on until things have calmed down. The use of "shock and awe" cut and paste of a few thousand characters to multiple Talk pages on a disputed issue does not help.

Having been advised by Guy to consider dispute resolution I had been seriously considering raising the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on this page. Having taken a few deep breaths and looked at Guy's contributions history (and he's clearly a valuable member of the community) I decided there were more constructive ways to proceed.

My suggestion to Guy however would be to take a few steps back and consider how his actions might appear to others. Taking some time to concentrate on other Wikipedia activities might be a good idea. --Merlinme (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• If it is something backed up by a large discussion, then I don't see how you, or anyone else, has the right to say he should find better things to do with his time. That's pretty offensive, if Guy is doing something that matches a more global consensus. However, I'm inclined to agree that Guy copy-pasting the same talk page argument is a tad unhelpful, although using the same edit summary consistently IS a good idea, in my opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I dispute, vigorously, whether Guy's position has been backed by a large discussion. I've read the large discussion multiple times. I took part in the large discussion. I dispute Guy's conclusion, as do other editors. The summariser is on record as saying that they didn't mean the summary to be as conclusive as Guy is taking it to be.

But I don't wish to get into a discussion about the content here. I mean, I will if you want me to. (Have you read my response to Guy's cut and paste points, at Talk:Johann Hari?) But that is not why I am here. I am here more because of how Guy is behaving in the dispute.

S Marshall, the summariser who Guy is invoking in defence of his attempt to eliminate with extreme prejudice "Atheism" from the Religion box, even in brackets, has clarified their position here, at the request of Samsara: [8]. Essentially, S Marshall says that they did not think local consensus should be trampled over in quite the way Guy seems to be attempting. (My personal comment would be that in the case of "No Consensus", the "victory" frequently goes to the editor prepared to devote most time to the matter. Guy seems to be attempting to exploit that fact.) After that clarification, on the same Talk page, Guy did a 13,384 character cut and paste which ignored S Marshall's comments:[9]

At this point, I have to question whether Guy is actually reading the Talk pages he's cutting and pasting to. It seems to me more like a bulldozer approach than anything else.

I repeat, he should take a step back and find something else to occupy him with for the time being.--Merlinme (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole of the discussion is summed up in the closing statement. The closing statement says that "Atheist" should not be used because it is not a religion. That's undisputed. "Atheism" is not a religion. Period. The closer read the discussion for us. We don't need to revisit it. If you find fault with S Marshall's closing statement, take it to AN. If not, just drop it, Merlinme. To try to rehash the same thing again and again, contrary to the closing statement of a lengthy debate is real battleground behaviour, and reminds me a bit of Collect. Returning to the original poster's concern: I don't think that Guy Macon's post is excessively long. I managed to read through it in a couple of minutes. Kraxler (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The copy/paste edit summaries have been an issue. Pretty much everything I had to say on that specific matter I said here. The immediate response was just removing my comment without making any of his own but he did seem to stop that specific habit afterwards. Normally that would be the end of it but this is a pattern of his. He seems to think this is all somehow very clever and the only explanations I can think of is that he either doesn't care that behavior is an extremely unproductive way of going about things or that he actually intends to agitate. Neither is great. GraniteSand (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

In reply to Kraxler's post, I repeat, I am not here because of the content dispute. There are other ways to resolve that. I am here because of the rather combative approach Guy Macon has taken to the content dispute. His approach seems to be more designed to cow into submission than persuade, and in my opinion is highly likely to start an edit war one of these days. I also think he's too emotionally involved in the Religion/ atheist content dispute, which probably leads to the style observed; and that is why I've suggested he take a break. --Merlinme (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. WP:Consensus was established, was stated as such in the closing statement by S Marshall, and should be respected as such. GraniteSand, there is a maximum number of characters for edit summaries, it's impossible to complain about their size. This thread was opened by Samsara to complain abouut the size of a certain post added to several pages where users apparently were unaware of the discussion which established the current consensus. Guy Macon's intention was to discourage edit-wars by stating clearly why the word "atheist" was removed. In the meanwhile it was removed from all articles where it was used in the "Religion" field of infoboxes, as prescribed by S Marshall's closing statement, and this whole discussion has become rather moot. Kraxler (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some atheists who exhibit characteristics of atheism being its own kind of religion. However, an infobox stating "Religion=Atheism" is kind of pretentious. "None" would be better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• There's relevant discussion on my talk page. I'm inclined to hope that Guy Macon will consider turning down the volume a little bit on this particular subject.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand the level of hostility and attempt to shut down debate this subject seems to provoke in some people. To be honest Kraxler, I would include you in that. I have tried several times to suggest that it's the manner in which Guy has gone about his mission which I have a problem with, but you don't seem to accept this. Surely you can see that the rather provocative edit summaries are part of the problem, more likely to cause problems than help establish a new consensus? And 13,000 character paste dumps to talk pages without really engaging with what is on those talk pages aren't particularly helpful either. At Talk:Johann Hari, 25 minutes after Guy posts 13,000 characters to a talk page you say essentially "I agree": [10]; and then six minutes later, before anyone else has had a chance to reply, you more or less assert that anyone who disagrees is edit warring: [11] As I say, this seems more like an attempt to shut down debate than to achieve consensus.

There are very few areas of Wikipedia which cannot be debated at all. Other editors than myself have described the conclusion of the "Religion = None (atheist)" debate as controversial. The closer of the debate is on record as saying that in principle it might be possible for local consensus to override the conclusion of that debate; that it is not in fact as 100% "prescriptive" as you have suggested. And, most importantly, even if the conclusion of the debate was as clear as clear could be: it is neither necessary nor helpful to be so confrontational when looking to "enforce" a new consensus. --Merlinme (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Just got back from an out-of-town engineering project. I will post a more comprehensive reply tomorrow or the next day.

One thing I would like to mention is that an editor involved in a content dispute second-guessing the uninvolved closer of a consensus discussion and deciding for her/himself what the consensus really is, as Samsara has done in the opening comment of this section, is a really. really bad idea. It essentially makes RfCs and other consensus discussions worthless if anyone who disagrees with the closer's summary can just analyze the discussion for him/herself and come up with their own consensus.

If anyone thinks that the closer blew it, the proper course of action is to go to AN and ask an uninvolved administrator who is experienced in closing contentious consensus discussions to reexamine the comments and write up a new closing summary.

By the way, that "2 page, 13K characters" count is greatly exaggerated. The edits in question have 10 paragraphs, 715 words, and 4512 characters. You don't count "[http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm]" in the wikisource as 67 characters, you count the "[4]" that the user sees as 3 characters. Nor do you count the collapsed text. ANI wants to encourage users to back up their assertions with links, diffs and collapsed data tables.

More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC) edited 05:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In reply:

1. The closer (S Marshall, who has contributed to this thread) responded to my query saying, I did not understand the consensus as being "prescriptive" in any sense
2. The character count comes straight from the edit histories and can be easily verified. I've tried in good faith to replicate the figures you're citing, and I find that you're off by over factor 2. In the process of trying to replicate your estimate, I discovered that a simple cut and paste into MS Word actually gives me 9 pages. I think on any scale of "TLDR" or "wall of text", that ranks fairly high.
3. As for your strange attack on the closer, I think you'll find everyone else thinks the closing summary was very well written. Closing debates is not an easy job, and given the subsequent clamour that sometimes arises, we should be grateful that anyone steps up to this job at all, never mind actually doing a good job as S Marshall did here.

Overall, I feel that the entrance you've made here has done very little to diffuse the reputation that preceded it. Samsara 13:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the top two entries at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Guy_Macon/sandbox&action=history ]. The count is 4,513 characters. Again, one should only count what the user actually sees, not hidden wikimarkup or collapsed text. And my reputation is just fine, your snarky personal comments notwithstanding. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've cut and pasted the whole of your text into Word and done a character count. I made it 4,384 characters. So, you win a point that it was about 4,500 characters (10,254 characters if including the hidden text). Although a diff reports your edit as > 13,000 characters, 13,000 is an exaggeration because it includes markup and hidden text.

And winning this point makes your actions better how, exactly? Regardless of the exact number of characters, your cutting and pasting of thousands of characters is not helpful. I still make it 1.5 Word pages of pre-prepared argument. Please stop treating the whole exercise as a WP:BATTLE which you are going to WP:WIN.

If you'd concentrated on the arguments and closing summary of the wider debate, I would have less of a problem. Offering a link to your essay on the subject, as approved by the consensus of the participants in the debate, would have been absolutely fine. But to dump thousands of characters of your own arguments into the mix is really not going to help. Your last argument was frankly bizarre: "Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date." I genuinely have no idea what that is about.

I also dispute whether the "hidden" text should be ignored. Speaking as an editor who likes to check his sources, I routinely expand detail, check notes and follow references. Having 6,000 characters of debatable argument dumped on me for daring to defend "Religon = None (atheist)", which was actually one of the better supported options in the debate, felt somewhat like being battered over the head with a typewriter. Not significantly more likely to make me change my mind; just rather overwhelming, and with unclear options for defending myself.--Merlinme (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You have my sympathy for having a word processor that cannot make an accurate count of characters, but at least it was close. If you ever need something that can count as well a spell, VIM for Windows is an excellent choice. [ http://www.vim.org/about.php ]. As for the rest, see my response in the section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GM continuing postings in multiple venues, quoting selectively from ANI discussion as evidence of consensus

Posting first here and here and finally here (one of the venues that might make sense for centralised discussion). After some have suggested that this thread should not be a rehash of the discussion, Guy Macon is now interpreting it as further evidence, quoting selectively. I don't think ANI is a good venue for testing whether consensus on this issue has changed. That's simply not what ANI is for. For that reason, his interpretation of ANI as such a venue again is somewhat disruptive imo. The same goes for spreading discussion out over multiple venues, which I think we have consensus here for saying is ill-advised. Samsara 23:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And here: [12]

What I find particularly bizarre about this is that the entire discussion on ANI is about whether Guy is being too aggressive in pursuing the point, and he summarises it like this: "Now this has been to WP:ANI, and as I expected, the discussion there made it clear that my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: none" is supported by global consensus, and that the closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, specificly " 'Atheist' should not appear" and "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None' ", does indeed apply to my edits."

Does the above discussion support Guy's interpretation? Not that numbers are the be-all and end-all of a discussion, but I would assert that I, Samsara, S Marshall, and GraniteSand are all experienced editors who have expressed significant concerns about Guy's behaviour on this issue. Rhododendrites and Nil Einne have given some support to the thought that Guy should link to an essay rather than pasting thousands of characters to talk pages. And Guy summarises this as... "my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: none" is supported by global consensus"? --Merlinme (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus in favor of my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: None" in infoboxes. The only concern here at ANI was how I explained my reasoning for making that change on 11 article talk pages, and I have not used the text in question since the first response here that questioned my use of it. Predictably, the far shorter text I started using also generated a complaint (which was pretty much ignored by the admins reading this page), and of course if I completely stopped explaining the reasoning behind my edits that would also generate complaints. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The concern raised was that you posted walls of identical text into multiple venues disruptively. You were then advised to keep discussion central, and contravened that advice by posting your new block of text into four of the original twelve venues in addition to your previous mega-paste, here, here, here, and here (last one has the best edit summary). However, I'll also note that you seem to be discussing more reasonably now at Template talk:Infobox person#How should "Atheist" be included in an infobox?. I think a lot of people would appreciate if you continued along those lines rather than as you did before. Samsara 04:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

There was zero consensus that I was being disruptive, just accusations from those who are involved in a content dispute with me. There was a consensus that eleven copies was either too many or close to it (normally, I don't re-use something like that more than ten times so as not to be disruptive; looks like I miscounted by one this time) and as I said I stopped using the text as soon as the first person not involved in the content dispute and associated flurry of random accusations expressed concern. If that's not good enough for you, I don't know how to satisfy you.

If you are of the opinion that there should be a policy against reusing a talk page argument ten or fewer times on unrelated pages in discussions with unrelated editors, see WP:PROPOSAL for instructions on making that policy proposal.

If you are of the opinion that there should be a policy against posting a ten-paragraph talk page argument or that an editor making such an argument should avoid backing up their assertions with links, diffs and collapsed data tables in order to keep the character count in the wikisource (as opposed to what the reader actually sees) down, pick a limit and make a proposal for such a policy.

And yes, my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: None" in BLP infoboxes is indeed supported by global consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• The underlying problem here is that a very limited discussion is being used as a reason to change a whole swathe of articles at which no individual discussion took place. The "clear is not a color" edit summary is puerile; when asked what color a glass is, "clear" is an obvious, appropriate and meaningful response, as is "shaven bald" when asked what color a suspect's hair was. Having no religion and being atheist are manifestly not the same thing. A person brought up without any religious education will be of the religion "none" but calling him an atheist would be a misstatement of the facts, as he's not rejecting something he never accepted. Likewise, an atheist (like myself) has had the notion put to him and rejected it. People like Ali and Hitchens are activist atheists, not mere agnostics.

Deleting the information "Religion:none (atheist)" is simply willful unhelpfulness based on some weird metaphysical obsession, not a desire to give the reader information that we do indeed possess. The behavior here is disruptive, as is the cookie-cutter approach, lack of discussion on various articles, and condescending, indeed provocative edit summaries that preemptively declare those who disagree to be foolish and illogical. Note also, that none of this is being done according to a source, just the simple absolute formula in one person's head "atheist=religion (none)". The rampage acrost article space should stop, and people who are known for their active advocacy of atheism should have that put in their "religion" slot in info boxes. (There is a small case to be made for changing religion to "belief system" or "ideology" but that's a side show, and its tickets cost extra as concerns this report.) μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from insulting personal comments.

If you believe that there is consensus for "Religion: None (atheist)", I suggest posting an RfC and putting that theory to (yet another) test.

Extended content

The following recent thanks on my notification page show support for changing "Religion: None (atheist)" or "Religion: None (agnostic)" to "Religion: None". This count does not include the even larger number of comments supporting changing "Religion: Atheist" or "Religion: Agnostic" to "Religion: None". User:Alison thanked you for your edit on Sheila Jeffreys.[13] User:Bastun thanked you for your edit on Ray D'Arcy.[14] User:Binksternet thanked you for your edit on Yuri Andropov.[15] User:BullRangifer thanked you for your edit on James Randi.[16] User:Carptrash thanked you for your edit on Emma Goldman.[17] User:David in DC thanked you for your edit on Aaron Swartz.[18] User:Demiurge1000 thanked you for your edit on Colin Challen.[19] User:Dr.K. thanked you for your edit on Alexis Tsipras.[20] User:Editor2020 thanked you for your edit on Abu Isa al-Warraq.[21] User:Gerda Arendt thanked you for your edit on Template talk:Infobox person.[22] User:Herostratus thanked you for your edit on Joseph Stalin.[23] User:HiLo48 thanked you for your edit on Eric Idle.[24] User:MarnetteD thanked you for your edit on Ophelia Benson.[25] User:Mlpearc thanked you for your edit on Alan Alda.[26] User:NebY thanked you for your edit on Benito Mussolini.[27] User:Plot Spoiler thanked you for your edit on As'ad AbuKhalil.[28] User:Rhododendrites thanked you for your edit on Danny Ledonne.[29] User:Rms125a@hotmail.com thanked you for your edit on James Gunn (filmmaker).[30] User:RolandR thanked you for your edit on Karl Marx.[31] User:TJRC thanked you for your edit on Michael Newdow.[32] User:Timbouctou thanked you for your edit on Slobodan Miloševic.[33] User:Timbouctou thanked you for your edit on Zoran Milanovic.[34] User:Ugog Nizdast thanked you for your edit on Sanal Edamaruku.[35] User:WWGB thanked you for your edit on John Gorton.[36]

As I have pointed out before, an editor (especially one involved in a content dispute) second-guessing the uninvolved closer of a consensus discussion and deciding for her/himself what the consensus "really" is a very bad idea. It essentially makes RfCs and other consensus discussions worthless if anyone who disagrees with the closer's summary can just analyze the discussion for him/herself and come up with their own private "consensus". If anyone thinks that the uninvolved closer of a consensus discussion did not accurately describe the consensus, the proper course of action is to go to [[WP:AN] and ask for an uninvolved administrator who is experienced in closing contentious consensus discussions to reexamine the comments and write up a new closing summary. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I really think this would benefit from some administrator attention, as Guy Macon is now starting to repeat himself in this here thread as well. I already replied to an identical message (minus the listy part) above. Guy Macon needs to be told that this repetition, whether twice in the same venue, or reposts across multiple venues, is disruptive, as is posting boilerplate as a supposed substitute to engaging in discussion. Samsara 15:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to drop the WP:STICK now. This has already received plenty of administrator attention, which largely consisted of some good advice (which I immediately followed), and you being told several times that reusing a talk page argument ten or fewer times on unrelated pages in discussions with unrelated editors is not disruptive. (it was never about the length, as evidenced by the fact that you kept complaining when I started using a far shorter version). Your continued pounding on this despite being told by multiple administrators that I was not being disruptive and that there will be no sanctions against me for my behavior is becoming disruptive. You are not going to get your way. Deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you are not editing constructively.

Selective quoting, combative editing and provocative edit summaries are not going to help improve the encyclopedia.

If you want to discuss a possible constructive compromise regarding the content dispute, based something on the lines I have suggested, please do that.

If you have an alternative suggestion on how we could resolve the content dispute, I would welcome it with open arms.

In the meantime, please stop pretending that AN/I is universal in its support for your mission. And in general, please stop trying to "win" the discussion. --Merlinme (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been given "an alternative suggestion on how we could resolve the content dispute" several times. Consensus has been established (as you have been told by several people) but you refuse to accept that fact and drop the stick. The proper method of resolving such a dispute is to post a neutrally worded WP:RfC at Template talk:Infobox person asking the reader to make a clear choice between "Religion: None" and "Religion: None: (atheist)" in BLP infoboxes, let it run the full 30 days so nobody can say they didn't have time to respond, then go to WP:AN and ask for an uninvolved administrator with experience closing contentious RfCs to evaluate the comments and write up a closing summary. If, at that point, the consensus is against me I will humbly apologize and offer to help bring the pages in compliance with consensus. And if the consensus is against you, you can choose to do the same or continue to fight, with the usual consequences. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Call for close

There is clearly no sanctionable behavior on either side here. Rather than having to endure page after page of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT calls for some administrator to "do something" about my alleged misbehavior, I would ask that I either be given a clear warning by an administrator so that I can understand what I supposedly did wrong and stop doing it or that this be closed as being a content dispute with the usual advice about either posting an WP:RfC or dropping the WP:STICK.

Please note that at Template talk:Infobox person there are similar calls for closure (and similar WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT responses) such as "Can we draw a line under this discussion. It's clearly trying to change a recently agreed consensus, and not using the proper channels or any new ideas." and "I agree that if we're going to revisit this issue then it should be handled in the form of an RFC. Consequently, I fail to see the point of this discussion, since until it is an RFC nothing we're saying is going to have an impact. I would not support a non-RFC discussion being used to modify the prior consensus."

I feel that my time is being wasted here having to read the same accusations over and over, and I would like this to be resolved one way or the other as the closing administrator sees fit. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive sock/proxy IP

120.137.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing the unconstructive editing of recently blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), like adding nonsense to a sentence about a lawsuit.

The blocked sock [37] modified the sentence "A central allegation of the suit is that Barclays misrepresented the level of aggressive HFT activity in its dark pool to other clients." by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source. Here the IP sock [38] modified the same sentence, also by adding stuff that cannot be found in any source.

I assumed good faith, started discussion on 17:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC) and followed the protocol of talk page explanations and warnings, e.g. here [39] about the lawsuit. The IP, despite some niche topic knowledge about high-frequency trading, is acting as if it could not hear me. When being warned about edit warring, [40] the IP responds by making three reverts in different articles, [41] [42] [43] inlcuding re-inserting "from using GPUs" in the lawsuit sentence (last link), with an edit summary of "senteice is not talking about lawsuit".

Obviously unconstructive and disruptive, and I think sufficient to block the sock IP and semi-protect the articles edited. I wanted to make this report concise, there are more issues pointed out in the section "April 2015" on the IP's talk page. Kristina451 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have account just forget to log in, this person is very bad . she keep undoing everyone edit and I see admin already warn her. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kristina451&diff=prev&oldid=654233086) I ask her nicely on her talk page why she keep undoing my edit and also give reference on the article talk page before editing, she never discuss and just report me. Mkb764920 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The April 9/10 timestamps of your edits with 120.137.174.133 (talk · contribs) and Mkb764920 (talk · contribs) show that you did not "just forget to log in". Mkb764920 is an obvious sock, created yesterday. Kristina451 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

admins, I just start using en.wikipedia. using IP for few month and now create account. I have long time account in ja.wikipedia. I see she only spend time on edit war, I contribute more than her already （＾∀＾）and will no need to argue with her, I will only talk to admins. please stop her from undo war. Mkb764920 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The disruptive sock acting as if it could not hear me again re-inserted the same unsourced nonsense into the sentence about the lawsuit. This is the second time after my talk page explanation of 12:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC), linked above. Using faux, disruptive edit summaries like "sorry three revert rule" is the typical behavior of the recently blocked sockpuppet PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs). I would like to request admin closure. Kristina451 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate if an administrator could handle this. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

administrator pls see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kristina451 she sock and violate 3RR first now want revenge to say I am socker !! Mkb764920 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Uncooperative IP adding unsourced future air dates to anime articles and lists

Originally posted at WP:AIV

85.211.129.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – This one is rather complex case. This user flat out ignores previous warnings about requiring sources for future dates of upcoming television broadcasts. This has been going on for months now, often changes IPs ever week or two, without the user ever discussion their edits with others. Because this a range block may be required. Has previous edited using the following IPs (not complete).

• 85.211.195.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.129.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.131.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.143.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.203.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.143.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.131.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.131.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.193.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.211.131.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

If this was a logged in account, the user would have been blocked long ago under WP:COMPETENCE. I would like to thank KirtZJ for adding some of the IPs in the original AIV report. Jayron32 suggested that this be moved to ANI because of the need for a range block. —Farix (t | c) 22:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• We're an encyclopedia, not a TV guide--but hey, I guess this is what we do these days: listing future TV broadcasts. Does anything need (semi-)protecting, or is a rangeblock enough? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How feasible is a range block? Because otherwise, we are taking about semi-protecting some 20 articles and they do get plenty of productive edits from IPs. —Farix (t | c) 04:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The latest IP still continues to add unsourced future airdates despite warnings and this very topic.[44][45][46][47][48] This demonstrates the editors unwillingness to discuss their troublesome activity with other editors. —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Even after inserting a editorial note that future air dates must have a reliable source, the editor removes the note and add a future air[49] effectively sticking a big fat middle finger at the verifiability policy. —Farix (t | c) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Is any action going to be taken here or am I just waiting in vain? The editor still continues to add unsourced future air dates to articles.[50] I even started a discussion at the Village Pump and consensus was categorically against such dates and I even invited the IP to the discussion.[51] But no comment from the IP whatsoever nor even an acknowledgement that what they are doing is clearly not supported by either consensus or Wikipedia's policies. —Farix (t | c) 22:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I would post it here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This was originally posted at AIV, but was referred here because it was too complex. Everyone is just passing the buck around. —Farix (t | c) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Report them like 4 at a time then? I agree, this is kinda crazy here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor has changed IPs again and is now editing under 85.211.198.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and returned to add unsourced future air dates.[52] —Farix (t | c) 22:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed IPs again, 85.211.132.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and continuing to add unsourced future air dates.[53][54] Is there going to be any action taken because the editor is clearly WP:NOTLISTENING or are administrators considered these edits to be an exception to WP:V, WP:NOR, and consensus of the community discussion at the Village Pump? —Farix (t | c) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I just want to add that the edits involving the constant addition and removal of these dates are becoming noticeably disruptive on my watchlist, which by extension, would mean the watchlists of other editors as well. —Kirt^Message 10:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22

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

---

Flyer22 has been following me around, talking mad trash, and accusing me of general malfeasance. He wont stop. He has disrupted the article I am editing and is now encouraging other editors to get in my face. I tried to talk to him but he wouldnt listen worth a damn. Bottom line, will someone tell this guy to just LAY OFF?? Sorry but dont give me a shit sandwich and then tell me it tastes like French Vanilla ice cream.

Ok here is the first link where he accuses: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=prev&oldid=655748010

I tried to talk to him and he just basically told me to pound sand and that he wouldnt listen: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=next&oldid=655748010

Then one of the bosses erased his garbage: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=next&oldid=655749664

But he wouldnt stop with the trash talking. I asked one of the bosses about making A complaint but decided to be COOL about it and not do anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cavalierman#Complaint

But again he wouldnt stop with the garbage. THEN listen to this! He accuses a DIFFERENT editor (capitalismojo) of using socks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22&diff=prev&oldid=655864877

The other editor who is very respected on wikipedia is rightfully scandalized and defends himself. Then when I go to the other editors page to tell him what a nutjob Flyer22 is he gets mad at me! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Capitalismojo#Flyerr22

All I want is for Flyer22 to keep my name out of his mouth and if he has A problem with me then come to me about it and discuss it like adults. And stop posting shit about me at the articles I am doing!

Thank you Cavalierman (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh brother! Not this again!! --IJBall (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the above an example of "discuss it like adults"? Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to know more on this matter can see here, here, here and here. Whether or not Cavalierman is Cali11298 (talk · contribs), I noted that he is not entirely new to editing Wikipedia; he isn't. I did not call him a WP:Sockpuppet, even though I'm certain that he is one (of whatever registered editor, whether he is using a WP:Proxy or similar "protection" to keep from being connected to the master account). In my opinion, that he is so concerned with what I'm stating on my user talk page, and pursued me on this matter (despite being advised not to on his user talk page), points to truth in my words regarding him. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This person is obviously very ill. All I am asking is to please stop him from harassing me. That's it. Just leave me alone and stop accusing me of things I didnt do. Cavalierman (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The tone of this complaint is remarkably similar in its adolescent quality to the previous one made by Jhamilton303, in an AN/I report that's probably still above this somewhere. I'd venture that they're connected, and I'm heading over to the SPI to say so. BMK (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you think of Cavalierman, his request in itself seems quite reasonable. Why can't Flyer22 investigate him for sockpuppetry without interacting with him in any way? Just build a case and quietly present it to the responsible authorities. Saying "You are a sockpuppet" will provoke pushback from sockpuppets and non-sockpuppets alike. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22:, why does your userpage contain instructions how to circumvent autoconfirmation? Samsara 06:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Samsara: Are you seriously suggesting "if you see a "new editor" making superficial edits to an article (such as WP:Dummy edits) in a row (meaning at least ten edits), you have likely spotted a WP:Sockpuppet or a different type of returning editor." equates to instructions how to circumvent autoconfirmation? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any incident here to be resolved. Flyer has ( civilly) identified a pattern of behavior that seems very much like a known sock master. I have looked at the edits and previous sock investigation and am inclined to agree. That doesn't constitute an incident to be resolved by admins. Suggest speedy close, also check user to examine. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that she refers both to circumventing autoconfirmation and the creation of sleeper accounts, and apparently directs suspected or confirmed abusive users to her page for further information. What good reason is there for putting this material there and directing these people to it? Ignoring this simple query does not bode well. Samsara 09:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

We alread told you, Samsara: the info there is how to detect bad-faith autoconfirming puppets for the sake of thwarting them, not abet such people. OK? See what we're saying? Herostratus (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that you began your "simple qery" by accusing Flyer22 of providing "instructions how to circumvent autoconfirmation". You might do better to drop the ominous and even threatening tone of "does not bode well", apologise, read all of the explanation Flyer22 already provides on her user page and the comments from other editors above, and once you understand and can sympathise with Flyer22's approach, ask for a constructive discussion. NebY (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo:, whoa there pardner, let's not be so quick to close. Rather than (or in addition to, if y'all want to spend the resources) a sock puppet investigation, how about a general boomerang block on User:Cavalierman, uppet or no? Among the many bad things he's said just here is "This person is obviously very ill", which goes wayyyy beyond being uncivil to actually being hurtful (or trying to be). Also, I think we can assume that if he's attracted Flyer22's attention he's up to no good and probably on some pretty sensitive subjects. We don't need people like this. Get rid of him, and now's your chance. Herostratus (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I disagree strongly. Cavalierman (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hrm. Well, that's a refreshingly calm response and a step forward. Keep it up! Next: are you gonna apologize to Flyer22, there? Herostratus (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Disagree. As much as Cavalierman is annoying the fuck out of me, banning him on the theory that "If he's not actually sock puppet, oh well" is contrary to our high-minded principles. He has displayed some ability to learn from his mistakes, which could either be genuine or craftiness. If checkuser reveals no evidence of sockpuppetry, he can only be banned for actual policy violations in the normal way. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}} - This thread relates to this very recent one. That was handled expeditiously, and resulted in the uncovering of three socks; it would be nice if this one were dealt with quickly as well. The SPI can be found here. BMK (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Very  Unlikely. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Eat shit. Cavalierman (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your ping didn't work, since I have notifcations turned off.

Well, now we know 2 things about you: (1) You're not a sock of Cali11298, as least as far as CheckUser technical evidence can determine, and (2) You exhibit no class whatsoever. BMK (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing, (3) You probably need to read WP:NPA. BMK (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment @Flyer22: "I did not call him a WP:Sockpuppet, even though I'm certain that he is one " You just did. Also.... to say you're not calling him a sockpuppet in this diff here is a bit of a stretch: [55]. Granted, I've been busy this week and I've stopped paying attention to the article where this all took place, but I must've missed something serious if people are actually suggesting a block for Cavalierman for this ANI... This would also be the first time I've seen an editor get a block for saying "Eat shit", but I suppose there's a first time for everything. Bit immature, perhaps, but nothing blockworthy. ― Padenton|✉   19:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Padenton. I find it blockworthy. If User:Cavalierman says something like that again, he can expect a block from me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it screams WP:NOTHERE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Padenton, Anna, Knowledgekid: I issued a warning when I saw the comment from Cavalierman, but chose not to issue a block. This is elevating the warning level from the earlier one issued by MarnetteD. So at this point, a block is a reasonable next step if they continue with incivility. Samsara 04:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Subtle vandalism, user warned multiple times

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

---

The problematic IP editor 76.167.232.59 has been performing subtle vandalism in China-related articles, and has been disruptive site-wide despite being warned multiple times by different editors. They make inappropriate changes to Chinese romanisations (for example, changing "Xueqi" to "Hsuechi"), edits which ordinary non-Chinese speaking editors may not be able to pick up and notice. China-related articles have a standardised format for romanisation (see WP:MOSZH), and this editor is intentionally attempting to increase the workload of editors by making subtle incorrect changes that deviate from the Manual of Style, or otherwise are simply wrong. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

How certain are you (or can you prove to us) this is a deliberate attempt to ruin Wikipedia, rather than a good-faith, but badly executed, attempt to improve Wikipedia in the mind of that particular person. Are they, perhaps, working from an alternate Romanization scheme, which perhaps Wikipedia doesn't use, but which that person doesn't know, and is thus doing what they think is right? [[WP:VANDALISM|vandalism is 100% about intent), and unless you can show that the user intends to harm Wikipedia (rather than being merely mistaken about the proper way to do things, or disagreeing with established conventions earnestly). While both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIR violations are blockable offenses, they are still not vandalism, providing something like a CIR block requires proving a long-term pattern of cluelessness and many attempts to educate the person in question. --Jayron32 05:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

They've been blocked before, check their history. A genuinely good-faith editor would seek clarification after being warned as many times as they have been, rather than ignore everything and continue on as if nothing happened. In addition, this user removes simplified Chinese text from templates on-sight (see diffs [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]), and called Soong Ching-ling a, quote, "lover of communist bandits" (see diff), which makes it very hard to assume good faith. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Complimenting Benlisquare above, the "hs-" romanization is more common in Taiwan, in say Hsinchu (which will be Xinzhu if we are using the system common in mainland China the pinyin system as stated in WP:PINYIN). The removal of simplified Chinese names from Chinese subjects who has little affinity with the mainland might be warranted by certain considerations (but would need extensive discussion and widely accepted consensus first hand). But blatantly changing of a quote that sources easily support to potentially attack a person may indicate we are seeing a rather POV-pushing fellow here that does not like the Chinese Communist Party very much. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC) + 12:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanyu pinyin is the official romanisation system in Taiwan, per a government-led change in 2008, and until consensus changes through a proper community discussion, WP:MOSZH dictates quite clearly what system articles should use. In addition, the {{zh}} and {{Chinese}} templates contain |p=foo parameters which are designed to specifically take hanyu pinyin only, and nothing else, and many of the changes by this user involve tinkering with these templates. At any rate, what system is officially used, in Taiwan or on Wikipedia, is irrelevant - what is important is that the user does not listen to other people, and shows rather peculiar behaviours that seem politically motivated. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone do something already? Just today, he made this nationalistic edit. The word 風 is pronounced "fong" in Taiwanese Mandarin and "feng" in Standard Chinese, and this edit of calling "feng" a "improper pronounciation" (i.e. a substandard and defectual dialect) follows in line with 99% of the other nationalistic edits that he has made. He is clearly not here to improve articles, and only intends to push his perceived prestige of Taiwanese Mandarin over other varieties of Mandarin. He's a nationalistic chauvinist. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an IP troll who was blocked by Materialscientist only two weeks ago, but resumed disruptive editing as soon as the last block expired. Clearly warrants a longer block. -Zanhe (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Just blocked for a month by Philg88. -Zanhe (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

William Sommer

Hi,

This user has just returned from a short block and appears to still have a WP:CIR issue. Their editing appears to be misguided at best or tendentious at worst. Not sure if their editing needs yet another review or if someone is willing to offer them some additional guidance but it looks like something is in need of addressing again.

We've got[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]. Amortias (T)(C) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that those repeated "clarification needed" taggings of obvious typos is somewhat odd and unnecessary, but the user does seem to have done some vaguely OK copy editing as well, for example [74]. I'm unsure if the edits above are deliberate obstruction, or just a little naive. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Previous thread and summary thereof: editor had some language issues, accused everyone of racism, showed a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that made the Crusaders seem like Kent state students, and was blocked for all that.

The edits that Amaury links to include sticking mis-formatted "Clarify" tags after rather contextually clear misspellings of the words "other" or "the" (or just some dude's middle name). There's also this singular/plural switch. Two users have discussed the issue with him, he was civil enough, and he's stopped editing since then. Because of this, I'm content to wait to see if there are additional problems. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Also happy enough to wait and if theres nothing nessecary to discuss the I'll quite happily shut this down myself. Sections of his last ANI do seem directley relevent to current behaviour. Also appoligies for managing to (edit conflict) delete your post Ian.Thomson. Amortias (T)(C) 21:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, major competence issues and basically dropping tags all over the place, and leaving the work for others to do. I have made a couple of changes - his edit count while tag bombing is quite high - but I do not wish to be accused of stalking or some such. He currently has a problem with using the word "but" in any "non-contrary" sentence and is changing them where it is unnecessary. While it is not incorrect, it also changes the tone of each sentence it touches. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That is about right leaving the work for others to do. Does this look familiar: Innis Brown later wrote "Sewanee in all probablity had the best team in the South." on "1907 Sewanee Tigers football team" article. Your response to the clarification notice that it was as good as dandy as the first day it was posted after the scorched earth march. Last I heard the ACJ was not about to let any spelling error slip through. Definitely competence; but which direction.William Sommer (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Gees be to all, Stalking? Oh, no. That honour would be held all around by someone else by their own contributions on the pitch to be far more spun about me they having risen from the ashes, if there should ever be a characterization to use, from the start and then to make appearances at various times never making a landing on any one else. But if your contri's should go mono then the other just might have some competition.William Sommer (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Then, there is the tagbombing of "it's" in episode plot summaries

• It's^(clarify) a cockroach it's referring to "her Prince"
• he thinks it's^(clarify) their best chance Self obvious.
• Aile members tag along because it's^(clarify) their job to protect Ren. Self obvious.

If you look at his edits on this sublist with an addition of about 28 bytes, most seem to be confusion about what "it's" refers to. Which usually is defined in a previous sentence or clear in of itself. A major competency issue. Jim1138 (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Then would you or would you not agree about the foolishness of being characterized by Moosehadley about vandalizing an article then after cautioning by Cyphoidbomb strikening their statement on the issue on 02:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)? There is not always clear understanding with WP contributors about some things especially with very strong forms of expression are used to back wrong pronouncements. You need to decide what is it that you want to see being done. Otherwise it all becomes flavor of the week decided upon by the participant with the most influence.William Sommer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't provided any links so that someone could actually understand what you are talking about. Not that it matters, because that event is completely irrelevant to a discussion about your competence. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment On the issue of competence: I count 8 misspellings of the word "grammar" in his edit summaries, yet he's actively engaged in grammar edits and leaving snarky edit summaries like Too many "her" 's to pass as good writing? I've poked through some of his more recent copy/edits and he seems to be on a crusade to replace the word "Mexican" with "Mexico" as if "Mexican" is a slur or something. This has had some questionable results, for instance in these edits, which result in oddly-worded statements like "the only Mexico player" rather than "the only player from/for Mexico" (assuming that the objection is that Domínguez isn't actually a Mexican? I have no idea.) And while still editing as an IP user there's this from March 27, "The team ... was composed of players having citizenship of Mexico". That sentence structure is not consistent with English. And there is the misspelling of either descendent or decedent (dead person). Also "unexpe3cted". Or here where again he's randomly swapping out "Mexican" for "Mexico". And while we understand that people from all over the globe may edit Wikipedia, changing grammatically sound content into content that is grammatically flawed is not an improvement, and if done persistently and without any regard for other users' objections, is disruptive and teeters over the edge of vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Weve also got refactoring of comments still ongoing at their talk page here. Diffs [75][76]. Amortias (T)(C) 18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And the refactoring is symptomatic of his previous battleground attitude and failure to even understand good faith. Also, comparing the situation to the Romans crucifying Jesus would indicate that Sommers sees no fault in his actions, and nothing but fault in others -- not an attitude that works here. His competence with both language and playing well with others have only gotten worse. It's looking like we need to raise the issue of indefinitely blocking him. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: In my first draft of the above I did consider including that, but I figured it was best to let it go since it wasn't the core of our problems with him. However, since he's taken to making another spectacle of himself by inventing new rules to justify the refactoring, I agree that it's worth mentioning. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Indef block

Proposing an indef block of William Sommer for battleground behaviour competence issues and refactoring other people s talk page comments despite multiple offers of help, requests to desist and previous block for similar issues. Amortias (T)(C) 18:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support As proposer. Amortias (T)(C) 18:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support as someone who is trying to clean up the mess. Of course, it does increase my edit count... ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support I'm not convinced the guy is here to be constructive. To everyone other than him, it's clear that he is editing beyond his abilities, and he gets disproportionately defensive when it's explained that his edits are problematic and that they do not meet encyclopedic standards. And as far as I know, he hasn't even acknowledged the possibility that his edits could be problematic, having deflected every discussion into meandering race-centered diatribes targeted at other users. That, coupled with his incoherent (possibly machine translated?) ramblings lead me to suspect that either he is completely oblivious to his deficiencies, or he is trolling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User has elevated their behavior to mass refactoring of the comments on their talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? You have reached your objective especially when you are found out to make reverts of what is correct and are called on the carpet. Bye, forever. All the best for an organization that works to eliminate people participating. I am not surprised by this as I have heard it from others thsat I speak with about WOP.William Sommer (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"It's a trick, get an axe". Even if Sommer intends to leave, the block would indicate that we did not condone his behavior and that we do not intend to let him return. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet another example of the editor deflecting responsibility and blaming others for his experience here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support User has been continually hostile and incompetent, has tried to wikilawyer his way out of anything, and when all else failed hypocritically presented his actions as something to be unquestioningly accepted while decrying any imagined slight against him. His current tantrum in response to finding out that policy forbids refactoring other's comments indicate some combination of trolling, instability, or immaturity beyond any workable level. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Hostility, competency, unwillingness to take advise, and as a editor whose spent a fair amount of time cleaning up after him. Jim1138 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Support I read the thread about his return, & thought about it overnight, & have come to the conclusion this is an case of WP:COMPETENCE, WP:POINT, or simply a troll. (Who the heck would not simply change "othe" to "other" instead of tagging it? Anon editors make changes like that all of the time & no one raises an eyebrow.) If this is the first case, Summer needs to either get a mentor or be a regular at the Teahouse. But after reading his last edit to his talk page, I doubt he'd be sincere about going that route.. -- llywrch (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Doorknob747

After seeking out some advice [77] I am a bit concerned about this user. I do not know the user's intentions but he/she appears to be building spam pages under their user-space [78]. When Door tried to post the "proposal" on the anime and manga talkpage he/she was reverted [79][80] twice and readded the material using an IP address [81] which I undid. I do not know if this is a pattern but it does not appear to be constructive. I am pinging KirtZJ, SephyTheThird, and Esw01407 as they were involved/observers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm involved, merely an observer. However observations of the user in question have proven to be quite disturbing. Summarizing what I outlined to Knowledgekid, the user in question has proven to be disruptive on the WT:A&M on numerous occasions by treating it more like a forum instead of an actual discussion page with their borderline spam-like posts. In addition, numerous project editors including TheFarix, DragonZero, Areaseven and Juhachi have offered editing advice to the user and they have shown no attempt at taking any of it. They have also been involved in a recent edit war which included the use of an IP to game the 3RR system and have been trying to advertise the creation of numerous spam pages and look to be in the stages of linking them to the WP:A&M project in some way. Coupled with the inclusion of false information on numerous articles, I suggest some kind of action be taken here. —Kirt^Message 02:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

They edit New York City Subway articles constructively, so I don't think they're totally disruptive. That is a very narrow topic, though. Epic Genius (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the nerves being frayed thing is big, editors have been trying to explain things but either Door doesn't understand or doesn't get that what he/she is doing is wrong. So in the end, it is frustrating to editors involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

With the page User:Doorknob747/database/proposal, it looks like Doorknob wants to create something for WikiProject Anime that is similar to WP:AFC. Epic Genius (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That is what I was starting to think, its a good proposal but we already have it in that form. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not really sure what to think. It's all just a bit odd, and it's difficult to balance good faith and well, the opposite. I think it's quite clear they need to slow down and try to fit to some degree, and I really don't understand the whole proposal thing. It's very odd a user would try to implement significant changes without some sort of long term edit history. As for any proposal, it's difficult enough to organise a group focus as it is due to lack of experienced editors and their time, we really don't need to be told someone has a proposal that they can't talk about. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What Epicgenius said was true. Also, if you want to know something I have been editing since either 2012- 2013, only reason why I increased editing was because only recently I divided to start editing more. Also, the first reverting I considered as him just saying that to post it after I created the proposal which I did. The proposal was an idea based on the fact that, there are IP users who want to creat a article that is related to the topic anime, but due to reasons, IP addresses can not create a new page. The doc pages which are precreated can be considered somewhat like a sandboxed proposed article with code. Consider it a advanced version for article request on the Wikiproject anime for IP users. Also, there was no discussion on why it was rejected after posting a link to the plan layout. Second of all, I tought that since someone removed it withought stating a reason in the first place that that person was vandalizing. Sephy did say that after I finish creating the proposal that to place it on the talk page. Now how would one place 6 to 7 pages on a talk page? That is why I placed a link. The description of the proposal could be seen after clicking the link. The users that think that this was vandalism, are not trying to look proper, I do not think none of them clicked that link, and assumed every thing on wikiproject anime talk page was the whole proposal. Another thing, it would be redundant and a east of time to copy and past what ever was on the linked page. The reason why I placed the idea of the proposal on the page was because it would give a somewhat visual feel of how the proposal after being accepted and completed will have a similar look to. Also, few edits≠bad user. There are admins that have been seen to vandalize the Main Page even! # of edits does not mean anything. The intensions of allof the edits over all and the amount of time since the account was created matters not the amount of edits. A person that may have made 2 very good edits can not be considered as being bad if compared with a admin with 340000 edits, who knows, maybe that admin after getting adminship after 2000 edits may have 320000 edits of VANDALISM! You guys are speculating me. The NYCT wikiproject is much better community of people where people do not speculate but help each other. 216.37.100.94 (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Also epic genius patrolled the pages and found nothing wrong. I am not accusing u of Wikipedia hounding but that's how I feel like as I you guys are after me. 😨😩☹ 216.37.100.94 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, the reason behind the multiple IP addresses is because, I edit from my college campus, home, and from my celphone when I am on the subway.

Is there a reason you can't log into your Wikipedia user account from college campus, home or the subway? It's hard to have a sustained conversation when you are split between two different accounts, a user account and an IP which probably changes. For something as elaborate as what you are proposing, people need to be able to communicate with you on your talk page which is difficult if you are utilizing different types of accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

For some odd reason where I edit from my cellphone most of the time, my cellphone does not like to remember the username and passwords for sites. Doorknob747 (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

My fist encounter with Doorknob747 was when he inserted a link to a Facebook fan page on Anime with comments to "go like the page and followit".[82][83][84][] He also inserted the same link to several other articles under both his account and with IPs.[85][86][87]. Doorknob747, has also used IPs to insert blatantly false information into several other articles.[88][89][90] (edit self identifying as Doorknob[91]) After the incident with the Facebook fanpage, he has generally been harassing WP:ANIME with one frivolous proposal after another. [92][93][94][95][96] The editor has also made several attempts to insert blatant original research into Gundam related articles[97][98] and demand that other editors add in the sources to verify the information for him.[99]

At best, he should be topic banned from the anime and manga topic area and probably an interaction ban with members of WP:ANIME, both broadly interpreted. He has not shown any capability to work with any of the editors there nor edit in a constructive manner. —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not involved with the present issue (related to anime and manga) but I have interacted with him before. Doorknob747 (talk · contribs)'s history on WP looks to me like a failure to enculturate, something I've seen in a number of new editors recently. Door does not seem willing or able (or some combination thereof) to learn how things are already being done on Wikipedia and work accordingly. Instead he just proceeds with his own plans and methods, despite numerous comments to his talk page. In the last couple of months he's gone on a tag-bombing spree, an over-WLinking spree, insisted that article names mentioned in the opening sentence must be "referenced" to a dictionary, created several empty talk pages without putting anything on them (he apparently thought that an article or a user without a talk page was a problem of some sort), created an "award", etc. Requests for him to sign his talk page posts went on for months. And now here is this cumbersome idea for assisting IP users to create new pages, when we already have WP:AFC.

There is also a point that no one seems willing to mention (an "elephant in the room", if you will): Door has so far shown very little ability or willingness to construct English prose at the quality level expected here. This is not confined to talk pages: See for example the original version of this article, which he created. This was so bad that I AFDd it. During the discussion period it got improved to the point where its existence is no longer an embarrassment to Wikipedia, but... oy.

Does all this add up to a WP:CIR case? Or WP:NOTHERE? I feel strongly that Door is acting in GF, that he intends to improve the encyclopedia, but I don't think he understands very much about what the encyclopedia is expected to be and how we're supposed to improve it, despite his having been editing for most of a year. And IME, such a degree of English incompetency does not get better with a few talk page warnings. Jeh (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I made no mention of his poor English skills because it was obvious that English is not his native language. —Farix (t | c) 23:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

At first I thought we were dealing with a child editor but then thought of this as well later on. I think that it can be summed up here that Door isn't listening to what other editors have to say either because the language barrier is too great or that it is a WP:ICANTHEARYOU issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That can be possible, but look at Doorknob's style of editing. They make edit summaries like "jdbdhdbd" and "spongebob", for, you know, edits not about "jdbdhdbd" and Spongebob. Also, it looks like their vocabulary isn't that large. Even non-native speakers of English can be fluent in the language, and it's entirely possible that he's not a college student, not that I think Door is lying. – Epic Genius (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker but, the edits with grammar mistakes was done on my Nokia Lumia Icon. Also, just to let you know, the Nokia Lumia Icon's onscreen keyboard is very sensitive to sweat; the Nokia Lumia Icon is known to get warm or somewhat hot. Also, on the cellphone I edit in desktop mode, so typing can be a little clumsy. Also, it very hard to scroll thru a edit source textbox due to a bug in its browser, that is why I do not go back and check spelling when I edit on he cellphone. Right now, as you can see, this edit has good grammar because, I am editing on my laptop. Most of my edits are made on the cellphone.  :( Doorknob747 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but if your tools don't permit you to do a good job (or to log into your account!), then you shouldn't use them to edit Wikipedia—particularly not in article mainspace. But the concern applies on talk pages too, since good communication is essential to the collaborative work that is supposed to be our norm. And there is more to writing college-level expository prose than grammar. Jeh (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And now this. I'm not sure what he thinks he is trying to do, but he is definitely not helping. —Farix (t | c) 02:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we get an admin to look into this? Im not sure what to do here, I am seeing editors getting fed up though with all of these things building up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Doorknob747 has also done things like this which don't seem to serve any purpose whatsoever.--十八 08:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Nommed for deletion on Commons. Epic Genius (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Actions of Wikiproject anime fits in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding perfectly at 85%. Doorknob747 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding is generally a charge brought against one person. When a whole bunch of people find problems with your editing, it's likely it's not them, it's you. Jeh (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This editor may be a problem. He left me a inaccurate "warning" message on my talk page, so I took a look into his contributions, and they're a combination of really silly (a new redirect, sending "withought" to "without"?), apparently incompetent (adding photos captioned by the name of the photograph, where the name is something like "WP 20150325 19 55 28 Pro"), and useful (correcting misspellings), providing information (apparently accurate) for subway articles. I didn't get very deep into the list, but the impression I got was... I dunno... a sometimes helpful but incompetent quasi-t*****. I'm not making any accusations, this is strictly a very superficial and preliminary evaluation, but it does seem to say that it's worthwhile keeping an eye on his edits, because some of them are definitely... um, not very helpful. I don't know if it's WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE or something more (or less) serious. BMK (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, everyone relax! Admin WilyD removed my speedy delete request for the utterly ridiculous redirect of "withought" to "without", so now he's going to be responsible for Doorknob747's incompetent and incomprehensible edits from now on! Let's all wish him a fine old time, and we can all go and have a beer. BMK (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

His most recent edits are troubling. The "good" ones do nothing visible, while the bad ones mess up the part in quotation marks at the top. Going by this and this, he uploads videos/photos and then "finds them a home", which I find a bit puzzling. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 12:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well if the admin believe that this behavior is a positive thing for Wikipedia than so be it, but it should be taken into consideration how many editors are noticing and being effected by it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(It was a joke. As far as I know WilyD has made no general comment concerning Doorknob's edits. BTW, I'm now convinced that this is a WP:CIR problem, and not trolling or WP:NOTHERE.) BMK (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a contested redirect speedy deletion, so it should be sent to WP:RFD. Epic Genius (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Then please do, BMK (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually have been trying to enroll in a wikipeidia test educational course where they teach you how to edit Wikipedia. But recently the educational programs are all buggy an many users claim having a hard time enrolling in, I am enrolled in to of those Wikipedia teaching programs as a student but, the instructors ar4e too lazy too teach like the test program at Wikipedia University, which was good, but I enrolled on the last day of the course so I got a F.  :( Someone here needs to make another one where we users can learn about Wikipedia. U guys can see what I am talking about when u go to my contribution page, and on the top it will say this user is part of these two courses, and those two courses have sleeping instructors! Doorknob747 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Will there be a good Wikipedia education course like Wikipedia university had?  :( Doorknob747 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone here be my and another users instructor in Anke now(2015)?Doorknob747 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You signed up for courses named "Education Program:Test/Anke-now" and "Education Program:Example University/Test (test)" neither of which had filled in any information, and you didn't think that just maybe Sputniza, who is both an instructor and student in both had set them up to test the program? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 23:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How to edit Wikipedia: 1. Find an article you are interested in that needs help, 2. Fix it. No proposals, no uploaded images, just start slow and then go from there please. If you need to use your sandboxes to test your edits and look at what is already in the articles. In most cases articles suffer from sourcing problems, ask for help with one article at a time that's what I did and many others have done as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If you cant do that then im sorry per WP:COMPETENCE, and WP:NOTHERE Wikipedia is not the place for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Jeh (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!Doorknob747 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat

The problems with this editor continue. In the most recent ANI last month, Toddy1 observed: "FreeatlastChitchat is not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she wishes to remove content that he/she thinks are unfavourable to Islam..." —This modus operandi is now on display at the Rape jihad article, which FreeatlastChitchat seeks to "gut" without establishing consensus following failure at two recent AfDs (one launched by him days after the completion of the previous) to delete the article.

Edit-warring behavior consists of repeatedly blanking entire sections (he has never attempted to improve any part of the article). Difs (I'll dispense with fancy page templates since I'm not accusing him of 3RR and thus time-stamps aren't that important, but suffice to say that all of these have occurred during the last week): [100],[101] (edit summary berates others to explain themselves on the talk page despite not having appeared there himself to seek consensus),[102] (claims, ad nauseam, that sources are not reliable despite being unable to establish such a consensus on the talk page or at the AfDs),[103],[104],[105],[106],[107],[108],[109],[110], [111],[112],[113].

Addendum: I've been adding to these as the days roll by. ChitChat has now reverted at least five different editors to blank a section, even after being warned against section-blanking. As of 4/16, section-blanking represents 100% of his editing activity at the article.

I placed a level-3 warning at his TP on the 13th (after reverting his edits when he was at 2RR); he responded an hour later by submitting the article to AfD again (see link above). It was speedily kept, and he immediately resumed reversion. The warning was not acknowledged.

In light of this unchanged pattern and demonstrated imperviousness to repeated warnings (his talk page history is a rash of warnings, including another added today concerning the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, a topic I have no involvement in) and persistent unwillingness to listen to counterarguments, I am suggesting a block for a length of time to be determined (last block was 24hrs), and a topic ban from Islam/Muslim/Jihad-related topics for a length of time to be determined (and that should be broadly construed to also include India/Pakistan conflicts, both contemporary and historical). Pax 07:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly I have no Idea why my entire editing behavior is under attack here. But even then I will explain my behavior and why I have warnings on my talk page. Wall of text is ahead so bear with me please. I will start with my block for 24 hours for warring on Islam. Unbeknown to me I was being tag teamed by four sock puppets. When one left off the other would take up the warring.So yes I lost my cool and I was banned for 24 hours. However due to the warring bhaviural evidence was found to administer a check on the guys who were engaging me and they were found to be a puupet farm.Here you can read about the long term abuse by the person I warred with. I would like to add that the material the puppet master wanted to add was controversial and was removed(by another editor, not me) as soon as his puppet farm was made redundant. So if I am to be blamed for a past block now, I would like to know the rationale behind it.

Now we come to the warnings which I have left open on my talk page. The first one is about the role of Shah Jahan(a minor prince) in the Mughal Empire. He has nothing to do with religion, the dispute was about who killed him, Islam, or muslims had nothing to with it. Furthermore you can see that even though my edit appeared to be "controversial" it was only bold and the edit was not without reason. The discussion about the edit is ongoing. So if this is something I am going to be blocked for I would like the blocker to provide me some rationale or a precedence about the block.

Lets now talk about the Indo Pak war of 1971. This is an article which I have edited only twice the entire time I have been on Wikipedia. I was merely correcting sourced info. If you look here, you will see that the real warrior who was reverting everyone has been blocked for making a ton of reverts on the article.This edit is also not about Islam or muslims as both Bangladesh and Pakistan are muslim countries who follow Islam. If someone thinks that this issue is Islam related they should provide some rationale. So if this is the reason I am going to be blocked I would like to inquire abouts its reasoning too.

The fourth warning on my talk page has not been left by the user dawndusk even if it may appear that he has signed the warning. It is actually the user reporting me who put the warning there but did not sign his name so that the next guy commenting will sign his comment and it will look as if the next guy warned me. This is clear here. Although DawnDusk has been trying to get the same material put back into the article so it will be in his favour for me to get a ban. As is clear from his comment below.

We now move onto my edits and reverts on the article rape jihad. I have tried to voice this on the talk page but the user reporting me does not seem to be in the mood to discuss. I reverted /deleted/removed content which says that Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was included in rape jihad. The reasons for my removing the material were that firstly the entire page dedicated to the scandal does not mention the word jihad even once. Secondly, the newspapers which reported the scandal have not 'once' mentioned the word rape jihad as being the motivation behind these attacks. I have read almost 895 news stories by now and I have not found any mention of this being a religiously motivated attack. The only source given for this being a rape jihad is an opinion piece from the ultra right, ultra conservative, highly islmophobic gate stone institute which has been deemed not good at the reliable sources noticeboard. I tried to get this through in the talk page where one other user agreed with me and removed the material (after the user reporting me had reverted me), while one other user also agreed that that the source was controversial but said that it "doesn't appear to be quite as controversial as you're(referring to me) making it out to be." His objection was that the source I had given to prove that gatestone was islamophobic, prejudiced and known to misrepresent opinions as facts, was in itself not good enough, although such an attitude is clear from the article archive at gatestone. After this the user reporting me here did not discuss any further, he just gave his opinion which was directed at an uninvolved editor who had just pointed out that gatestone is not reliable. He said "When an editor leads off with a false statement, it becomes hard to take anything else they say seriously. You claim "in both cases the recommendation was not to use" and yet the first link you provide contains no recommendation. The second link consists of two respondents who dissemble over it being "partisan" (which is an arbitrary claim anybody can make about anything). In any event, such are not binding. Aside from notability, what makes a source reliable is that they are not peddling bullshit. Soeren Kern's article is corroborated by the other sources in the article, therefore this aspect of the discussion is moot." He then reverted me and two other uninvolved editors who removed material from the article. If an admin is going to block me for this, then I would like him to describe what I "should have done". I have only one revert in the past 24 hours while the user reporting me has two, one on my action and one on another uninvolved editors action(we both removed the same unsourced material and he reverted us both).

To be frank I don't know why someone's personal attack on me is being used here as an opening for a report. If someone is reporting me they should at least have the moral fortitude to open the debate with what I have done wrong and then leave me be instead of attacking me personally. They should just point out what infractions I have committed and let the admins make the decision. Inclusion of a personal attack at the very onset of the debate makes it look as if that "special" person knows everything and as they have said something personal about me then it must be true. This is kinda rude.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Chitchat, your past M.O. has been to characterize legitimate warnings leveled against you as personal attacks and vandalism (of your talk page). Whether or not a recent detractor was later revealed to be a sock-puppet is immaterial as to whether or not a sanction eventually levied against you was justified. (In my opinion it was lenient, as you offered, then as now, every evidence of being unwilling to change and continue being impossible to work with for multiple WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE reasons.) As far as sourcing for the article goes, I am not going to argue that with you here as it was within the last week center-stage at the AfDs, at which you failed to establish consensus. Pax 16:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Are these article titles neutral? on a related matter that isn't the sort of thing ANI normally addresses. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Let me point out something that's really damning about FreeatlastChitchat: in addition to getting into edit wars on the page, which he should know better than because he's been blocked for it in the past, he went against policy by creating a new AfD 5 days after the one closed. In addition, for whatever reason, he recreated an old AfD about the article to make it look like the most recent decision was to delete it. Propose a topic ban for Islam related articles until he demonstrates that he can drop the WP:STICK the same way JoeM up above received one. --DawnDusk (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this board supposed to be reserved for reports only? Why are thread style personal attacks being directed at me? DawnDusk and PAX have the same agenda as is clear from the AFD on rape jihad and TP at rape jihad as am I supposed to reply to every baseless accusation of these two guys who want me off the wiki so that they can enter whatever they want into an article? I don't mean to be squeamish here but this guy has accused me of being a vandal for no reason using a report which started off with a personal attack and even then I took time to prove that I am editing boldly, not vandalising. He then posts another personal attack on my defense comment and now what should I do? and why am I being accused of edit warring here? WHY not just put a simple 3revert report and let an admin figure it out? Is it because these two know that multiple uninvolved users have been removing the same material that I removed, which only these two users want to add. So I would like to know when did proposing an AFD become a bannable offence and when did three users doing the same thing count as an "edit war" on part of only one of them. I will not be replying to thread style personal attacks anymore, until an admin mediates this discussion after taking a close look at rape jihad talk page and keeping in view the comments made here, here, here, and here by completely uninvolved editors.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that some of the editors are/were participants at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (which otherwise has no editing history overlap that I am aware of with Rape jihad article prior to your participation in the AfDs) the potentiality of covert canvassing of meat-puppets has not escaped my mind. A bunch of quacking ducks just randomly show up during the last two weeks and begin carbon-copy section-blanking this sleepy little article while providing exactly the same specious cookie-cutter edit summaries as you do? Pax 06:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• See also this new thread down below: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tag-team_edit-warring_on_Rape_jihad_counter_to_WP:BRD. The editor tag-teams with two other editors to edit-war and remove large chunks of material on various different articles. (I suppose a case could also be made that at least one of the team may be a sockpuppet.) Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So please start a SPI so we can get this over with. I have been saying from the get go. If you see me reverting more than twice, report me for 3Rvert and show some diffs, if you see me socking, report me for socking and start a Checkuser request I will endorse it myself, if you think I am canvassing, report me for that and show some diffs. Posting your opinion about me with unrelated diffs which show nothing just cuz I remove unsourced material from an article which you are fond of is kinda rude. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You've been edit-warring for many days on that article and others, despite repeated requests to stop and establish consensus. Doesn't even need an AN3 report; an admin could block you right now for edit-warring. A slo-mo edit war designed to evade 3RR and coordinated with a tag team is still an edit war, and you are continuing to edit war even as we speak. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Since FreeatlastChitchat is continually edit warring on Islam-related articles, I propose the following remedy:

1. The community forbids FreeatlastChitchat for six months from making edits to articles related with Islam, broadly construed.
2. Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, block FreeatlastChitchat from editing for a period of up to one year, enforce a longer topic ban (the period can be chosen by the administrator) from articles related with Islam, and/or enforce an indefinite topic ban from articles related with Islam, if he/she finds FreeatlastChitchat has violated the topic ban.
3. If a block or lengthening of the topic ban under section 2 is enacted, then FreeatlastChitchat may appeal the block or lengthening of the topic ban by:
   1. discussing it with the administrator that enacted the remedy; or
   2. appealing it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee
4. If the community or ArbCom does not wish to vacate the block or lengthening of the topic ban, then FreeatlastChitChat may appeal again in six months and every six months thereafter.

- Esquivalience ^t 19:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for User:SPACKlick

User:SPACKlick reported by User:QuackGuru at Electronic Cigarette (copied to WP:ANEW by SPACKlick)

I've copied this here from @Zad68:'s move to AN as I believe it's the appropriate venue for sanctions. Of note. The article in question is subject to General Sanctions of which I have been adequately notified. SPACKlick (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

SPACKlick and 3RR at Electronic cigarette, reported by QuackGuru (copied here by Zad68)

I am copying this here from this posted to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions. It's pretty clear SPACKlick violated 3RR there, and SPACKlick appears to admit to it.

It's more than a bit unclear where something like this should be reported: The regular WP:3RRNB? Or because this article is now under community General Sanctions (which apparently are not the same thing as Discretionary Sanctions, although DS appears to be a subtype of GS), here? Or WP:AE? I had a conversation with Dougweller about this on my User Talk here, and we agree the wording is unclear. Please, if someone has an authoritative answer to this I'd love to know. Zad68 13:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Community DS can be enforced at either AN/I or 3RR. Simply make a note that the DS apply and that the subject has been notified. They cannot be enforced at AE, as they are not ArbCom DS. RGloucester — ☎ 13:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, community DS should be reported to AN according to WP:GS (though they can be reported here too). 3RR is not really community DS; it's just normal practice - but can be reported in any of the 3 locations. AE does not apply for community sanctions as pointed out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of CDS topic bans have been issued at WP:ANEW, in my experience. The point about CDS is that they have no set enforcement page. Wherever is fine (other than AE), though some CDS have had enforcement pages, such as WP:GS/GG/E. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:SPACKlick reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: )

Page

Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=655461925&oldid=655457035 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656291797&oldid=656291338 Revert one by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656298163&oldid=656298112 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656303862&oldid=656303264 Revert two by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656305106&oldid=656303862 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656306218&oldid=656305106 Revert three by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656311733&oldid=656311581 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656311834&oldid=656311733 Revert four by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656362329&oldid=656345708 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=656362329 Revert five by SPACKlick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=656384228 My edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=656384442&oldid=656384228 Revert six. This was the previous warning. User:Mr. Stradivarius, where should this be reported since the page is under DS? QuackGuru (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I hold my hands up to this one, although I dispute that 1 is a revert. Also after whatever action is taken I'd like to ask what the appropriate method for dealing with an editor like Quack who spams lots of small edits onto the page without even attempting to find consensus despite prior discussion in some cases when there are so few editors at a page? SPACKlick (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You deleted three sentences that were not duplication. I was trying to discuss things with you then this happened. You previously claimed you made only two reverts. More text was deleted. Without evidence you are claiming I am disruptive? QuackGuru (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am claiming you're disruptive Quack, and have done for a long time and I don't provide evidence because everyone involved here knows my reasons for thinking so. I don't claim that it's malice it seems much more like a competence issue. You add content from a wide variety of sources with no editorial consideration making the page unreadable. The page reads like a history of science on e-cigs rather than a list of things know about e-cigs. You refuse or are incapable of discussing content on the talk pages instead claiming no objection is specific enough or that a source is sufficient justification for inclusion. It took hours and dozens of posts last night for you to discuss what to insert and where for one sentence you wanted in the article, during which you conflated two differing discussions of two seperate issues. The insertion itself was either Pointy or tendentious, inserting information about advertisers use of the word circumvent in a section about user motivation where the use of circumvent had been removed and raised for discussion as potential NPOV issue. You are disruptive and yesterday I thought I could muster the energy to power through and deal with you but I've realised I have no strategy for dealing with your kind of disruption, hence the request for advice.

As for the reverts. 1) was a removal of redundant information in a patch of larger edits. 2) There was addition of a word "however" which drew a comparison where it wasn't inappropriate. Short of removing the connecting word I'm not sure what edit would have been appropriate. 3) Quack edited the style of a sentence adding a duplicate clause to the end of the sentence. I agreed with the intent of the edit but stylistically the redundant clause stood out like a sore thumb. Didn't think of this one as a revert at the time, I accept it technically is. 4) flat revert 5) was the revert of the content discussed above which I still believe was likely pointy. 6) flat revert. SPACKlick (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop claiming I'm disruptive. I provided evidence you deleted text. You think deleting all that text was appropriate? You were given advise. QuackGuru (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I will not stop claiming you are disruptive Quack because it is plain to me that you are a disruptive influence at the e-cig pages. I'm confident that fewer editors edit those pages and those pages are in the poor state they're in, in large part because of your editing style. I also believe several other editors feel the same way. I also believe almost everything I removed should have been removed from the page. Not to say that reverting it all scattershot like that was correct. Some of the information in the first text removal could possibly have remained reformatted and following discussion on the talk page part of that removal was reverted. As the initial removal was a bold removal rather than a revert that seemed appropriate. The pointy edit has been refactored and re-included following discussion but a revert was the appropriate step given how and where the insertion was.

(edit conflict) I don't care that I was given advice QG, you've driven editors away and make dozens of edits in quick succession. You're trying to WP:OWN the page. I didn't have a strategy for dealing with that kind of disruption and fell into the wrong one. Oh and it's advice not advise.SPACKlick (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't explained all the text you deleted. After I told you to stop you said I will not stop claiming you are disruptive Quack because it is plain to me that you are a disruptive influence at the e-cig pages. Please stop. QuackGuru (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive (edit conflict) note ->(relating to the lack of explanation)SPACKlick (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) relating to me not stopping. Yes Quack, I won't obey your orders, you are a disruptive influence at the page. That is my finding from watching the page for months. Are you the only disruptive influence? No. Are you the worst that's been there? No. Are you the persistent one that's done the most damage that remains? In my opinion yes.n SPACKlick (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you should stop claiming I am a disruptive influence at the page. You made your WP:POINT. QuackGuru (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And I think you should stop editing the page, you've done your damage. We don't always get what we want Quack, but I'mm willing to offer a trade. Also, my claiming you're a disruptive influence isn't WP:POINT which relates to argumentum ad absurdum and making deliberate bad edits to emphasise the mistake in a previous decision. You should really read policies for appropriateness before you link to them. SPACKlick (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Cloudjpk also disagreed with some your edits to two different sections and gave reasonable explanations. I agree some of your changes were counterproductive. QuackGuru (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

and notice that Cloud discussed the edits in the sections I created for discussing the edits there were objections to (and the one I hadn't created for in another whole section) and sought to reach consensus through discussion to improve the article. Notice also that despite Cloud and I disagreeing quite often on how content should be included I've never suggested that Cloud was disruptive. Cloudjpk does what should be done at a battleground article (as far as I can remember); Makes clear objections to content, Makes clear arguments for content, Seeks consensus. I'm perfectly willing to discuss everything I removed, and everything that was re-instated to find consensus among editors on the talk page. I do get frutstrated having 15 or 16 round discussions in which editors make no points that are not agreed from the outset, do not respond to questions asked of them and ignore any points made. I still think the removal was correct. I await consensus to see if the reverted removals should be reapplied.SPACKlick (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your claiming I'm disruptive but others agree with my position. You want to gain consensus to delete the text again that is clearly not redundant? QuackGuru (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Again you misunderstand. It gets very tiring having to explain things to you Quack. That's another part of the problem. You are disruptive in HOW you edit and HOW you discuss things. The position about Circumvention is controversial. It's being discussed by editors with opposing views to find consensus. That's what's SUPPOSED to happen. Not everyone who disagrees with me is disruptive as I've already said.

Let's look at how you contribute to that discussion about the word being used not the claim that is intended and sourced.

• This is a non-controversial claim. They are even advertised to e-cig users as away to circumvent smoke-free laws.
• Then you edited an additional claim about advertisers into the caption of an image not related to advertising in a section not related to advertising with an edit summary from which I can only conclude it was done because it ALSO contained the word circumvent.
• After some discussion between me and cloud The sources can't be POV..
• So you think editors can override what the sources says?
• You then claimed I deleted your insertion because of my NPOV concerns about the original text [while continuing to bring it up in two sections on the talk page and on my talk page]
• You stated Editors disagreed before and now, That my rewords were deletions and doubted my claim that I wasn't aware of the precious discussion before taking action
• Then when asked for objection to a paraphrase The appeal is to use them to "circumvent" the smoke-free bans.
• When asked again for objections to the paraphrase Citations are needed. Do you still want more citations?

and so on. At no point do you appear to have read or comprehended the discussion around you. At no point do you write like you are interacting with a human. At no point do you offer any justification other than a source (or a few sources) use the word. It's disruptive, it puts a lot of editors off trying to reason with you. SPACKlick (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)reply. Yes I am seeking consensus as to whether the word should be paraphrased or not due to NPOV concerns, nothing to do with redundancy. I am also seeking consensus on certain repeated or redundant-through-similarity points elsewhere in the article. I'm willing to let those discussions run until consensus happens. I'm willing to contribute to them and I'm willing to concede if consensus is against me. Speaking of conceding when consensus is against you, I notice over time as lots of editors stopped engaging on the pages most uses of vapor have miraculously become aerosol. Remember that consensus? SPACKlick (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I propose a top ban for User:SPACKlick for the disruption. The e-cig page is under special sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion of proposed TBan for SPACKlick

To summarise the above discussions history. QuackGuru raised this on the talk page of General Sanctions. Zad68 Moved it to WP AN. From the comment there and my understanding of policy I copied it to WP:ANEW (referred as WP:3RRNB). Quack then moved it from there to here, hence the now confusing notes at the top.

For TL:DR 1) Quack's summary of my edits Quack edit. Revert one by SPACKlick Quack edit Revert two by SPACKlick Quack edit Revert three by SPACKlick Quack edit Revert four by SPACKlick Quack edit Revert five by SPACKlick Quack edit Revert six

2)Copies of my notification of general sanctions and a prior warning for edit warring on the same topic wrt same editor.

3) Admission and question by me I hold my hands up to this one ... Also after whatever action is taken I'd like to ask what the appropriate method for dealing with an editor like Quack who spams lots of small edits onto the page without even attempting to find consensus despite prior discussion in some cases when there are so few editors at a page?

4) Summary of edits by me 1) was a removal of redundant information in a patch of larger edits. 2) There was addition of a word "however" which drew a comparison where it wasn't inappropriate. Short of removing the connecting word I'm not sure what edit would have been appropriate. 3) Quack edited the style of a sentence adding a duplicate clause to the end of the sentence. I agreed with the intent of the edit but stylistically the redundant clause stood out like a sore thumb. Didn't think of this one as a revert at the time, I accept it technically is. 4) flat revert 5) was the revert of the content discussed above which I still believe was likely pointy. 6) flat revert.

I hope this helps with a speedy decision. SPACKlick (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Current wording: "A 2015 review found variable quality evidence that e-cigarette users had higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products.[91] Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation.[8][9] Studies have not shown that e-cigarettes are superior to regulated medications for smoking cessation.[7]" You removed text that was not redundant such as this edit. This is clearly I don't like it territory. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Quack I would ask that you hat that comment and we don't bring the Content discussion here. This is a place for editors, primarily admins, to discuss editor behaviour. It's not an appropriate venue to rehash a disagreement over content that would be the article talk page. I'm happy to defend against the claim of WP:DONTLIKEIT but with the above links and discussion I doubt the closing admin will need additional input on content. SPACKlick (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You are unable to justify deleting so much relevant text from the article. I gave just one example above. There are many more. This shows this is not a content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As a whole, with the edits surrounding that edit. Where the whole section was cleaned up. Those sentences provided repeats or near repeats of points already made. I've hatted my response to this because I don't want to clutter the board before an uninvolved editor joins the discussion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

final version of relevant 2 paragraphs from my edits and comments on removed sentences.

As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited.[29][87] Their benefit in helping people quit smoking is uncertain.[7] The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes.[88] While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users.[14] A 2014 Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies[8] and a 2015 review found variable quality evidence that e-cigarette users had higher cessation rates than users of NRT.[89] Another 2015 review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking.[90] A 2014 review concluded that the adverse public health effects resulting from the widespread use of e-cigarettes could be significant, in part due to the possibility that they could undermine smoking cessation.[91] This review therefore called for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit.[91] A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms.[92] This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day.[92] A 2014 review found that the research suggested that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes.[70] However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking.[70] A 2014 review found that the evidence suggests that "e-cigarettes are not associated with successful quitting in general population-based samples of smokers."[4] Removed Sentences Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement treatments for smoking cessation. One of these reviews stated that to encourage e-cigarette use as a cessation aid in cigarette users is premature. Studies have not shown that e-cigarettes are superior to FDA-approved products for smoking cessation. 1) we have that their benefit is uncertain, We have that some studies show improved cessation and some don't. We have that they have limited benefit in quitting smoking. Specifically saying that 2 reviews didn't overturn the null hypothesis is redundant 2) We have advice against widespread use, and we have several well quoted mentions of recommendation only in extremis. Again this seemed close to duplication and of limited benefit to the reader. 3) Is contradicted by several sources since its publication showing that studies have shown them to be superior to FDA approved products and those studies are reported with the tentative, variable quality and limited evidence caveats they require. All three of those sentences were removed for content reasons while tidying up two paragraphs that started off written poorly with no flow to the concepts within them. SPACKlick (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"A 2015 review found variable quality evidence that e-cigarette users had higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products.[91]" You want to keep this positive statement.

"Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation.[8][9] Studies have not shown that e-cigarettes are superior to regulated medications for smoking cessation.[7]" But you still insist on deleting the other two statements that were not in favor of e-cigs? QuackGuru (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

All of these endless back and forth comments between the editor that filed the request and the one being accused are counterproductive. The evidence has been presented, SPACKlick seems to have admitted that he violated 3RR and there isn't much left to discuss aside from potential sanctions. However I think it should be taken into consideration that QuackGuru seems to be the common denominator to the vast majority of conduct disputes related to e-cig articles right now, that there is currently an ArbCom case request regarding him and that warnings handed out to multiple different editors including myself and SPACKlick all involved QuackGuru in some way.Levelledout (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles for the original discussion regarding the community-imposed sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Since User:SPACKlick is not getting it and is still claiming this a "content dispute" I propose an indef topic ban rather than a one year topic ban from the e-cig pages. Editors are complaining on the talk page about the recent edits. Long after the discussion was over he is continuing to argue over the word "circumvent". He deleted text that was not repetitive. For example, he delete sentences claiming it was redundant when they were not.

• Support, as proposer. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Are we somehow still stuck on April 1st or did I transfer into another dimension overnight? Seriously. It's like a bully asking the teacher to punch the nerd who fixed his homework.--TMCk (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose that ridiculously disproportionate proposal. It seems that SPACKlick has been fairly honest about this and admitted his guilt. Anything else that QuackGuru is trying to add onto the 3RR breach is just pure and simple nonsense. I think that a final warning or a short topic ban at most would be appropriate. I would be more inclined to say a final warning if SPACKlick is prepared to say that he will watch his reverts in future. However I'm an involved editor, as of course is QuackGuru, so I think some more uninvolved opinions would be useful first.Levelledout (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I know a lot of editors sympathize with Quack because they agree with his positions on health and pseudoscience. But those of us who have crossed paths with him (and I wasn't even opposing him) know he can be relentless. SPACKlick knows they broke the revert rule but this morning, brought the incident to Bishonen's talk page basically asking for their due punishment. I don't see other incidents brought up and if this is an isolated one, give the editor a temporary block, not a topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I brought it to Bishonen's attention following being alerted to it by QuackGuru and his original post at general sanctions, as you'll see from the timestamps. I didn't catch myself doing it and believed I hadn't till I saw the diffs. SPACKlick (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Just spotted that QG claims I'm not getting it. I fully understand that there are several separate issues here. Style of edits, Content of edits, manner of insertion, manner of removal. I have breached policy on manner of removal. The content dispute doesn't disappear for that reason but I am staying away from that discussion on the talk page until this is resolved Quack wants to bring that dispute here on top of the report for 3RR. I would like to note that this lack of understanding of discussions from QG is common, the conflating of several issues into an attack to discredit an editor. Hence why there have been ANI threads and an existing ArbCom request to sanction his involvement in pages. SPACKlick (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is at core a content dispute. The behavioral aspect of it is not serious enough to warrant an indef topic ban, not by a long shot. BMK (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose and propose that Boomerang be considered. This is a disruptive proposal for a Tban in order to eliminate an editor who opposes the proposer's editorial viewpoint. GregJackP Boomer! 02:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the only such disruptive proposal made by QG recently, also see KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret.Levelledout (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not severe enough to warrant a topic ban. SPACKlick has already admitted to breaching 3RR. At the most, a temporary block would suffice. Esquivalience ^t 20:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog

On the Conflict of interest noticeboard, Jytdog told Dr. Joseph Shaw that, because Dr. Joseph Shaw was Catholic, it was a COI for Dr. Joseph Shaw to edit any article relating to Catholicism. See here.

Then, on the COI Noticeboard, I posted a message, saying that it was a conflict of interest for an LGBT Wikipedian to make edits saying that conversion therapy was "pseudoscience", See [[114]].

Jytdog then posted a message on my User talk page, in which he said this:

"Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:COIN. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Basing a claim of conflict of interest on a protected class (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc) is a personal attack. I am giving you a very strong warning to not go there. Others may wish to take stronger action. I have removed your posting at COIN"

I asked Jytdog, if it is ok for him to claim that it is a conflict of interest for a Catholic to edit pages about Catholicism, why is it wrong for me to claim that it is a COI for an LGBT to edit pages about homosexuality? I did not get an answer.

Something needs to be done here. If I'm wrong for calling it a COI for LGBT editors to edit LGBT-rlated articles, then somebody needs to call out Jytdog for telling Catholics not to edit Catholic-related pages. Or, if Jytdog was right to tell Catholics to stop editing Catholic-related pages, then Jytdog needs to quit telling me not to base COI claims on sexual orientation. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like it's about that specific user's COI, not a blanket statement about Catholics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The case at COIN is about the executive director of Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, who clearly has a COI on that article and brings a clear POV on things Catholic. I suggested he follow COI in editing all things Catholic and he readily agreed. No problem.

The COIN case brought by the IP is based purely on a claim of another editor's sexual orientation (and I have no idea if the claim is true or false and don't care). This is spurious at best and a personal attack at worst.

• I closed the first COIN posting by the IP as spurious and after more thought I removed it as a personal attack
• I warned the IP against making personal attacks
• when the IP trolled my Talk page I removed it
• after the IP reposted the case at COIN I removed it again
• and provided a stronger warning

I know we cannot siteban IPs, but I reckon we can block them. Please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I read the IP's posting at COIN least three times and I don't see it as a personal attack (and this is coming from someone who is not only pro-gay rights, but from someone who refuses to label his sexual orientation). I really don't see how rollback was used correctly in this case. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

claiming that someone has a conflict of interest (and please read WP:COI for what that means here) based on something like gender/race/sexual orientation alone is, in my view, essentialist, biased and ugly. A personal attack. This has no place in WP, in my view. I have a hard time seeing how it is not and you don't give a reason, Erpert. Would you please elaborate? Thanks. If the consensus is that I am wrong I will self-revert and apologize. It will be interesting, to see how folks view this. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That's just it: "in [your] view". IMO, the IP's statement wasn't malicious, and I think you came at him/her the wrong way about it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a proper use of rollback. However, the IP mis-read the COI issue with that one specific Catholic user, and made a false analogy to alleged COI's of gays. A proper analogy would be if a given user was the head of an organization whose mission is either in support of or in opposition to "conversion therapy". Either way, that could be a potential COI, depending on how careful the editor is about maintaining NPOV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• The IP's claim that Roscelese has a COI with respect to the Conversion therapy is not only a personal attack, it's utterly asinine. The IP seems to be here to promote a fringe view point, as evidenced by their edit warring and tendentious editing.- MrX 01:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Categorizing it in "pseudoscience" seems a bit patronizing. I wonder what the sources are for that claim? (I would say that conversion therapy is hogwash, but that's an unsourced opinion.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Bugs: Since "conversion therapy" is basically behavior modification, we would need to have unbiased scientific evidence of its efficacy in order to accept it as scientific. Without that to back it up, it's "pseudoscience", which is the default assumption. BMK (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This IP began editing on April 3 and hit the ground running, with apparent full knowledge of the ins and outs of this place. Could the IP please tell us what other IP numbers he or she had edited under, so that we can have a complete record of their edits, or what account name they used to or usually edit under? BMK (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I used to edit under the username Kyleandrew1. I took a long break, then started editing again without an account. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Since you have an account, you really should edit using it. BMK (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't. It's been so long since I've used that account, I don't know my password anymore. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• A brief history on why I posted this item on the COI noticeboard: After I had made a series of edits to Conversion therapy, I was told that I was about to run afoul of the three-revert rule, and that I should instead take this issue to the noticeboard, rather than engage in an edit-war. Since I did not want to edit-war, I immediately attempted to post a discussion about this to the NPOV noticeboard (because I think it violates NPOV to call conversion therapy "pseudoscience" or to call conversion therapy supporters "fundamentalists.")

But, I couldn't post anything to the NPOV noticeboard, because only registered users could post to the NPOV noticeboard, and I'm only an IP.

That is why I posted the discussion on the COI Noticeboard. My purpose was not to attack anyone, just to bring to light what I thought was an NPOV violation. If I couldn't post to the NPOV noticeboard, I thought I would post my concerns to the closest thing to the NPOV noticeboard. I thought that the COI noticeboard was the second-best place to post. I also said, that, it might be a COI for Roscelese, who self-identifies on her own user page as LGBT, to be editing articles relating to LGBT topics. Just as Jytdog thought that it was a COI for Dr. Joseph Shaw, who is Catholic, to be editing any Catholic-related article. (And Jytdog [told Dr. Joseph Shaw, specifically, not to edit any Catholic-related article].)

In my post to the COI noticeboard, I said that I thought that the discussion should really be on the NPOV noticeboard, and I invited registered users to move the discussion there. This continues to be my position. Since some of you agree that my post to the COI noticeboard was appropriate (and not a personal attack on Roscelese) I am re-posting it. If anyone wants to move the discussion to the NPOV noticeboard, please do so. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed conflict with minor refactoring. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 01:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source for the claim that the term "fundamentalist" is pejorative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The WP article Christian fundamentalism says, "The term fundamentalist is controversial in the 21st century, as it can carry the connotation of religious extremism, even though it was coined by movement leaders. Some who hold these beliefs reject the label of "fundamentalism", seeing it as too pejorative" and the source for this is 70.128.120.202 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

References

• the IP has reposted at COIN, which is aggressive, to say the least, as the matter of whether it is a personal attack is not resolved. I will not continue the edit war, but someone else should remove it until the matter is resolved.

Please also note that while the IP writes above, "I also said, that, it might be a COI for Roscelese",

the posting actually says "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest". So now we have just plain lying at ANI. Beating a horse: in my view, basing a COI case (heck even an NPOV case) on sexual orientation alone is a personal attack, in my view. The IP is editing aggressively and continues to misrepresent the Catholic COIN case and their own posting. Bad news. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The two applications of [{WP:COI]] are completely different. Dr Joseph Shaw declared that he is the chairman of Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. Jytdog's application of [{WP:COI]] is 100% correct. The IP's (Kyleandrew1) is incorrect. They could conceivably suggest bias on Roscelese's part (not that I'm saying this is the case) but that would require evidence of bias with diffs. Suggesting that Roscelese has a COI with respect to LGBT articles would suggest that, per WP:COI, that she represented in an official capacity for all members of the LGBT community, which is obviously not the case. Blackmane (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying issues

No one posting here has supported the contention of hypocrisy with regard to my actions at COIN with regard to Latin Mass Society of England and Wales compared with the IP's posting. In my view that was just a COATRACK over the real issue here, which is the IP's post at COIN and my removing it as a personal attack (see my diffs above for what I did). It seems to me that the community should first decide if the post was or was not a personal attack. If the community says it was not, then the issues brought there can be discussed at COIN, and we don't need to go into them here. The second issue is whether I was too aggressive in pursuing my judgement that it was, and following NPA which says "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor." So I'd like to suggest that the community focus on those two questions, which are somewhat separate. Restating them:

• 1) is the IP's post at COIN a violation of WP:NPA? It was about Roscelese's actions at Conversion therapy, and in it, the IP wrote "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest",

• 2) Was I too aggressive in treating the post as an NPA violation and thus removing it and warning the IP against making personal attacks? I could have closed it as spurious (as i originally did), responded and discussed, or ignored it and let others respond or not as they chose. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

discussion

• In my view 1) is yes and 2) is maybe ( I don't think so, but the community might).
  • 1) In my view, the core claim brought by the IP - that because of Roscelese's sexual orientation, they have a COI on subjects related to sexual orientation that the community needs to manage - is a personal attack, and an ugly one at that.

The IP has thrown some smoke around this by claiming that "But, I couldn't post anything to the NPOV noticeboard, because only registered users could post to the NPOV noticeboard, and I'm only an IP. " While it is true that NPOV is semi-protected, the claim that the only option the IP had was COIN is baloney because:

• • • a) they know how to create an account and have an old one from 2007 ( Kyleandrew1); and
    • b) they wrote in the post: "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest". Not ambiguous.

I'm willing to acknowledge that others may not view this a personal attack, but may see the IP as simply confused, or may view this as a case where there are possibly COI issues that the community would need to take action to manage. The latter would surprise me.

• 2) But this is where question 2 clouds the water a bit. If I had let it stand, the community could have talked through that (or not) at COIN. But in my view the post was a violation of NPA and we don't let that stand. It is fine for the IP to question my judgement here. I do expect that the community will agree with me and tell the IP here, that "yes, we don't tolerate that kind of thing here" There are two levels to this. The first is bias based on sexual orientation. The second, is claims of COI being thrown around in content disputes, personalizing them through the personal attack of a COI claim. (there have been some ANI posts related to that lately, in which I have been involved, and that might be making this extra intense for me, in particular) But we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the conflict of interest assertion was utter bunk. It's precisely like arguing that black people shouldn't edit our article on Martin Luther King (because of his role in the civil rights movement), or that women shouldn't edit our article on Gloria Steinem (because she is a feminist). Or, in the other direction, like arguing that white people shouldn't edit MLK, or men shouldn't edit Steinem. The question is whether or not the IP could be 'innocently' ignorant enough to make the assertion in the context of an LGBT editor without crossing the line into intentional offense.

Extending the maximum possible excess of AGF, I might be willing to grant the presumption of 'unintentional' offence once. That wouldn't mean that the IP's comments were appropriate or acceptable for Wikipedia (or any public forum), but that the comments didn't cross over the line of WP:NPA because the intent to be offensive wasn't there. In other words, the comment was objectively offensive, but the IP was too ignorant to realize it. That doesn't mean that the offensive post should be allowed to stand, however. Whether hatted or removed entirely is a judgement call; I'm not sure what I would have done there, but I can certainly see how it would have been a magnet for trolling. And the IP's behavior since then confirms that you made the right call.

Once the IP was advised that his post was considered an attack, he was out of excuses. There was no justification for him to restore his comments (twice) – which he had been formally advised would be considered personal attacks – to the COIN. The I-wanted-to-post-to-NPOVN-but-couldn't excuse doesn't hold water, either. Even in his third addition (second re-addition) of his report to COIN, he didn't strike the nonsensical and offensive claim that LGBT editors have a conflict of interest, but re-asserted it: [115].

You did good, Jytdog. This IP should be blocked or topic banned, not allowed to waste any more of our time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks, ToAT. Thanks too for acknowledging the difficulty of the judgement call (so rare at ANI)... am interested to see what others say too. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I come back in the morning and we're still having this ridiculous conversation? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

i apologize for asking this Roscelese but i don't know you nor your stance on this. it would be helpful to me at least if you stated your position on the questions. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Er, "you shouldn't be editing because you're gay" is a personal attack, yes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

sorry i reckoned you would say that, but it is not for me to put words in your mouth. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A third issue here

There is a third issue, here, which is why I brought this discussion to the noticeboard. The third issue is: Was Jytdog making a personal attack when he said that Dr. Joseph Shaw had a COI because he was Catholic? I saw on the no personal attacks page, it said that it was inappropriate to attack someone because of their religion. Of course Dr. Joseph Shaw had a COI with the Latin Mass Society because he was the Chairman. But did Shaw really have a conflict with editing all Catholic-related pages, simply because of his religion? FYI, one-quarter of all Americans are Catholic (as well as over a billion people worldwide), and I'm willing to bet that a lot of the pages relating to Catholicism are edited by Catholics. It seems that Jytdog may have inappropriately singled out Dr. Joseph Shaw when he told Shaw not to edit any Catholic-related pages. If so, Jytdog should be called out for this, and the WP community should apologize to Dr. Joseph Shaw, and tell Dr. Joseph Shaw that it's ok for him to edit Catholic-related pages. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

as has been discussed above, Dr Joseph Shaw is head of an organization that advocates for the latin mass, which is a contentious issue in Catholicism. He has a COI with regard to that article for sure, and a very strong risk of advocacy for all things catholic. i asked him to follow the COI guideline, which means making edit requests instead of making direct edits, and he swiftly and easily agreed. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP's argument is specious, for the reasons given by Jytdog: the COI was obvious. I'd also point out that subject himself, Dr. Joseph Shaw, replied on WP:COIN that it was "absolutely fine" by him to adhere to the restrictions recommended by the WP:COI policy.[116] Given this, one wonders why the IP contiues to pursue the matter. BMK (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure, I made my point clear in my earlier comment. So to reiterate, the answer is: Jytdog applied WP:COI correctly. Your argument doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Blackmane (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin)) I dont see eye to eye with Jytdog on many topics. But in this case he is 100% correct that Dr Joseph Shaw has a COI problem on Catholic topics. The IP's accusations are without merit. The Dr can help on Catholic topics best by following WP:COIADVICE. AlbinoFerret 22:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

that was decent of you albino. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that, in this case, the editor in question has a COI related to Catholicism. It isn't because he is necessarily "Catholic," per se, but because he is a recognized leader of a group which has direct ties to a minority view and position regarding Catholicism. Granted, maybe the phrasing of the statement could have been a bit better, with a statement to the effect that the editor is the chairman of a group which clearly promotes certain views relating to Catholicism, but, hell, we all make typos. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Forum shopping

• I note that the IP appears to be forum-shopping by bringing his complaint to WP:RSN with the loaded title "People are claiming that WP shouldn't cite sources published by evangelical Christians", which, of course, has never been the claim made. BMK (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

boomerang

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

---

With the post above, I am seeking a block against the IP. This editor is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, but instead seems to be interested in picking ridiculous fights. This is separate from the two issues on which I am seeking clarification above. These misrepresentations are a violation of the TPG and are part of other disruptive behaviors:

• misrepresentations of what happened at COIN in in the IPs original post here
• here where the IP lied and wrote " I also said, that, it might be a COI for Roscelese," when the IP's post at COIN said "Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest". That is not "might" - it is a definitive claim.
• throughout this whole thing, where the IP has claimed that COIN was his/her only option b/c as an IP he/she cannot post to NPOVN - the IP has an old account and clearly knows how to make one.
• On top of that the IP is edit warring at Conversion therapy. The IP was warned but removed it claiming "removed defamatory content" and was later warned again by Jeraphine Gryphon (who self-reverted when she saw that the IP had already been warned).
• The user behind the IP is showing him/herself to be WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It's been so long since I've used my old account, I don't know my password anymore. Sure, I could have made an account, but IPs have the right to edit Wikipedia. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

note - I had originally included the list above under the "a third issue here" section and subsequently moved the list down here. The IP had replied in the midst of my list, while the list was still up there. when I moved it down here, i moved the response out of my list and into a response. The IP's post is not a response to the boomerang but just to the line-item about the IP's issues with not being able to post at NPOVN. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block - Although the behavior of the IP ((Kyleandrew1) has been considerably less than ideal, and I agree with Jytdog's list, I do not think it has quite risen yet to the level of a block. I would suggest a stern warning from an admin that the IP is at serious risk of a block, and take it from there. If the IP is WP:NOTHERE, and only wishes to push his POV, that should become quite obvious fairly quickly, and a block can then be applied. In other words, I'm in favor of invoking WP:ROPE at the moment. BMK (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Also needed is a caution to Jytdog not to use rollback the way he did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Baseball Bugs: It's not clear to me where the misuse of WP:ROLLBACK occurred. Can you link to the diff? I can't actually find Jytdog using rollback in this dispute at all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • It's not clear to me where rollback was used either, so I don't see why a caution would be needed. Baseball Bugs, can you please clarify what you were looking at? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I think you're right. I had taken Erpert's word for it. But looking at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard:Revision history, it doesn't look like rollback was used, just normal manual reverting. Sorry! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
          • @Baseball Bugs: fair enough, and thanks for striking that comment (and thanks in advance if you could do the same with the portion of your 00:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC) comment which talked about rollback); I'm sure anyone who tries to make heads or tails of this (let alone Jytdog) will also appreciate it. And @Erpert:, if you can't clarify where rollback was used in this case (and that too, how it was used inappropriately), it would be better if your comment at 00:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reflects the same partial strike out to ensure no further misunderstandings arise on that issue. But if you do maintain that comment, could you please clarify? Thanks in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

to be clear, I didn't use rollback on either revert - you can tell since there are edit notes both here and here. i just ignored the characterization of them as rollback - i should have clarified it for everybody. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block. The IP already had multiple chances to do the right thing. Instead, he re-added and expanded on his wholly inaccurate and wildly inappropriate claims of COI twice, then carried on with his disruptive nonsense by starting this discussion with a misrepresentation of Jytdog's actions. He's taken several lengths of WP:ROPE, and he's repeatedly tied it in knots and then set fire to it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

My claims of COI were not wholly inaccurate, nor were they wildly inappropriate. @Erpert: said, "I read the IP's posting at COIN least three times and I don't see it as a personal attack (and this is coming from someone who is not only pro-gay rights, but from someone who refuses to label his sexual orientation)." 70.128.120.202 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you still don't get that your comments were wholly inaccurate and inappropriate is clear evidence of why a topic ban or block is called for. Doing it once was ignorant, making the same claim multiple times (at COIN, earlier in this thread, and now) is wilfully offensive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@70.128: Please don't get the idea that because I oppose a block for you at this time, that means that I think your comments were appropriate. They most certainly were not, and can easily be construed as constituting a personal attack. I just happen to think that we should warn about a first instance of this kind, and hold the block for if and when such behavior continues.

There is no proper analogy between asking Dr. Shaw to follow the COI rules and your saying a gay person has an inherent COI on gay-related subjects. We don't ban Asians from editing Asian-related subjects, or blind people from editing article related to sight and blindness. We would, however, ask the head of the National Widget Manufacturers Association to make her conflict of interest explicit and follow the COI policy in regard to editing articles about widgets. That is the difference, and it's one you're clearly not seeing. I can't tell if that's deliberate or not, but you best understand and accept it, because it's the way things work around here. BMK (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block, and I'd like to suggest a topic ban on LGBT related articles for Kyleandrew1 (the user behind the IP). User has shown that they're here to save us from "the gays," as their only actions are only to push a pro-conversion-therapy-POV. They're more obsessed with homosexuality than pride-parade-attending friends of mine. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support block for tendentious editing, and edit warring after two warnings.- MrX 02:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse block. In addition to edit-warring on conversion therapy and The Bible and homosexuality, 70.128 removed pseudoscience templates from conversion therapy and Creation science. The forum shopping has extended to RS/N and COI/N, where 70.128 suggested that an editor has a conflict of interest because they identify as LGBT. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Block for edit warring. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I am amazed to see Jtydog appear as the subject of an ANI, yet again, only a few days after they were warned for WP:Civil.[117]__DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The thread you linked to was concluded March 29. 18 days is "a few days" now? Besides that, what does it have to do with anything? This thread is not about WP:CIVIL and the result was a block for the OP for edit warring, and it was concluded the complaint was without merit. So what is the point of your comment, other than to show you continue to hold a grudge against Jytdog?--Atlan (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This ANI is about the behaviour of Jytdog. As I learnt at a previous ANI, it is important that the closer is aware of the historical behaviour of the editor at which the ANI is concerned. I was simply drawing to the closer's attention that Jtydog has a history of incivil behaviour for which they have already been warned.__DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Post-boomerang

This appears to be the same person as 70.128.116.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who got a 2 week block for disruptive editing in early February, then Acroterion gave a month-long block in late February. In early March they started editing with 70.128.117.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was blocked for disruptive editing by Gilliam. They got around the block by moving to 70.128.120.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). So, there's a block evasion/sockpuppetry problem too. I haven't dug very deeply; there might or might not be an older account behind this. bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Now, we have a confession. I would recommend longer blocks, and/or a rangeblock, for this editor. Jydog is blameless. bobrayner (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Blatant and active Wikistalking and harassment by Magnolia677

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

---

Magnolia677 has long been engaging in a rather blatant pattern of Wikistalking articles that I have edited. Most recently, he has started editing such articles, including this edit, in which he believes he is imposing some sort of policy that prohibits a description of a list of notables. I had made extensive changes to that same article an hour earlier (here). Other edits by Magnolia677 in this latest edit war include this one, in which he insists that a state map must be added to an article that already has one, based on the fact that he saw it in Template:Infobox settlement. The edit he made to Scotch Plains, New Jersey was reverted by me with a warning about Wikistalking; Rather than taking the warning and walking away, Magnolia677 blindly reverted and is actively engaging in further malicious edits of articles that I have edited extensively, including several articles that he has never edited before (including here, here, here and here. A brief block of 48-72 hours, combined with clear editing restrictions, may well end this edit war and prevent further such abuse by User:Magnolia677. No editor should have to put up with this blatant harassment, which is clearly intended to be disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not an Admin, but you make a compelling case. Jusdafax 06:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• I wouldn't say this is harassment or disruptive, just a disagreement between editors, and it does not yet call for a block on anyone. That said, I agree with you on the specifics of the dispute. There is clearly no call for adding a second map to an infobox that already has one. As for the bullet lists of notable people I don't think it matters very much. I prefer to begin sections with some prose, rather than just an unadorned bullet list, but that's just my own personal taste. Reyk _YO! 14:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Calling this a "content dispute" utterly trivializes a shameless history of Wikistalking. User:Magnolia677 has done this on dozens of occasions, stalking my edits and manufacturing disputes by misrepresenting "policy" to excuse his actions. We were at ANI in January (here) where he was similarly edit warring at Basking Ridge, New Jersey. As discussed there; 1) he edit wars with impunity, 2) WP:USCITIES is *NOT* policy, nor does it offer any guidance on wording for a notables section, and 3) this wording is used in hundreds of articles and has never been challeneged by anyone other than Magnolia677. Is one edit of an article another editor has edited Wikistalking? Does five, 10 or 20 constitute Wikistalking. Magnolia677 is probably in the hundreds of such edits, each one manufactured to provoke a dispute. Whether Magnolia677 actually *IS* a WP:DICK or merely acts like one in dealing with me, this pattern of abuse needs to end. Just look at his recent edit history and try to concoct a more meaningful excuse for Magnolia677 than a "content dispute". Alansohn (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I would like to see a list of diffs where he started editing a page only after you did. The Editor Interaction Analyzer at https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py is a good tool for doing that sort of research. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • This current wave of edit warring is highlighted by Scotch Plains, where User:Magnolia677 took an hour to edit war, but it also includes Oak Valley, Turnersville and Gibbstown on the list of articles that he had never edited before and began edit wars. In the past, Haddon Heights is an example of a case where he edited the article four minutes after I did, while he had never edited the article before. Grantwood took 13 minutes. Linden was a 16-minute wait. Closter had a one-hour delayed edit war. At Mount Holly he waited two hours after my edit. There's Battin High School, where he waited 12 hours. Then there's Basking Ridge, Cinnaminson Township, Secaucus, Lawrence Township, Frenchtown, which are but a handful of the dozens upon dozens of such articles where I had edited before he deliberately jumped in on some manufactured pretense. WP:WIKIHOUNDING is defined as "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." QED. A block combined with an interaction and topic ban may put this abuse to an end. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to refresh everyone's memories, the conflict between Alansohn and Magnolia677 is not a new thing, it's been going on for quite a while:

• "New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor" AN/I, filed by Magnolia677, November 2014
• "Bullying, intimidation, and ownership of articles" AN/I, filed by Magnola677, December 2014)
• "Removal of two edit summaries" AN/I, filed by Magnolia677, January 2015
• "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says User:Magnolia677" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, January 2015
• "User:Alansohn reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: )" ANEW, February 2015
• "User:Alansohn reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: Declined)" ANEW, March 2015

My own evaluation over time is that while it takes two to tango, one person is primarily responsible for the problem, for behavior such as described here:

• "Actions of Alansohn in relation to continued WP:POINT disruptions on Wikipedia talk:Schoolcruft" AN/I, filed by Thewinchester, June 2007
• "Inappropriate removal of comment from AfD Disucssion by Alansohn" AN.I, filed by Thewinchester, July 2007
• "Alansohn" AN/I, filed by JzG, September 2007
• "Abusive identification of Legistorm.com as 'spam'" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, December 2007
• "User:Alansohn" AN/I, filed by Runreston, February 2008
• "Requests for Comment/Alansohn" RfCU, May 2008
• ArbCom:

• "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons/Findings of Fact/AlanSohn"
• ""Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons/Remedies/AlanSohn restricted" May 2008

• "Latest edit warring by User:RedSpruce" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, June 2008
• "Apparent WP:COI issues at West Ridge Academy" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, June 2009
• "Dispute between User:Alansohn and User:AdjustShift" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, August 2009
• "Editor with an apparent grudge against a reporter" AN/I, filed by Alansohn, March 2013
• "Personal attack by User:Alansohn" AN/I, filed by Nightscream, May 2013
• "User:Alansohn" AN/I, filed by Coffee, December 2013
• "Alansohn and civility" AN/I, filed by BrownHairedGirl, January 2014

The community has put a lot of time (and read many, many walls of text) in trying to straighten out Alansohn, and our record of success is clearly not very good. It's also unfortunate that another editor -- who may not be entirely blameless, but certainly isn't the prime mover in this dispute -- is in danger of being dragged under as well. I suggest that the time may have come for some radical action, since dealing with problems as they pop up doesn't appear to be working. BMK (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, do you really believe your line of crap here? So User:Magnolia677 is entitled to edit war here -- in a series of actions happening right now and over the past few months where he has been the brazen initiator -- because of an AN/I filed by Thewinchester in June 2007? It takes two to tango, and it's this kind of enabling of abusers like Magnolia677 that lets these problems persist for so long. Alansohn (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the evidence shows what it shows, that you are a valuable content contributor, but you are also an essentially uncollaborative, uncollegial and abusive editor who takes tight ownership of entire categories of articles and fights vigorously anyone who dares to cross the line into your territory. I believe that, and the reports above show that behavior. It's a lot of words to ask people to read, but, unfortunately, there's no other way to get the sense of how you think and operate without delving into your past conflicts. BMK (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that even you don't believe your claim, that my edits eight years ago -- or even a year ago -- justify edit wars initiated by User:Magnolia677 in the past 24 hours. You haven't refuted the fact that he has persistently edit warred in articles he had never edited before, a pattern of abuse that is happening as we speak. I've provided ample evidence that Magnolia677 is the problem here; Prove to us that I started this yesterday or that anything I have ever done over the past ten years justifies his actions. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your unwillingness to accept that I believe what I posted is, in itself, an example of your attitude problems in interacting with other editors: I am not in the habit of posting facts that I think are inaccurate or opinions that I don't believe in.

What you're not getting is this: regardless of the specific case in this specific instance, there is a much bigger picture that the community needs to consider, and that is the sum of your behavior, not just in 2007, but in 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2015. I have seen since last November that way you have treated Magnolia677 with your obsessive ownership behavior concerning anything about places in New Jersey, and it's very much a question in my mind if Magnolia677 would have behaved as he did if you hadn't, basically, driven him to it. Certainly, he's responsible for his own behavior, and if your report is accurate, he deserves a slap on the wrist (at best), but as far as I am concerned, the primary problem for the community is not Magnolia677, but you. Magnolia677's name would probably never have appeared on a noticeboard if it hadn't been for your treatment of him, and his willingness to resist that, instead of just walking away, as most editors would do when confronted with someone like yourself. BMK (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond. This latest round started yesterday when I made this edit to Turnersville, New Jersey. It was made because finally, some consensus about wording with regards to unincorporated communities had been reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Census-designated places. So, I started making a few changes. No matter. Alansohn disagreed with the consensus.

Also, in the "notable people" section of city and town articles, I delete the line "people who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Foo include" whenever I see it. I'm really not sure who has added this line to so many articles, but I've only ever seen it used in New Jersey, and whenever I've deleted it, only Alansohn has added it back, so I assume it was Alansohn who added it across the Garden State at some point. Anyway, I delete it for two reasons. First, it's incorrect. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people states that the notable people section includes "any famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city". I have told this to Alansohn any number of times, to which he tells me that the US Guidelines aren't policy. I also delete that line because it's unnecessary. It would be like beginning the geography section with "this is the geography section", and so forth. It's just another way to puff up the article without really doing any work.

As for Wikistalking, Alansohn edits almost exclusively on New Jersey articles, and every place in New Jersey has his edits. That means any New Jersey edit he disagrees with could be considered wikistalking. In fact, the only time I have ever seen Alansohn edit outside of New Jersey was when he stalked me here, to Regina, Saskatchewan!

As for adding the state map to New Jersey articles, these are widely used across the US, and there is a place for them in the infobox. I even stated that in my edit summary. But Alansohn hates state maps! In fact, less than an hour after I created Bear Tavern, New Jersey, Alansohn changed the map. See here.

Here's a sample more of his ownership of New Jersey article, and his relentless stalking:

• I created Jericho, Cumberland County, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 27 minutes later here.
• I created Friendship, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 8 minutes later here.
• I created Warrington, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 hours later here.
• I created Townsbury, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 4 hours later here.
• I created Carpentersville, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 hours later here.
• I created Whig Lane, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 1 day later here.
• I created Pointers, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 5 hours later here.
• I created Kernan Corner, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 days later here.
• I created Garrison Corner, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 days later here.
• I created Paulina, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 4 days later here.
• I created Carrs Tavern, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 2 hours later here.
• I created Pecks Corner, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 5 hours later here.
• I created Crossley, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 4 hours later here.
• I created Aserdaten, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 11 hours later here.
• I created Foul Rift, New Jersey, and Alansohn changed the article 82 minutes later here.
• After I added a history section to Hainesburg, New Jersey here, Alansohn didn't like it so he changed the edit 3 minutes later here.
• After I created Fair Play, New Jersey, Alansohn redirected the article because "article has no content and should not be created until genuinely useful content can be added". It seems Alansohn didn't like my stub article about a New Jersey place. Then, two weeks later, he himself created a bunch of stub articles about New Jersey places, like Acton, Halltown, Portertown, Slapes Corner, Welchville, and Marshalltown.
• After I removed a redirect from Norton, New Jersey, Alansohn liked my edit. It seems I had done it his way "with all of the trimmings", as he wrote on a creepy stalker message to my talk page here.

Alansohn removed one of my edits here, stating in his edit summary "WP:USCITIES is merely advice and "is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style". Then, he reverted my edit here, leaving the edit summary "restore state name in infobox per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline". Huh??

When Alansohn didn't get his way here, he nominated the article for deletion!

This editor is a bully, and this is not good for editors who wish to add new content to New Jersey. I have tried to add some genuine content to New Jersey articles, and have been met by intimidation and insults on nearly every edit. It's because of Alansohn that I have stopped adding new articles to New Jersey in the past few months, and have gone back to Mississippi articles.

A while back I sought the advice of User:Hmains, who is, like Alansohn, one of the 40 most active editors on Wikipedia. Hmains' response seems to capture my experience as well.

Thank you for considering my reply. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) @Magnolia677: You'll note that I said some hard things to Alansohn above, and I stand by what I wrote there, but you, also, seem to have a bit of a problem realizing that when you create an article, it is not yours, and that other editors -- including Alansohn -- can and will change the article if they think its for the better. Alansohn has a lot of experience in creating articles, and that means that he can probably see more easily than you the faults in the articles you create, and can work quickly to correct them. That doesn't mean that he should, without much thought, convert your legitimate articles into redirects, for instance, or that he should treat your article creations differently from those of other editors, or that he should expect that his judgment on every article on a place in New Jersey is going to prevail all the time, and he certainly shouldn't fail to interact with you as a fellow editor -- but neither should you think that simply because the two of you have a long-term dispute, he should stay away from the articles you create.
  Above, I've recommended that the community should do something serious about stopping Alansohn's long-term general pattern of misbehavior, but it may also be the case that the two of you need an interaction ban. In this instance that's going to be difficult, because you both edit New Jersey-based articles, and I don't know how it would be possible to set up an IBan to stop this dispute from dragging on and on, but still allow both of you to edit articles in your common subject. But, obviously, something has to be done about what are possibly two somewhat different subjects, Alansohn's pattern of misbehavior, and the inability of you and Alansohn to work together without conflict. I'm pretty much fresh out of ideas for how to cut the Gordian knot -- do you have any suggestions about what can be done, ones which don't simply involve having the Alansohn blocked or banned? Can you think of ways in which your own behavior can be modified in order to help smooth things over? Because if not, I think the two of you are close to exhausting the community's patience. BMK (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see how Alansohn adding images to the infoboxes and filling in missing box parameters is a bad thing. When I start an article one editor adds in categories that I am not aware of. I only found out about authority control and the marriage template when someone added it in a an article I had just started. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, let's look at my first dozen interactions with User:Magnolia677: 13 April 2013 - asked for sources for a notable, 13 April - provided examples of why sources are needed, 14 April - thanked him for adding some sources, 16 April - provided clarification as to where sources are needed, 9 July - more edits that need sources, 9 July - another edit the same day without sources, 17 August - uw-unsourced1 warning re edit without sources, - 27 August - uw-unsourced2 warning re additional unsourced edits, 27 August - explanation why policy requires sources, 27 August - explanation why reliable sources are needed for a list entry and 28 August - thanks for adding sources. Somehow, my insisting that sources must be provided justifies all of his belligerent edits up to and including his latest edit war. I haven't dealt with this guy for months, and now he's back haunting my edits out of the blue, starting with Scotch Plains, where User:Magnolia677 took an hour after my edit to start a new edit war, but it also includes Oak Valley, Turnersville and Gibbstown on the list of articles that he had never edited before and began a series of edit wars. This is the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. And why exactly is this blatant harassment by Magnolia677 justified by my past requests for sources? Alansohn (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Alansohn: Your belligerence and your myopic viewpoint, in which everyone else is always wrong, and you are never at fault, is a major part of your problem. This is confirmed by the number of editors who have had serious concerns about dealing with you over the years. You've been here a damn long time, since 2005, and you've still not found the balance necessary to navigate through Wikipedia without antagonizing people unnecessarily. I suggest you find it, and soon, and stop behaving as if you are incapable of making mistakes, or I believe you are heading not for an interaction ban, but a site ban. BMK (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, so you've prejudged this situation and imposed your biases on the evidence that User:Magnolia677 has been maliciously stalking my edits. Somehow, my interactions with other editors and my efforts to advise Magnolia677 to add sources justify his blatant and unprovoked edit warring at a series of articles he has never edited once before. I've done nothing here and you're gunning for a site ban. Magnolia677 should feel blessed to have a shameless apologist like you to ignore the evidence and cover up for his abuse. Apparently neither you nor Magnolia677 is capable of admitting a rather clear example of Wikihounding. Why won't either of you admit your mistakes? Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Alansohn, please stop putting words into my mouth, there are quite enough in there already. :) I've written what I think, and exactly what I think, and none of it accords with what you wish it to mean, sorry. BMK (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, maybe now it's time to toss your biases aside and look at the evidence that you've ignored. If I triggered this edit war, have me blocked; If it's User:Magnolia677 who came out of the blue to begin the edit war, you'll gain a small measure of credibility by pushing for an appropriate block for him. Maybe it's both of us; maybe an interaction ban is needed. Make your case, but at least try to evaluate this situation with a little bit of honesty, and evaluate the facts of this edit war using the diffs of this scenario, as presented. Alansohn (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Considering the beam in your eye, your continued attempt to make it appear that I'm saying one thing when it should be abundantly clear that I'm really saying something else entirely, and your apparent inability to understand that my argument is much more encompassing than your petty AN/I report, there's really no hope of my ever appearing "credible" in your estimation, so I'm not going to try. Please stop pinging me, I'll be by when I feel like talking to a brick wall again. BMK (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• With BMK gone, that leaves us to deal with undoing Magnolia677's edit war. His edits have revolved largely around his arguments that WP:USCITIES 1) requires the presence of a pushpin map when a map already exists in the article (as here), and 2) that a heading describing a notables section is prohibited (see here). WP:USCITIES is explicit in stating that it merely offers "advice about style" and that it "is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style"; It requires nothing here. As such, Magnolia677's edits will be reverted to the status quo ante. Hopefully he will be able to avoid initiating further such edit wars in the future. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Alansohn, you're constantly picking fights and being obnoxious to people, and you don't seem to realize that acting this way makes people want to disagree with you even when you're right. You really don't see how misrepresenting BMK and then crowing that you've driven him from the conversation makes you look completely unsympathetic? As I have said, I actually agree with you regarding the maps and, as a matter of taste, I prefer not to have plain bullet lists without an introductory sentence. I think you're in the right as far as article content goes. It's your attitude that puts you in the wrong. Magnolia edits a heap of articles about US towns and villages, you edit a lot on New Jersey. It stands to reason that towns and villages in NJ will be an overlap in your interests, and editing those articles doesn't necessarily mean Magnolia is hounding you or edit warring even if *shock! horror!* he disagrees with you on something. Neither of you are blameless here. Both of you seem to prefer screaming at each other in edit summaries, edit warring, and dragging each other to the drama boards, than talking to each other as collaborators with a difference of opinions. This seems to be a common problem with you; every time I see you anywhere, you seem to be shouting at someone. You really need to adjust your attitude. Reyk _YO! 06:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Pretty sure editors used to be blocked just for having a persistently combative attitude. Both BMK and Reyk have summed up Alansohn pretty well. Not to say Magnolia is guilt free but just the tone of, well, everything that Alan says is aggressive. Blackmane (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• The bottom line here is that all too often Magnolia677 shows up only to piss on Alansohn's edits immediately after Alansohn makes them and on articles where Magnolia677's obviously never before edited, (unless it was under a previous alias?) A good example from those listed above is the edit history of Turnersville, New Jersey. I am not concerned with content, or Alansohn's prickliness. I am concerned with the fact hat Magnolia677 is rather blatantly stalking Alansohn's edits and "fixing" (a word in many edit summaries) the flaws he sees once Alansohn has passed by. Alansohn may rise to the bait, but it's Magnolia677 who's chumming the waters. Note there's no accusation that Alansohn follows Magnolia677 about, is there? I think a prohibition on Magnolia677 following Alansohn about is entirely warranted, there is plenty to work on other than what Alansohn has just edited, and the behavior is intentionally provocative, and endlessly disruptive. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Note there's no accusation that Alansohn follows Magnolia677 about, is there?" Yes, actually, there is. Magnolia677 makes exactly that claim in his statement above, and has been consistently making that claim since November 2014, when he filed this AN/I report. BMK (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Magnolia677 is "endlessly disruptive." If you take a look above, I listed 6 noticeboard reports involving Mangolia677 and Alansohn, and an additional 14 involving Alansohn, including a 1-year ArbCom-mandated civility parole. Magnolia has a clean block log, while Alansohn's is quite extensive -- although to his great credit the last block was in 2009.
  There's no doubt that these two are like oil and water -- or, better yet, like baking soda and vinegar: when they get together there's bound to be a lot of foaming dispute. If we were a jury in an American civil trial, we'd have to ascribe percentages of blame to the parties in the suit, and, while I don't by any means think that Magnolia677 is blameless, I'd have to put the lion's share of the responsibility for the problem on Alansohn. That's for the dysfunctionality of their entire relationship, not for this particular instance -- but since Alansohn continues to evade any sanctions when Magnolia677 presents his case against him, I can surely understand how he might be pushed into more aggressive behavior, if only to match Alansohn's inherent combativeness. Thus I can't absolve Magnolia677 of responsibility, but I am inclined to think that the bigger picture is more of an issue here. BMK (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well, what I hear above is "she's following me around (true) versus he can be prickly (true). Let's assume we're focussed on a solution. I think prohibiting either editor from reverting the other or editing the same article on a NJ topic until some third party has edited it would be a good de-escalation. They could take urgent concerns to an admin or a volunteer like myself who am familiar with much of the state and would be happy to fix actual mistakes, rather than get involved in content disputes. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think that would be a good place to start. Why don't you make that into a formal proposal? BMK (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Let's hear from Alansohn and Magnolia677 first, if they agree to a "no editing immediately after the other IBAN", we are set, and an admin could place a formal note to the effect on their respective talk pages. If they object, the solution will be unlikely to help unless it is draconianly enforced. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)While BMK pointed to my edits from 2007, notice that even Magnolia677 can only point to edits from six months ago. What happened now? Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all of the United States, isn't it a bit unusual that User:Magnolia677 would end up in Scotch Plains, starting an edit war in an article that I had edited in the previous hour and that he had never edited before? Given that I estimate about 100,000 articles for cities, boroughs, towns, townships, villages, CDPs, hamlets and settlements of all kinds across the country, it seems a bit creepy, doesn't it? The odds are pretty darn slim, but then he follows it up with flimsy pretexts to start a series of edit wars at Oak Valley, Turnersville, Mullica Hill, Gibbstown and Maple Shade. With 100,000 articles that he could have started such edit wars, it's rather freaky that he would end up at so many articles that I've edited in such a short period of time, all of which he's never edited before. He's offered no justification or rationalization to account for this one-in-a-trillion coincidence. Isn't that a little stalkerish, to say the least?

• Isn't this the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, where Magnolia677 is actively "singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."? I've shown how he's been stalking me, where have I been stalking him? How was he "pushed" into his latest bullshit edit warring.

• Have I edited articles that he's edited? Of course, they were all on my watchlist or it's equivalent. And in the past several months I have stayed as far as I can from any article he has created, wherever they may be. Doesn't it strike anyone as a bit odd that in a two hour span from 21:48 to 23:44 on April 14 Magnolia677 made 31 edits, of which 26 were to articles from New Jersey, half of them to a sequence of six articles he had never edited before? This isn't just an odd coincidence. This is a deliberate unprovoked effort by Magnolia677 to manufacture a confrontation. If anyone can provide the diff of any edit on my part that justifies this creepy harassment that started just days ago, let's see it. On the other hand, I've provided the diffs, listed the articles and shown that I am being consistently Wikihounded and harassed by Magnolia677. A block and topic / interaction ban imposed on him might well help solve the problem.

• I've backed off from seeking confrontations with him; he's worked diligently to create confrontations. I will be more than happy to consider any reasonable suggestion that ends his stalking, including a reciprocal interaction ban, which would only have affected Magnolia677 in his latest attacks. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Magnolia677's account dates from December 2012. Their first New Jersey-related edit I can find in From February 2013. BMK (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• In your first edit in this thread YOU brought up 2007. He points to November 2014. Of course I know he started editing / crossing paths in 2013, because I left him a dozen messages and warnings insisting that he had to add sources, as listed above with diffs. My perception is that this is some sick kind of revenge about those first interactions. Even if it did have something to do with those first interactions, I fail to see how I am responsible for stalking by User:Magnolia677 at six articles he's never edited before, including one that I had edited just minutes before. What exactly did I do to provoke this? What is Magnolia677's explanation for this stalking? Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I see basically two options here, neither of which I really like. The first is an interaction-ban, the second is ArbCom. Given the nature of the history of this, and other, disputes, I would probably prefer the latter, if for no other reason than it takes longer and gives the community more time to try to devise solutions to the problems. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Per BMK's suggestion and given Alansohn's not extremely friendly response above I have drafted a limited IBAN proposal below. I hope both parties will find it acceptable, but expect the community will find it worth imposing regardless, unless we want to go nuclear. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Limited Interaction Ban between Users Alansohn and Magnolia677

Be it Nominated that a limited one-year interaction ban of the following terms apply equally to Alansohn and Magnolia677, to continue indefinitely unless both parties ask to have it removed in no less than 12 months or each 12 months thereafter:

(1) Neither party shall mention the other, directly or indirectly, explicitly or by implication, on any page, except once as necessary and with supporting diffs on the WP:ANI board for reporting violations of the IBAN.

(2) Either party may edit the same article space or article space talk page, except that neither party shall either directly revert the other's edits, or edit the same article until at least one third party uninvolved with either of the two has made an intervening edit. Neither party shall follow each other's user contributions.

(3) A neutrally worded and impersonal response to a question posed by one party on the talk page (which we shall assume to be a valid question, aimed at improving the article, not criticizing an editor or edit) shall not be assumed to violate the above terms. In other words, one editor may not pre-empt comments by the other editor on valid issues by being the first to bring up a relevant issue on the talk page.

(4) New Jersey is larger than some 160 nations and dependencies. Both editors are admonished to give the other a wide birth.

(5) Violation of the terms of this IBAN shall result in increasing sanctions (temporary blocks) by any admin, without further warning.

---

• Support Good fences make good neighbors. (See the immediately preceding complaint, which is one of at least 21 involving the two editors.) This issue has come up far too often to once more be aged off the board. Both editors are mature people and good contributors. This is the least punitive of possible sanctions that might actually address the issue at hand. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support (non admin) after reading the above, is there any doubt this should happen at the very least? No. AlbinoFerret 22:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - We have to start somewhere, and this is a good start, very balanced. BMK (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - What specifically did I do wrong? I mean, really? Every edit I made was in line with policy (I often added a link to the policy in my edit summary). The reason I made the edits a few days ago was because a consensus had been reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Census-designated places, so I started making a few changes. How is this wikistalking? Or bad faith editing? Did you read my response above? Alansohn spins this ridiculous victim piece like a drama queen, and after enough of it, people actually start to believe it. Do me one favor. Please have a look at the edit history of Bear Tavern, New Jersey. I mean, is this what we expect from a veteran editor? If I was a new editor, or one easily intimidated by a bully, I'd never return. Most of you would have written to the creator of Bear Tavern to thank them for finding another place George Washington stopped for a beer. Instead, this bully tears the article to pieces. Look what happened when I added a photo to Battin High School. Anyone who edits to New Jersey is stalking Alansohn! An interaction ban would mean I am excluded from the state. Why don't you deal with the real issue, and that is that this editor owns New Jersey, and bullies, intimidates and insults anyone who makes edits there he doesn't approve of. So I ask you again, please tell me what policy I have transgressed with my edits, and what I am being sanctioned for? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a very limited interaction ban. You're not "excluded from the state". See point 2 in Medeis's proposal. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't think of it as having done something wrong. But it's abundantly clear that, for whatever reason, you and this other editor can't get along. So for your benefit, and his, and for the community's benefit, we're going to help you stay apart so that you can both edit constructively. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Point #5 says "increasing sanctions". What did I do to deserve a sanction (my first in 18,000+ edits)? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, a first sanction might be a 24 hour block for whomever violated the terms, if they did so--it would be up to the admin. It applies equally to both parties. You'd still have recourse to prompting a third party if an edit were so bad as to be false, and need immediate recourse. You just wouldn't be able to revert it yourself. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Don't think of it Magnolia677 as anybody having done anything wrong. It's an equal and minimal restriction. Think of it as a very even-handed way that allows both of you to edit very widely (in fact, you're not really banned anywhere except each others talk pages), but to avoid bringing another complaint here, which you have both done how many times? You should be jumping at this, since if it goes to arbcom you're probably both looking at some nice long blocks. To be Solomonic, accept this live baby in foster care, rather than two dead half babies. This really doesn't restrict either of you at all, since every article remains open, and in case of emergencies like a terrible format error contact me or an admin and mention the limited IBAN. From experience I know that a situation like this can be very liberating, since you don't feel like you have to respond to everything the other person does, and neither does he. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Nice long blocks"? Administrators only block editors who have violated the rules. What leads you to suggest I'd face a long block? What did I do wrong? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And how on earth have my edits been placed on par with Alansohn's? Did you read the comments so many others have written about this bully? Deal with this guy, or he'll just go on bullying and intimidating others. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Magnolia677, you're not helping yourself. BMK (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, it's a system, the interactions between you and Alansoh, and the system doesn't work, so it needs to be fixed. Medeis' proposal fixes the system by evenhandedly dealing with both parts of it, not by eliminating one part in favor of the other, or vice versa. Think of it as protection for both participants from what they each claim the other is doing: neither of you is inhibited from editing in the same area, the restrictions both of you are placed under are limited and reasonable. If this works, it should make editing easier and less onerous for both of you, and the system will be fixed. That's what the community cares about. It really doesn't want to hear endless complaints from either of you, because every one of us has better things to do. BMK (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the above evidence, you have started at least half a dozen ANI complaints against Alansohn, and although there is little sympathy for him there is also little sympathy for you. Frankly, your recent edits of articles he's been editing for a decade smack of stalking by you, especially since they do follow minutes after his.

Having been brought to arbcom and being the happy subject of a current IBAN I have been offering my advice pro bono. This is not about who's right, and the sooner you get over that the better for you. It's about how to settle this matter fairly.

Are you seriously saying that your nemesis's edits are so evul that you need to keep riding him and complaining here when he objects to it? If so, you are demonstrating an inability to play well with others.

NJ has over 9 million inhabitants, more than Ireland, New Zealand, Wales, Denmark, Slovakia or Israel.

If this goes to arbcom, you will indeed face serious sanctions just for wasting their time. I am not an admin, but I am about ready to give up and file a case there for you. Alansohn wasn't very nice in his last edit, but he did at least admit an IBAN might be a solution. I strongly suggest this is a good solution given your own complaint.

But if you want to continue insisting you are the victim (who just chanced upon Alalnsohn's edits minutes after he made them) then feel free. But you will not be serving anyone's interests, especially not your own. No more comments from me at this point, I don't enjoy repeating myself. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't come here? A complaint was made about me. This was followed by a dumping of negative comments, by a number of editors, about the person who made the complaint. Get your facts straight friend. This guy is an abusive bully. Do what you want. I'll agree to an interaction ban with Alansohn. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Per Medeis and also per Magnolia677's acceptance of the conditions. IBANs are not about sanctioning one person or the other, but rather a process whereby neither editor would be formally sanctioned. Magnolia and Alansohn, both of you can go about your merry way and nothing will happen as long as neither of you breach this IBAN. Think of it as moving two classmates to opposite ends of the classroom because it is obvious they don't get along. If you're not right there in front of each other, then the hope is that neither of you will be antagonised by the other. Blackmane (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Conditional Withdrawal of Support in the Face of Ongoing Abuse I'm more than willing to support the IBAN in theory, as it finally creates the environment in which blocks -- and lengthy ones -- will be imposed for further repetitions of this kind of shameless harassment, blocks that would have -- and should have -- been imposed here. Yet here we are with another set of edits by Magnolia677 to yet another pair of articles he's never edited before, Williamstown and Victory Lakes, where the only meaningful edit seems to be removing the word "CDP" and replacing it with the name of the place a dozen times. This guy has some rather insane understanding of what *NOT* stalking means. I'll be happy to undo all of these edits in this entire edit war, or have someone else do it, but with the same pattern of abuse going on, what is the point of an interaction ban? There are at least 8,000 CDPs in Category:Census-designated places in the United States by state in the 49 other states across the nation with the same "problem" and here he is again trying to start something over an idiotic interpretation of policy. If this can't be resolved, count me out. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Just want to point out the obvious, that's while it might be a bit easier to impose an interaction ban if both parties agree to it, it's not necessary that they do. The community has the right to protect itself from disruption by imposing it with or without the parties' approval, so no one should be put off by Alansohn's comment above. BMK (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This limited interaction ban is utterly worthless, if the bad faith edits made at Template:Bergen County, New Jersey and Clayton, New Jersey are any indication of User:Magnolia677 and his efforts to show a spirit of cooperation. The stalking is bad enough, but this guy is spitting in our faces now, showing that he has no intention of respecting the terms of this agreement, either in word or spirit. The "limited" portion of this is clearly useless, if he can't even offer some "wide birth" (which I assume is some weird form of labor and delivery) even at this point in time. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• You mean "wide berth" - a "wide birth" happens to a woman with big hips. :)
  Please don't presume to speak for "us", the other participants in this discussion. There are a wide variety of viewpoints that have been presented here, but the majority of uninvolved commenters in this discussion have come out in support Medeis' interaction ban. I think you are mistaken in thinking that your "conditional" rejection of the IBan is going to derail it. You'd be better off accepting it, I believe, thus showing that you have some regard for what's best for the community. That would, I think, speak well in your favor. BMK (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I have placed a neutral pointer to this discussion on the WikiProject New Jersey talk page in order to involve more interested community members in this discussion. It can be found here. BMK (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban. Seems like a sensible solution. Reyk _YO! 07:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support the interaction ban. Both editors have strong opinions on what they think is best for the encyclopedia and both are prepared to argue their points to the death, but neither seems to be willing or able to seek a compromise, so to just stop the semi-regular flow of threads here, it's best that they just stay away from each other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support an IBAN. A proportionate solution to an ongoing problem. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Will is be "utterly worthless" and Alansohn claims above? We will see. If it turns out that it is, we can start considering harsher measures. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. And if this doesn't work, full IBAN. And after that, ArbCom if admins cannot handle/contain the situation. Softlavender (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This, exactly. Alansohn is a decent sort, IMO, and highly committed to the project, so I really hope this will not end up at arbitration. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The most troubling thing I've read in the above is that--among those editors who don't seem to have a personal ax of their own to grind--there seems to be a fair recognition that one editor has engaged in stalking. User:Medeis puts it aptly and plainly above. But that editor repeatedly above doesn't admit to it. If the stalking continues, no doubt this will lead to repercussions. But I would urge that editor to refrain from stalking, despite his above statements that he is unclear what he has done that is not appropriate. And I urge him to not take this as a license to just engage in harder-to-detect stalking. A strong spotlight is now on the matter. Without stalking, it appears to me that all other problems discussed above melt away. And we have a happy conclusion. If stalking continues, I have little doubt from what I've read above that this matter will be elevated. Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but no admission of guilt is really needed (or wanted by the uninvolved), just an end to it, and both conflicting parties have once again agreed to the terms. We just need an admin to not this on the formal bans page and to formally notify the parties this is closed as agreed and we can all get some well deserved rest. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Formally request Admin Closure, with IBAN adopted per above guidelines

There are four five independent supports, no opposes, and both parties have agreed to the IBAN:

Do what you want. I'll agree to an interaction ban with Alansohn. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I will be more than happy to consider any reasonable suggestion... including a reciprocal interaction ban,... Alansohn (talk) 4:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)

I hereby suggest the above ban be noted among the formally listed user bans with an April 30 renewal date, be placed as an admonition on the two user's talk pages, and the matter be closed forthwith. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

To possible closing admin: It seems that one of the parties, Alansohn, has now changed his mind and is no longer voluntarily accepting the proposed IBan. However, I've just looked back on the thread in total, and of the seven uninvolved participants who have commented on this issue, all five who have commented on the IBan have endorsed it. Only @Reyk: and @Guy Macon: have not not commented on the IBan so far, yeah or nay. BMK (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Responded now. :) Reyk _YO! 07:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Which means that of the 7 uninvolved Wikipedians commenting on this issue, the six who have commented on the proposed IBan have all endorsed it. BMK (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And now all 7 of the commenters have endorsed the proposed IBan, plus an additional 2 3 editors who had not commented previously. BMK (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I was going to withdraw the suggested closure at this point given each of the participants still seems intent on his pound of flesh, but the consensus in favor is overwhelming, so I will leave the request for closure stand, have added the formal template, and a notice at WP:AN, and suggest the complainants read what happens to the "villain" of Merchant of Venice at the end, when, technically, he wins his case. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I now completely agree with the IBan. All this feuding doesn't move the project forward, and wastes everyone's time. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I too Support the IBAN at this point. The examples of actions that would be covered under the "wide berth" clause have already occurred and I think that there is no ambiguity now that further such actions will be covered. I commit myself to avoid creating confrontations, by exercising the same "wide berth" that I have worked to provide in recent months. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, so we seem to be back to everyone agreeing to the terms of the very limited IBAN and are waiting for any uninvolved admin to close it and state it formally. Frankly, I think everyone will find that a huge relief and burden off their shoulders. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

From dandtiks69 about mangolia677

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

---

This is true: he's been reverting my articles and is abusing his privileges.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandtiks69 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Who even started this thread? I can't tell from the page history. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

See here - the "From dandtiks69" in the heading was a clue, I thought ;-) Squinge (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert: - SineBot (talk · contribs) has crashed so no unsigned posts are getting signed - see comment on Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And to reply to @Dandtiks69:, Magnolia677 was removing unsourced trivia that you were adding to an article, and I think they were right to do so. Once you have had such an addition reverted for being unsourced, you should look for sources before you add it back and not just edit war over it. Squinge (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

From dandtiks69: If adding information directly from the game doesn't satisfy the definition of reliable information, what will? I already told him that he's acting ignorant just to harass users on Wikipedia, as mentioned by user Alasohn.

The point is that if you do not provide a source, there's no way to tell if it is reliable - we can't just accept your word for it. Wikipedia relies on sourcing, and you can't have been here long if you really don't know that. Squinge (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

One more question: which article are we talking about? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We were discussing about Searchlight, Nevada, and its cameo on the videogame Fallout, NV.

• Closed as entirely obscure, ill-formed, and unsupported. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Here we go again...

I have been having numerous problems with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The most recent thread I opened was here (for an IBAN request), and now he's back to his old tricks. Is there a reason why he seems to be able to continually hound me? And the ironic thing is, this is the forum where he is allowed to explain himself but he never does; yet the threads still always get archived with him apparently having no consequences. I shouldn't have to put up with his behavior. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Erpert, you made false statements in a WP:AN discussion. Pointing that out isn't WP:HOUNDING. Rather than correcting yourself, you're blaming the messenger. The reasons your threads "always get archived with him apparently having no consequences" is that the community rejects your arguments. Note comments like

• I clicked the first "purposefully obtuse" link (a diff to this AfD). Two points: it's from 2011, and HW deserves a medal if he is still trying to deal with the lack of understanding shown there. The second link is a diff to this AfD which shows that HW was again exactly correct. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• I won't claim to have made any exhaustive study of this situation, but I do get the overall impression that HW is generally in the right in those interactions. We can hardly sanction an editor for being correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• What is really happening here is that having lost the argument over PORNBIO Erpert has created a lot of content that is no longer suitable for inclusion. Rather then accept this, he is continuing to try to retain it come what may. This IBAN request is nothing more then a cynical attempt to prevent Hullabaloo Wolfowitz from taking these articles to AFD, where they are being deleted despite the most outrageously specious arguments. . Spartaz Humbug! 11:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You've regularly brought spurious complaints against me (going back to 2011 [118]!) and against an admin who took action against you [119]. These complaints have been uniformly rejected by the community, and your repetition of this behavior is both an abuse of the dispute resolution process and a show of disrespect for the community. It needs to stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• It hasn't been rejected by the community; it has been rejected by you. (Have I ever been blocked? Brought to ANI? Warned, even? Nope.) You, on the other hand, seem to think you can do whatever you want around here, and then you get all surprised and upset when someone has a problem with it. And the supposed "false statement" you speak of is, "...another user moving the other article has nothing to do with me."' Apparently you missed the very next sentence, which reads: "Have I moved any articles since the discussions started?" The answer to that is still no. In other words, this has nothing to do me (in fact, I actually disagree with moving anything while discussions are still going on). I always explain all my positions, and if you don't agree with them, fine, but that doesn't mean you get to degrade me (or anyone else). But I don't have to explain myself to you. You come wherever I am and bother me and you honestly think that's not hounding? You need to lay off. (And for the record, it's not canvassing just because more than one user happens to have the same opinion that differs from yours.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Since you asked the question, there is a bunch of diffs in my comment here where other editor's take you to task for your habit of personalising discussions. May I suggest that you would do yourself a real favour if you commented on edits and content and not on the character of the person making the edit? Think of it as a dream I have to make the 'pedia better. On that point, you have repeatedly been asked to provide evidence for your serial claims of harassment and poor behaviour but yet again you are casting aspersions without evidence. This is all very predictable and rather boring and makes you look like a dreadful cad. Perhaps you could either provide said evidence or just shut up? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right about evidence/diffs, Spartaz but could we try a bit of civility all of the way around? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

How was my post uncivil? I commented on behaviors not people and simply pointed out the affect of Erpert's behavior on the way he would be seen. Making himself look like a dreadful cad isn't the same as calling him a dreadful cad... Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz, that very diff you provided indicates that you need to leave me alone too...and where do you get off telling people to shut up?. (SN: HW's comments in that diff proves that I'm commenting on his character? Yeah, good luck with that one.) Speaking of that, I have clearly provided diffs several times, so don't just falsely say the diffs aren't there just because you don't care. Anyway, an IBAN, talk page ban, etc, is not a one-way street: if person #1 (let's say HW in this case) tells person #2 (me) not to talk to him, that certainly doesn't mean #1 can then bother #2 in various forums. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Erpert, please explain how Spartaz's citing 8 other users who've found your behavior in dispute resolation inappropriate is in any way inappropriate. Because if you can't, the only reasonable conclusion will be that you're casting aspersions on an admin you've harassed in the past, in retaliation for action he took against you -- even though your complaint against him was soundly rejected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No matter how hard you try to turn it around on me and make it look as though I'm the disruptive one, it's never going to work. Anyway...to everyone else, I personally could easily adhere to an IBAN, but the very response above this one makes me skeptical about whether HW can. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The only person who needs to be sanctioned here is you for repeatedly casting aspersions and bringing lame cases to ANI. Perhaps I should get off my lazy fat arse and start documenting all the incidences where you have done this so we can ask the community to place a discretionary sanction requiring you to provide proper evidence when you report users to ANI? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That has WP:IDHT written all over it (and you never did apologize for the "shut up" statement). Now, leave me alone. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And you never apologised for all the times you labeled me to try to doscredit my opinions, not for attacking my motives when you disagree with my edits. For someone really keen to dish it out you have an incredibly sensitive skin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Tag-team edit-warring on Rape jihad counter to WP:BRD

Three new or newish editors (FreeatlastChitchat, RatatoskJones Xtremedood), with edit counts of less than 700: [120], [121], [122], have since April 5 been tag-team edit warring to remove a section (now titled "Rotherham") of Rape jihad that has been there since December 2014 [123] (retitled in February 2015) and which as of now has 8 citations. I've started a BRD consensus-establishing section on the Talk page and tried to encourage the editors to present their cases rationally and establish consensus before wholesale deletion, but they continue to edit-war and remove the section. I have no personal opinion on the matter at hand (and beyond reverting the wholesale deleters twice have only made a grammatical change to the article); however I do have a personal opinion on edit-warring against BRD. I would appreciate the article being locked (with the Rotherham section restored/retained please; it has been deleted again as of this moment), until consensus is established that it should be removed. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We have been through a debate about sourcing. The entire section has only one source, the gatestone institute, the rest of citations have been copy pasted from the original article and do not mention rape jihad, the word jihad, holy war, struggle for God, Islamic jihad and in no way do these 7 other citations give the impression that the said sexual abuse is part of any "jihad" or motivated by religion. A discussion here was carried out to acsertain the reliabilty of the single source on which the entire section is based and it was established that source as unreliable. Having ascertained the source was unreliable the material was then removed by me, and as it was unsourced other editors also removed it whenever it was restored. I do not think that once consensus has been established about unreliability of a source , a second consensus needs to be established before removing the material from an article. If there is any policy which says so I will be glad to hear of it. To be frank this kind of editing cannot be classed as warring anywhere, they are just a bunch of editors removing unreliably sourced material and to be honest the people who restore the material should be taken to task for putting unsourced material back , but I do not like reporting people as I am prone to bold editing myself. So, in a nutshell, the material has been established to come from a single unreliable source and has therefore been removed. An editor who wants to restore it must provide rationale as to why it should be restored.

Further more I have not been warned on my talkpage that this discussion is ongoing, badfaith I dont want to assume, lets just say it was forgotten "by mistake"

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• You were pinged in my OP, and also told in the BRD discussion I linked that I would file a report unless you self-reverted, which you have not done. This ANI is not solely about you, but about the fact that the article should probably be locked with the complete version until consensus is established per BRD. Softlavender (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not being picky but this is written at the very top of this page. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.You may use subst:ANI-notice to do so. Anyway, as I said I don't mind this, what would like to ask however is that who will determine what the 'complete' version of the article is? The reliable source noticeboard says that the 'complete' version is one without anything from the gatestone institute. So what evidence is there to support your POV that gatestone is included in the complete versionFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: This is not the first time these editors have tag-team edit-warred to remove large chunks of materials in articles. See Third Battle of Panipat (March 28 to present), Mughal–Maratha Wars (March 27 to present). -- Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note #2: See also the related thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#FreeatlastChitchat above. (I was unaware of that discussion because FreeatlastChitchat continually blanks his Talk page.) Softlavender (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, if your issue is with these editors, you need to notify them about this discussion on their user talk pages as FreeatlastChitchat says. A ping is not sufficient as per the orange notice at the top of the page when you edited this complaint that says this step must be done. I have left messages for RatatoskJones and Xtremedood. If this issue is about protecting an article, maybe you should be making your case at WP:RPP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed a section of a highly controversial article (twice voted for deletion [124] [125], barely got a no consensus on its third iteration [126]) that completely failed to mention the topic, and only had a single source [127] attached that actually mentioned the topic of the article (once, in the title, nowhere in the text). The source used has now been brought up to WP:RSN three times, and has been all but laughed out of the room every time. User:Раціональне анархіст then added a second source: an op-ed that barely mentions Rotterham. Here User:Раціональне анархіст attempts to defend their (first) source: [128]

I see nothing but assertions made, as well as some troubling comments:

"The fact that you're using the coined smear-term "Islamophobic" speaks volumes."

"Of course these "reputable academic sources" wouldn't dream of explicitly promoting a particular point of view"

I've now added a citation needed-tag to the section. Hopefully more editors will look at the page, as it's one of the worst Wikipedia has to offer. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It's only "controversial" due to the antics of you and ChitChat. But I must congratulate you upon being ahead of your cohort in actually forming your very first edit to the article which didn't consist of a wholesale section blank. (I've reverted it for being a sneaky attempt to bury the important link to the main Rotherham article.) Pax 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? First, removing the main article link was a mistake, but your motivation for removing the "citation needed" tag ("You do not have consensus that those sources are unreliable.") is utter nonsense. Your refusal to defend your sources is also noted. I hope the administrators are looking at your behaviour. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

So removing the main article link was a mistake when it was the only part of the section you were removing, but it wasn't a mistake when you blanked the entire section (including the main article link) multiple times. Got it. Pax 10:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If you can't calm down and WP:AGF, I suggest you remove yourself from the article until you've composed yourself. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a suicide pact. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am not a part of any tag-team edit war. I simply made one edit, of which I felt it was necessary to remove content as the suspected perpetrators of the crime did not utilize religious motivations. It is racist to say that their ethnic origin has anything to do with religion. It would be like saying every white-person who rapes does it out of Christianity or a crusade, which I believe is fallacious. FreeatlastChitchat and I have a dispute going on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, so we are definitely not working as a team. Like I said, I simply made one edit and I am in no way a part of any edit-warring tag team. Therefore my name should be removed from all this. Xtremedood (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Xtremedood, you have edit-warred for mass deletions alongside FreeatlastChitchat on Third Battle of Panipat (March 28 to present) and Mughal–Maratha Wars (March 27 to present), as well as having participated in the Rape jihad section deletion edit war, so you are indeed part of this discussion and this situation. @Liz: This discussion is about more than simply protecting the page (and its complexity is beyond the scope of RPP); it's about the continually disruptive tag-team edit-warring by these editors to remove masses of information, which has been going on in several articles since late March, and which is currently continuing in spite of repeated requests to stop and to observe BRD. This, in addition to the thread further above on this page, needs administrative analysis. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, for a length of time to be determined, on Islam-related topics, broadly construed to include historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities. Sneaky edits like this one, (in which a section's "main article" link is removed under cover of applying a citation-needed tag), and antics such as this, (in which, one hour after administrative lock commenced, RatatoskJones canvassed unrelated-topic RFC forums, transparently gaming to build up a war-chest of support for article disruption once the one-week lockdown expired), convince me that WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE problems are not going to stop. Pax 05:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've explained that the link removal was a simple mistake; WP:AGF. Just how "sneaky" it was supposed to be is anyone's guess. I want people to go to the Rotherham article and see how utterly irrelevant it is to the Rape jihad article. Also, I tend to doubt asking for comments from neutral parties is "gaming the system". Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

My entire deletion/removal was based on this consensus formed at the original article of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. But I was hounded and bereted and not one but two reports were lodged against me. Seeing that no one is going for a WP:BOOMERANG against Pax (I don't have anything to say against the guy who started this report, he just saw what looked like a violation to him and acted accordingly), I have decided to forget that rape jihad article exists for the next 4 months, after which I will push for its deletion. I have removed it from my list and will not be contributing to it anymore, seeing that even blatant POV pushing and hounding will not result in anything for the perpetrator. If an admin thinks that my actions were objectionable I would be happy to engage him in debate and provide him with a rationale of my every single edit, I don't have that many to be honest. However I will not replying to any threadlike discussion here until an admin takes part FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

As has been explained ad nauseum during the most recent AfD discussion, the "original article" is entirely irrelevant since as it has been entirely rewritten. You also had no participation in either the original article or its AfD. Your promise to "forget the article exists" for four months, but then push for its deletion does not bode well as it implies you won't care what form the article is in at that time, changed substantially or not. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm close to recommending a WP:BOOMERANG with respect to Pax here. He has been pursuing this POV-fork over several noticeboards and seems to suffer from a severe case of WP:TRUTH in the face of substantive opposition to his understanding of neutrality and reliability of sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The user above arrives from an ideological viewpoint which concludes that all of the sources currently in the article are "ultra-conservative propaganda". Such a viewpoint will likely only be satisfied with complete deletion of the article, and that matter has already been decided. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I second Stephan Schulz. "Pax" is not exactly living up to his user-name. He's the only one whose approach to this topic can legitimately be called sneaky, to use his own word. The rape jihad article is a disgrace, treating the topic as though "rape jihad" is a real concept in Islam, rather than a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists. We even have the claim that "Rape jihad is claimed to be a form of sexual slavery sanctioned in Quranic scriptures", as if Muslims have actually defended something called "rape jihad". No legitimate report into the events in Rotherham has ever suggested that they were in any way motivated by Islamism or constituted any form of "jihad". Paul B (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

First, I did not coin the term "rape jihad" or write the first version of the article. Second, WP:ADHOM represents a poor defense of section-blanking edit-warriors. Third, if you wish to pursue the matter of whether or not the concept exists within Islam, you should take it up with ISIS or Boko Haram, because they are in agreement that it does. The Justification section of the article is liberally linked, and the supportive material exists in several other articles besides this one. In any event, these concerns of yours are not speaking to the subject of this ANI. Pax 19:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment "rather than a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists." so? doesn't wiki's npov mean that it contains such articles, as long as they are well referenced? ie. "the good, the bad, and the ugly"(apologies to Sergio) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Coolabahapple, you completely miss the point. It's quite legitimate to have articles on notable terms, derogatory or otherwise - a point I have already made at the NPOV board. I have no problem with the existence of an article called "rape jihad" if the expression is shown to be notable, which I think is borderline. But the article should explain that it is, as I said, "a derogatory term invented by anti-Islamists", which is exactly what it soes not do. Instead it implies tht it's a real interpretation of scripture in Islamic culture. Of course it should also cover those aspects of Islamic traditions regarding concubinage that have been used to justify the claim that "rape jihad" exists. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul B oops, sorry, yes the article does need quite a rewrite, when i dipped my toe in the water of one of its afdsWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape jihad (2nd nomination) I mentioned the Rotherham words as overcite (but was thinking is it necessary?), intro could be rewritten "Rape Jihad is a term coined by ..... and adopted by ..... to mean ...." Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible T-Ban violation?

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

---

Editor was unbanned last year, don't forget to read this notice, check this discussion for more details. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Nadirali hasn't edited in two weeks but I left them a notice about this AN/I complaint in case they return to editing any time soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Blocked Editor Possibly Socking as IP

I was looking through lupin, and saw this edit, saying that this IP was blocked. They said they had deleted things on this page and so I looked for them, and found this editor blocked with the same wording. Im not sure if this is the correct place for this, however I wanted to at least notify somehow. cnbr¹⁵ 12:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

These links are not working. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not great at linking when it's not to an article, but it's this IP and Barney_the_barney_barney -cnbr¹⁵ 13:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the two original links above by removing a pipe character from each. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that this IP is BtBB. They also might be 2A02:8388:E201:AD80:2C19:1856:B04F:C4DC who edited Terry Duggan which is mentioned on the user talk page but neither account is blocked. And BtBB is no longer blocked any more although I don't know if he is aware that he is unblocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool by me, just looked suspect so I figured I'd list it. cnbr¹⁵ 21:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Socking at Refdesks

The Science, Miscellaneous and Entertainment Reference desks have all been the subject of a multi-socked vandal recently. I've silverlocked all three for the time being. The other desks appear unaffected so far, but could use some extra eyes in case he switches targets. I'm going offline in a moment, so would appreciate it if someone could follow up. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

As a long-time reference desk regular, I request that the "silverlocking" be reduced to a shorter time period (a couple of hours, max).

Reasons:

1) Many genuine and sincere queries are posted by non-registered users.

2) Many helpful, researched, and informed answers come from non-registered users.

3) The desks are watched by enough people to revert the vandalism within minutes.

Someone is trying to sabotage the desks, and spoil it for those who aren't registered. Let's not reward him by shutting out unregistered users for long periods of time. Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblocked. Please consider unprotecting to see if it needs to be a larger range. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CapriSun33333. DMacks (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Just jumped back on for a few minutes - since the rangeblock seems to be working, and it's been a couple of hours, I've lifted the protection per Sluzzelin's request. Yunshui ^雲_水 18:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Yunshui! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got your answer to your experiment. Needs protecting again. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin hide some edits by the refdesk vandal from 11 April? Seems to be an attempt at doxxing an editor. See Special:Contributions/Cambles Horsey. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I very much don't like long-term semiprotection of the Reference Desks, either, but when there's this level of vandalism it's clearly the appropriate approach. There are plenty of eyes on these pages, so we can continue to fine-tune our approach as events progress. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

They hit up some of the other desks as well. During times of protection, questions by IP's are being posed at the talk page, where a registered editor can re-post them to the right page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest we not announce ahead of time to the enemy our troop movements. Protections and unprotections should be made without fanfare. Otherwise it's like playing "retreat", running up a white flag, dropping trow, and planting a big red lipstick ex on our buttocks. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• There's some other tools we're trying to use in the works to shut this down. In the interest of your WP:BEANS reminder, I'll not announce them, but if you know how to use page histories and user contribution pages, you can probably figure it out. --Jayron32 22:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the desks are protected in accordance with policy but Language and Mathematics are indefinitely protected (which is a policy violation). Can someone put this right pronto? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Like indefinite blocking, I suspect indefinite protection means "duration to be determined", not "forever". Is there a policy that says you are required to state a duration? I genuinely don't know. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I've written an edit filter that should reduce the impact of this: 681 for those who can see such things. It should have minimal impact on good faith newcomers. I'd like to unprotect the pages to check the effectiveness of this. Comments?  —SMALLJIM  13:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have proposed that for times when one or more ref desk pages is protected, maybe there could be a catchall, "unprotected ref desk page" where new users could post questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the vandal(s) would respect that.  —SMALLJIM  14:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

They don't have to. They could spew their garbage there without infecting the "real" ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Their primary motivation is to cause disruption. It wouldn't take them long to figure out that they're not causing any there. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread your initial comment. I thought you were talking about a sort of relief valve for vandals. If it's for new users and unprotected, then vandals will simply vandalize it the same way they do the refdesks when they're unprotected. Again, but differently, I don't see what's gained. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. People have expressed concerns that good-faith new editors are unable to pose (and answer) questions when the pages are protected. Can we get a quick consensus to unprotect the pages so we can try my edit filter proposal, set out above. I don't think there's any beans problem in explaining how it works: unconfirmed editors are only allowed to make one edit per minute (adjustable) to those pages, allowing plenty of time to revert and block the vandal (who, if he has any nous will move on to something else).  —SMALLJIM  16:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be OK as long as you're accepting full responsibility for doing the repeated reversions in case the filter doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

First, I'd suggest halving the disruption and going with two minutes instead of one. Second, can't you test it on some other unprotected page, logging out to test the handling of unconfirmed? Clueless as to the technical considerations. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, that's one edit every two minutes per user, so the bad guy can still create n short usernames and then do one edit every (120 / n) seconds, or as fast as he can log out/in, whichever is longer. I'm not worried about beans, many of these guys are easily smart enough to figure this stuff out. That's part of the fun, actually. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You should be cautious of spilling the beans, actually. There is a significant proportion who aren't "smart enough" to figure things out for themselves. You're forgetting about the effect of blocking anyway.  —SMALLJIM  19:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if there aren't multiple off-wiki venues where these techniques are discussed. Wikipedia is too high-profile, the anti-Wikipedia sentiment is too widespread, and world population is too large for there not to be. The smart ones will educate the less smart ones, trust me. That's how hacker communities work. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone might consider throttling the number of registrations from a given IP address to, say, one a day. Then your edit filter might work. It might be inconvenient when ten people want to register at the same time from a shared IP, but realistically how often does that happen? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem continues. Is permanent semi protection the only solution? If more admins were watching these pages and blocking quickly, that would go a long way toward addressing the problem. Hell, give me the blocking right and I'll do it myself whenever I'm here, which is a lot these days. Free of charge, and I'd promise not to use it for any other purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

So would I, though I wouldn't promise not to abuse the unblocking right, so don't give it to 'me. Anyway, we are many, and the last spree was completely reverted within less than a minute, but yeah, early blocks would help, until then, it's back to time wasted in the early 80s ---Sluzzelin talk 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see the block came very quickly too. I think revert, block, ignore is the best way. The more eyes, the easier (including admin eyes, as emphasized by Mandruss). Semi-protection should remain the great exception, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV

Please follow the directions at WP:DISPUTE. There is nothing requiring admins at this point. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

I took off notability tags off of 4 female martial artists. ScrapIron placed the notability tags on four women Judoka who by wikipedia WP:MANOTEs are notable. They competed at the highest level in Judo. Which at the time was National Championships. When I spoke to him about it, he told me to go pull a leg. Which I hope he isn't referring to his "third" leg. [129] . Either way, it is against WP:Civil CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The tags I restored were done so with the the summary: "Tag should not be removed until notability is established within the article." One should not remove tags without addressing the issue. There has been no edit warring, simply a single instance restoration of tags that should not have been deleted on each of those pages. And I end up here? SHOCKING!

This user's WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude includes trolling numerous pages including a trolling post about an (actually decent) article he created[130], removing notability tags without providing sources[131][132][133][134], nominating pages of those who disagree with him for deletion[135]. Anyone who disagrees with him ends up in an ANI (gee, like me) or SPI [136] case, or ends up being accused of racism - note that he was blocked for that one[137]. In order to make a retributive point, he even nominated the Crispus Attucks article for deletion[138].

"Pull the other leg" - means "Stop pulling my leg, it's getting tired. Pull the other one for a while." I was sick of his nonsense, and did not want to get pulled into his drama, as he is completely WP:NOTHERE unless it is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - so I told him to go away. I recommend the WP:BOOMERANG here.

May I go back to editing now, please? ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Only if you two can either find a way to get along or you choose to work in different areas of the project, it seems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, we were getting along until then. I even left a complimentary note on his page, only yesterday.[139] Once I saw he singled me out, I knew I was in trouble. So, telling someone to stay away from you (in an effort to protect myself from the actions he has performed on others) now makes me a bad guy? Drama boards is right! BUT - I stand by the meaning of my words, and my actions in this case. I have done absolutely nothing to warrant being brought here. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, this isn't the first issue that users have found with ScrapIronIV. There is an ongoing discussion concerning his edit wars on wikipedia. [140] CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, like most folks, I have made some missteps along the way. But the conflict in that case was settled after polite discussion, and that editor and I have been peacefully collaborating on a different project. I won't name that user here, because they do not deserve to have their name sullied by appearing on this board. I could point out other little conflicts I have had in my short time here, but I am learning from them. Any other little disagreements I have had here that you would like to point out? ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I recommend following the instructions at WP:DISPUTE as there is nothing for admins to do at this point. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

User:Davew123, personal attacks, conflict of interest

AfD closed as WP:SNOW, article was unsourced and promotional. Editor will be blocked if problems recur. Black Kite (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 
Editor has been blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Davew123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, yesterday I declined a speedy deletion nomination of an article written by this user. It was originally nominated as lacking context and the user had since improved it slightly so that it had some context. However, it seemed to be a very obscure piece of technology so I nominated it for WP:PROD, and removed extraneous formatting. The user removed the PROD and re-inserted the extraneous formatting. As the reasons for the PROD had not been adresssed I then proceeded to nominate it via AFD, only to see that removed as well. I explained to them on their talk page, which they had just blanked, that removing the tag would not stop the deletion discussion and that they either needed to explain there why I was wrong or edit the article to rectify the issues identified by locating coverage from independent reliable sources. Instead of doing either of those things they have chosen to hurl a series of bizzare insults at me. They have also made it clear that my suspiscions of a WP:COI were well founded and they are in fact the patent holder for this piece of technology and another one I bundled into the same nomination. Basically I'd like someone else to take over trying to calm this person down and explain things to them, or whatever else may be necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• you are either a commie or a fraudster
• you think the only deserving dictators are hippies
• you have a fraudulent view of the world
• you must have an ugly daughter

Several of these don't really make sense to me, but the "ugly daughter" remark is the sort of thing someone will say to you if they are trying to see just how far they can push you before you punch them in the mouth. I don't have any kids so it didn't get to me, but obviously this is not acceptable behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Needs an indef IMO. But I'm not home right now, so another admin will have to do it. Ched (on vacation) 99.148.150.125 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder about it when people lambaste others as being "hippies" as we were living in 1967. I see it on social media, too. And "commie"? They are bizarre insults, throwing out negative words to see if any of them cause you to lose your cool, man. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I probably shouldn't have said "indef" .. I didn't really look at their long term contribs. But just from those links? Yes - blockworthy. wp:nothere comes to mind. Not sure why you're posting here though Beebs .. the last time I looked you had the tools yourself. Oh well - I support a block if you (or another admin) decides to do it. signed:Ched (not in town) 99.148.150.125 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I try to hold other admins to a very high standard when it comes to acting while WP:INVOLVED so I can't expect any less of myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've left a brief message on the editor's talk page referencing their attitude. From a quick scan of their contributions I see the distinct likelihood of WP:NOTHERE.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: - he's baaack, again citing himself as a reliable source. 87.113.85.154 (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Competence issue of User:68.194.85.167

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

---

This user adds "U.S." at the headers of lists of Governors of X, so that it says now "List of U.S. Governor of X" also adds a bulky hair-splitting description of the term in office like "Term of office (Congressional years as a congressmen/women/senators while in office)" instead of "Term". Also replaces unspaced en-dashes in date ranges (as required by MOSNUMBER) with spaced hyphens or em-dashes, see List of Contributions by 68.194.85.167. Somebody will have to roll back a waggon-load of this. Kraxler (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to get this editor's attention. They don't have a single edit to a user talk page or a Wikipedia noticeboard page. In fact, I can't see that they have interacted with any other editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks this time, since the one-week vacation in January doesn't seem to have helped much. Miniapolis 21:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Quack

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

---

Hi

Self admitted sock [141]User:188.28.142.64. Can someone block please. Amortias (T)(C) 17:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:The Gilobreaker

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

---

Could any administrator who is around please block User:The Gilobreaker and nuke his page creations? He has been reported to AIV, but he is rapidly creating spam pages as fast as they nominated for deletion. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done about a minute before this post. Amortias (T)(C) 19:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Crovata on Counties of Croatia

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

---

User:Crovata is edit warring at the Counties of Croatia article. There they removed a sourced portion of prose with no edit summary (diff:[142]), in response to which I reverted the removal (diff: [143]) indicating in the edit summary that the revert was done to restore sourced material. Minutes later Crovata reverted the my edit restoring the material (diff: [144]) stating in the edit summary they were removing the prose regardless if it is sourced or not. I assumed the user was unfamiliar with WP:BRD process or the need for sources, so I reverted once more (diff: [145]) noting in the edit summary that there is an explanation for the action at the article talk. In the talk page, I pointed the user to WP:BRD, and stated that if the user feels there are other reliable sources interpreting the removed part of the prose differently, they should present those sources (diff: [146]). Instead of reliable sources, they pointed me to two Wikipedia articles (diff: [147]), and reverted the article for the second time (diff: [148]). An IP restored the deleted prose later (diff: [149]), and the article was reverted by Crovata for the third time in response (diff: [150]). --Tomobe03 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tomobe03: I am not edit warring, and this is a total misunderstanding. Did you even read the noted articles in the reply at the article talk page? The statement "a title traced to an 8th-century Avar official called a jopan, supan or suppan", as well the source, were removed as sourced or not, the claim is outdated and dismissed. The title was never found or mentioned among Avars, that's outdated scholars speculation, and even if still considered, there is no secure derivation of the title, and as such it be can't pointed to other "secure" language derivation yet the etymology of the title "župan" and administrative unit "župa". Read the related article Župa.--Crovata (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tomobe03: Have to write second reply in my defense; I hope to see your explanation on what you do not understand, but especially your open unneeded accusations how I'm "unfamiliar with WP:BRD process or the need for sources". You did not bother to read my reply and understand what modern and neutral science has to say about the title and unit origin. My third revert was only because the IP user reverted on basis of false accusation from his side, totally misunderstanding the considered case. You did not bother neither to discuss, at least you could respond to the article talk page, yet immediately and unnecessarily reported the non-existing "incident". There cannot be included the statement "Avar official..." per WP:NPOV, while the source (book) is written by Nada Klaić who claimed this and as such that part is quite biased (not the book as whole). --Crovata (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked Crovata for 72 hours. Tomobe03, this report should have been brought to WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:207.163.15.107

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

---

At this point User:207.163.15.107 entire edit history consists of twice blanking Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (replacing it with "swag swag like caillou homieeeee shout out to the hood'"), once blanking Colossus of Rhodes (replacing with "Colossus of Deez Nuts") and ignoring (and blanking) the warnings on his talk page and writing "IDC IF IM BANNED I LIKE TURTLES" instead. Think someone can give him his wish and ban him? Be easier than constantly reverting him. Vyselink (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No need to ban right now, the vandal stopped after the final warning. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, his last edit was today, less than 8 hours ago. He then blanked the last warning given him (before my notice of ANI) with the aformentioned "IDC IF IM BANNED". Just seems like it'd be easier to do it now rather than wait until after his next page blanking. Vyselink (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Typical policy is to wait until after the user vandalizes after the final warning before blocking, but I can see why you might want to make an exception here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• First, it's "block", not "ban". Second, they were blocked before and then did it again, so I'll slap a longer block on this IP address. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

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

---

• 75.162.224.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

75.162.217.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just blocked by Acroterion for evasion. Another block required. Stickee (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Montreal person is edit warring over multiple accounts on pop music articles

I need to report a Montreal-area person who is violating WP:MULTIPLE by using a handful of IPs to engage in edit warring, along with a registered account:

• Britneyspearsfan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 65.94.164.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 205.237.30.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 205.237.30.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 205.237.30.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.89.74.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.94.113.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 64.229.63.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 64.229.62.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 70.55.169.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This person has violated 3RR at Little Earthquakes:

• 16:55, 15 April, new material added by IP 65.94.164.173, not a revert.
• 10:50, 16 April, revert by IP 65.94.164.173.
• 13:17, 16 April, revert by IP 205.237.30.13.
• 18:49, 16 April, revert by IP 205.237.30.13. IP 205.237.30.13 is blocked at 00:25, 17 April.[151]
• 01:54, 17 April, revert by IP 65.94.164.173. This is block evasion.

This person has violated 3RR at Under the Pink:

• 10:41, 16 April, revert by IP 65.94.164.173.
• 13:15, 16 April, revert by IP 205.237.30.13.
• 18:56, 16 April, revert by IP 205.237.30.13. Article is put under semi-protection because of edit warring and content dispute.[152]
• 01:59, 17 April, revert by Britneyspearsfan17, through protection.

This person has violated 3RR at List of unreleased songs recorded by Madonna:

• 02:37, 31 March 31, new addition by IP 65.94.164.173, not a revert.
• 13:30, 1 April, IP 65.94.164.173 reverts.
• 13:37, 1 April, IP 65.94.164.173 reverts.
• 14:00, 1 April, Britneyspearsfan17 reverts.
• 22:59, 1 April, IP 65.94.164.173 reverts.

Other violations of 3RR occurred at Oops!... I Did It Again (album) on 20–21 March and, I am willing to bet, at other articles longer ago.

• 65.94.164.173 was blocked for disruptive editing, repeated additions of unreferenced material, the block enacted on 2 April.[153]
• Britneyspearsfan17 was blocked once for edit warring, the block set for 1 week starting 8 April.[154] During this time, the person evaded the block for hundreds of edits.
• 205.237.30.13 was blocked once for edit warring, the block set for 31 hours beginning 17 April.[155] During this time, the Britneyspearsfan17 account was used to evade the block.

This person has no regard for being blocked, simply finding another IP address or using the registered account. This person also has no regard for whether added material is considered inappropriate or inutile by other topic editors. What can be done? Obviously, the registered account can be blocked, but the puzzler is what to do with the IPs. Can we set some rangeblocks? Should we consider a filter, targeting certain artists such as Britney Spears, Madonna, Tori Amos, etc? Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Britneyspearsfan17, filed in parallel to this ANI report. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:AN3 is a better place to put such a report. Esquivalience ^t 20:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a multi-faceted case, with violations of MULTIPLE and 3RR, the likely remedy being one or more rangeblocks, one or more filters, and an easy block of the registered account. I certainly could have filed this report at AN3 but I chose to bring it here instead because of the complexity. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Removing CSD Tags

Blocked by Tokyogirl79. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

There is a user using up to four accounts who has created four of the same article and is actively removing the CSD tags. I will list them here so an admin can review and delete them. An SPI has already been opened for the user(s).

• Rikul
• Rikul Chhatwal
• Rikul chhatwal
• Parteek

Thanks and goodnight! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 08:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with EoRdE6, the accounts are causing a nuisance at the minute. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked all of the accounts per WP:DUCK and tagged them accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, was getting a bit messy. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 08:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Sock evading a block and re-creating previously deleted material

Blocked by Lankiveil. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Palmdeor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has re-created the article Indian Cinema at Cannes Film Festival, which has previously been deleted under the titles of List of Indian film winners and nominees at the Cannes Film Festival and List of Indian Film Selections and Winners at Cannes Film Festival. Looks like a sock account of Pushpakan and possibly that Vosmania is also a sock too. I'd appreciate if Palmdeor is blocked and the article deleted. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clear case of WP:DUCK. Blocked. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC).

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

User:66.154.176.19

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

---

66.154.176.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is currently serving a 3 month block, but continues to post personal attacks on his Talk page. I recommend for his Talk page access to be revoked. - Areaseven (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Access to the talk page revoked for the remainder of the block. There is a threat of violence in there, although given its source and the way it's made I'm not sure that it should be considered as "serious". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC).

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

User:62.31.119.102

This IP editor is going around submitting other people's AfC drafts that are not ready for submission. Not sure what the correct response is here, but I thought it would be good to make the admins aware of this potentially harmful behavior. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like 62.31.119.102 has been submitting other editors' drafts since last summer with mixed results...mostly they've been declined but a few have been accepted. It's interesting that until today, no one brought this practice up on his/her talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and profanity

Blocked by Nihonjoe. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Céline Rayne (talk · contribs) has been warned several times ([156][157]) to stop deleting reliably sourced material, and making profane remarks towards Armenians. He continues to remove sources on the basis of often times racist remarks.

• [158] - Nationalist Armenian editors not natural. (I guess he meant neutral?)
• [159] - Ottoman Empire? bad Armenian bullshits.

And he continues to remove reliably sourced information he doesn't like:

• [160] Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I also notified the user in question here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Interaction ban requested

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

---

Since my unblock user:Future Perfect at Sunrise has resumed his hounding of my edits. This hounding has been going on since 28 July 2012 Since my return he has stalked me to two newly created articles [161][162] and one I was trying to bring up to GA status.[163] This harassment is obviously ruining any enjoyment I get from editing, and it needs to be stopped Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. It has never been "hounding" to occasionally check up on a problematic editor's contribs when it's necessary to correct long-term patterns of bad edits. DS is, without any doubt, a highly problematic editor with a long and well-documented history of source misuse and poor-quality editing, so yes, I have occasionally, since 2012, seen the need to clean up after him. In the present instance, he created a series of odd little articles on rather out-of-the-way topics shortly before he got himself indef-blocked as a ban-evading sock a few months ago. Those articles, on topics of medieval philology, were no doubt a well-intentioned and deserving attempt, but unfortunately they turned out to be riddled with errors (evidently because he's way out of his depth in that field of learning), so I started cleaning some of them up while he was blocked. Obviously that wasn't "hounding" – you can't "hound" a banned user, who isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia in the first place. Who would have foreseen that the Arbcom, in their infinite wisdom, would take the ridiculously ill-conceived step to grant this person yet another chance, with this record of disruption? Anyway, it was hardly my fault that as soon as he was back, he had nothing better to do than to jump right back on that same group of articles and try to edit-war all his old errors back into them again, undoing all the corrections I made [164]. He's been meeting every single edit of mine with immediate blanket reverts [165][166], without any regard to logic, sources or talkpage consensus. See discussions here and here to see that I wasn't the only one to notice the need for cleanup. It's his old pattern of disruptive edit-warring all over again, exactly the same behaviour that earned him his 31(!) distinct blocks for disruption earlier during his editing carreer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(Indidentally, it is indicative of the level of bad faith in DS's report above that in the case of the "female infanticide" article he is linking to an edit of mine [167] where I am in fact editing in his favour, reverting a malicious sock who was, indeed, hounding him. It just turned out that I then realized that the sock had a point about one or two details in the edits they were revert-warring over, most notably because DS was trying to insert an unsourced image into the article that is demonstrably meant to show something other than what the article is about, a fact that DS has been utterly inable to counter on the talkpage.[168].) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You should thank Fut. Perf. for helping to keep you on the straight and narrow, and consider asking for advice instead of kvetching about corrections. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Darkness Shines If you can prove that user:Future Perfect at Sunrise is involved in vandalism in regard to your quality work or is otherwise making no positive contribution then there will be an issue where the other editor might even be banned. Otherwise please note, no editor owns content. Its not about enjoyment but about suffering (joking) about satisfaction on producing quality, accurate, well presented, well cited work. The last thing that would be relevant would be an interaction ban. I make no judgement here regarding the quality of the work of either of you. GregKaye 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Rangeblocks needed

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

---

Cane someone please put a couple of rangeblocks in place to stop the IP-hopping block-avoiding vandal documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phillip_Pham#13_April_2015? Constantly reverting the massive amount of vandalism is becoming a real chore. At the minimum, the 2602:306:8b2c:5350:0:0:0:0/64 range and the IPv4 addresses listed there need to be blocked, although blocking 24.153.175.240/28 may not be a bad idea either. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Dennis Bratland

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

---

Someone seriously has to stop this guy man. Seattle windshield pitting epidemic was an article which contained the work of vandals when I found it. I began to remove all that but this guy keeps putting it back.

1. . 1st
2. . 2nd

Can someone ban the editor thanks. Jim the Small (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Obvious boomerang, just check the OP's brief contribs history. WP:CIR. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment). Boomerang if anything should hit Mandruss as he is clearly corroborating the restorations of what is without conceivable doubt the work of vandals at an article. --Jim the Small (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit says enough. It's a ref title, and I have verified that it matches the source. WP:CIR and doesn't know it. Dangerous. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• I do not understand what the problem is supposed to be. The original text says "It was originally thought to be the work of vandals but the rate of pitting was so great that residents " and user changed it to "It was originally thought to be the work of vandals but the rate of pitting was so great that residents", saying "I removed the work of vandals". Is this a pun? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's WP:CIR. Or perhaps WP:NOTHERE. Or maybe both. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Combative editor: WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DE and WP:BLP concerns

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

---

I came across a query by Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs) at WP:RSN and noticed their combative attitude. Looking the the history of relevant article Gertrude Bell (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch and its talk-page, and the user talkpage, shows further signs of disruptive editing and battleground conduct. Recent comments about a book written by a Stanford University prof (Priya Satia), and published by Oxford University Press, raise BLP concerns too.

I am not familiar with the topic area, especially the applicable discretionary/arbcom sanctions, so can some admins take a deeper look and see if some warnings, blocks, or editing restrictions are called for (or, if this is an AE matter)? Pinging @I JethroBT, Vsmith, HJ Mitchell, Sandstein, GRuban, and CorinneSD: some editors/admins who may be acquainted with user or article history. Abecedare (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I approached the RS noticeboard with a legitimate issue about a newspaper headline alone being used as a source for a claim (since the newspaper article itself does containing any content to support the claim). CorinneSD has accused me of bad faith, accused me of basically faking the issue, by stating that the article does contain content to back up the word used in the headline. I asked this editor to say where in the article is this content, but rather than provide the evidence the editor simply repeated the slur. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You might have had a point were it not for the fact that the source in question [169] actually contains the word 'spy' in the body of the text, along with a statement that Bell was "a member of the Arab Bureau, the British intelligence office in Cairo during the war". It is one thing to dispute the reliability of a source, but another to claim that it doesn't contain content which is in plain sight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Complaint checks out. I've blocked this user for one week. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 00:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User talk:Dr.phillips, Ph.D. of Austrian decent

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

---

Block needed for user with username clearly in violation of WP:USERNAME; possible fraud as well. "User" notified. Quis separabit? 00:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• For future reference, usernames that are in obvious violation of of username policy should be reported to WP:UAA. However, I don't see how this is in violation of the policy unless it's obviously referring to a specific person I'm not aware of. Might turn out to be a VOA but it's been warned appropriately so far. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 00:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN and Misrepresentation of sources on Lena Dunham pages

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

---

IMPORTANT NOTE: I expected I could retract this myself, that is apparently not the case. I officially request that this case be closed as I've learned this is not the appropriate noticeboard for my complaint. EmonyRanger (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Background

Passages in Lena Dunham's book Not That Kind of Girl sparked controversy and accusations of sexual misconduct. The passages describe three incidents:

1. Examining her sister Grace's genitals when Lena was 7
2. Bribing her sister with candy to kiss her
3. Masturbating in bed while lying next to her sister, when Lena was 17

Another passage describes the rape of Dunham by a college student identified as "Barry."

None of this is contentious. The incidents were described by the subject herself in the book and reported in numerous BLP-compliant RSs. As well, they're the main reason the book is notable. The overwhelming coverage in secondary sources concerns either the accusations of sexual abuse (and defense of those accusations) or the accusation of rape and subsequent investigations.

Complaint

Since November of last year Grayfell has continually sought to remove or mischaracterize mention to these incidents and their resulting controversy from the article.

In his first edit he changes "she was accused of admitting to sexually molesting her younger sister" (a sourceable statement) to "she describes examining her sister's genitals when Dunham was 7 and her sister was 1, which Williamson characterizes as sexually inappropriate" [170], omitting the other two arguably more serious incidents (implying all accusations concern actions at age 7) and misrepresents Williamson's characterization as "sexually inappropriate"; he is very clear that he feels it's "sexual abuse" saying "There is no non-horrific interpretation". Grayfell also removes all reference to the rape accusation.

Here he removes the sourced text "The Los Angeles Times reported that one sentence written by Lena Dunham from the book stood out: "Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl, I was trying."" claiming in his edit summary: "Inserting this quote without also including the surrounding context is cherry-picking" but instead of adding context he replaces it with: "Dunham denied the charges,[15] and later apologized for the some of the wording in the book, specifically the joking use of the term 'sexual predator', which she described as insensitive."[171] - providing no context to her use of the term "sexual predator" or the apology.

Here he edit wars to preserve that change [172]

Most recently the issue is the following phrase rebutting the accusations of abuse, which had been inserted without consensus (not by Grayfell): "but Lena, Grace, child psychologists, sexual abuse experts, and researchers in human sexuality reject the notion." However the sources we cite don't indicate the overwhelming majority of professionals across these fields "reject the notion" as the text implies. For one, we cite only a handful of experts (as it appears only a handful offered their opinion) and while several outright reject it, several (although fewer) suggest the incidents are ambiguous. Here are the quotes suggesting ambiguity, all from cited RS:

"If it's sexual in nature, if there is the intent to arouse or be aroused, even if it's not fully articulated, then it is a gray line. It's not very black and white." -Laura Berman, Chicago-based sex and relationship therapist

"We could make up a whole story of how Lena was molested. We could paint these behaviors and slant them toward red flags for sexual abuse. But they could just as easily be totally innocent, non-sexual, non-molesting exploratory behaviors." On the face of it, says Berman, "I don't think anything presented is necessarily a huge red flag." -Laura Berman, Chicago-based sex and relationship therapist

"Drawing a conclusion about Dunham’s interactions with her sister is impossible without much more contextual information about her family." -John V. Caffaro, professor at the California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles and author of Sibling Abuse Trauma

"Some draw the line when the interaction includes oral-genital contact or intercourse. Others believe coercion is the difference between natural curiosity and abuse." -John V. Caffaro, professor at the California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles and author of Sibling Abuse Trauma

Initially I changed the text to "but Lena and Grace, and a number of experts reject the notion" which is an objectively favorable interpretation. In the interests of the subject however I found it sufficient, as it was factual and citable unlike the previous statement. Grayfell reverted this change. [173]

Grayfell then changed it to "but several child psychologists, sexual abuse experts, and researchers in human sexuality reject the notion." which other than being needlessly (and arguably incorrectly) specific in its description of the commenters I didn't object to; as it was still a cite-able, factual statement.

He then removes the word "several", [174] returning to the previous "universal rejection." A misrepresentation of sources.

Concurrently Grayfell and I had a similar disagreement on the author's page where he's also attempted to either remove references to these incidents entirely, or misrepresent the multiple incidents of accused abuse as a single incident, picking the least objectionable ("at age 7") of the three. [175] [176] [177] [178]

Eventually in that article we settled on this consensus wording, finalized and largely written by Grayfell: "Passages recounting interactions of a sexual nature with her younger sister Grace attracted controversy. Experts described these passages as either too ambiguous to judge, or as describing behavior consistent with normal childhood development." [179]

Since we had consensus and since (again) it didn't imply universal rejection among experts, I attempted to use similar language on the book's page [180]

Grayfell reverted this with the following talk page explanation: "No, that's not going to work. That sentence on the other article followed a general indicator of a larger controversy. This article is discussing the issue in more detail. No experts are accepting Williamson's characterization of the behavior as sexual abuse. Saying that the the passages are too ambiguous to make that call is another way of rejecting that claim. Just because they are experts on sexuality doesn't mean that the behavior is automatically sexual, that's just ridiculous. The experts are the ones who decide if it's sexual or not, that's the whole point. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)"

Again as I reminder, this is in response to text he himself wrote and accepted on the author's page - with one difference: he objects to my use of the phrase "childhood sexual development" there, preferring "childhood development." I would not mind that, although I feel it's less correct, but he reverted the change wholesale. From his comment it appears he will revert anything that implies the abuse allegations were not universally rejected by experts in the fields of child psychology, sexual abuse and human sexuality - which is simply not citeable. I had hoped to resolve this on the talk page but with limited commenters we're at an impasse. EmonyRanger (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeez that's a lot of text. This is reaching back into some old news. A look at the articles' histories show that there's no ownership going on. Between a flurry of activity when the book article was created in Nov. 2014, and the recent changes in the last few days, I've made one single edit to Not That Kind of Girl.[181] It's similar with Dunham's article. The above summary is selectively quoting some of my responses, but not others. To put it simply, I worked with other editors to include specific wording in the Lena Dunham article, and I didn't think it was appropriate to copy/paste that to the article on her book in a slightly different context. I've made my case on the articles' talk pages in full, probably tl:dr detail, and I don't think it's helpful to repeat that. I would, of course, be happy to answer any questions, though.

Did I remove the rape allegation? Maybe? If I did, it was months and months ago, when the article was still in the news and being mentioned by unusable gossip blogs. Why is this the place to bring it up again?

Additionally, EmonyRanger, an account with three days of activity and less than 50 edits, is clearly already familiar with Wikipedia. This editor has focused on highly controversial topics almost immediately. User talk:José Antonio Zapato (who has already been notified, I see) has a very similar editing history. This whole thing is, at best, a waste of time, and that's putting it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a routine content dispute to me, which should be resolved elsewhere, preferably on the talk pages of the specific articles. Can the OP please explain, succinctly, how use of administrator's tools is required in this situation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought this board is where to bring WP:OWN and source misrepresentation complaints. If there is a more appropriate board I will remove this and post there instead. Discussion on the talk page has been attempted. As I said, the editor rejected even his own wording to characterize these expert's opinions (used in the related article.) At that point I realized further talk page discussion would be fruitless. EmonyRanger (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Cullen, this looks like a garden variety content dispute, and I don't see any bad-faith behavior that requires an admin to block anyone or protect an article or anything like that. Given that, WP:DR lists several options for seeking outside, impartial help in solving bilateral disputes like this. --Jayron32 03:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I first tried to post to the DRN but the fields seemed too limiting to explain the issue sufficiently, and it didn't seem designed to address long-term patterns. I will remove this and re-examine. Thank you. EmonyRanger (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Per talk page guidelines, only uninvolved editors should close discussions, and blanking is not the appropriate way to handle that anyway. Blanking bypasses talk page archives, which should be kept as a record, and makes this much harder to reference in the future, should that becomes necessary. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:123.140.222.75

Is continuously changing birthplaces from Estonia to the Soviet Union on numerous Estonian people's articles (here, here, and here, to name a few). Has been warned several times and their edits have been reverted, yet the USSR was still readded as the birth places and reporting the user was the next step. WikiProject Estonia has decided that birthplaces should be listed as "Estonia" and not the Soviet Union since the USSR simply occupied Estonia and the other Baltic States, they were not officially recognised as Soviet by the international community either. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 09:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Biased attitude

First Titodutta filed a fake SPI against me ( the case was later moved here) thinking I am such a fool:________:that i will create a fake profile with my name written in Bengali.Previously I got involved with an edit war with User:115ash which resulted in his block for 48 hours. As 115 ash recommended Titodutta as administrator Titodutta developed hatred against me and instigated others to comment against me. My Talk page . On the contrary he was kind to 115ash during block evading sock IPs , Even in Ged uk's page :-:as an old user he might know how to put an unblock request , calling me sockpuppet , questioning the rights of SPI clerk , Using words buffoon , Aditya calling me insane , calling Subhash Chandra Bose - "King of the jungle" , 115ash questioning notability of people with Wikipages in his edit summary . All these time , Titodutta remained silent :-: but 115ash didn't stop there and asked people to remove votes according to his own will .115ash made this ridiculous suggestion about Bengalis living in West Bengal :: To conclude, in my opinion this article should possess more BANGLADESHIS' images rather than EASTERN INDIANS, GIVEN THAT innumerable people from Kolkata do not claim to be BENGALI (although the can speak it fluently)] .I seriously have no idea who this Nusrat Honey Bee is ; as Titodutta is suggesting here .----CosmicEmperor (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• This user's points are very confusing, in my opinion. Replies in brief—

• First Titodutta filed a fake SPI against me — as I had doubts and I took it to SPI, and "that's"process. The was things are going on at Talk:Bengali people — "there might be socks alert", "Sock alert" — that's not the right way. If you have evidence, take it to the clerks.
• thinking I am such a fool:________:that i will create a fake profile with my name written in Bengali — you have started reading my thoughts?
• Titodutta developed hatred against me and instigated others to comment against me — once again, calling an SPI notification "hatred"? Be informed that it was a "notification", there were a dozen editors involved there and I knew somewhere other SPI were also going on, I could not notify everyone manually. And also read the wording I used here As some of you had alerted about socks above and I have also felt so. . .
• On the contrary he was kind to 115ash during block evading sock IPs , — Kind? Read this message. Did I unblock them? I asked them to follow the standard "unblock request" procedure — that anyone would give. Any experienced editor please read this line I said I don't think an admin will consider unblocking. — it was an indirectly said "no" to it.
• All these time , Titodutta remained silent — What do you expect me to do? Should I go and block them? And why do you think I am following and carefully reading each and every comment posted by all these people on every corner of Wikipedia? Try to understand "not posting' does not mean "endorsing it". I remain silent about 99.9 incidents here on Wikipedia.
  In addition when was the last time, you came to talk page to attract my attention towards these edits? Did you? "No".
• A did this, B did that — now the comment changes to "he made ridiculous comment" — these are mainly content disputes.
• I seriously have no idea who this Nusrat Honey Bee is ; as Titodutta is suggesting here — What can I do if you have no idea? And once again the SPI notification link? Please understand the purpose of a notification.

• Now let's look at the story from the other end:

• It was CosmicEmperor who invited me to this discussion, not the other mentioned people. But when the other guys came to me to vote somewhere, I declined the request. So, I should be biased to CosmicEmperor here.
• I am clarifying my stand here: CosmicEmperor invited me the discussion. I did only minimal works. Since then, I am doing almost nothing there. There are hundreds of votes there, but I have not voted or endorsed any entry (although I was directly invited to dos o). Discussions are going all day long, I am not posting there either. A couple of editors asked me to manage/edit a "vote count" spreadsheet, I did not respond to it as well. In brief, I am totally "silent" in this dispute now. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

To Cosmic Emperor:

Get your facts right before complaining about other. Tito didn't start the SPI. 115ash did, according to revision history. And, where exactly was Tito unkind to you and kind to 115ash? None of your diffs support your claim. You even post just one comment by Tito as a proof that he was claiming you know Nusrat Honey Bee, asking everyone to comment against you, and supporting 111ash, all rolled into 30 words. That's insane. Remember you posted a sock alert before Tito started to post about socks.

What is this game you are playing with all these sock puppets? Anyone can check the evidence here, here and here, and follow the links posted to see that something very sick and perverted happening here. I don't think it is a coincidence that so many socks of the same sock master are vandalizing you (posting on your name, making claims in you behalf, disguising as you) and following you around, with a lot of potential socks waiting at the sidelines. You yourself had multiple accounts, one of which was overtaken by another sock (nice "coincidence").

Your account looks almost like an SPA. All that you did was fight over a collage of images, fight back those socks, and complain about everyone else [please, read WP:TINC]. You have wasted a lot of people's time way more than you have done any real contribution. That's bad. We are all volunteers here, and our time can be better used building an encyclopedia. You will become very unwanted if you continue to behave like this.

And, what is this sadness over me calling Subhash Bose a "king of the jungle"? You have already complained about it here, here, here, and, of course, in this discussion. I haven't failed to notice that right after you sadness over Bose, you went and nominated his article to GAN, only to withdraw fast.

Please, stop fooling around, and try to do something useful.

To Tito Dutta:

You didn't have to use a couple of comments by me and Nafsadh, made as part of a mass messaging drive and your own query twice to prove that people came after you trying to get you voting or maintaining a spreadsheet, while you said no. Not so dramatic I believe. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't failed to notice that right after you sadness over Bose, you went and nominated his article to GAN, only to withdraw fast. That was due to this valuable reply by Abecedare . And i have mentioned 115ash so many times above. You are very well aware that second SPI was filed by Titodutta and the first by 115ash. The second case was moved to other page .Game of sockpuppets? The SM and his socks vandalizes other pages also. I don't have multiple accounts till now. Many people forget password and creates new account. The SM existed much before i started editing with this account . And i don't think only one Sock Master ZORDANLIGHTER is involved this time. There are other players who have joined this game .
• ЗОРДАНЛИГХТЕР, plus a bunch more, are almost certainly the same as the ones I listed above, who may or may not (I'm leaning not) belong to this master. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC) this comment by DoRD makes my stand clear . Whoever he is , one day he will be caught. Remember that. You can't play double game forever .--CosmicEmperor (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. ZORDANLIGHTER is just one of the socks. Undertrialryryr is the sock master. Know thy enemy. And, no, I am not "well aware" of anything that you did or was done to you. I have other things to do than following someone around here. Whatever little I have seen is mind boggling enough. Can you tell why you attract sock puppets and vandals and SPAs like no one else does? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W edit warring and semi-protection issue

User:Thomas.W removed several informative external links including some that were already there- which I did not add. This does not give IP editors a fair chance to contribute while allowing the user to repeatedly removes links without fair justification. He has made it a point to scan for anything linking to Omniglot, an online encyclopedia of spoken languages and scripts. This is also despite the sites main page using valid academic sources as citations. Prior to this the user made several excuses for removing external links and comes up with a new excuse each time to do this. I would appreciate that the article be unprotected or the user be at least informed to stop removal of informative external links. I also presented the argument that individual articles on movies use IMBD as an external link which he keeps evading or even once bluntly lying, claiming that it's used as a reference and not an external link.

As you can see his stubborness and evasiveness makes it very hard to avoid this problem. Please unprotect the article or at least warn the user to stop blanking out informative external links; especially when they are in no way or form "advertising" which he insists on calling them. Omniglot uses biblopgraphy [182].--94.204.144.31 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Few things that you need to be aware of,

1. You needed to notify the user when you made this post. I've gone and done it for you.
2. Edit warring isnt dealt with here its dealt with here.
3. Without diffs to back up your claims nothing is likely to be done.
4. I cant see anything that appears to be edit warring by Thomas.W.

Amortias (T)(C) 10:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The diffs are here: [183][184][185]--94.204.144.31 (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't been doing any edit-warring, what I've been doing is reverting the IP's addition of links to a personal web site to multiple articles relating to languages, a web site that claims to be an encyclopaedia, but clearly violates WP:ELNO, both by being a personal web site not written by an expert in the field and by not adding anything worthwhile to the articles (sample pages on Omniglot: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/finnish.htm repeatedly added to Finnish language and http://www.omniglot.com/writing/urdu.htm repeatedly added to Urdu; as can be clearly seen they're nothing but short stubs plus lots of links to other web sites, even linking back to the en-WP articles they're added to for more information...). The web site has been reported to the spam blacklist (there are 1,100 links to it on en-WP...) so it's up to them to take it from here, but as I said, I haven't done any edit-warring. For more info about what has happened see both my talk page and the IP's talk page. The semi-protection mentioned is a reference to Urdu being protected by EdJohnston because of edit-warring by the IP, not by me. Thomas.W ^talk 11:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor already asked about this on my talk page. I suggested he post at WP:External links/Noticeboard but he hasn't done so. At first glance the links do seem to go to a self-published site and are not likely to be approved. If the links are being added systematically to multiple articles a complaint can be opened at WT:WPSPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The site has been reported at WT:WPSPAM too now. Thomas.W ^talk 14:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger of Andreas Lubitz

On 29 March, a discussion was started about merging the material from Andreas Lubitz into Germanwings Flight 9525. There was a huge amount of input, and the debate was finally closed on 17 April, the result determined as "merge". The merge was then implemented in the normal way, moving the relevant content of the Lubitz page to the Germanwings article and turning Lubitz into a redirect.

However, on 14 April, as the merge debate was drawing to a close, an AfD (the third one) was opened for Andreas Lubitz, and it is ongoing. Following the implementation of the merger, user Valoem (talk · contribs) restored three times the content of the Lubitz page, insisting that since an AfD had now started, the consensus of the merge debate could be ignored.

I therefore request that community consensus be re-implemented by closing the AfD as an abuse of process (or whatever), reverting the Lubitz page to a redirect, and protecting it against restoration. Thanks.

Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, this speaks mainly to an unwillingness on either side to abide by any decision they don't like. Both sides have some merit, it is a matter on which reasonable people may differ, but I closed it as I read it. Obviously roughly 50% of those involved in the debate are not going to liek the close either way. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

About SourAcidHoldout continuously blanking contents..

The editor SourAcidHoldout is continuously blanking the criticisms and other contents of articles (eg., this link, this link and many more), stating that the articles have defamatory contents ,weasel words and fails to meet WP:NPOV. I request someone to quickly go through his edits to find out whether they are constructive or not.. I previously was put to his feet on reverting blanking of criticisms from Basal reader, as I was not familiar with the subject... And I don't want to intervene in his editing.. Regards --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 16:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

From what i can see its 50/50ish. Their edit summaries leave something to be desired however Amortias (T)(C) 16:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur, I actually think it would be helpful for someone with significant more Wikipedia esxperience to review my submissions. I got fed up a couple of days ago with the amount of unsourced stuff on here and decided to start with articles that had problems, oldest first. There are many articles here from many years ago that do need looking at, but I want to make sure I'm getting it right. I'm not nuking everything from orbit, a lot of stuff is quite good, and I'm trying to fix what can be fixed, and come back to issues which are clearly larger (like the fact that there are half the "US-Country X Diplomatic Relations" articles are just copied off US government sources, and have been so for years). I tend to take a line of if something's useless, remove it, but I prefer a situation where information is made better, where it can. What do you want to see in my edit summaries? SourAcidHoldout (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing show stopping just small things like avoid having words in uppercase text as it can make it look like your shouting and remembering to use them as there are a few that have been missed which can make some people (myself included) a bit concerned about them. I've dropped a few links on your talk page that might be of help. Amortias (T)(C) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: 50 of what he doesn't like and 50 which doesn't meet whatever he says? That's gruesome! Is it good to go on blanking, rather than editing them to make it meet whatever it doesn't meet? I find that (blanking) extremely displeasing! --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Its more along the lines of 50% of them seemed pretty much spot on and 50% may have been able to be referenced depending on what is actually available out there. Its quite possible that we could all go out looking for references and find ther are only 1 or 2 that were possible to source in whcih case it will shoot up to 99% or so. I dont like blanking myself as I feel its better to source something and try to include it if it adds to the articles but if you cant provide the evidence you cant include it. All in all I went through and there was only one edit I disagreed with enough to undo and am planning on going back and seeing if I can improve that section later as I think it should be possible to save it. Amortias (T)(C) 16:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This editor needs to read WP:PRESERVE. Try to improve content before you delete it. Weasel words are easy to fix and do not usually warrant wholesale deletion of all criticism. A lot of unsourced material can easily be sourced, as well. Look at these edits: while the article clearly has problems, SourAcidHoldout deleted all the information about the subject's major accomplishments, leaving only trivia about his early life. They also deleted both of the images in the article for some reason, and two good sources. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, actually on that one, the "Personal Life" section should have been kept, that's clearly sourced and fine. My mistake there. The three paragraphs above that are unsourced items in a biography of a living person - there's a big bold message when you edit a biography saying that they need to be removed. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the wholesale blanking needs to stop. It is fine and within NPOV for articles to have a "Criticism of X" section, such as at Cóir, where perfectly valid criticism was blanked. "Weasel words" should result in changing the sentence with weasel words, not blanking a section. "BLP violation" should result, possibly, in removal of a sentence, or its alteration - not blanking. "Unsourced" should result in the addition of a 'citation needed' template, not blanking of a section. And so on. Items that "add nothing" to WP are, frankly, just your opinion - you should not be blanking large, sourced sections of articles, e.g., this, this, and this. You keep using the phrase "weasel words". I do not think it means what you think it means. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of these edits are terrible, & I have reverted most I looked at (not all of them). "Some" is not a weasel word justifying the removal of whole sections! He has proposed the deletion of both Conditional election and Liturgical drama on grounds of notability - there are shelves of books on each topic. If he wants to continue editing he should restict himself to adding or improving for a long while. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's OK, I'm going to stop editing. I think what this is is simply a disagrement. Everrything I've removed I can place my hand on my heart and say "this is junk, and doesn't deserve to be in an Encyclopedia". The conditional election article, to take just one, is not worth anything. It has no sources at all, making every single word original research. By JUST looking at the wikipedia page, there is no way that I can verify anything. "In relation to Scripture" section - not a SINGLE source. Fails WP:V. Remove it. The "Biblical Support" section is just a list of bible verses. It doesn't add ANYTHING. I want to clarify here that I genuinely don't believe there's a single word in that article that's worth keeping in its present state. Certainly not a single word can be verified, so nuke the whole thing until it can be. That's only my opinion. Well, the last sentence is, the other stuff is just correct.

How does this article help me, as a person with no knowledge of what Conditional Elections are, understand it? I don't even know if it's right, from the article. I don't even know if Conditional election actually exists or if anyone ever believed it, or if a billion people did, or three, or the timescales, and I can't verify anything. I'm firmly of the opinion that if it can't be sourced, written up properly and verified, it should go. People can research conditional elections not on wikipedia if there isn't an article worth reading here, and that's OK. It would be BETTER to improve the articles, but I can't, and they're sticking as a cancer here, making a great encyclopedia slowly and slowly fill up with out of date information, badly written weasel words, unverifiable comments, original research, vanity stubs about people who have no merit whatsoever and these "Critisicm" sections that just list "stuff I don't like about this bloke or thing". However, I can see and genuinely respect the argument that stuff should be left up with the warning boxes, because as long as the warning box is there, people can make up their own minds.

I hope there's a plan for the community to address some of the historical stuff with NPOV and other issues, the oldest of which date back more than seven years. If it could be rewritten by someone to make it better (which, of course, virtually everything can, and this would be the better thing), who's going to do this? When are they going to do this? In a month, a year, a decade? And until it gets rewritten, properly sourced and tidied of bias is it just going to stay here, making the wiki consist more and more of unverifiable statements?

For example, the oldest NPOV disputed article is (now) a bunch of stuff from February 2008 about countries relations with the United States, for example Bermuda–United States relations. There is NOTHING in that article that is verified. Someone could have made literally every word of it up. It claims that during World War II, Bermuda was used as a significant US military site. Was it? I don't know that. Possibly, of course, but I don't know, because sources aren't cited. I don't even know if the article is accurate, and I can't verify it from the article alone. All those articles just need nuking from orbit in my opinion, but I am (and I'm not being sarcastic here, seriously) genuinely happy to leave them, if that's the prevailing community opinion. SourAcidHoldout (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles that are not worth anything would've been deleted immediately after creation.. Wikipedia has a host of articles which are controversial, which can't be deleted just because they are controversial or a minority view... Articles which seems to contain varied logic which are opposed by the majority are continuously being worked upon to maintain NPoV, not just simply blank them or delete them... And if you can't verify them, someone else can! Ask the help of a third person who is expert on the subject and append the existing article with consensus and sources. When you don't know if the article is accurate, consider approaching an admin or another editor who is familiar in the subject asking them whether the info. should be challenged or not. Not simply blank them... I strongly express my displeasure on blanking the contents.. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 09:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You are completely misunderstanding these policies, and completely misjudging these articles. The first is neither original research, nor unverifiable. See a google books search. The 2nd is in fact almost all from an old Encyclopedia Brittanica article, as many older articles are, and as was indicated at the bottom. There is no way these actually pretty decent accounts of their subject should just be removed because the referencing needs improving. You are just out of your depth with these huge removals. If you want to edit, restrict yourself to adding text or references for now. Otherwise I suggest you stop. Your current editing is damaging. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access?

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

---

Of checkuserblocked sockpuppet here [186]. Keri (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

New user moving both articles and other users' user pages around

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

---

Ranvirojha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created a few days ago, and has only made just enough edits to become autoconfirmed, before starting a rather odd move circus, moving both articles, including protected pages, and the user pages of other users around. So could someone please take a look at it? Thomas.W ^talk 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sir, I am not a vandalizing the articles . I just want to say that Mridul is my friend he told me to change his username and delete the user page and talk page. From his friend Ranvir Ojha. Ranvirojha (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ranvirojha: He should have logged in himself to do that. Also, moving a user page does not change the username. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That said, it's definitely a pattern of inappropriate page moves. I've reverted several and currently have User talk:Ranvirojha move-protected

User:Mriduls.sharma is the page of a contributor blocked indefinitely. [187] So not only is the move pointless (it doesn't actually change the username), but it could easily be seen as an attempt at block evasion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

... the "my friend" thing also doesn't explain why the article Prakash Raj was moved back and forth. He's also continuing his move circus, most recently moving his own user pages to another name. Thomas.W ^talk 19:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

...and moving pages belonging to other contributors, including one that Mriduls.sharma was in dispute with. Obvious sock is obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Andy you are so smart mama will so proud of you. apna to chutzpah ho gaya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranvirojha (talk • contribs)

That's certainly not a denial. Obvious sockpuppet is blocked obvious sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I can obviously still trust my "gut feeling"... Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Recent close at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298

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

---

In the most recent WP:Sockpuppet investigation I started on User:Cali11298, Vanjagenije stated, "You are not allowed to revert other user more than three times just because you believe he is a sockpuppet of blocked user." Binksternet went to Vanjagenije's talk page to comment about this, making it clear that a WP:Sockpuppet does not have to be confirmed as a WP:Sockpuppet by a WP:CheckUser to be WP:Blocked as a WP:Sockpuppet. I asked Vanjagenije to de-archive the case so that I could make it clear that not only did I not break the WP:3RR rule because I did not revert more than three times (I reverted twice; a WP:Dummy edit is not a revert), but because reverting WP:Blocked or WP:Banned editors is a WP:3RR exemption. WP:Blocked does not simply apply to the account(s); it applies to the person; same goes for WP:Banned. I told Vanjagenije, "There is a need to de-archive since you accused me of breaking the WP:3RR rule when I did not, and when you are misapplying the WP:3RR policy, which will be believed by less experienced editors. I knew that the editor in question was a WP:Sockpuppet; an editor would have to be an idiot not to know that he is a WP:Sockpuppet. Editors (including WP:Administrators) revert obvious WP:Sockpuppets on the basis that they are WP:Sockpuppets all the time. I am one of those editors." Vanjagenije has insisted that this latest WP:Sockpuppet of Cali11298 is "not obvious at all." I beg to differ.

I still want the case de-archived so that the investigation is not left on the belief that I violated WP:3RR and should not have repeatedly reverted the latest Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet -- Thefiremanx6 (talk · contribs). Cali11298 already misapplies Wikipedia's rules, and acted like I had no right reverting him as Thefiremanx6; the last thing Wikipedia needs is for him to continue believing that he can disrupt Wikipedia all he wants and that he cannot be reverted even in cases where it is blatantly obvious that he is a WP:Sockpuppet. He will try to use Vanjagenije's statement against me, just like he tried to use a WP:Administrator's words against me when commenting as Owlman2015 (talk · contribs). If Vanjagenije will not de-archive the case so that the record is set straight, I ask that Vanjagenije at least strike through that part of the comment. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This reaction by Flyer22 seems hot-headed to me; I don't particularly see the need to de-archive the SPI case just so that one comment can become the seed for a distracting sidebar. I think it would be easy enough for Flyer22 to take the talk page discussion in stride, to note that Vanjagenije disagrees with the position of Flyer22 and myself, and move on. Certainly it would be good to get clarification about whether an obvious sock can be reverted over and over without worrying about 3RR, even when the SPI case has not concluded. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, thanks for commenting. Yes, I am upset. Perhaps that is why I cannot see this as an overreaction. Or it could be that I know how this WP:Sockpuppet is, and that I simply don't like being wrongly accused on a record where no rebuttal from me is seen. I am inappropriately characterized on record in a WP:Sockpuppet investigation archive, one that will be analyzed by the WP:Sockpuppet in question and misapplied by that WP:Sockpuppet and possibly others. Even if not de-archived, it is not asking for much that Vanjagenije strike through the offending comment. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If no de-archiving or strike-through happens on this matter, the most I can hope for is to make a note of the misapplication in a future Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet investigation that I or someone else starts, since that editor will no doubt continue to WP:Sockpuppet. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

And for the record, Vanjagenije has de-archived a case before at my request; well, that one was more of an implied request. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

And for reasons I already made clear, Bbb23, you are the wrong person to be closing such matters. Your WP:Personal attack of stating that I "need to get a grip" is as out of line as the warning you gave me on my talk page regarding Cali11298. There was nothing at all being harmed by this thread remaining open. Yes, confirmation that your silly WP:3RR interpretation is wrong would be made clear by others in this section, but that would not be harming anything...except your view. Do cease interacting with me unless absolutely necessary. I would ask another WP:Administrator, one of the many that I am friends and/or acquaintances with, to revert this close of yours, but I wouldn't want to incite WP:Wheel warring. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: To close this thread the way that you did, knowing how the archive in question will be perceived, and how that WP:Sockpuppet hangs on your every word because that WP:Sockpuppet used your words to mock me, is a mess. Yes, it's so silly of me to want an error (two errors, in fact) corrected. What the hell ever. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, please. I'm the one that closed the case and not Vanjagenije. I saw his comment to you but as I considered 3RR exemption to be a perfectly accurate description, I simply closed to forgo the drama. I didn't know this would reach boiling point. I would consider while the thread is here that others may reign in with their interpretation as to whether 3RR exemption applies.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Berean Hunter. You didn't archive the case, though. Vanjagenije did. And I made a simple request that the record be cleared up by either letting me briefly reply at the case page about the WP:3RR matter or by Vanjagenije striking through the comment about it. Either way, I only reverted that WP:Sockpuppet twice at that article. I'm too pissed right now about this, especially because I know how that comment and what Bbb23 stated above will be used by that WP:Sockpuppet. Once I study a WP:Sockpuppet as I have studied Cali11298, I know their editing styles and personality quite well; for example, in this other recent case. So, yes, I know how this WP:Sockpuppet will behave. He is watching now as we discuss this. I am in the process of cooling down about this matter, but this discussion is clearly over anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologized to Flyer22 on my talk page today, few seconds before he started this discussion. Like I said in my apology, I was wrong. I accused him of braking the WP:3RR, while in fact, he did not brake it. I see no reason to de-archive the SPI case, as the case is resolved. It would be useless to continue discussing something like 3RR on that page. Flyer22, if anybody tries to use my accusation against you, feel free to point out to my apology. I believe that is enough from me. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I was not asking to continue discussing anything at the WP:Sockpuppet investigation; I was asking you to let me note at the WP:Sockpuppet investigation that you are wrong (about two different points). Either that, or that you strike through your previous comment. You have refused to do either, and it will never sit well with me. Comparing the aforementioned case you de-archived at my sort-of-request, this one is more important as far as clarity at the case page goes. That stated, I accept your apology. And I am female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

96.255.215.253 - Disruptive Gaithersburg, Maryland IP editor

Hi, I'm requesting admin sanctions against 96.255.215.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This is the third time I'm aware of that this editor (aka "Destructive Destroyer vandal"), who typically edits from Verizon FiOS IPs geolocating to Gaithersburg, Maryland, has been brought to ANI. Previous attempts [188][189]

Other IPs suspected of using:

• 108.48.144.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, Maryland, US; Verizon FiOS
• 108.48.85.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, MD; Verizon FiOS
• 108.51.173.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Gaithersburg, MD; Verizon FiOS
• 108.10.240.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - La Quinta, California; Verizon FiOS - this one is weird since it's on the other side of the country. I believe SummerPhD found this one.

There's a significant overlap, between these two IPs, for instance.

Anyhow, most recent edits have been problematic. User's MO in the past has been to include redundant and overly embellished prose "waist-length curly, bushy, and bright fiery orange mane of hair", "slender, slim body", "As an eighteen-year old teenager", etc. When confronted, the editor typically deletes talk page notes without replying, which they are doing from this latest IP. Editor has most recently been warned for:

• Not adhering to British English in articles on British subjects like here.
• Disruptive editing related to repeated submission of improper MOS:HEAD and MOS:DATERANGE formatting [190][191][192]
• Another warning to adhere to British spelling in British articles. [193][194][195]
• Submitting unsourced, speculative content, for instance here where again we have MOS:HEAD and MOS:DATERANGE problems. Also they're contravening WP:CRYSTAL.
• Blanking at Downton Abbey here.
• Another warning for MOS:DATERANGE and MOS:HEAD because of repeated mistakes at Winx Club [196][197].
• Editor also has been apprised that removing talk page warnings is proof that the editor has read them and understands them.

It keeps going on. The editor clearly has no interest in community preferences, participating in discussion, or making compromises, only POV editing. Their silence says loudly that they're not here to take part in a community project. I also believe that given their history of disruption, they are either here to be disruptive, or they lack the competence critical to editing in a manner consistent with Wikipedia standards. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidently the same person. Blocked for a month, though they will no doubt be back in due course. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - While I have run across, stumbled upon and encountered this editor, I think 108.10.240.190 is a different problem, the "Fictional ages editor(s)". This editor(s) is focused on assigning ages to characters in various kids'/family TV shows (Full House (particularly the season articles), Winx Club, Little Einsteins, 64 Zoo Lane, etc. I say "editor(s)" because the edits are very similar, but the IPs are all over the U.S. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Summer, I've stricken that IP above. I may have gotten confused skimming an old ANI. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Cleaning up after this editor on a daily basis has become a major drain on my time and an ongoing frustration, and I see that others are similarly impacted. This IP disregards repeated requests to adhere to WP:ENGVAR (specifically WP:RETAIN) in British articles (particularly those related to the Downton Abbey series), and the behaviour continues. I have left a series of notices followed by warnings increasing in level, all to no avail. In addition to the spelling and punctuation style changes I have reverted (I'm never sure I have spotted them all), this editor seems to take liberties with content and with the deletion of citations; others have been dealing with those changes. Please protect the articles, as well as easing the load on the hardworking "cleanup squad", by imposing, at the very least, a topic ban of the IP from articles using British (or non-US) English, broadly construed. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues at Rgloucester's talk page

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

---

On April 18, 2015, User:RGloucester was blocked by User:Beeblebrox ("User seems to have gone off the deep end again, see edits at talk page and AN") following a heated rant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § I demand immediate assistance. Within 3 minutes of being blocked, RGloucester responded on their talk page (User talk:RGloucester § Hatting discussion at RMs): "I refuse to be blocked. I am not blocked. ..." In response, Beeblebrox blocked RGloucester's access to their talk page and email ("you really, really need to take a break and calm down"). Two issues follow from this.

The first issue is, on viewing this and knowing a bit about the blocking policy, I knew this really sounded like the criteria for a WP:COOLDOWN block, which are not permitted via the blocking policy. Disabling the ability to email other users (in addition to disabling talk page access) is not supposed to happen unless there has been abuse of that feature in the past (which there is no evidence of) or "when administrators feel that email abuse is extremely likely" (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Setting block options). So I left my initial comments about it and a few other users commented, some disagreeing with my evaluation and others agreeing. This included the blocking admin themselves saying that it was within their discretion to disable those options even though it didn't meet the strict definition of "talk page abuse". I, and others, believe those options should be re-enabled, even though the initial block itself is justified. Given the only way to "force an admin's hand" is to report them to one of the noticeboards and have the community take action, here I am. Honestly this shouldn't have been an issue, just re-enable those options and close this. Though there was a few minor issues which at this point, only I noticed/commented on.

The second issue is that a good faithed IP user commented on the proceedings, giving their thoughts (namely, that blocking email access was excessive). User:Bishonen (who had requested that any further discussion be directed to Beeblebrox's talk page) then twice deleted the IP's post (the first time with an uncivil edit summary), a violation of WP:TPO since you're only allowed to remove other people's talk page comments in certain circumstances. Administrator User:Floquenbeam then protected the talk page to prevent further comments being added. I questioned this on Floquenbeam's talk page and they answered: "To stop you from shit stirring was one". The administrator Beeblebrox said they were going to be fully protecting it themselves that Floquenbeam had beat them to it.

What I would like to happen:

• The unblock of RGloucester's talk page rights and email access, as there is no signs of abuse as needed by the blocking policy.
• The full protection of their talk page removed as it is not supported by policy or guideline.

Attribution: The draft was initially created by me and edited by other users. Although posting it under my name, User:Sroc, User:Alakzi and minor ce by User:Floquenbeam contributed.

Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I fail to see what benefit this action would provide to the encyclopedia or the community. Several long-standing admins have concurred on this action and there is no evidence provided that their judgement is flawed or the action was inappropriate beyond a claim of "you can't do that". Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I reverted the IP once and you once, User: Tutelary, because it was you — not the IP — who showed the poor judgement of restoring the IP's post. I agree the IP was probably in good faith. (I have since had a pretty reasonable exchange with them on my own talkpage.) Not so sure about you. You and I have had no previous interaction that I'm aware of, there's no baggage, so I can't imagine why you would first revert me on RGloucester's page with a spoonful of alphabet soup,[198] and then revert my question about it on your page (together also with Beeblebrox's explanation of why RGloucester's page had better be left alone), with the edit summary "I'll be typing out a WP:ANI when I gather the diffs."[199] No chance of a reasonable exchange there. Yes, I know you're entitled to remove posts on your page, please don't trouble to link me to the guideline. I just wonder why. Do you figure stiff-arming people on your page and instead running to ANI improves the encyclopedia? How? Bishonen | talk 21:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC).
• Paraphrasing and extending what I said on Flo's page, This isn't RGloucester's first kick at the can and past history has shown that when he's upset, he tends to make really, really unfortunate remarks. Removal of talk page rights was a good call given he was headed in that direction again [200] to prevent further disruption. Your labeling it as a cooldown block is incorrect. If you had concerns, you should have posted to the blocking admin's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• All I can say is that policies are for guidance, they are not the holy word of God with no exceptions. Admins are expected to use their judgement, and I did nothing more than that and firmly believe it was for the best for all concerned. It saddens me that so many Wikipedians no longer seem to realize this, and cannot see that both my actions and those of my fellow admins in this case were as much to protect this user as to protect Wikipedia. This is a person who has basically completely lost it. They need a total break from Wikipedia and they were unwilling to just take it so they got an involuntary break. There is no need to make a big deal out of the settings. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

stricken comments are form an IP being used to evade a community ban.* Comment: Since I was pinged, I will leave a quick non-voting comment. Personally, I am not convinced nor impressed with arguments of "the longstanding admins" said. What I would ask is, what did policy say and which one said it? If Wikipedia's policies (not counting IAR) can be shown to reflect that the action is or is not appropriate, then that should be stated and the appropriate action applied. The rules are there for a reason and should be utilized fairly and in a standard manner not tossed out the window whenever its convenient to the admin performing the action. It does not appear that anyone is arguing against a block and my experience and intuition lead me to believe this discussion will be a waste of time and the admins will do whatever they want anyway, but hopefully someone with some common sense and integrity will follow policy and do that. I have not seen any indication that these particular admins acted intentionally inappropriately but it does seem like some actions are excessive and our of process. In fairness I did not see the comment left by Bishonen about not posting and we have since reconciled the issue on Bishonen's talk page. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• For further clarification, it is my opinion that my edit should not have been reverted though nor should the page be fully protected nor should Email access be revoked. The user already had access to emails offline anyway and if they were abusing that already I suspect that would have come up in these discussions in some form.96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Good block, good call. With users who go off the deep end like this, such additional measures are sometimes necessary to preserve some sort of order here. I wish, ah I wish, that editors would leave the blocked editor's talk page alone since those comments there are doing no one a favor. This thread is just another little log on the fire of acrimony; Tutelary, sometimes I really wonder what the hell you think you're trying to accomplish, and in my darkest moments I am drawn to the thought that shit-stirring is what you do best and what you like most. That you do this on purpose, and that you don't care that you're doing RGloucester no favor at all. That this is only here because the NCAA championships are over and there's nothing on TV for you. Fortunately I am a cheerful, cheerful person, and I whisk those thoughts away while doing some therapeutic kitchen cleaning. Someone, please close this. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 5)While I concur that the revocation of talk privileges was a bit rushed, given the users block log (and what they were posting) it probably would have happened anyway. Revocation of email privileges seemed a bit odd/unneeded, but when it comes down to it a blocked user shouldn't need those anyway, and should request an unblock (if desired) through UTRS. Talk page protection also seems unnecessary, but is somewhat allowed under the protection policy (When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block.. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked editors should not necessarily have to go to UTRS. UTRS is a notoriously bad process that rarely ever unblocks anyone because no one wants to be the one to make the call. Additionally, it is a completely non transparent process. It is far, better to do it in a transparent manner to prevent offline prejudice and abuse or even arguments of it. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• My having edited the draft should not be understood as an endorsement of it. Alakzi (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Block was good, revocation of talk page was good per "i am not blocked", protection of talk page was good per other people having fights RG couldn't participate in. Email may have been premature, but I don't see any particular need for it to be enabled (speaking of non-transparency). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - although most admin actions are <sarcasm>undeniably evil and malignant</sarcasm>, I don't see a problem with this block and removal of talk/email access. RG was seriously spinning out of control. However, if y'all decide to overturn the access removal, please ping me so I can get some popcorn and watch. GregJackP Boomer! 21:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Greg, I can't tell you how much I hate those "I'll get the popcorn" comments, though I appreciate that you didn't make a funny picture with a poodle or a gorilla in it and a catchy and totally funny quote. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is one of those occasions when someone has to be forcibly and completely disengaged for a while. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The "I am not blocked" comment can only be taken as indicating that the individual who made it is either irrational, intending to engage in sockpuppetry, or intending to use the user talk page as a soapbox. None of which are acceptable. The block was good, it is limited to two weeks, and I cannot see anything productive that can reasonably be done at the user talk page or by e-mail in the period, so there's no reason to object to those being removed separately either. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose If I'd been RGloucester, had (correctly) surmised Dicklyon was socking, and couldn't get anyone to listen, I'd be likewise frustrated. I hope I'd acted differently. Despite my empathy, as someone who has largely sided with RGloucester in that user's many disputes with Dicklyon, and as someone who was watching these unfortunate events unfold in real time, I disagree with Tutelary's characterization of the block as cooldown. In the moment I was cautioning RGloucester to take a break from his wild ranting on a public board, fearing a block would soon be imposed by some alert admin. I feel Beeblebrox's block of RGloucester was well-deserved, preventative and certainly within an administrator's discretion. When thanking Beeblebrox for the block I predicted talk page privileges would soon need to be revoked; Beeblebrox had already removed talk page and email access. Removal of talk privileges I thought inevitable, but IMHO removal of email was premature, but still within admin's discretion, given RGloucester's lengthy history of histrionics. I felt page protection of RGloucester's talk perfectly appropriate; that was an inappropriate place for Tutelary to hold Beeblebrox accountable. Tutelary has been around long enough now to show more competence in choosing forums, and I suspect this contributed both to the unkind words Bishonen had for the ip heckler and for Floquenbeam's choice of words in explanation quoted above. In summary, there's nothing to be done by an administrator here, except perhaps admonish Tutelary for needlessly stirring shit. BusterD (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add that after rereading RGloucester's "I am not blocked" statement, the final sentence "You do not want to end up in his grasp" was the over-the-top comment that made me feel talk page access needed to be removed quickly. It clearly registered with me at the time, but I didn't remember it until rereading just now. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - RGloucestor's history of behavior as well as the behavior which lead to this block thoroughly justified the block and the removal of talk page access. I'm less familiar with whether RGloucestor abused his e-mail privileges during previous blocks (or at any time), but I'm more than willing to trust the discretion of the blocking admin. BMK (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose From here on, the less said about this matter for the next two weeks, the better. Really. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Doors22 - a longtime, POV-pushing editor

I have wanted to stay away from the drama boards for a while, but there is something that needs doing. This is about the following user:

• Doors22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Doors22 opened a thread at NPOVN on Formerly98's edits at Finasteride. This is a boomerang on that thread. I am posting it here, because of what i am proposing.

• Claim: Doors22 is a long-time POV pusher, here to pursue one issue - increasing awareness of "post-finasteride syndrome", per his own words in Feb 2011 in his first month of editing when he wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same"

• In pursuing this mission, Doors22 has come into conflict with members of WIkiProject Medicine, including Doc James, Jdwolff, Yobol, DMacks, Graham Colm, Alexbrn, Formerly 98, and me. Tryptofish did some great work mediating disputes (Miss him so much!)

• A context note: "Post-finasteride syndrome" is what Doors22 is concerned with. It is a putative "syndrome" where some men suffer long-term sexual dysfunction because of using finasteride, a drug used to treat enlarged prostate and hair loss. There is boatloads of litigation on this. The condition is not recognized by the medical literature, all though the literature does note that there is a correlation between some men having sexual dysfunction after using finasteride (causation is difficult to show in this). Last month, a single agency within the NIH (the Office of Rare Diseases Research) put a page up on "Adverse events of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors" that mentions PFS. That is the only recognition there is. Doors22 has a FRINGE stance.

• Action sought - Topic ban from anything related to finasteride or side effects of drugs for long-term Civil POV-pushing and increasing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

• Evidence

Doors22 started editing WP in January 2011. After getting his feet on the ground on a few other articles, he got to the finasteride article, and started editing in a strongly POV manner, emphasizing sexual side effects of the drug. For four years now, he has been hammering away at that.

He made a foundational statement on his talk page, a month after he started. He wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same"

This turned out to be a prescient declaration of WP:NOTHERE.

Since then, his edit analysis shows:

• 360 edits overall

• content
  • 88 edits to Finasteride (which you can see here - almost all about side effects or Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation
  • 6 edits to Merck & Co. (maker of finasteride and that's what his edits were about
  • 5 edits to Spencer Kobren (hair loss guy)

• Talk
  • 104 edits to Talk:Finasteride (which you can see here) arguing, often with personal attacks, to get his changes into the article.
  • 28 edits on other users' talk page, either about finasteride or politicking around it

• boards
  • 29 contribs here at ANI here - all in threads about me or Formerly98, jumping in to make negative comments. In my view (not surprising, I know), these are especially ugly (bringing anger over content disputes into other issues)
  • 11 posts at NPOVN (see here)
  • 1 contrib to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome
    • That AfD in October 2012 was a rodeo of meatpuppetry and led to an a sock/meat investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666/Archive over Finasteride, Post-Finasteride Syndrome and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome that was instigated by Stalwart111 The close of the SPI was " Meatpuppetry is certain, but difficult to demonstrate here" and one editor (not Doors22) was indeffed for battleground behavior.
  • 5 edits at deletion review that he initiated over the deletion see here)

• drafts
  • 7 edits on Draft:Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation arguing that the article should be created (it was not). contribs to that are here (note, doors22 got very angry with me on this)

• Wikipedia Talk
  • 9 comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine (contribs) all about his issue

Add all that up, and 293 edits (81%) are pursuant to his mission - one issue about one drug, or trying to get rid of people getting in the way of him achieving that mission.

• his block log - one block back in 2011 for calling another editor a Nazi (and not backing down from that) after calling him a dictator (for which he did apologize) (see below)

• In the course of pursuing the "raise awareness of sexual side effects" mission, Doors has received the following warnings and blocks:
  • In Feb 2011 called Jfdwolff a "dictator" here (for which Doors [apologized)
  • In Sept 2011 was back at it, receiving a warning for making personal attacks again, against the same editor (this time calling him a "Nazi" and then was blocked for the same by Doc James. attacks were here and here.
  • Sept 2012 warned here while edit warring over content about the Post-Finasteride-Syndrome Foundation (the mission of which is the same as Doors22's self stated mission - to raise awareness of the sexual side effects of finasteride.
  • October 2012 was part of the sock/meat puppet investigation mentioned above, over the AfD
  • Feb 2014 warned for deleting content from finasteride without edit notes
  • Jan 2015 I warned him for edit warring

• Sample edits to Finasteride
• Doors22 edits in spurts. First one was Feb-March 2011
  • 1st edit was a new section called "Safety controversy":

Over one thousand users of Finasteride report that they developed "Post-Finasteride Syndrome" that persisted despite continuation of finasteride treatment. Symptoms of Post-Finasteride Syndrome include, but are not limited to erectile dysfunction, loss of libido, genital shrinkage, emotional lability, and lack of energy. In December 2010, several American doctors published an article in the Journal of Sexual Medicine that found evidence in favor of a causal relationship between finasteride use and prolonged sexual dysfunction. The controversy is gaining more attention and has been investigated by the media including the BBC and several doctors including endocrinologists and urologists. In January 2011, a Canadian law firm filed a class action against Merck for failing to include warnings of permanent sexual side effects on finasteride's product label.

References

• • • note, it was Jfdwolff's revert of that content and subsequent refusal to agree to allow it, that led to Doors22's personal attacks of "dictator" and "Nazi" against him. That first discussion on talk started with Doors22 stating: "Without the need for further support, I think it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that this be reported on Wikipedia, even if the condition is rare. Many people trust Wikipedia as a reliable source for information and know very little about human biology and medicine which can allow them to make dangerously uninformed decisions about their health."

• next spurt was august - oct 2011. (note, effort to get Post-Finasteride Syndrome article created was during this time) sample edits"
  • dif about label of drug in the US, about sexual side effects.
  • dif adding content about erectile dysfunction
  • dif with edit note: "Very important for people suffering from Post Finasteride Syndrome and those interested in the ongoing controversy - Do not remove again before reaching a consensus on the talk page as per Wiki standards and regulations)"

• next spurt was Jan 2012. sample edit:
  • dif with edit note: "Merck did not decide to stop spending money on the website as every single other product page is originally up. They are adjusting their market strategy to respond to emerging controversies. Please do not delete without discussion on talk page."

• next spurt was April-May 2012. sample edit: (peaceful)
  • dif another label update

• next spurt was Sept 2012. sample edits (there was battling here
  • dif added new section on the PFS Foundation
  • dif used that new section as a COATRACK for claims that the syndrome exists

reverted by Jfdwolff with edit note "still no consensus for mentioning this group"

• • edit warred to keep it in, with note: "Added the sufficient third party source... do not remove again, discuss on talk page if desired"

reverted by Biosthmors with edit note; "revert. political advocates do not get to decide what adverse affects are per WP:MEDRS -- they are not reliable medical sources"

• • edit warred it back under new section header "Society and culture"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finasteride&diff=next&oldid=514749696 reverted] by Edgar181 with edit note "m per talk page comments"

• next spurt was Feb 2013. one edit:
  • dif about FDA panel meeting, over-emphasized sexual side effects (content no longer in article, don't know when that was taken out)

• next spurt was Feb 2014. battleground again
  • restored edit about FDA panel
  • added more to it and more and more

• Sept/October 2014 more battleground
  • jumped in to edit war over PRIMARY sources and more and more and more and more and this went on and on and we finally reached a difficult consensus, and he finally went away again at the end of October... but

• January/Feb 2015 high battleground.
  • right back at the same content again. which led to more difficult discussion on Talk and even after we reached a compromise on content mediated by Doc James, Doors pushed harder for yet more content on this. It is just relentless.
  • 36 contribs on Talk:Finasteride ( see here in January 2015 alone.

• in March 2015 a draft article was created Draft:Post-Finasteride_Syndrome_Foundation and the discussion about that got very personalized, with Doors mistaking comments I made about the foundation for an attack on him (he may well be connected with for all i know - and i cannot know). (see the link)
• more troubling, Doors broadened his behavior into battleground, making all 29 of his contribs at ANI on postings about me and about Formerly 98 - just taking pot shots to take us down. Stuff like this and this.

• april 2015. more battleground, a bit on the article...
  • the PFS Foundation sponsored a meta-analysis on sexual side effects that published and Doors came back to put it in
• but even more so elsewhere:
  • Talk discussion getting increasingly personalized and heated
  • this: "You have proven yourself to be a dishonest person time and time again..."
  • the thread at NPOVN

This is just not letting up. So again, from some of his first comments here when he wrote: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue and need some assistance in figuring out how to do it within a Wikipedia appropriate standard. I made a terrible choice that was guided in part by a misinformed medical community and incomplete information on Wikipedia and want to prevent others from doing the same" He has been doing one thing here, and is resorting to increasingly ugly measures to achieve his goals.

• so here it is Proposal: topic ban for Doors22 from finasteride and side effects of drugs. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nominator. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support and request one-way interaction ban with myself per my comments in the section below Doors exhibits the classic behaviors of WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY. As I outline below, every minor edit that does not support his position turns into an extremely lengthy WP:IDHT argujment, with personal attacks on the editors on the other side of the issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion here, please Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Question Jytdog, the above it quite long and confusing as is the title you chose for this ANI complaint. What does this have to do with Wifione? Are you alleging that Doors is being paid to be concerned about sexual side effects of medications? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The wifione case that was actually conducted at Arbcom was about long term POV pushing. Arbcom said they have no hand in paid editing. I will just remove that from the section header. to avoid other people who misunderstand that case from being confused. This case about Doors22 is very, very simple. He only edits about one thing and pushes one POV on that one thing. Every time he shows up we get into long, disputes on the article Talk page, and he is becomingly increasingly disruptive and WP:BATTLEGROUNDish. The evidence above iis, in my view, what a case against a long term POV-pusher looks like. we will see if i am right or not. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Response There are a lot of reasons why I feel your accusations are inaccurate but I don't have the time to respond to each one. However one example is when you tried to warned me of edit warring after a single edit, which was not even a reversion but was rather a correction to a previous edit. It is also very untrue that post finasteride syndrome is not recognized by the medical community. Over the past few years it has been gaining increasing awareness in MEDRS sources and was documented before that in countless blogs written by doctors, internet forums, and foreign regulatory bodies. I have been upfront that I am a patient who continues to suffer from seemingly permanent side effects due to taking a COSMETIC drug, a very unfortunate consequence which will negatively impact the rest of my life when the offered benefit was negligible in comparison. My goal is to create an accurate and objective encyclopedia article to help other potential consumers make informed decisions with the up-to-date information on this drug.

Both JYTDog and Formerly98 have an extensive history of removing/diminishing reports of side effects for a wide range of drugs/corporate products. This has made it very challenging to create an article that is balanced. It is also worth noting that on many occasions the two of you have ganged up on me to try and create a "consensus" and have tag teamed each other on editing conflicts on many other articles. I have not had significant issues with other editors, barring my initial days as an editor several years ago when I admittedly was much less aware of proper editing etiquette on Wikipedia. I really do not think a topic ban is appropriate, especially given my edits on the article are very grounded in facts, and look forward to hearing the feedback from other editors.

This is also worth mentioning, even if its less relevant, but a couple weeks ago you were reprimanded on the admin noticeboards for acting with incivility towards another editor and were warned to stop initiating so many incident reports on these boards as you have been initiating a large volume in the recent past. Doors22 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Doors exhibit classic WP:SPA and advocacy behavior. Every minor edit turns into a a multi-thousand word discussion in which he becomes tendentious, exhibits WP:IDHT behavior against consensus, and engages in personal attacks. In fact, I rarely see a post from him in response to my comments that does not contain at least one personal remark.

• “For you to equate a research gift to a "bribe" or "incentive plan" is ridiculous but alas not out of character.

• "You are digging yourself deeper by showing making one deceptive argument after another."

• "this is why you are being deceitful in trying to discredit the study because of a small unrestricted gift. "

• You have proven yourself to be a dishonest person time and time again.

• "I have not made any assumptions about Formerly98. He has made his intentions clear by making not bad faith arguments that somebody with his alleged background, knowledge, and expertise would have never made."

• Even when third parties come to his talk page to warn him about these personal attacks, he defends them.

• Here on the NPOV talk board, he adds a comment responding to me in which he questions my integrity twice. The edit summary states that "a pharma employee should not pretend to be ignorant to the differences between a grant and gift" I have not been a pharma employee for nearly a decade, my COI statement clearly says this, and this has been pointed out to Doors multiple times. In the edit itself, he repeats his suggestiion that I am lying about my employment status, with the remark "I also don't believe you are not aware of the difference between a gift and a grant, especially since you were/are an employee of the pharma industry."

• The problem is longstanding. Here in 2011 he calls user: Jfdwolff a "dictator" in his edit summary.

• The vindictiveness extends to retaliatory editing. Here, after an extended series of posts in which he accuses me of an undisclosed COI, he makes 3 edits to the Electronic Cigarette article supporting the other side of a content dispute that I am involved in. He has almost no history at this point of editing non-finasteride related articles, and has never before shown interest in electronic cigarettes. Diff1 Diff2 Diff3 and later reverts one of my edits to the article.

• Similar retaliatory editing on the Pharmaceutical industry article talk page, which subject he has never shown an interest in until another editor begins criticizing my rewrite of that article. Seeing a content dispute that I am party to brewing, he jumps in to support the other side of the argument. Diff

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 12:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to Formerly98

• I just said earlier that I have only really run into issues with Formerly98 and JYTDog and I believe this quick response helps to confirm my statement that they have a tendency to tag team one another one Wikipedia, trying to form a two person consensus. What I see here is two things. First, I edited a single page (electronic cigarettes) where you had been very active and you accused me of WP:HOUNDING you. This edit is not recent and to avoid any perception that I may be hounding I have not done anything like it since. However you continue to bring this up time and time again.
• Secondly, the history between us has led to my frustration and I apologize if you feel I made a personal attack against you. The reality is that you make arguments that do not seem to be what you actually believe for pushing a POV and this would lead to frustration for anybody. Somebody who claims to have a PhD in chemistry and experience working as a research scientist for pharma companies should know the difference between a research grant and a gift and not pretend otherwise. Moreover, it is very incendiary to refer to a research gift with no strings attached or obligations a "bribe" or "incentive plan". On your own talk page, you have written "If I disagree with you, its almost never personal. I may even secretly agree with you, but feel that the article in question is unbalanced and needs to be adjusted to a more neutral POV." In my opinion, it is very counterproductive to make arguments to which you personally disagree and can be very antagonistic to other editors making good points.
• Lastly, I'd like to highlight my edit that you called out on the WP:Pharmaceutical Industry article. This is very obviously not an instance of hounding yet you repeatedly bring this up (among other poor examples) which can get very exhausting. I am confident that anybody who spends the time to properly evaluate this example will see that your accusation is without merit because I merely offered a civil opinion on a topic to which you don't have a monopoly. The problem is that very few editors don't have the time and it's possible they take your accusation at face value which is highly misleading. I think this example is a good representation of the (lack of) credibility of many of your accusations and the aggressive/unfair editing tactics you often employ on Wikipedia. Both Formerly98 and JYTDog have run into problems with many, many other editors even in recent months where they seem to be the other two that have problems with my editing.Doors22 (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Jmichelson27

Looking at Jmichelson27's talk page as of this edit, he has been asked four times to stop adding content that he supports with IMDb reference. User has most recently ignored these notes here where he again adds IMDb links. There are other issues as well, for instance I had to ask the editor in this discussion I asked him why he removed the bulk of most of the plot summaries (which ideally should be 100-200 words) in favor of fatty loglines. He never replied. And in 550+ edits, the user has only discussed something once and has only explained an edit with an edit summary once. Editor Geraldo Perez has reverted this user on the basis that they submitted false information. Not sure how to proceed with an editor who doesn't acknowledge community expectations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like some serious WP:IDHT going on there, and frankly, I'm surprised that s/he hasn't been blocked already. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Abusive Edits on Asia's Next Top Model (Cycle 3) Page

These users IP 71.239.172.110 & 202.67.40.50 keep changing the call-out order section of the Asia's Next Top Model (Cycle 3) page according to their own biased judgement, which is inaccurate from the show. Please check episodes of Asia's Next Top Model (Season 3) to verify the call-out order. These users do not even have a legitimate account, but they are always making incorrect edits. -Win- (talk)

Seems they had very similar issues in the article about the second season of this same show.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

YES! And for many other shows too! Why haven't they been blocked yet, I really do wonder. -Win- (talk)

Jody08 is also posting false information on the page. The user is attempting to post spoilers of episodes that have yet to be broadcasted, therefore there is no actual proof of final results. -Win- (talk)

First thing, Sign your posts. The sinebot posted on your talk page showing you how to do this. This looks more like we have a content dispute going on than a conduct dispute. Looking at the talk page, while I notice they haven't tried to discuss this there I also so note that you haven't. This case isn't really for ANI. Go to the talk page, provide source, discuss it, try to get a consensus, and if that don't work go open some form of dispute resolution WP:DR, like an RFC. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Cryptjohson

Anyone recognize this guy, who popped out of nowhere three days ago with fully-formed knowledge of Wikipedia and has been busting my balls ever since? Anyone interested should take a look at his contributions and edit summaries and his commentary on Talk:Cooper Union#Edit dispute, plus his edits here, where he tried to induce another editor to get involved, until I mentioned that I was aware of Cryptjohson's virgin birth, upon which he deleted those edits.

It's an unfortunate aspect of our CU system, I believe, that "fishing expeditions" aren't allowed, so there needs to be some evidence about who this mysterious "new" user might be. Anyone who recognizes his style is welcome to post it here, or on my talk page, or to e-mail me with their thoughts. Or, if a CU recognizes this person, perhaps that would be sufficient for a check. BMK (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have tried my best to be civil and understanding with this editor, but his sense of superiority won't allow any constructive discussion. Cooper Union is an article that doesn't comply with Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines, and Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. It was in an even more poor condition before I started fixing it [201]. As can be seen from the history of the article, before I started editing it, BMK was engaged in an editwar with Arms & Hearts and violated 3rr. I tried to bring the article, on which BMK had been adding boosterism for quite a long time, to comply with Wikipedia standards[202][203], but BMK keeps trying to sneak in boosterisms. For example I removed the Wikipedia:Weasel word "recent" with this edit, while BMK readded it with this edit. He accused me of being a POV editor[204] and had been very sarcastic toward me from the start (started when I added the sourced fact "Cooper Union ranks #31 in New York State by average professor salaries"(Ithacajournal), and BMK removed it stating there's no consensus to keep it & it's bad for Cooper's reputation), calling me fraud, liar editor with agenda...[205]. Always saying that he doesn't trust me, despite me begging him to discuss and collaborate. He seems to have a conflict of interest with regard to Cooper Union. However, I'm not the only one to be his very recent uncivility victim, there's at least three other, see [206], [207], [208] and [209]. His behavior is really unfortunate.--Cryptjohson (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So there's another useful sample of his writing style to go on. He can't seem to decide if he wants to be the wrongly accused innocent editor or the thorn in my side. He posts a "divide and conquer" comment to Dwpaul's talk page, and then posts comments on the article talk page disclaiming any ulterior motives and trying to sweettalk me. It's all a fraud of course, but the guy's not good enough at it to keep up a consistent facade. BMK (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, pretty much everything he wrote above is innacurate, as can be readily seen by reading the thread on the article talk page. Transparently false descriptions. BMK (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Remember, three days this account has been open, three days. Does the above look like the work of an editor with 3 days experience, or the work of an editor with considerable previous experience under other account names? WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, when we block or ban an editor, it's for good reason, and to allow such editors to create new accounts at will is detrimental to the project.BMK (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Being a new account makes no actual implication. They could have been an active ip editor prior and they could have gotten their current understanding of policy. I'm not aware of any policy against having a new account and being familiar with policy. I see no reason they need to explain to you how they know policy. Did they do something besides guilty of being new?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Kumioko ban proposal

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

---

Recently, Bgwhite[210] and Magioladitis, both non-neutral parties attempted to remove any message or note that would indicate Kumioko as a sock on the talk page of HJ Mitchell, thus violating the WP:TPG.

Magioladitis has abused rollback.[211]( Magioladitis has recognized this as "mistake".[212] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

I don't see what is the reason behind that. Even after this extended and serious discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review, where he was provided standard offer, Kumioko has violated this standard offer multiple times, also check this SPI. And he continues to make up meaningless conspiracies about Arbcom. His ban should be reinstated now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You just reverted comments of 3 admins asking you to stop. One more admin reverted your edits. If you keep disruptive editing I'll block you from editing. Consider this as a warning. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Except when the comment includes some inflammatory stuff, you can remove them. But when you are removing the comment from others talk page just because you don't like, then it is vandalism. Yes you are causing disruption Magioladitis. Noteswork (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You are taking it personally because of your heavy involvement (WP:INVOLVED) with me and Kumioko, but that is not going to justify that he is a ban-evader. You are not allowed to edit others comments or remove them as long as it is not your talk page. Have you read WP:TPG carefully? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ponyo reverted your edits too. Bishonen left you a message too. How many admins does it take that you stop without a block It's not personal. I am trying to save you. I also left you a message to read WP:HELP in case you need extra help to familirise with this site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because one person did something wrong, it doesn't means that you are allowed to abuse rollback. Well you even present Beeblebrox like they are supporting Kumioko,[213] when Beeblebrox refer Kumioko as a "ban evading troll".[214] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from a totally non-involved user: Just drop the stick, because this is getting ridiculous. We're here to create an encyclopaedia, not to pursue personal vendettas all over the place. Especially not on other users' talk pages. Thomas.W ^talk 09:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not support Kumioko neither in his actions. I do not support you neither in your crusade. I made this clear in the emails you 've been sending me too, -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Given your history and recent acts, you do. I haven't sent you any emails related to this incident, what you are talking about? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, Magioladitis and I warned you in the reverted comments on your talk page. Beeblebrox told you. Nick has reverted you today. Ponyo has reverted you today. That is five admins that have either told you to stop or reverted you. You still haven't explained why you left a discretionary sanctions warning on Magioladitis's talk page. This comes on the heels of you not backing off the sockpuppet cases against Zhanzhao and the others you suspected. You pissed off all the SPI clerks. You have been told untold times to drop it and back off. Bgwhite (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Beeblebrox told that one can retrieve the comments of banned editor if they are completely removed. Ponyo didn't reverted for that reason. Thus you are using all of these examples except yours and Magioladitis in completely wrong context. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Nick told that he is not going to increase block length. Bishonen told it differently. They are not saying that this is not allowed. They are acting within their limits while you are crossing them, by removing the comments on others talk page, when they are alerting about a banned editor. You have also edit warred with Fram on the talk page of Kumioko before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OZ, HJ Mitchell told you that "if you don't like the IP or you find them boring, just ignore them". -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell didn't knew then that it is a sock, and didn't knew that it is Kumioko. Thus your misrepresentation is likely not going to work. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like it's a really good idea to drop the stick, OZ.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is violating the WP:TPG, and abusing rollback? This is mostly about Kumioko evading his ban. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I oppose any proposal to extend Kumioko's block to an indefinite block or a community ban. He has been very poorly treated by the community, but he can still return to productive editing if the community shows him the patience, respect and is prepared to give him the sort of opportunities extended recently to people like Peter Damian. If it wasn't for (a) a pretty badly performed ban discussion in the first place and (b) a badly behaved group of editors fighting on his talk page, Kumioko wouldn't be blocked and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Furthermore, I don't see that we're actually protecting Wikipedia from anything by keeping him blocked (blocks being preventative, not punitive and not a form of punishment for upsetting an obsessed OccultZone). If he would agree to stop pestering people like Beeblebrox and respect requests to stay away from user talk pages when asked, he could quite easily be unblocked today. As it is, I'm still recommending we let the current block expire in August and work hard to reintegrate Kumioko back into the community. He has, unlike many blocked users, lots of productive content editing to give, if given the opportunity. At this point, I'm supporting a block of OccultZone for disruption, however. Nick (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What "disruption" you are talking about? Kumioko has treated others poorly, not that he has been poorly treated. Get them straight. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nick's own comment speaks his obsession/bias towards Kumioko, if he can find some previous report by Occult, against Kumioko, then he might be at least correct about Occult having something against Kumiko. Since Nick could not bring such evidence, his proposal is malicious. Noteswork (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• @OccultZone:, as an uninvolved editor, whilst I understand what you are saying, I must also ask you to please listen to what you are being told too. It is a user talk page and does not require that type of highlighting; a simple check of the IP's contributions reveals what it is you are trying to convey - as the block is highlighted at the top. If User:HJ Mitchell agrees with what you are saying, he will reinstate your edits as needed (in fact, maybe he will do so to resolve this more efficiently) - if he doesn't, feel free to air your grievance with him directly. But simply highlighting a banned user's contributions in that way here does not help and your repeated reversions do not help either. Your behaviour has really frustrated other users, and whilst Magioladitis will apologise to you in due course for misusing rollback or inadvertently suggesting you are a vandal, I really hope you will agree to withdraw this ANI in response to the apology so as to resolve the issue here. So long as you cease edit-warring on HJM's talk page on this issue and take this advice in the spirit in which it is given, I will oppose the proposed block on you. Can you please reconsider? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not edit warring there, instead of bringing it to 3RR(could be possible if I made 8 reverts, not just 1-1). Main issue is with Kumioko evading his ban, and there was a extended serious discussion before, when he was provided with standard offer. I am adding that link to my original post, give me 2 minutes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, but I see you have agreed to refrain from reverting about this issue on HJM's talk page which is good. If the community make a decision in relation to your proposal (whether it's to support or oppose it), would you be willing to avoid monitoring/enforcement thereafter? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

He still doesn't understand he is causing a disruption (See above, "What 'disruption' you are talking about?" or this) He still doesn't see anything wrong about his sockpuppet crusades. He only said he won't revert JHM's talk page, not any other ("I am not gonna revert or reinstate my edit on that talk page."). He still doesn't understand why it was wrong to be editing other people's talk page in regards to the sockpuppet. This isn't about a revert. This is about a failure to understand and not letting go. Bgwhite (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, but unless you are suggesting my above question does not take that perspective into account, it would probably be helpful if OccultZone was given an opportunity to respond to that question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What is disruptive about reporting a banned editor? I would take them seriously if he had been told by someone who is not involved here. Though it is disruptive when you are badgering this discussion for your banned friend. Bgwhite. Noteswork (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Since I was asked by Ncmvocalist. In one of the issues raised after the ANI started and I have not noticed: Yes, the rollback was a mistake. I meant to undo. I apologise if I gave the impression the edit was vandalism. It was not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban I am highly surprised how he is still battling over the same issues over and again. He has evaded his ban upto 350 times since July 2014, and we know that he cannot restrain himself it is just better to ban again and next time it should be reviewed after 1 year. Noteswork (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Noteswork this isn't about Kumioko. The entire discussion is about OccultZone. Bgwhite (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I understand that some people have liked him, and you have feelings, but you should stop forcing them on others. Noteswork (talk)

• I am not keen on what OccultZone has been doing but I am even less keen on the disruption via block evasion etc that allegedly continues to come from Kumioko. Perhaps this discussion does in fact need to address that also. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

But isn't allegedly the problem here? There seems to be a lack of evidence for the allegations unless I'm mistaken.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, OZ's reverts started without enough evidence that the IP is/was still used by Kumioko. If a calmer/slower approach was followed we would have avoided the drama. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I had checked Kumioko's changes and it seemed like he found an opportunity to bite Beeblebrox. Issue is with your abuse of rollback. You seem not to be opposing Kumioko, rather supporting his actions, that's why they view your involvement as disruptive, even if he was not a banned editor, how you could edit others messages? Noteswork (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read the entire discussion. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• So, OccultZone needs to move on. Hopefully that's clear to him. Kumioko's IP address has been blocked. There's no consensus for extending the ban and even if there were it would likely be a futile gesture. Kumioko does himself no favours by trolling in project space (whereas if he was evading his ban to write articles, I doubt anybody would notice. Or even care.). Is there anything left to do here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• If block has to be extending it can be discussed elsewhere. I have observed that these discussions were usually long, before as well. I will shortly close this. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Davew123 continued disruption after return from block

Several of us have been trying to explain how things work to Davew123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who may not understand (e.g., editing talk page archives [215] and others' user pages [216], [217]), or may be choosing to not listen (e.g., [218]). He has been creating articles (e.g,. Draft:Nonex [219], Domain validation) and editing articles (e.g., TV Everywhere) to include, either unsourced or from what appear to be self-published sources, references to his own own patents (e.g., [220], [221], [222]).

After being warned about his actions at User_talk:Davew123#April_2015, and informed about WP:COI [223], he attacked @Beeblebrox:, resulting in a recent ANI report [224] and then a block [225] by @Nihonjoe:.

Now that his block has expired, User:Davew123 is back to his same pattern of behavior, adding references to his own work to articles [226], and referring to the "fraud office [having] some questions for you”, with edit summary "Mafia crooks 0%" [227], which appears to be a personal attack. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Session (computer science) still contains stuff he added years ago, again sourced only to himself. 80.189.137.19 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it [228], thanks. Any others? JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are more, two on other language Wikis:

• Weak reference - someone else fixed [229]
• Chinese Wikipedia article “Weak references” - not fixed - still in subsection Java.
• Czech Wikipedia article “Session” - also not fixed, in section Session Management on the Web server fixed JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave Wain says: All of my articles/amendments are factually correct. Note that commercially sensitive information is not normally published in academic papers. Most of my contributions are backed up with fully granted patents, which is a very exacting process. Other articles such as Moon Elevator (which has not yet been submitted) are designed to be fun and educational. Please read the content because it is thought provoking and correct. Davew123 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Dave,

Thank you for your civility in this response, and also thank you for not edit warring to restore the reverts of your recent article edits.

• Other than your initial contributions to be auto-confirmed, your contributions to English Wikipedia and other wikipedias have been to add text referring to your your work. Per WP:COI, “COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted (see Wikipedia is in the real world), and if it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked. "[M]isrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. The Foundation's terms of use are Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:Terms of use”.
• These additions have either been unsourced or have been self-published. Per WP:SPS, “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.”.
• Finally, that you assert your additions are all factual is insufficient for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

So, what can you do? You could go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see if references to your patents would be considered reliable. I don’t think so, but I defer to those who volunteer there. Alternatively, you find a published journal article or book that refers to your work. The details you mention are not necessary, but that a 3rd-party or peer-reviewed journal published, vice yourself, is important. Finally, if you really think that the addition of reference to your work adds appropriately (see WP:UNDUE) to a given article, go to the talk page and make a note why it should be added, rather than adding it yourself. Otherwise, your additions are going to be viewed as purely WP:PROMOTIONAL.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The fraud office comment should attract an immediate block per WP:NLT. At the minimum, it is a blatant attempt at chilling discussion. Blackmane (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking over the previous ANI discussion (it still hasn't been archived yet as of this writing), people were already talking about possible WP:NOTHERE issues. Vague legal threats really don't help his situation any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Users Toddy1 and Nepolkanov (Неполканов)

Could I get some attention to the removal of my recent comments please? It was my first edit on wikipedia after a long time reading and enjoying wikipedia. My comments were immediately removed and I was called a block evasion of User:Kaz as far as I can see from reading about Use:Kaz having been identified with him/her by Tody1, every time someone has come and edited the Crimean Karaites article in a way that Toddy1 and Nepolkanov do not like, they get the editor blocked saying it is a sock puppet of User:Kaz. The Crimean Karaites article is utterly appauling and I can see that Nepolkanov who also edits the Russian Wikipedia has "Outed" User Kaz and is removing all references to the International Institute of Crimean Karaites while at the same time using all of the images from the Institute!! Something really has to be done about this dynamic duo. I have to say I was extremely angered when my comments were removed from the talk page but I have been reading through all weekend to try and work out what Toddy1 was talking about when heshe removed all my comments, and after I see how petty and ridiculous the motivatin I simply can not find any pleasant words. Requesting intervention please. 79.109.203.252 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)