Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philg88 (talk | contribs) at 06:55, 5 May 2015 (→‎Elindiord's reverts, again: blocked/closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    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 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"
    • 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
    • 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

    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. [1] The controversy is gaining more attention and has been investigated by the media including the BBC [2] and several doctors including endocrinologists and urologists. [3][4][5][6] 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. [7]

    References

    1. ^ [1]
    2. ^ [2]
    3. ^ [3]
    4. ^ [4]
    5. ^ [5]
    6. ^ [6]
    7. ^ [7]
        • 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"
    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)
    • 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.

    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.

    !votes re ban proposal

    (note: "break 1" was originally "survey" and "break 2" was originally "discussion". was changed by SlimVirgin in this dif with edit note "not an RfC". Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)) note no longer relevant, changed again by Guy in this dif Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    • Support as nominator. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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) [reply]
    • Support The edit-warring, misinterpretation of sources, exhaustive talk page posts, and personal attacks that Doors has engaged with respect to this topic suggests that he unable to edit this topic productively and therefore a topic ban is justified. I understand how devastating side effects of drugs can be and I understand wanting to include that information in an article, but crossing the line into disruption is not ok. Ca2james (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose JYTDog admitted below that this is at least partly a personal content dispute for him. Both JYTDog and Formerly98 have been accused by a handful of other editors of being "COI Ducks" - editors that have an editing style of being paid editors or having some other conflict of interest. While this is almost impossible to prove unless the editor in question volunteers this information, it is problematic nonetheless. Moreover, they seem to have formed a WP:TAGTEAM and will participate in each others skirmishes as they battle with other editors, usually to remove negative information about large corporations or side effects from drugs. Both of these editors have even attracted criticism from non-wikipedia sources which you will find if you google both Formerly98 and JYTDog. I also believe this is also a retaliation from when I contributed my opinion on noticeboard incident's when both of these editors were separately reprimanded. JYTDog has an established pattern of retaliating against editors with whom he disagrees by initiating incidents against them on this noticeboard. In an edit below, he even admitted he frequently submits complains on this board and he was reprimanded for doing so just a couple weeks ago.
    Most importantly, this most recent complaint comes as a retaliation for a RFC (request for comment) I posted on the NPOV board. I recently put in a reference to a meta study published in a highly respected journal that called into question the quality of the existing clinical trials for finasteride. The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health but also received a small unrestricted gift from a non-profit group that is trying to organize research about permanent side effects caused by Propecia, a cosmetic drug. In my opinion, Formerly98 tried to poison the well by calling out that it was funded by an activist group. His statements were accurate to an extent, but they were misleading since he completely disregarded that the NIH, a globally respected research institution, was the main sponsor for the study. He often argues out of both sides of his mouth depending on his objective du jour. He decided the foundation was not notable enough to receive a wikipedia article but it is notable enough to mention when he feels it can discredit research that is unfavorable to the drug. Sometimes he feels the FDA is a authoritative source and other times he downplays its significance. What is very important to note is that an admin independently reviewed Formerly98's questionable edit yesterday and removed the reference to the funding source as he evidently felt it was not worthy of inclusion. When you look at things from the perspective of a tagteam of obstructive editors with a questionable history of downplaying side effect edits, things will look unfavorable but I would ask you review both of their edit histories to understand that they are the true source of this conflict. I made some mistakes in my newbie days (several years ago) which they have been eager to highlight but as many editors do, I have adapted as I gained an understanding of how things work around here. Doors22 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - the inventors and proponents of "post finasteride syndrome" have been disrupting WP for years. The creation of a draft about the foundation (just to claim in the lede that this "syndrome" is legitimate) is the latest dirty trick in a tiresome campaign. The commentary now at Finasteride#Adverse effects is poorly written and disingenuously sourced but neither surprises me. The fewer hysterical, POV pushers in this area, the better. St★lwart111 04:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few things that don't make sense with this post. People who recognize post finasteride syndrome aren't the "inventors" of the syndrome, it is something that is caused by an adverse reaction to the drug. In the past you have falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet which was proven to be baseless upon investigation by an administration. I also was not the one to create the draft about the foundation although I think it is worthy of existence. You also mention that the adverse events section is poorly written and disingenously sourced but it was last updated by DocJames and yet includes references from the National Institutes of Health, JAMA Dermatology, and the FDA. Lastly, despite what it says on your own user page, you apparently haven't assumed good faith about multiple editors by accusing them of carry out a "dirty trick" by creating a page for the post-finasteride syndrome foundation. The existence of permanent/crippling side effects is one of the most (if not the most) widely discussed issue about the drug. This will become quickly apparent after a quick google search or news run. I don't really understand why you are accusing editors of using some kind of a trick to create an article for a non profit that is already approved by the US government. Your whole edit makes very little sense. Doors22 (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "symptoms" are caused by adverse reactions to the drug. Grouping those symptoms together to call it a "syndrome" is absolutely the invention of a select group of fringe-dwelling pseudo-medicos. That a number of health authorities have acknowledged that those people use that name for those symptoms is not "recognition" by those authorities. In this instance, the editing history of this particular subject isn't confined to your actions (though they are disruptive on their own). There is a 4-year history of POV-pushing, pseudo-science and emotion-dressed-as-medicine on Wikipedia with particular regard to this drug. And of course the adverse symptoms are the "most widely discussed issue about the drug" - you could say that about 90% of drugs that otherwise do what they are supposed to do except in a tiny number of cases. Highways just sit there doing what they are supposed to do - we only talk about the accidents. And we're talking about tiny numbers, as the sources you put forward quite rightly acknowledge - a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. Rather than focus on my account of the history of this subject and the current state of our articles, perhaps you should spend some time reflecting on your misbehavior, disruption and attitude and think about issuing some apologies because you're on a fast track to a topic-ban (which, to be fair, is about as light a sanction as we have). St★lwart111 10:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement is concerning because if you took the time to thoroughly review this incident you would have seen I already offered apologies for mistakes I have made. This incident is for the most part the result of a personal content dispute between myself and Formerly98 but the incident was opened by JYTDog on Formerly's behalf. Let me ask you this - How can you possibly collaborate with an editor who makes one argument to meet his objectives one day and then turns around and argues a more extreme version of the opposite case the next day in a separate context? It is almost impossible when you are dealing with another editor who is attempting to game the system and apparently has a lot more free time and will than are available to me at the current time. Diff SourceDoors22 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no, i did not open this on Formerly's behalf. that is your BATTLEGROUND mentality. i opened this because in my view your behavior is disruptive to the point where we need to topic ban you; I am seeking the community's input on that.
    You were warned to stop POV pushing many, many times - the following are just some of them:
    • Jan 12 2015 by me here
    • Jan 13 2015 by me here
    • Oct 2014 POV pushing remarked by Jfdwolff here and expanded here where he wrote "No, my comment about "persistence" relates to the fact that you've been editing Wikipedia as a single-purpose account since February 2011. During that time we have had repeated discussions about using Wikipedia to promote awareness of a phenomenon that has been very poorly studied. "
    • 29 March 2011 3 editors oppose your efforts to load animal studies into the article and note your POV-pushing: Talk:Finasteride/Archive_2#Even_more_animal_studies
    • 18 March 2011 Tryptofish acting as a mediator noted your aggressiveness
    • Feb 8 2011 warned by Jdwollf here and again here
    • Feb 7 2011 warned by Jfwolff here
    and you just not hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support.(uninvolved) The SPA behavior has been pretty well established above, and the personal attacks show this user's engagement in the topic has become problematic. I'd look for at least 6 months on a topic ban (maybe more), but definitely a short WP:ROPE after that. I've only recently seen some of this editor's behavior pop up on my watchlist articles, and that already seemed troubling before I saw the case here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Doors appears to have a specific POV, while Jytdog and Formerly 98 appear to hold opposing POV. Eliminating one POV from the discussion seems counterproductive in terms of ending up with NPOV articles. With respect to the content dispute and accusations of FRINGE, a cursory 30 second search reveals multiple MEDRS sources discussing Finasteride with respect to erectile dysfunction:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18421068/
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24955220
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21176115
    It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. [10] There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports. It seems that without Doors, the article wouldn’t mention this as a rare, but potentially longterm/permanent side effect (this seems like relevant encyclopedic content which I suspect many men would like to be aware of). It seems that eliminating Doors from participation would not be good for Wikipedia in terms of NPOV or the readers..--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BoboMeowCat did you review the long history of behavior issues, supported by diffs, provided above? For that matter did you even review the 3 sources you provided to see if they were relevant to the content, because they don't appear to be. In fact the first one you provided, PMID 18421068, supports the opposite conclusion from what Doors is pushing, so how is it relevant? And neither of the other two really support all that well the existence of a "post-finasteride syndrome," which is the idea that sexual dysfunction continues after discontinuation of use--that is what Doors has been pushing. And what do you think of this edit by Doors, which removes a 2014 MEDLINE-indexed meta-analysis and review? And it's problematic to try to square off Doors' behavior issues as "POV vs. POV" when what really matters is, who is supporting development of article content along WP policy and guidelines, with respectful and collegial behavior? Because of all this I can't see how this !vote carries any weight. Zad68 20:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Zad, I did review the history. There's a lot to wade through but there appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND on both sides. With respect to the 3 secondary sources I listed, I'm aware that the oldest one supports the opposite position. Not cherry picking among secondary sources I found on this topic, I linked them all.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you didn't really focus on the behavior issues, which is what an ANI thread should focus on, and you're aware your sources aren't really relevant to the editing by Doors. OK then. Zad68 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, BoboMeowCat, but I have to question whether you actually read the discussion above or the sources attached to that particular claim. It is the same problematic claim I highlighted immediately above your comment. The suggestion that an acknowledgement on their website that some anti-Finasteride activists use the term "post Finasteride syndrome" is not the same thing as "x group gave recognition to the syndrome" which is what our article now claims. That "men would like to be aware of" the anecdotal-evidence-based claims of fringe-dwelling activists is of no consequence to us. That's not what we do around here. Again, this is part of an ongoing, 4-year pattern of extreme disruption and POV-pushing from people who "just want to get the truth out there". St★lwart111 22:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I think there is some misunderstanding here.

    "It appears the ongoing goodfaith efforts of Doors are largely responsible for getting this conservative statement regarding potential long term sexual dysfunction included in the current WP article: The effect of finasteride on sexual function is controversial but "Post-Finasteride syndrome" was recognized by the National Institutes of Health's Office of Rare Disease research group in 2015. [10] There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports."
    • The material in the first sentence is incorrect. As noted on the Talk page (note that I have not yet reverted, and Doors has not yet responded to my day old note) the page that Doors is referencing here contains an link to a disclaimer stating that the information on the page is collected by library specialists from diverse sources, including advocacy group sites, and the NIH neither vouches for its accuracy nor does anything on the page reflect official NIH policy. Any materials that the ORDR provides are for information purposes only and do not represent endorsement by or an official position of ORDR, NCATS, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or any Federal agency. " In the course of adding this information, Doors removed two meta analyses, one of which found evidence for sexual dysfunction and one which did not. So high quality secondary refs were removed, and replaced with statements that are not supported by the source.
    • The information in the second sentence has been there since 2008 (Before Doors22 edited here). To the best of my memory no one has tried to remove it, even though MEDRS explicitly states that "Case reports, like other anecdotes, fall below minimum standards of evidence".
    Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 01:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only did you try to remove this, but you were for the most part successful! I see you have a pretty selective memory. See the diff here. Am I the only one who is picking up on these misleading arguments? Doors22 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your diff doesn't show removal of the material, only that it was broken out into a new paragraph Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is completely false. You conveniently removed the text that mentioned the global regulatory bodies (Sweden, UK, Italy, FDA). You specifically said "to the best of your memory nobody has tried to remove it" (referring to text about the Swedish Medical Products Agency). One falsehood begets another... Doors22 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doors, this is why it is inappropriate for you to edit this article. The material about persistent sexual side effects was moved to a new paragraph and reduced from three sentences (one that said that it had been observed, a second that stated the Swedes had added it to the Swedish label, and a third that stated that it had been added to the U.S. label) to one. It was NOT removed and the reduction from three sentences to one was done by a consensus agreement among three editors and opposed only by you. Yet instead of accepting that your position did not win consensus, here you are 6 months later shouting in all bold, all caps letters (all caps removed by Doors after this response was posted) about "ridiculous tactic" and engaging in yet more personal attacks. This is classic WP:ADVOCACY and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and is precisely why you should not be editing this article. You are too close to the topic to be objective. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are now shifting your argument which is typical but it shouldn't distract too many. You winnowed down a reasonable section to text to 'there are case reports of persistent side effects'. All the while you deleted reference to the globally respected medical authorities that serve as valuable MEDRS. The problem is that you write like you are a spokesperson for a pharmaceutical company - constantly trying to minimize valid information or deflect from issues that are disadvantageous to you. These are not personal attacks but observations about the validity and consistency of your arguments and your editing style. The 'ridiculous tactic' I am calling out is that you showed a clip of text that has been there for years and 'to the best of your memory nobody attempted to remove it', yet you were the one to cut it down by 75%. Call a spade a spade and don't try to create the impression you haven't reduced the text when you have. Doors22 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again Doors, these bahaviors are emblematic of the problem
    • Your ongoing anger about this edit six months after it was performed
    • Your failure to recognize and accept the fact that your version failed to attract consensus support
    • Your personalization of the content dispute, personal attacks, and defense of the same even when they are pointed out to you as a violation of policy
    Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 06:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My current disagreement has nothing to do with the specific edit at all. My disagreement comes from the fact you tried to use this as an example just yesterday of an edit that you say nobody has tried to remove. With two seconds of research, it is determined you made an effort to remove the citation and now you are claiming you built a consensus around it. You could just admit that you chose an incorrect example as a mistake, but your unwillingness to do so illustrates you have no interest in having a constructive conversation. Would anybody else like to comment on this? Doors22 (talk) 13:33, Today (UTC+1)

    Doors, one more time. No one tried to removed the information that there are case reports of sexual dysfunction that continue after stopping the drug. What happened is that by a 3:1 consensus, a decision was made to not to add a separate sentence for each regulatory agency that added this to the drug label. (We don't have a separate sentence for each regulatory agency that approved the drug, after all.)

    Yes, I misread your diff and said that it was a move to another paragraph and did not note that there was also a reduction in weight (one that was supported by a 3 : 1 consensus). You could have corrected that, though I don't really see how it matters since it was a consensus decision. What you decided to do instead was to immediately start accusing me of lying. This is the wrong approach and against policy. You don't see me here accusing you of lying and deliberate falsification when you add information stating that the NIH has "officially recognized" post finasteride syndrome, which given the disclaimer on the source page, strikes me as obviously incorrect. I simply assume that it was a mistake or difference in interpretation. You need to realize that you are a beneficiary of WP:GF here and that you need to practice it as well. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 12:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was asked to comment here, but I know nothing about Doors22 or the issue. Formerly 98, can you help me to understand the exchange above? You wrote that the information about the Swedish Medical Agency (you provided this link) has been in the article since 2008, and that no one has tried to remove it. But you did remove it here in September 2014. It is no longer in the article.
    There is a source for it on PubMed, an article from 2011 in the Journal for Sexual Medicine (I haven't checked to see whether it's correct): "The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency of the United Kingdom and the Swedish Medical Products Agency have both updated their patient information leaflets to include a statement that 'persistence of erectile dysfunction after discontinuation of treatment with Propecia has been reported in post-marketing use.'" Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sarah
    No that is incorrect. I did NOT make the statement that "the information about the Swedish Medical Agency has been in the article since 2008. What I said was that "The information in the second sentence [of my quote of BobMeowCat]] has been there since 2008" The key information in that sentence is "There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug". If you look at the diff I offered, the information is sourced differently but it is present in 2008. And if you look at the diff provided by Doors, the information that "There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug" is still there after the edit that I made last year supported by a 3:1 consensus.
    The key issue here as I see it is not in any case whether I made an inaccurate statement (I don't believe I did). The key issue is Doors immediately began accusing me of "falsehood" and being deliberately misleading. These are gross violations of WP:GF. He could have raised the discrepancy between what I said and his perceptions in a non-accusatory way, but as has been his pattern, he immediately went on the attack. Miscommunications, misunderstandings, and even inadvertent misstatements are commonplace in discussions about issues. What drives them off the track and into the ditch is the failure to apply reasonable assumption of WP:GF.
    Meaning no disrespect, my understanding of the rules is that you should not be here commenting given that you were canvassed to join the conversation. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 16:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining the exchange. (People are allowed to ask for uninvolved input, by the way; calling it canvassing isn't really fair.)
    Doors22, Jytdog has asked for a topic ban from anything related to Finasteride. Would you be willing instead to confine yourself to the talk page? A topic ban would deprive Wikipedia of the information you have, and you're obviously well-informed, but your adding material directly to articles is not a good idea because you have a conflict of interest if you're involved with the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. Also, focusing on one issue means you don't develop a feel for Wikipedia's policies. Reading them isn't enough; you have to see them in action and use them yourself, but if you're confined to one issue, and only sporadically, that learning curve doesn't happen, and everyone ends up frustrated.
    It would also be important, if you remain active on talk, not to overwhelm editors with long or repeated requests. If you'd like something to be added to the article, use the "edit request" template, write up your edit along with sources, and post it. If the editors there say no, a good way forward is to start an RfC and abide by the results.
    The material about sexual dysfunction after cessation of the drug is now in the article, as is Post-Finasteride Syndrome, and there's a mention of the Foundation too (though the heading "Society and culture" is odd). Is there anything important missing, in your view? Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah, I appreciate your good intent here but looking at the comments above, I don't think this proposal will address the issues that I am having with this editor. Multiple editors, at least one who is uninvolved, have asked Doors to discontinue his personal attacks, and Doors' response has consistently been to deny that there is any problem with his behavior. I don't think he understands how to carry on a reasoned debate without getting personal, or else he is so emotional about this particular issue that he is unable to restrain himself or see his behavior objectively. I am concerned that this proposal will simply lead to the Talk page continuing to be filled with invective, and that other inappropriate expressions of anger will continue. I know you and I have very different outlooks on the world and our opinions are frequently very very different. But I hope you will agree that I deserve to be allowed to edit here without being constantly being called a liar and having my good will questioned over every difference of opinion on this issue. Others may have different issues, but those are my concerns anyway. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 17:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Formerly 98:, there are problems on both sides. We saw it in the exchange above. You posted something imprecise (that no one had tried to remove the second sentence, without specifying what you meant), Doors and I both (mis)understood it to mean the same thing, it seemed obviously false, Doors responded with frustration because he feels this happens a lot, and you then suggested that his frustration shows why he ought not to edit in this area. You then moved his post to the lower section, and suggested that I ought not to comment because Doors asked me to.
    The usual thing with COI editors is to ask them to stick to talk. If they become overwhelming on talk, a topic-ban request is the next step. It makes sense to give this a try, because otherwise you lose Doors' input entirely, and he's seems well-informed about this, even if not always in a form that WP can use. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Slim, I think you are suggesting a false moral equivalence here. I find a lot of Door's comments "imprecise". But I don't call him a liar over and over and over again. If he is "frustrated", a break might be the best thing. Because judging by his behavior, he has been "frustrated" and "feeling this happens a lot" with multiple editors since 2011.
    With respect to your comments on canvassing, do you really think Doors picked your name at random out of a hat as "an uninvolved editor", given your position as an admin, the many disagreements that you have had with Jytdog, and your posting skeptical remarks about my edits to the GlaxoSmithKline article the day before he sought you assistance as an "uninvolved editor"? This is where an editor with less respect for the rules and less confidence in the good intent of his peers might start getting "frustrated". But I"m not going to go there and Doors should not have either. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Formerly 98, you indicated above that the relevant info has been there since 2008 and clarified you were referring to this sentence:
    There are case reports of persistent diminished libido or erectile dysfunction after stopping the drug and the FDA has updated the label to inform healthcare professionals of these reports..
    This isn't true...quick review of history shows this info hasn't been in the article since 2008. Here's the relevant text from December 2008:
    Recognized side effects, experienced by around >1% of users, include erectile dysfunction, and less often gynecomastia (breast gland enlargement). [1] As expected from its short 6-8 hour half-life, in trial studies, side effects ceased after dosage was discontinued. [8].
    Prior to Doors first edit in 2011, mention that this could be a long term/permanent side effect wasn't made clear. Here's the relevant text immediately before Door's first edit in 2011:
    Side effects of finasteride include impotence (1.1% to 18.5%), abnormal ejaculation (7.2%), decreased ejaculatory volume (0.9% to 2.8%), abnormal sexual function (2.5%), gynecomastia (2.2%), erectile dysfunction (1.3%), ejaculation disorder (1.2%) and testicular pain. Resolution occurred in men who discontinued therapy with finasteride due to these side effects and in most men who continued therapy. [9]. Later down in that version there was mention of the Swedish health advisory, but you later removed that.
    I would think most men would consider temporary erectile dysfunction very different than longterm/permanent sexual dysfunction. It seems Doors is largely responsible for inclusion of this rare but serious reported side effect being mentioned in the article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin several issues:
    • I am sorry but in my view you are WP:INVOLVED and I view Doors22's posting on your page as canvassing. You raised questions here and here on your Talk page about the integrity/bias of both Formerly and me, as have other editors talking there; those editors have discussed concerns about pro-industry POV in the same breath that they have espoused FRINGE medical ideas like conspiracy theories about AIDS and autism/vaccines. Doors22, who also espouses FRINGE convictions about medicine (in his case, PFS) has made his main "defense" - really a distraction from issues raised here about his behavior - the putative bias/corruption/bad faith of Formerly and me. That you stepped up here to support someone advocating a FRINGE medical position who is making personal attacks of COI against people holding down the mainstream medical view, is just unfortunate.
    • I raised no issue about COI about Doors22 nor has anyone else here, that I am aware of. I am raising issues about his long term POV pushing at the article, and increasing BATTLEGROUND behavior at the article and at other noticeboards/talk pages.
    • Thanks for the suggestion that Doors22 stop editing the article directly. That is not a terrible solution, but doesn't address Doors22's BATTLEGROUND behavior at the article and outside it. I think it might be reasonable for the community to go with your recommendation if Doors22 agreed to refrain from directly editing, and acknowledged his battleground behavior and agreed to stop. On the other hand the community may also take the view that Doors22 has already demonstrated that he is NOTHERE and has already not changed course after many, many warnings, and that a topic ban is in order. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Door presumably asked me to comment because I had concerns about Formerly 98's insistence that research funding be included in relation to the Post-Finesteride Syndrome Foundation (he argued that "funding impacts study outcomes" here, 17:44, 17 April), but when it came to GlaxoSmithKline's RECORD trial studying Avandia and cardiovascular outcomes argued the opposite (e.g. here, namely that it would be second guessing, because the FDA had decided the funding didn't matter – which isn't correct; they asked for an independent review of the trial). The result is that we're probably the only source discussing the RECORD trial that has deliberately omitted that it was a GSK trial (F98's edit here).

    There seems to be a lot of removal of well-sourced information when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, and this is perhaps what caused Door22's frustration. Returning to the issue, the question now is whether he will agree to stick to talk, as Jytdog seems to be willing to consider this. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Slim, the bottom line is you should not be here. You have a recent history of conflict with both Jytdog and myself, and this lack of objectivity is exactly what Doors was hoping for when he canvassed you. Do the right thing. Strike your remarks and withdraw. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 21:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Formerly, people have the right to do whatever they want when they are canvassed. That is a distraction.
    Slim, Doors is attempting to distract the community from his four year record with the pharma shill gambit over recent interactions. It is a four year record. With regard to outcome, I prefer a topic ban and that is the SNOW consensus here so far.Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Being involved doesn't mean people can't comment, so who is or isn't involved is a red herring, just as the canvassing guideline doesn't mean people can't ask for help, and MEDRS doesn't say anything that would prevent Wikipeda from telling its readers that the RECORD trial was GSKs. I see a lot of policy and guideline misuse, and whereas experienced editors can ignore it, the less experienced get frustrated, lash out at the unfairness, then get blocked or banned for having lashed out. Having said that, I don't support COI or SPA editing, and I don't think Door should be editing that article. Let's wait to hear whether he accepts staying on the talk page and making an extra effort to minimize drama there (which I hope others will do too). Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SV of course you are free to comment here; I only commented on your involvement as you seem to have described yourself as "uninvolved". And bringing up things about GSK where Doors22 has never edited, shows that. Doors is responsible for his behavior. Editors other than Formerly and me have called his attention to his attempts to use of WP as a soapbox over the last four years; his behavior has not changed and he has become only more fierce. Please see the 7 support !votes other than mine and Formerly's, two of whom have had to deal with Doors at the article over the last four years prior to Formerly getting involved (~ 1 year ago at Feb 2014) or me (~ 6 months ago Oct 2014).Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, thank you for your commentary. I am open to some kind of solution like you proposed. I am not affiliated with the post finasteride syndrome as you may have thought nor have I given them a personal donation, however I have kept up to date with their activities as they are doing a good job to stimulate research and awareness for the condition. If I were to confine myself to just the talk page, I think it is only fair to do the same for JYTDog and Formerly98, especially the latter. JYTDog has accused me of engaging in canvassing you provide support for my cause yet we have never interacted before and I only contacted a single editor. Meanwhile, JYTDog signaled to eight users whom he specifically said were likely to come out against me and several of them did in fact support the motion to topic ban me.
    I am concerned that if only I am confined to the talk page, Formerly will remove/condense/conceal useful text that discusses the controversy of Propecia's persisting side effects. He has done just this in the past. In one example, he reached a relative consensus with another editor Gilmour1201 in February 2014 and then about 6 months later he decided to reverse any compromise that had been established after the original editor left. Beginning on September 11, 2014 he embarked upon a series of edits where he removed references to Propecia side effects. Ironically, the first edit was a separate instance where he removed the reference to the warning label updated by the Swedish Medical Products Agency. Another good example of Formerly98's editing style is when he removed properly referenced information about Merck, Propecia's manufacturer, with a very weak rationale. These are just a couple examples worth highlighting. Moreover, the recent incident in which he made opposing arguments to represent his pro-industry POV was the latest that catalyzed this current debate. In the first edit he argues that the source of study funding affects study conclusions so it is reasonable to bring attention to a small unrestricted gift on the Propecia page. Yet the next day on the Glaxo Smith Kline page, he pontificates "Why would we add the information that the trial was GSK funded except to raise questions about the reliability of its conclusions?". The way I see it, this type of disruptive editing and argumentation has largely contributed the drama we are discussing today.
    I think the current state of the article is not perfect but reasonable. There are several high profile studies that are currently being conducted on post finasteride syndrome, one of which by a Harvard affiliated hospital, and I'd like the article to incorporate the findings once they are published in the future. More studies will continue for at least the next several years. While this condition has been publicly known for over a decade, it is unfortunate that the Wikipedia community has been resistant to even mention this controversy. It takes many years to design a study, conduct the study, publish the (primary) study, and then even longer for somebody else to write it up in a secondary report which qualifies as MEDRS. How do you feel about the suggestion of having myself, JYTDog, and Formerly98 contribute solely through talk page discussions going forward? I think this solution may work well if editors who have not been involved in these long debates are ultimately responsible for deciding what goes into the article. Best Doors22 (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You just don't get it do you? There is strong support (all but one) for a total topic ban with regard to finasteride (and derivatives, manufacturers and associated organisations - "broadly construed") which would exclude contributions to the talk page and every associated discussion anywhere on WP. SV is throwing you a (very generous) bone by suggesting that such a topic ban might be limited to article space so that you could contribute to discussions "behind the scenes". I don't support that at all but she has every right to propose it. And you're (basically) throwing it in her face by suggesting you'll accept such an offer, but only if those who have highlighted your disruption are sanctioned also? That's not how it works, mate. If you walk away from this (almost-100% consensus) without a total topic ban (or a block) you should consider yourself lucky. You're in absolutely no position to suggest that others receive equivalent sanctions as a result of your behaviour. St★lwart111 06:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doors22, I apologize for assuming you were involved with the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. I mistakenly thought that had been acknowledged. If you're not, and so long as you're not suing the company or anything similar, you don't have a COI, but the focus on this one issue is still a problem. If a topic ban is imposed, perhaps you could use the time to edit more widely, then you could ask that it be lifted after six months or so. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, no worries about the mix up with the foundation. I recognize that I did take the bait on several occasions when I should not have which apparently got me into trouble. While I made mistakes, I feel it should acknowledged that I was provoked on multiple occasions that contributed to this ordeal. I'm sure you understand that it can be challenging to work with more experienced editors who are quick to quote a range of guidelines to get the edge in disagreements.
    What is your current thinking about restricting myself to the talk page going forward? JYTDog mentioned he thinks it would be a reasonable solution to discuss edits on the talk page and Formerly98 recently said he would prefer to establish a better working relationship than go through the ANI process. I think it would help secure the neutrality of the article if the same policy is upheld for them as well. In its current state, I think it is reasonably balanced but I mentioned earlier that I'm concerned the balance will quickly evaporate if I am removed. Stalwart111 is under the impression that this board is unanimously against me for some reason but both I and BoboMeowCat oppose a topic ban and it isn't entirely clear where you stand. More than 50% have been in favor but two of those editors were directly involved in this incident and JYTDog canvassed eight users who were previously involved. Thanks again. Doors22 (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doors22, in future when someone cites a policy, calmly ask them to quote the relevant part from it, then read that part in context to get a feel for whether they're right. I think restricting you to the talk page is a reasonable compromise. It makes no sense to turn down an information source, and you've been mostly civil in the last couple of years (before that there were a few rough posts). But, as I said, consensus is currently against you, and this isn't up to me. An uninvolved admin will close the discussion. As for Jytdog and F98 also being confined to talk, that's unlikely to happen. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By my reading, 10 support the proposal and 2 (including you) oppose it. Which means you've managed to convince 1 person that sanctions aren't immediately necessary to prevent you from further disrupting this project. And he didn't really seem to understand what was being proposed or why. That's a few more than "more than 50%"; more than 80% in fact. And you continue to argue that you're a necessary force for ensuring the article remains "neutral". There's absolutely no remorse here at all for what is long-term disruption, just vague references to "taking the bait" as if others are (once again) responsible for your disruptive actions. St★lwart111 09:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the behavior at the article, at the various User Talk pages, here in this ANI thread. Editor cannot maintain enough detachment from his agenda to edit in accordance with content policy and behavior guidelines. Zad68 03:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. SPA with personal attacks and other POV pushing, record going back years. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban. Doors22 is a POV pushing SPA that has been disruptive in the topic area for years. The question shouldn't be whether or not to topic ban them, but why they have been allowed to be disruptive for so long. Yobol (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Doors22 is a WP:SPA whose activism has spilled over into edits of WP:BLP articles on figures identified with the subject of his fixation. He may be right, more likely he has at least some points worth making, but the way he is pursuing his agenda is rife with WP:SYN, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and all the usual alphabet soup applied to agenda editors. A timed topic ban is obvious here, I suggest at least 6 months. If he is not sufficiently interested in Wikipedia to start editing other topics, then frankly we can do without him. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (uninvolved non admin) Doors22 clearly has a personal connection to the article, which is prohibiting him from making quality edits and rational discourse over the talkpage. Perhaps when some time has passed and Doors has expanded himself to other areas of the encyclopedia, the topic ban can be revisited, however its blatantly obvious that one is needed in the present day. cnbr15 13:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. Support alternative talk page restriction proposed below. Agree with above assessment of POV both ways. Agree with assessment that single purpose editing has frustrated gaining broad WP experience and normal WP socialization as might be expected from the number of years. Agree with above assessment of teaming. Hugh (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    context for HughD's vote. He edit warred against me (and Formerly and 2 other editors) at the GSK article and received a block for it. Was POV=pushing some politically-oriented content which seems to be an ongoing issue (edit war warnings on political articles here, here and here and those don't count the ones he deleted which you can see here). So the "oppose" is no surprise. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, we request you argue in the threaded discusssion section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the edit history, as the reporting editor shows, arranged in spurts, bouts of wholly unsatisfying editing interspersed with long frustration breaks. Less than 400 edits, just 128 in article space. If you don't look at the years (5) the reported editor is a relative newbie to our project, never gained 5 years of experience. This editor's biggest mistake was following his passion into the pharmaceutical ownership zone, where he got summarily beat up and yeah, fought back, ineptly. All he knew of WP is what he learned there from the entrenched: revert, delete, snideness, tag teams, and notice boards. This episode is as much a failure in welcoming and inclusiveness as anything else. Warnings all around, please. Hugh (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (non admin uninvolved in the dispute)There are problems here, on both sides. Someone will undoubtedly point out that I have had issues in the past with some of those seeking the ban. I also point out that we see way to many cases brought here by those seeking the ban that have a content disagreement mixed in. I do think that Doors22 has something to offer on the topic, but there are issues that they should think about. I oppose an indef ban but support a talk page restriction or at most a 6 month topic ban. (added later) This post by Doors22 on the WP:ANRFC board diff shows that there is hope in that he sees there is a problem and seeing a problem is the first step in fixing it. AlbinoFerret 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    oh man. thanks for providing that link. so on the one hand he says "i am responsible" and on the other he says me and Formerly are responsible.... and most importantly he no where in that post acknowledges that he is here for one reason - to use WP as a soapbox nor does he acknowledge WP:SOAPBOX. what he said 4 years ago remains true today: "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue" -- that is the definition of WP:NOTHERE. he is a longterm POV-pusher and the battleground behavior continues, as he continues to blame others for his behavior - and even takes advantage of my neutral request for a close, to open yet another forum to argue. and that you cannot see all that AlbinoFerret... Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the things I have found frustrating is when you have mis-quoted and mis-referenced policies that are not applicable to the situation. I do not attempt to use the encyclopedia as a soapbox and I feel that one quote from 4 years ago was taken out of context. The are reasons these guidelines exist and I recognize (and hopefully you do too) that edits will be more credible and useful if they abide by the rules. I try to always include MEDRS sources but you have to realize that new editors are not very skilled in doing so. It is unhelpful to keep bringing up edits I made four years ago. I would like to continue contributing on the article as new sources and studies are published. In order for that to be done most constructively, it will require you remain open to new sources and try to work with me rather than against me. I hope I am misreading the tone of your post above, but it feels like you are not assuming my good faith and are emanating hostile sentiments. This incident you filed was not fun for me which will act as a deterrent to avoid this from recurring if possible. I don't think it was fun for you either so hopefully you will meet me half way as I am extending an olive branch. Thank you for your input AlbinoFerret. I would prefer to have no restrictions come as a result of this incident, but either way I will be spending a high proportion of my time on the talk page to gather input of others to ensure things go more smoothly in the future. Doors22 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I see is an editor who has problems, but he also has something to offer. Its not impossible for people to change and he did say in that post "I take personal responsibility for my actions.". I dont think anyone involved in a battlefield is innocent. I dont think an indef is in the best interest of WP, multiple of points of view make for better articles. What would be best is if he does change and broadens his experiences on WP. I do think that restricting him to the talk pages will force him to work with others. AlbinoFerret 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    albino you have obviously not reviewed the talk page discussions. hammering and hammering mixed with personal attacks does not make for a productive editing environment. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats incorrect, I did, I said there were problems. But I also think that forcing someone to only be on the talk page will limit the problems in fighting over edits. It will force real discussion if Doors hopes to get anything included in the article, fighting wont accomplish that. I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault. While its only my opinion, I think every battleground should have page protection for a long time to force discussion. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    albino man. nobody else on the finasteride talk page brings up the same things over and over again. i get it that you have strong feelings about this from the e-cig article.. but that was a terrible entree into WP. that is not what things are like in most of WP. Jytdog (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC) (clarify Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    No, thats in the past, I just find this page interesting, as is this section. But nice try trying to inject some kind of motive, there is none except what I believe to be best for WP. I dont know Doors, I have never edited an article with them, and the subject of the articles this happened I dont find interesting. AlbinoFerret 12:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, you misunderstood me b/c i wasn't clear. when i wrote "the page" above, i meant the talk page of the finasteride article, not here at ANI. fixed that above. sorry. what i was trying to say is that when doors comes around we can count on long drawn out battles on the talk page as he argues and argues to include content based on bad sources (less frequently now) or argues to give more weight to the sexual side effects; and that often devolves into personal attacks from him when he doesn't get what he wants. it just never stops. that would be likely to become only more intense if that is all he could do, based even on what he has said here - he has given no indication that he understands that using WP as a soapbox to push one POV is not OK here. Please read WP:NOTHERE, read his full mission statement ( "I am really just desperate to increase awareness of this specific issue....") look at the diffs, and look at what he has written here at ANI. all he wants to do is retain access to this platform to continue doing the same thing. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. I am an uninvolved editor as far as this topic and Doors22, a name I've not even seen before. I am quite familiar from the last four months or so on Wikipedia with Jytdog, and to a varying lesser degree with several of the other parties involved here. I have also just been in a lengthy "discussion" via an AfD nomination (not mine, and for topic I was previously uninvolved with), across Talk page and noticeboards, for a Medicine article. This gives me some perspective. As this is a Jytdog complaint about editor behavior on a medical topic, I find these two points relevant:

    • Jytog is extremely aggressive in editing style: debates relentlessly (which IMO is often good), is quick to revert edits (bad), on occasion reverses position based on discussion (in the end good, but not so much when also created the issue with a contested edit), readily sanction-shops via noticeboards (bad), displays I guess you could call it highly emotional behavior (e.g, name calling then striking through, requesting you strike through your own comments deemed hurtful, making a comment and deleting it so you have to read the history; distracting). All of this adds up to a WP persona that is hard to slot, and makes for an editor who can be difficult to communicate with, even intimidating, while remaining just on the right side of "acceptable WP behavior."
    • Jytog strongly supports the WikiProject Medicine take on guideline interpretation, a situation I've only recently begun to understand, and one that most of the editors in this thread that I recogize seem to support: it appears that Wikipedia is allowing conventions of evidence-based medicine (such as how to determine the relative weight of research papers and what they really mean) to be applied by anonymous editors (what we ALL are) in deciding what content may or may not be included. Medical research is a highly technical area that can be difficult to interpret, but the bottom line is, specialized content is being determined by self-appointed expert editors according to rules that are simply not accessible or understandable to the general non-technical editor or reader. This may seem to result in good, responsible medical content, however, it also seems to be against core verifiability policy, and results in exclusion of content that in any other area of WP would be clearly verifiable by our standards. This is a problem, and it makes it extremely difficult for any editor to edit or even discuss core WP:PAG-supported content that goes against that WikiProject standard and group of enforcing editors.

    Given these two points, and having surveyed chunks of the cited edit history, and read this thread, this looks like a swarming, with a group of like-minded editors piling on a lone opposing editor. The value of Door22's actual edits aside (as this is a behavior complaint), Door22 may or may not have the patience or temperament to deal with a wall of relentless, formally unified POV opposition (EBM-adherents) in a murky editorial situation, but trying to drive an editor over the edge in this way, and then use that behavior to ban them is...reprehensible, and I'm sure not in the spirit or core policies of Wikipedia. If it's a specific article/content dispute, there seem to be many other, even admin-enforced, ways to resolution, by focusing on the content, perhaps putting protection on the article in question so only Talk page consensus edits can be made, and so forth. Don't shoot the messenger. --Tsavage (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tsavage, I think you offer an interesting idea. There are several editors on that article that I feel have ganged up against me and want to do everything possible to discredit/eliminate any new information about side effects that come from this drugs. However, a couple administrators have participated (DocJames for one) and his input has been objective. Protecting the entire article and only allowing admins or approved parties to make edits could help preserve a neutral POV. However, would there be enough interest from objective third parties that the article would get updated with changes and new sources in a timely fashion? Doors22 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doors22: Hard to tell, just have to see. I don't have much to say beyond that. After a decade of on and off editing, including some contentious topic editing, I am new in the last 4-5 months to this level of intense, essentially litigious behavior. It seems not uncommon in certain subject areas, it is tiring, and I feel an off-putting undercurrent through it all. If you're gonna try and hang in, and you're rational, not crazy, the one kinda painful thing I learned is you have to quickly disengage from arguing through content editing, that makes it too easy for your "opponents" (your disagreeing fellow editors) to charge you first if possible with edit warring, and eventually to build up a list from edit histories that can be characterized as bad behavior. And you have to unfortunately learn the policies and guidelines in some detail, and get a feel for how admin-involved processes seem to go, and be meticulous with your edits, stay calm and polite, vet everything your "opponents" say, especially when policies and guidelines are cited, and don't spend all your time in discussion, keep editing non-contentions articles to...stay real. :) That's what I've figured out so far. Fun for a while if you like arguing, but ultimately, it really sucks, no fun at all, if you simply enjoy expanding articles. And pretty unWikipedian. I suppose it will eventually come to a head, probably around the power of WikiProjects. --Tsavage (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i have yet another "fan"; marvelous. Tsavage, in your press to register a complaint about me, you have not looked at the issue. Doors22 announced his intentions in his first month here, and has followed through, pushing one point of view on one topic his entire time here. His contribs amount to one big violation of WP:SOAPBOX, a policy and a pillar. If you want to open a thread about me, knock yourself out, but I made my first edit to the article six months ago; Doors has been at this for four years. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have 40K+ edits, and you reported a fellow editor with 178 article space edits. You are an adult asking our admins for capital punishment against a minor. The reported editor has behavioural deficiencies due to inexperience. What's your excuse? You have deficiencies in terms of welcoming and inclusiveness. It's long overdue for you to step up your game in terms of accepting your role in broadening participation our project. You routinely skip the step of looking at someone else's edit and seeing if there is something of value in the content or source. When you wrote above "I have wanted to stay away from the drama boards for a while," by "a while" did you mean, like what, a week? Hugh (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "a wall of relentless, formally unified POV opposition (EBM-adherents)" Thank you for your thoughful comment and for so eloquently articulating this issue. I would add based on my recent experience that that the zeal for the project-level standards spill over from strictly medical issues to large pharmaceutical corporations, with an unfortunate outcome that the articles are non-neutral with respect to their histories. Hugh (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    JYT, if you have so many 'fans', did you ever stop to consider that you have a problem? Here is the latest example of unreasonable editing behavior. Zinedine included one of Bayer's early products, heroin, in the header which you brusquely removed because it was unsourced. First, this is inappropriate because if you really cared about a citation the right thing to do would have been to request one or tag the text with citation needed. Secondly, there is no reference for Bayer's production of aspirin in the lead so you are applying a double standard. After the user responds to your request and includes a source, you threatened with a block if the edit was put back in place. That's highly unacceptable after the editor after the editor provided a source that was not necessary in the first place and that type of action would never warrant a block, especially because it was not even close to the > 3 reverts in 24 hours rule. It's possible you didn't want to include a reference to heroin in the lead because it creates a negative tone for the company, but that should be the topic of debate, not some inapplicable technicality combined with a threat. Doors22 (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    that worked out quite well with no drama or boards needed (despite HughD's efforts to add it). Doors, every time you do this distraction/counterattack thing you dig your [[WP:HOLE] hole] deeper, in my view. you are showing no insight into your SOAPBOXING. nada. this is getting more unseemly the longer this goes. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) (fixed thanksJytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    You have just presented another example where you cited wikipedia policy where it does not make sense to do so. WP:HOLE in no way fits within the context of your complaint. If you are going to frequently cite policy, it's important to do so correctly to have a constructive conversation. Doors22 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for pointing that the essay i linked to was not what i intended. i meant to link to this article: Law of holes. which is what you are not heeding. (when the close comes, if you would have said somewhere, anywhere - "hey i get it - i have to lay off the sexual side effects thing and I understand that i have driven everyone else who has tried to work with me crazy" this would go very different for you. but you have dug in harder and even tried to attack me instead. you are making the case for POV Pushing and BATTLEGROUND, every time you write something that is not that. That is what I mean by digging your own hole deeper. What the community looks for is whether you get it ) Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There really is no reason that an editing disagreement on Wikipedia should make you "crazy" unless you have some personal connection to the issue but maybe I don't know the whole story. I have said several times I will adjust my collaborative style and so should you, frankly. Now that the work week is starting, I won't be able to frequently respond but I don't have much more to add as this conversation has run its course. Doors22 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two issues with your behavior - first, long term POV pushing on one issue since you started here, creating endless tangles on talk when you don't get to push your point into the article. Not once have you said "I get that this is a problem; i will stop" The other issue is BATTLEGROUND. while you have said some things about changing your style, at every chance you had here, you have attacked me or Formerly. So... where is the actual change. The way you could have avoided what i am pretty sure is coming, would have been to acknowledge the problems and promise to stop. and actually stop. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    yep another fan. Banner, i am glad you have been heeding the warning you were given in the close of the case about you. Your case was a bit different - you were acting disruptively in the organic food articles because you were (are?) frustrated that MEDRS governs claims about health. That is not me, that is the guideline. You weren't pushing for anything, just making a mess b/c you were frustrated. The Doors case is different in that he has been consistently pushing one POV, fighting tendentiously to expand content on PFS in wikipedia. Your behavior did share with his, battleground behavior. Which you are still doing, skipping right over the pile of evidence about Doors to come after me... c'est la wikipedia; c'est la ANI. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Threaded discussion

    Discussion here, please Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    It seems the interpretation by the press was that Wifione had a financial COI with respect to that bogus business school he was promoting. Promoting a bogus business school on Wikipedia for free would seem like an odd hobby, although I suppose possible. Whether or not you are successful in getting Doors topic banned related to POV doesn't seem related to Wifione....so I'm not following your "we'll see if I'm right or not" comment. I do appreciate you amending the section header to remove reference to a case that doesn't seem to apply here. I'll refrain on voting on this specific case until I have time to review the evidence provided. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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.
    • 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 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Note: I know this looks like a personalized content dispute (and it is in part), which is why I reckon no one is commenting. But there is meat to this, or i would not have brought it. And I know that NPOV issues are difficult, since you have dig in some to see what is going on. I tried to tee this up so it would be very very clear. Hopefully folks will take some time to review the evidence I provided above. And I want to apologize to the community for showing up here again, but the BATTLEGROUND from Doors22 was just getting to be too much; and his NPOVN posting was just too.... ironic. Thanks in any case for your patience and consideration. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhhh, so you did notice that few are commenting. Curious - have you ever read The Boy Who Cried Wolf by Aesop? Other editors have been hinting about the remarkable frequency they're seeing your name on ANI. Did you first try to settle this "personalized" content dispute on the TP of the respective article? Atsme☯Consult 14:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why you think there have not been any comments in a couple of days. If you look above my edit here, there were 5 new edits just today (April 23). I have done some research over the past few days and decided the best way to proceed is to file an incident for WP:Votestacking. I don't feel this was conducted in a way that was remotely fair or impartial. Irrespective of who I am working with, I have made mistakes and I am trying to learn from them and I feel the best way to handle this situation is to calmly proceed with this accordingly. Doors22 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    JYTDog - Vote Stacking

    Moved by me from bottom of page, should have been up here. BMK (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am currently the subject of an incident for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and have been subjected to WP:VOTESTACKING by JYTDog. As a result of the vote stacking, more than half of the editors who contributed to the incident were involved or partial participants. As a result, the so called "consensus" is really not representative of objective opinions from uninvolved editors. I have made mistakes and there is a degree of truth to engaging in this behavior, but I am trying to learn from my mistakes. I think this is the best way to proceed when I feel I am on the receiving side of unfair/biased editing behavior.

    The filed incident can be found above. In the past, I have been ganged up on and when I didn't know how to proceed I became frustrated without any options. This wasn't due to bad faith but just due to the sentiment of being bullied by other more experienced editors throwing around policy and guidelines to get an edge in disputes. JYTDog said that I had engaged in WP:CANVASSING, so while reading up on the subject today I realized he had actually subjected me to WP:VOTESTACKING. According to the article, votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. JYTDog called out 10 editors whom he even claimed had disputes with me in the past in order to bring them to comment on the incident. Some of these disputes were from as far back as 2011.

    As shown in this diff, JYTDog tagged 11 different editors whom he highlighted had disputes with me in the past. Five of these eleven editors participated in the incident to vote against me (and notably at least one of the eleven is inactive). Meanwhile, I was accused of canvassing due to asking an admin for advice. I have never interacted with this admin prior and I don't think she has ever edited on Finasteride, the article involved in the debate. The votestacking was effective in racking up votes against me. Moreover, it poisoned the well to influence new editors who came along. Only 4 uninvolved editors supported the proposal to ban me and most of them came after the votestacking, potentially biasing their opinions. Not including myself, one uninvolved editor opposed the proposal and the other (who I allegedly canvassed) neither opposed nor supposed the proposal but offered a more balanced solution. As you can see, this created the impression that a large consensus formed but 60% who voted in favor of the proposal were brought by JYTDog and the others were likely influenced from the already tendentious discussion.

    I would like this issue is to be objectively evaluated because I think it would be destructive to the encyclopedia if I am banned for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior when a double standard is applied to my accuser. I openly admit I have made mistakes, but maybe some will be able to understand when I have been on the receiving side of this kind of behavior for some time without a solution to manage the situation properly. Doors22 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What a ridiculous diversionary tactic. And again with this business of trying to have those who highlighted your disruption sanctioned also. You still haven't actually accounted for your disruption or suggested any way that you might look to contribute productively in topic areas other than this one. At this stage I'd guess there'd be decent support for a indef block. Either way, this hail-Mary section should be closed immediately and a ban should be enacted to put an end to this nonsense. St★lwart111 04:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had concerns that if we just topic ban Doors22 without him understanding that his behavior has been problematic that he will just carry on the personalized disruption elsewhere. His post above is not promising in that regard. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By hyperlinking all the editors with whom this editor had a dispute, the effect was to notify them of this thread, which of course is votestacking whether intentional or not. The closing administrator however requires "the clear and substantial consensus of...uninvolved editors", per CBAN. Whether or not the piling on of involved editors influenced the votes of uninvolved editors is something that must be considered by reading through the votes. With the huge amount of discussion generated, it is possible this thread will be archived without action, as few administrators would want to take hours to read through it. I suggest posting to AN requesting an administrator to close, as the thread has now been open several days. TFD (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it really affected anything. Several of the names were misspelled, and so the ping was not received. For the most part the remainder of the list is identical to a list of editors who have been major contributors to the Finasteride article over the last 3 years and who are still active Wikipedia editors (and thus available to comment). If the list of people who have edited Finasteride is essentially identical to the list of people that Doors has had conflicts with, that tells us all we need to know. 50.113.65.200 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look a more closely you'll see there was only one broken ping link. Yobol showed up as red because he/she doesn't have a user page but the ping was still received and JFDWolff was incorrectly referenced at first as "JDWolff" but a correct ping was listed later. An important point to raise is that the input for an ANI should be representative of opinions from neutral/impartial Wiki users, not editors who were previously involved in editing the article in question. Whether it was intentional or not, pinging 11 involved editors and having 6 of them offer opinions would heavily influence any discussion and voting process. Doors22 (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    if you showed a whiff of "i understand the problem" you might have a shot at not getting topic banned, Doors. but you just continue this wikilawyering battlegroundy, IDHT stuff. It is terrible to watch. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NAC reverted following close review

    This is a non-admin close, coming a number of days after the original poster and the subject have asked for closure. That no admin has done so despite requests here and at AN speaks volumes, so despite some less-than-pleasant interactions with Jytdog, I am issuing this as an uninvolved close, since I have neither commented here, nor edited the article or to any drug article ever, to my recollection. The logical, and perhaps needed escalation from here is of course to ArbCom, where the edits of all parties concerned would be subjected to deeper scrutiny. For now, the subject's recent comment at AN expresses notable contrition and growing and sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policy to move forward as an editor without sanctions, in this closer's view. I also note that the serious claims of canvassing and !vote stacking have not been dealt with: clearly, not a single admin regards them as actionable. However, I urge Jytdog and his allies to heed the message sent by the overall benign neglect of the admin community, who have pointedly declined action against the subject. That said, I am free as a non-admin to issue this strong rebuke to every admin who has reviewed this matter and just walked away: the community gave you tools and trust, so shame on you for letting this ANI report fester so long. You can, and must, do better than this. Jusdafax 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have restored this from archive and reverted this closure in view of the objection raised here at the close review. If no uninvolved admin is willing to close it, it would be better to be archived without a closing summary than to be marred with one when it does escalate further (which this is probably going to if everyone doesn't calm down). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your re-open, obviously, and take issue with your characterization of my close as "marred." In my view, re-opening this archived ANI thread will hardly "calm down" this issue. Jusdafax 18:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible quick violation of i-ban

    Extended debate threw up the following options:
    1. A topic ban - which would end the conflict but deprive the encyclopedia of some high-quality editing;
    2. Zero tolerance of I-ban breaches - with escalating blocks robotically applied. This would also end the conflict, but encourages gaming and is likely see both parties swiftly blocked;
    3. Agreement to stay away - the parties agreeing to divide articles up and each keep to their own as suggested in this thread;
    4. Mediation - ideally by someone with the NJ knowledge and interest sufficient to follow these sets of edits through at some length;
    5. Refer to Arbcom - which really just kicks the whole thing down the road for something that should be able to be resolved here;
    6. Do nothing - the potentially unworkable default state.

    No option garnered many supporters. However option 2 is presently closest to having community endorsement as an implied outcome from the previous I-ban discussion. So, FWIW outcomes from this entirely unsatisfactory debate:

    • No consensus in this thread for any modification of existing sanctions
    • Final warning to Alansohn and Magnolia677 that absent any further community decision the I-ban will now be strictly enforced and blocks applied for any breaches, including of the "intervening edit" rule and/or any interaction or reference to each other on talkpages;
    • Suggestion that future ANI reports on this topic seek a specific !vote on one or more of the above options, to better gauge community views.
    The above is not a great outcome, but its what we have at the end of this thread. Happy to discuss, ideally on my talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Restored from archive for closure. BMK (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Restored from archive for closure again. Someone please close this. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    With this edit only a few days ago an i-ban was placed between User:Alansohn and User:Magnolia677, and I offered some advice to the latter party. I have recently received this message, only two days after the i-ban was put in place, regarding how the former party has behaved since the ban, which can be found in the second diff I have provided here, as well as information regarding the comments made since the ban was enacted at User talk:Alansohn#Magnolia by Alansohn, particularly the comments made here. It seems to me that Alansohn has rather obviously violated the i-ban, and also perhaps behaved in a way rather obviously attempting to GAME the ruling. I request review by uninvolved administrators, blocks if they deem it required, and, if possible, some input from administrators for Magnolia677 regarding how he should react to the recent developments. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The ink isn't even dry yet and that's twice this IBAN has come back to ANI. Perhaps the two need to be just plain topic banned from all articles relating to New Jersey. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous report, filed about 24 hours ago, is above here.
    I'm done with these two. The next time someone proposes topic bans or site bans for both of them, I'll be voting in favor. I don't know about the community, but they've both certainly exhausted my patience. BMK (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty clear that only one person has violated the topic ban, and that's Alansohn. He's violated the article editing restrictions multiple times, as shown in the previous thread, as well as leaving a screechy tirade of personal abuse against Magnolia on his talk page. Although I initially agreed with the substance of Alansohn's article edits, and Magnolia wasn't exactly blameless, it's pretty clear which of the two is primarily responsible for prolonging this dispute. And that ain't Magnolia. I support a block of a few days to put a stop to the disruption. Reyk YO! 09:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment(non admin observation) The post by Alansohn is against the iban imho and is bad. With no surprise at this point, assumes bad faith on the part of another editor. I support a block of a short duration for Alansohn to impress on them the importance of keeping the iban, and to put an end to the conflict, at least for a short time. Warnings have apparently not done much good after the iban was put in place. The disruption this conflict is causing is rather sad. As for Magnolia677, I see less of a problem. He is simply asking for advice from an experienced editor on how to deal with a bad situation, but it would have been better to ask an uninvolved admin. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am striking my comment for a short ban. The section he started below with WP:OWN arguments shows that a short block may not be enough to stop this ongoing problem. A block of at least a month, and perhaps three if not more is probably better. AlbinoFerret 05:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block on Alansohn - I have strick out my emotionally-based "a pox on both their houses" comment above, and after looking more closely, I believe that Alansohn has now violated the I-ban sufficiently -- after being warned for an initial incident -- to receive an appropriate short block - short, since the editor's last block weas in 2009. BMK (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support longer block on Alansohn. Not necessarily long, but it is more than worth noting that although he hasn't been blocked for some time, it seems that part of that may have been because people didn't want to block a productive editor. His conduct has, however, been one of the more frequently discussed topics on the noticeboards, and there is more than sufficient cause to believe that he has maybe at best narrowly avoided being sanctioned repeatedly. So, while I do not necessarily believe he should be subjective to what might arbitrarily be called a "long" block, his pattern of conduct is such that I think a "short" one will be insufficient to prevent further misconduct once the block is lifted. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See my response below, with specific explanations and documentation showing that the problem here is with deliberate violations of the interaction ban and wikhounding by the other editor. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the problem is your abusive commentary on an individual whom you have been banned about directly or indirectly interacting with or discussing at all. The fact that your commentary would probably qualify as a violation of conduct guidelines even if you weren't in rather obvious violation of the interaction ban makes it just that much worse. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent violation of IBAN and malicious stalking

    User:Magnolia677 has been deliberately stalking my edits, in violation of the interaction ban and in rather clear violation of WP:HARASS. Let's look att the edits in question, which can be followed at this link of a number of articles for census designated places in New Jersey, all of which I've edited and most of which I created:

    After I had started editing a sequence of articles, and described exactly what I was doing here at ANI, the other editor magically started editing three articles just down the same list -- Robbinsville CDP and Seabrook Farms -- and then suddenly edited Zarephath as I moved down the list. These actions appear to me as the deliberate and intended result by the other editor of manufacturing a phony violation of the interaction ban.

    Above at ANI, I described how I took every precaution to look through the articles I would be editing to avoid conflict, both in the letter and spirit of the interaction ban. This does not appear to be the case with the other editor, and so I lay out these specific claims:

    • Charge 1: The editor in question has failed to comply with the IBAN clause 4 guaranteeing "wide berth" and appears to have acted in deliberate bad faith to manufacture potential violations of the IBAN by purposefully editing articles on the List of census-designated places in New Jersey just an article or two ahead in alphabetical order, all of which I had edited previously or created and all of which he had never edited before.
    • Charge 2: The editor in question has repeatedly stalked my edits in violation Wikipedia's Harassment Policy, which states at WP:HOUND that "Wikihounding is the 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." as evidenced by announcing a talk page discussion in which I was one of two involved parties and in editing the articles for Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms and Zarephath which he acknowledges he knew I would be editing in alphabetic order.

    Am I angry about this; You bet I am. My goal remains to avoid conflict here and my rather clear perception based on the evidence is that the other editor is trying to create conflict, provoke a response and obtain a negative reaction from me. Sadly, I have fallen for his bait and I accept responsibility for allowing my anger and frustration at this ongoing abuse to get the better of me.

    I'll ask someone uninvolved to provide the necessary ANI notification to the other editor. My sole goal is to see this end and to be allowed to edit articles in peace, and be given "wide berth" as mandated by the ban. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to close subthread as one of the more frankly ridiculous and transparent attempts at misdirection I have seen for some time. It is worth noting that this originally separate thread was first posted several long hours after the above editor was given his notification of the thread above, but started as a separate thread, for no readily apparent reason. The fact that he chose to do so, at least to my eyes, unfortunately, reflects only on him, not on the conduct of others, and, unfortunately, reflects very, very poorly on him. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for transparency's sake, I moved the thread up here, since it never should have been opened as a new thread. BMK (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this initial thread was opened, I have been tied up in my real life with a series of meetings and other issues related to my personal medical history. I've done no other editing and this was my first opportunity to edit. I appreciate the bad faith assumptions you have made, offering no evidence other than your supposition. Why not take a look at the evidence and address it? It goes a long way to demonstrating, with diffs, the underlying cause of the problems here. Deal with his claims and deal with mine separately or together, but the claim that they should be ignored because I didn't post them soon enough is utterly unfair and demeans the entire process here. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no bad faith in my statement, although there is rather obvious bad faith in your own. If you are saying that you haven't had a chance to see the comment I made on your user talk page before posting this scree here, I think that few if any reasonable people would find the "co-incidence" of your, entirely on your own, starting a separate thread on the same page as the one I indicated had already been opened on this same page incredible in the extreme. And the obvious assumption of bad faith in your statement that your comments might be someone had made a "claim" that your comments here should be "ignored" frankly just compounds the existing questions regarding your credibility. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    JC, I get it. In addition to being prosecutor-in-chief, you're also judge, jury and executioner. You've made up your mind a while ago, but maybe other editors might be willing to overlook your prejudgement and consider the actual diffs provided as evidence. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that Alan continues to engage in his persistent habit of engaging in insult and derogation of anyone who disagrees with him. Noting that he continues to engage in denial of his own misconduct, or apparently attempting to assert that his misconduct is in some way acceptable under the circumstances. Noting his continuing to ignore the fact that the first comment here was posted several hours after the ANI notice on his user talk page, and that he has refused to address the fact that his starting a separate thread several long hours after being notified of the discussion above, apparently indicating he was somehow unaware of the previous thread. Also noting that the claim for "medical issues" is an apparently new one, which might in some cases be acceptable, were not the long-standing, seemingly regular, derogation of anyone who disagrees with him were not as obvious as his history on the noticeboards is. It might, however, be seen as a possible indicator of regular or ongoing medical issues of some sort. If that is true, he might well deserve our sympathy, but it is not in any way a justification for his own long-standing history of at best dubious conduct. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge my actions, but point out that I was rather brazenly provoked here. The diffs provided here establish the necessary context. Are you going to evaluate the diffs or just ignore them? Maybe we can get an explanation from the other editor for the edits in question. Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment(non admin observation)This section should be closed. It is a prime example of ABF. The very act of editing now seems to be a problem to this editor, and only he is allowed to edit articles about places in New Jersey. The other editor is supposed to know that articles in the subject area are off limits because Alansohn plans on editing them soon. That screams of WP:OWN issues. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. There are tens of thousands of articles in New Jersey, none of which I own. The other editor stated above that he knew that I was editing articles from the List of census-designated places in New Jersey using AWB, which lists them in alphabetical order. We are supposed to believe that the other editor had never edited articles for Robbinsville CDP or Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, but magically chose by pure coincidence to edit these three articles from that list. The diffs show that the other editor read down the list and deliberately edited articles in that same sequence in blatant violation of this IBAN and in violation of WP:HARASS. Just yesterday, he told JC that "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered..." His edits didn't just passively interfere, there was what appears to me to be active and deliberate interference here, violations of the IBAN and of WP:HARASS. Anyone want to look at the diffs? Any explanation from the other side for these edits? Alansohn (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what the diffs show is that he did not edit articles you have. There is no proof of why or how he selected those articles. If he uses the same software, when he went to edit some articles from a software generated list, then noticed that you have edited some articles by looking at the histories first ( a good idea if your not supposed to follow another editor), and went further down a list to edit articles you have not, he is following the iban. You cant place articles on some kind of "Im going to edit some articles so you cant list". No one owns the articles, everyone is free to edit any article on WP. What the ban states is that neither of you can edit after the other until a third editor has edited it. This section reeks of WP:AGF and WP:OWN issues. Perhaps a Boomerang should hit you for starting it. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong again. The IBAN specifies giving "wide berth" and forbids manufacturing confrontations. WP:HARASS prohibits following another editor from page to page to stalk his edits. The best case is that the editor in question is rather deliberately gaming the system. He does not use AWB, and the evidence here, based on his own remarks, is that he did exactly what you ascribe, deliberately anticipating an edit to provoke a violation. If this is "wide berth" this IBAN is completely useless. No editor should have to put with this kind of stalking. Have you ever used AWB before? Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your whole argument above is that somehow by editing articles you haven't he is creating confrontations. You seem incapable of recognizing that there would be no confrontation in such cases unless you were yourself to start it after his edits. This apparent flaw in your reasoning regarding this matter once again seems to raise the repeatedly referenced WP:OWN problem you have regarding the content in question. You do not now, and never have had, the "right" to edit everything. If someone else has edited articles you intended to get to, and by so doing, reduced your possibility of editing it immediately, well, too damn bad for you. I'd love to create the Jesus article among others myself now, but, well, it's no longer an option for me. No rational person would say that by not attempting to avoid articles you haven't "gotten to" yet, particularly as you have no implicit right to "get to" all articles, is somehow manufacturing a confrontation. He is simply abiding by the terms of the i-ban by editing articles in the field that he you have not yet edited. You would be as well if you were to avoid the articles he has edited. The only way there would be a confrontation would be if you started it after his edits, and there is nowhere in wikipedia an explicit or implicit statement that Alansohn has the unrestricted right to edit every last page in a given topic area. To even attempt to argue such a point raises I believe serious questions of an unfortunate nature about the person making such arguments. It basically seems to be an attempt to argue that, by editing articles you haven't, he is misbehaving because your ability to edit everything is the top priority. It isn't, and you should realize that. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Before I started, I looked through the entire List of census-designated places in New Jersey and removed from the list every article that the other editor had edited in the past 30 days; I missed a few edits from 2014, but I made a rather deliberate effort to remove the articles and the edit history shows it. He, while subject to an interaction ban, deliberately looked ahead at the list and edited the same articles to manufacture a confrontation, but it's my fault? He edited Robbinsville CDP, which was just two articles ahead of where I was editing on the list. That's fucked up. If you were driving on the highway and someone jumped in front of your car, you wouldn't be responsible; he would. Someone who is deliberately manufacturing confrontations, editing articles because he knows that I might not notice that he had edited after I started a process is violating the interaction ban and is deliberately stalking my edits. I don't "realize that" it's my fault because he is the one going out of his way to stalk my edits. "Wide berth", my ass. He's deliberately creating conflicts here. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you will care to explain why you havent given the topic area a wide berth, but expect another editor to. Looking at your contribs you appear to be a WP:SPA that only edits New Jersey articles. AlbinoFerret 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I regularly edit about 5,000 to 10,000 different articles, including writing about 2,000 new articles and 800 DYKs, and I'm an SPA with a few hundred thousand edits. Do you expect me to edit articles at random now? "Wide berth" means endeavoring to avoid each other, not avoiding editing articles in the state. With that in mind before I started using AWB on Saturday evening, I looked at List of census-designated places in New Jersey and checked for all recent edits over the past 30 days generating this list. I removed from the AWB list all articles that the other editor had edited, including Manahawkin, New Egypt, Lopatcong Overlook, Marlton and Cherry Hill Mall. Take a look at my edit history and I didn't touch those articles. That's "wide berth", which Wiktionary defines as "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object, especially for safety or deliberate avoidance." Every once in a while, I checked to see if the other editor had made any new edits to articles that might be on the list. While I was doing that, the other editor ran down that same list and jumped about two or three articles in front of my edits on that list. I worked to stay out of the way; He worked to jump in and create a confrontation. That's not "wide berth"; when it's deliberate, that's an IBAN violation, that's stalking, by definition. Let's hear from the other editor what his intentions were here. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you edit a bunch of articles dose not mean that you are not editing in "one very narrow area", articles on places in New Jersey. Imho it has caused some of the problem, along with WP:OWN issues. If your not going to go to another area, its not really a wide berth. You knew what the focus of the other editor is, cities in the US, yet you decided to create a list of cities. Exactly how wide a berth is that again? AlbinoFerret 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created and edited articles for tens of thousands of articles for people, places, schools, school districts, museums and events around the world, including around 900 WP:DYK articles. My counterpart has a rather unhealthy obsession with cities in the US, a rather limited focus. The last DYK article I created, for Battin High School, is a school that closed a few decades ago, yet my counterpart was stalking the article just hours after its creation with repeated edits to an article well outside his narrow topic of interest, even after warnings about his stalking (see here). Since then he's stalked me to Scotch Plains, and now with the Iban in place he's apparently rather creepily working diligently to figure out which articles I'm editing and then jumping ahead on the list to manufacture a confrontation. I've gone out of his way to stay out of his way; He's gone out of his way to stalk and harass my edits. Whether it's a place I'm editing or a school, he's done anything but exercise any definition of "wide berth". With him persistently stalking me to articles of any kind, be it place or school, I'm not sure what is unclear about the concept of maintaining "considerable or comfortable distance from a person or object". Even after rather clear warnings of wkistalking, made at both articles, he's persisted with the harassment. These edits violate the IBAN and clearly violate WP:HOUND and its prohibition on "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." I don't know what on earth I can do when an editor works to stalk my edits wherever I go. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand the evidence correctly, you're essentially accusing him of pre-stalking you, going where you intend to go before you actually go there. I don't think there's anything in the IBan that covers him apparently reading your mind. Why don't the both of you post on each other's talk page a polite short list of articles you intend to get to in, let's say, the next week. Then you can avoid the articles on his list, and he can avoid the articles on yours. (And I mean literally "short" and a list of articles, not categories or types of articles.) Once the week is up, and you've managed to avoid each other, do it again for another week. Rinse and repeat. BMK (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure WP:AN/MINORITYREPORT isn't a blue link. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone regularly follows his victim from place to place, showing up each time after the victim arrived at the bakery, the bank and the bowling alley, we'd all call that stalking. If someone studies his victim's habits, and shows up at the bakery, the bank and the bowling alley 20 minutes *before* the victim arrived, that would be an even more demented version of stalking. No sane person would blame the victim for showing up *after* the stalker; any rational individual would see an even bigger ick factor of a creep who is so preoccupied with his victim to go to such lengths. What BMK calls "pre-stalking" is far worse than merely following someone around; it demonstrates a level of obsession and harassment far above what is acceptable.

    The other party has usually stalked me in the traditional, creepy version, at Battin High School (a brand-new article) and again at the same article, but also at Scotch Plains, with some more stalking at the same article. Far worse, he's gone out of his way to study what I'm editing and then jumped ahead on the list. This isn't a case of "apparently reading [my] mind", this is stalker who sat down, reviewed my edits and saw that I was editing the List of census-designated places in New Jersey. This isn't my supposition; In this talk page edit he describes how "The other party spent the day editing hundreds of New Jersey articles in alpha order, leaving his name as the last editor. When a few of my edits interfered...." He knew what I was doing and deliberately edited Robbinsville CDP, just 15 minutes before I would get there, followed on that list minutes later by Seabrook Farms and Zarephath.

    Be it Battin High School and Scotch Plains or be it Robbinsville CDP, Seabrook Farms or Zarephath, he had *NEVER* edited any of those articles before. The only way he would come across those is to deliberately stalk my edits, either imposing his changes on articles I had just edited, or -- even more disturbingly and downright fucked up -- looking at my edits, checking the list and jumping a few minutes ahead to deliberately manufacture a violation of the Interaction Ban.

    In real life, a stalker who persistently follows his victim after being warned would be given a restraining order. Someone who starts stalking his victim after a restraining order has been issued, and then starts showing up in advance after guessing the victim's next steps, would be tossed in jail. Whether you look at our definitions of Stalking or read WP:HARRASS or you look at the IBan clause 4 re "wide berth", we are each obligated to make our best efforts to stay out of each other's way. I've tried my best, as described above, to avoid even touching anything he has touched. The other editor has been persistently stalking my edits, at articles he has never edited that aren't on his watch list, and now resorts to maliciously looking ahead to jump a few articles ahead on a list. In Wikipedia, we have ways to deal with this kind of messed up behavior, and a block combined with a meaningful interaction / topic ban are needed, above and beyond the present IBAN that he has been gaming from day one. Alternatively, an apology by the other party, combined with a genuine commitment to avoid further stalking may be a legitimate alternative before taking further action. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of words, but what it still comes down to that you want first dibs on articles on places in New Jersey, and expect Magnolia677 to back away entirely from that subject area, on the mere possibility that you will edit an article within in. Unfortunately, that was not part of the IBan, which set up specific rules for editing in the same subject area: i.e. whoever edited an article first, the other editor couldn't revert their edits until a third party had edited articles first. There was a clear mechanism for complaints about the contents of the others edits, if it was felt that they were wrong or harmful to the article, but there was and is nothing in the IBan which forbids either of you from editing in the same subject area, and certainly nothing that requires the other editor to read your mind. I made a suggestion that you both post a short list of srticles which you intent to edit, and you (both) ignored that. You have instead returned to making the same basic complaint. Unfortunately, by acting on what you want to be the case about the IBan, you have actually broken the real, specific conditions of the ban yourself -- which is why all uninvolved commenters who have expressed an opinion have suggested that you should receive a block for your behavior. BMK (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking into the future

    For an interaction ban to work, both parties have to want it to work. They both have to dial down their sensitivities, they both have to turn a blind eye to perceived slights from the other party, and they both have to make an effort to stay out of the way of the other, especially immediately after a ban is put in place, by going to different parts of Wikipedia which the other doesn't frequent, and editing there until things cool down sufficiently for them to, perhaps, edit in the same area without getting on each other's nerves. Frankly, I haven't see that behavior from either of these parties, hence my initial "a pox on both their houses" comment above.
    It may well be that these two editors are just not capable of fulfilling the requirements of an interaction ban, that the community may have to force them to disengage with mutual topic bans, and then with mutual site bans -- but neither editor appears to take these possibilities seriously. It is true that in this particular instance, Alansohn appears to be at fault, and it is true that in the last instance before the IBan was put in place most editors (not including myself) thought that Magnolia677 was in the wrong, at least technically, but in reality, neither has behaved like two editors who want to disengage would behave. They are each still trying to pin blame on the other, only now it's for violating the IBan instead of other perceived problems.
    I think that however the community deals with this particular instance, it needs to start thinking about where the line is across which topic and site bans are warranted. It may not be now, since the IBan has just been put in place, but my evaluation of the behavior and attitudes of both the editors leads me to believe that the line, wherever it is, will be crossed at some point, perhaps even soon. BMK (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that there is a lot of possible, if unfortunate, truth to this statement. I would prefer to avoid site bans in the cases of both individuals, and tend to think that perhaps some sort of mutual topic ban from New Jersey might be sufficient. That might also include putting at least some of the NJ-related content under discretionary sanctions, because there may well be a chance that the content might suffer if the scrutiny the material receives from these two individuals were removed. I am not in any way proposing anything here, I want it understood, just expressing some personal, possibly poorly-founded, opinions. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with John, this is very well-stated, BMK. I-bans aren't created as a way of drawing a line in the sand, in order to catch the other person crossing said line. If the two editors really want to abide by the I-ban, you need to ignore each other, not focus your efforts on where the other person might have violated the letter of the ban. It seems like the I-ban has only increased the conflict brought to AN/I, not decreased it and so admins might eventually seek stronger solutions. I think it would be a loss for Wikipedia if you received topic bans for New Jersey articles but it might come to that. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree. Alansohn I know to be a passionate supporter of the concept of free knowledge and a Wikipedian of the old school. He pretty much drove the de facto acceptance that every high school is "inherently notable" in the notorious school wars, years back. He did this because he believed it to be right, not just correct. I have a lot of respect for his patience, persistence, ethics and commitment. I really wish the two of them could just disengage. It is a very sad state of affairs.
    Looking into Magnolia's edits, I am drawn to much the same conclusion that Alansohn presents above. If Magnolia can't show a long-standing interest in this subject area, then I suggest a block for at least 48 hours for gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this I think he's just trying to work through the US Cities stuff he has been working on all over the 'pedia. He saw a chance to make the edit on those two particular articles and did it without drama. I think the problem is Alansohn is so prolific in his edits it may be hard to work on certain articles without interacting with each other. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Alan's rant, I think he's perturbed as he is committed to the project and working in the area he works in; however, it was uncalled for and should not have been done per the IBAN. I think M77 was doing his thing independently (USCITIES stuff), Alan was doing his stuff, and there was a little overlap. Alan should be waiting like M77 does until there is an intervening edit to make his edits. That's how most others seem to deal with their IBAN and it seems to work with little to no issue. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (e-c) Tend to agree with the IP, somewhat to my surprise, 'coz I generally have reservations about IP at the noticeboards. But Magnolia's subject area of interest does seem to be US cities, apparently including NJ cities, while Alansohn's is New Jersey, including New Jersey cities. If a way were found to restrict the head to head editing in the overlap somehow, that would probably work, but how would one do it fairly, and also take into account that both seem to (presumably) have some sort of knowledge or expertise in their particular topic area, and that the articles in the area of intersection would, frankly, probably be best if both of them could work on it without problems? Both could, presumably, leave the area of intersection alone, and, I dunno, maybe some sort of "month off, month on" approach might work. So, that might allow Magnolia to edit other cities articles for a month, while Alansohn does NJ cities, and then ask Alansohn to edit other areas of NJ content, while Magnolia edits the NJ cities. Maybe. Sounds ridiculous, though, doesn't it? John Carter (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. They clearly contribute well but put them together is similar to elemental sodium and water together. Topic banning them from something they are clearly good at individually would be a net loss. How about Odd days/Even days? Uncommon solutions are rarely tolerated and rarely work but it may in this case. And to address the IP issue, I edited long ago and lost the passion as I found myself perusing the drama boards more than editing and I realized I was here for the wrong reasons. Instead of becoming part of the peanut gallery here I decided to leave and just edit anonymously whenever I feel the urge and avoid the drama boards mostly. 24.236.232.136 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem about the IP address - I was just being a smartass, which is an unfortunate tendency I have to make some sort of attempt to control one of these days. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone want to wrap this up somehow?

    The thread seems to have been inactive for a while now, and I think that there is enough of an indicator that there should be at least some form of action taken upon it. So, before it gets archived, would some admin either want to review it and do whatever is required, or, alternately, offer an !opinion as to how to resolve it? John Carter (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things I think bear repeating, since this discussion is a bit fractured. The first is that several editors have now throroughly debunked Alansohn's complaint about Magnolia677 "stalking" him. (Pre-stalking, really, since Alansohn expects Magnolia677 to avoid editing articles that Alansohn intends to edit.)
    The other is that all uninvolved editors who have expressed an opinion about sanctions based on these reported incidents have recommended a block for Alansohn. (It's a long, convoluted thread, so if I missed someone who thinks that Magnolia677 should be blocked, my apologies, and please say so here.) BMK (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This was archived, but as the first serious incident in a brand-new interaction ban (the previous incident having been written off as a probable accident), it really should be closed by an uninvolved admin. BMK (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The thread has been quiet for around 5 days. If there's been no recent disruption then it sounds like a block isn't really preventive. That said, my eyes glazed over. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you can think of it that way, but I can practically guarantee that if something isn't done by way of a sanction, or at the very least a final warning, this issue will appear again, and soon.
    As for MEGO, yes, I totally agree. Walls of text seem to be the communications methodology of choice of both subjects of the IBan. BMK (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To prevent that, why don't we have both of them now, on this page, come to some very specific (not vague like "wide berth") mutual agreement of their own devising that will have a zero-tolerance of exception to. In other words, if either of them demonstrably violates whatever the agreement is, even once, they will receive a block of X amount of time. It's time both of these individuals started taking responsibility for their actions and for the solution to the problem, instead of dragging the whole thing through endless discussions on ANI. I think the only way for them to do that is for them to figure out the plan and the consequence, and set it in stone. Right here, in a neutral centralized place. The other option being either a TBAN for both of them on NJ articles, or Arbcom. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @@Softlavender: Good idea. Why don't you suggest this on both of their talk pages? BMK (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I don't think it's my place to post on their talk pages, but perhaps John Carter would like to, or another neutral but knowledgeable person. And we can ping Alansohn and Magnolia677, as I did just there, if pings are working properly. I'd rather someone else curate the convocation and agreement, as I have no understanding of the details (other than observing the length and repetitiveness of the situation on ANI). Softlavender (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A neutral mediator would be good, but it can't be me, I know I'm not on good terms with one of the two, and I'm not sure how the other is feeling about me at this point. Medeis negotiated the IBan, but that's what seems not be working -- or maybe it is, and the fact that we haven't heard from other editor in the last few days is an indication of that. I do know that I, personally, have no intention of rescuing this thread from the archive again if it's archived for a second time without being closed. BMK (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal desire is never to see this issue come up on ANI again. How can we effect that, or create a proposal for the community !vote on, to effect that? I believe we probably do need a mediator to help the two of them establish the zero-tolerance ground rules, here on this neutral public space. If they are adults and acting in good faith, they can establish ground rules, in my opinion. And I do believe that, as stringent as it may be, the only other way to prevent this issue coming up at ANI again, short of a workable and very specific agreement between them, is NJ topic bans for both, or ArbCom if it ever even verges onto ANI again. ArbCom deals with things the community cannot or has not been able to handle, and thus far it seems like the whole dialogue is always so incredibly lengthy no one wants to get involved to decipher it. Can you think of a next step? Or a proposal to headline? All I know is, I'm developing a zero-tolerance for this ever showing up here again, and if it does, I personally (if I see it) will propose a NJ topic ban for both. Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm neutral (I'm basically unfamiliar with the editing habits of both Alansohn and Magnolia) but I do agree with Alansohn's analysis that if Alansohn is editing with a predictable pattern and Magnolia is using the pattern to anticipate Alansohn's edits and interfere with them on purpose, that constitutes gaming. I haven't examined the article histories myself, so I won't take a stance for now about whether such anticipation and gaming has actually happened. Magnolia, if you were doing that, it's not good faith editing so please stop. Magnolia's complaint on the other hand was that Alansohn was editing such large numbers of articles as to leave a "footprint" almost everywhere. Alansohn, would it work for you to slow down some, e.g. don't edit more than 50 articles a day? Magnolia could have a similar speed limit.

    I unfortunately have too limited availability to be able to mediate this (I'm away a lot of the time). My take on the existing agreement is that it's so legalistically written that it almost asks to be gamed. The only thing missing was "Hear ye, hear ye" at the beginning. Alansohn and Magnolia, could the two of you just divvy up the articles somehow? E.g. Alansohn edits NJ articles from A to M and Magnolia gets N to Z, then switch after a while? Or Magnolia stays away from direct edits on NJ articles (talk page suggestions are fine) and Alansohn stays away from some other state(s) nominated by Magnolia? Does anyone understand the nature of the conflict between Alansohn and Magnolia in individual articles (maybe it's somewhere up there in the tl;dr)? I think that info is needed to get a sense of what kinds of agreements can work. Anyone mediating will have to spend a while looking at older disputes and examining diffs. But the basic idea is reasonable. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    1) Zero-tolerance anything generally doesn't work on Wikipedia, especially when there's a lot of room for gaming. 2) If Alansohn is focusing mostly on NJ while Magnolia is working on all 50 states, why topic ban both from NJ? That stops almost all of Alansohn's editing but only 2% of Magnolia's. Unless I'm missing something we might do better to restrict Magnolia from NJ and Alansohn from the other 49 states or some subset of them. I guess either proposal would require some diff-counting to see how equitible it was. But I think it's better to figure out the root of the conflict if that's possible. Alansohn and Magnolia, could you each name one specific article where you think your disagreement was especially bad before the IBAN, and give your side of what happened in it, with diffs? Maybe we need an arbcom-style presentation, either on an ANI sub-page or by the actual arbcom. Or is there still such a thing as the mediation committee? It looks like MEDCAB is dead. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tolerance hasn't worked, and has only gotten us these 200,000-byte ANI threads. My zero-tolerance plan (see up above [10]) is for them personally to establish a very specific agreed-upon protocol in which if either of them provably deviates even once, they receive a block (say 24 hours for the first instance). If they both agree, and the plan is very specific, I don't see how that is gameable or unfair. And in terms of mediator, I mean an admin, not an IP; and the agreement should include at least one or two very specific admins to whom either can turn if the pact is transgressed and who will institute the agreed-upon block. (By the way, comments by Liz and BMK below are noted, thank you.) Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be a sign of progress that neither Alansohn or Magnolia have returned to discuss this issue so they very well might have gotten over it all. There is no sense in imposing bans and blocks if there is no longer any problem. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this part of the discussion has been worthwhile, and not that I don't agree with Softlavender that I would be happy not to see the problem arise here again, but I think at this point I'm with Liz and 50.0's earlier comment. Maybe it's best to wait and see if they've somehow fallen into a functional pattern of editing both can live with. I'd be interested in hearing what @John Carter: thinks. BMK (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that I've been clear as to the issue here; I want to be able to edit in peace without having this editor riding my ass out of what appears to be nothing more than spite. Whether before, during or after the implementation of this interaction ban, the other editor seems to be persistently stalking my edits as part of a consistent pattern of harassment. There are multiple examples in the recent past of this deliberate stalking / harassment at articles he has never edited before and which would never appear on his watchlist, such as at Battin High School, Scotch Plains, Robbinsville (CDP) and Seabrook Farms. I have worked over the past few months since he started editing these articles and creating conflicts to stay out of his way, to provide warnings when he appears to be engaging in harassment and to provide the "wide berth" required by the interaction ban; I haven't seen any corresponding effort by the other editor. We've heard BMK, JC and other editor's versions of his story, but without hearing directly from the editor in question with explanations for his recent edits and his plans to avoid further conflicts over the next 360-odd days left in this interaction ban, it's hard to make any substantive suggestions to tighten or modify this Iban. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to BMK above, I think Alansohn's last comment above has to be weighed in, and I regret to say that what I see in it tends to indicate that at least Alansohn is exhibiting the same problems that he did earlier in his opinions, which leads me to think that the behavior is likely to return to form unless something is done to change that. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that you're right, but I'm also afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point. BMK (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe me, I understand. I just hope someone else closes it, taking into account everything said here. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just had a little laugh after seeing again the overall title of this thread: "Possible quick violation of i-ban." Well, the violation may have been quick, but the resolution certainly hasn't been.
    At this point, I doubt that many admins are even going to consider diving into such a deep pool of words, claims and counter-claims. I thought we were on the track to at least starting to clear things up with Medeis' IBan (which, any admin reading this, is still logged, and still remains in effect), but I guess that was an illusion. It's been said many times before that AN/I is not well suited for dealing with complex issues, and my feeling now is that this is going to have to end up at ArbCom before all is said and done. BMK (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen childish WP:POINTy edits before, but this edit where the editor in question added an entry to the list of notables in the article for Trenton, New Jersey adding "Chris Christie, as governor, he is closely associated with the state capitol city." I'm not quite sure how I provoked this disruptive edit. It's this kind of bad faith edit at an article this editor has never edited before, that demonstrates the nature of the problem. I too am afraid that my patience to deal with this issue is very low at this point if the other editor is unwilling to edit like a mature adult. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm willing to see this closed, if we can't get the two of them together here to agreeably work out a detailed deal without casting aspersions and making accusations -- on the understanding that if it comes to ANI again (from either side), a proposal for a NJ topic ban for both of them, of whatever length, is likely going to ensue; or ArbCom. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an easy one to answer, and if you do not know the answer, a little research would tell you the answer. Clinton lived in Little Rock before he was governor, that is why his presidential library is there. Christie has an office in Trenton as governor, but the official governor's mansion is in Princeton, New Jersey. If we are going to add every politician and civil servant associated with state capitols, that has a Wikipedia article, the list is going to be long. We have governors, state assembly members and both state and federal judges, as well as notable civil servants. We generally do not list people based on where they work, but where they have their residence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. I'm no expert on American politics and took it for granted that a governor's residence would be in the state capital. One has to wonder why, instead of a civil and polite explanation like yours of why an edit is erroneous, Alansohn has to scream and make personal attacks. Reyk YO! 08:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are going to add every politician and civil servant associated with state capitols. We aren't talking about "every politician and civil servant" -- we are talking about state governors [notable residents by definition]. The list is for "People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Trenton". Christie has been governor of the state since 2010, and has been hugely in national and international news as NJ governor because of Hurricane Sandy, etc. Additionally, his firm had an office in Trenton since 1999. I'm not seeing why Christie would not be one of "People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Trenton". Beyond that, even if someone were for some reason to disagree with that quite rightful-by-definition addition, to call the addition "childish" "POINTy", "disruptive", "bad faith" and "unwilling to edit like a mature adult", after being asked to come here and resolve matters, pretty much speaks for itself. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional note/question: There seems universal agreement on this thread, by those auto-confirmed editors that have investigated the matter (four uninvolved editors here), that Alansohn is the disruptive and/or gaming party. Rather than demonstrating an interest in resolving the matter, immediately above he posted an aspersion. Up above in the thread there was support for a block of Alansohn; but it didn't get put into an organized subtitled proposal, so various lengthy intervening discussions have ensued. My question is, should we: (1) Make a subthread now titled "Proposal: Block of Alansohn"? or (2) Let this thread be closed with a warning that if it comes up again, either ArbCom or a NJ topic-ban will ensue? Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that it is all Alansohn's fault so there isn't universal agreement. And it's hard to resolve this dispute as long as Magnolia677 stays away and doesn't help address the problems. I do agree that this case should be closed and next time the participants appear at ANI, a topic ban is proposed at the beginning of the discussion, before the conversation has grown cold. Liz Read! Talk! 12:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it the point for M77 to disengage as much as possible in order to not interact? 129.9.75.247 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that part of the IBAN is for the two editors not to use each other's names, etc. At the very least, when asked (or at least pinged, assuming pings are working and that they are checking this thread) to come resolve the matter and hammer out an agreement, Magnolia77 has not come in here and attacked the other party again instead, like Alansohn did above. I'm not taking sides, as I haven't reviewed all of the evidence at hand. I'm just saying that four out of four editors who !voted above supported a block for Alansohn. I was just asking a question. If no one wants to put it to a formal and organized !vote, I suggest that an admin close this thread with a stern warning (and also a warning against gaming by e.g. editing every single NJ article in existence so that the other party cannot "touch" them). Softlavender (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A note was left on my talk page asking me to write something here. My biggest concern about Alansohn is that he is a bully. He name calls, he makes accusations of stalking and disruptive editing, he intimidates other editors, and looks for battles where there is only good-faith editing (see Battin High School). Owning a US state on Wikipedia is not always a bad thing. Look at the wonderful contributions of User:Coal town guy to West Virginia. My real concern is that bullies--even hard working ones like Alansohn--at some point become a liability, as we've seen in many of our workplaces, and on our kids hockey teams. Their squeeze isn't worth the juice. When there is ownership of a large part of Wikipedia--such as a US state--but no support for new editors, no goodwill, and no open-mindedness to alternative editing styles, you end up with countless articles which all pretty much look the same. How different would those New Jersey articles look if their government sections were trimmed, if other sections were permitted to expand, and if new editors to New Jersey were welcomed and supported? Personally, I feel bullies and mean-spirited editors are a liability and should be kicked the heck off Wikipedia--even if they've made a million edits--but that's just because I dislike bullies (and love Wikipedia). Thanks for listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Close with no action

    I think closing this with any type of action will require examining more diffs than anyone so far has had the time or masochism to do. So it should probably be closed with no action. Some remarks:

    • The thread was originally opened by John Carter, not by Alansohn or Magnolia, so they can't be directly blamed for bringing it here.
    • Magnolia's complaint to John Carter was about Alansohn griping on his own talk page about edits that he described as stalkerish, which do seem stalkerish based on the discussion above, though confirming this would take independent investigation that hasn't happened. I note that JzG suggested a block against Magnolia over this, so it's not the case that commenters unanimously sided against Alansohn.
    • Magnolia, if you were looking at Alansohn's contribs to decide what to edit, that was stalking. Please don't do that. It suffices for the interaction ban to decide for normal editorial reasons what article you want to edit, then check that article's history to see if the most recent edit was from Alansohn. You don't need to follow Alansohn's edits and doing so is a bad idea. Interaction ban means ignore the person completely, to the extent that you can.
    • There was no evidence given that Alansohn's AWB run was an attempt to game the ban. Alansohn is an AWB user who does a lot of those bulk edits, so WP:AGF unless there is actual analysis saying otherwise. He actually did create the original versions of the articles mentioned, that I checked. But, if the number of articles affected is enough to make itself felt via the ban, slowing down could be helpful.
    • I agree with Alansohn that the Trenton edit about Chris Christie was of low quality (no idea of its motivation). Clinton is listed as a notable from Little Rock mostly because he became US President. I doubt he'd have been mentioned if he'd only been Arkansas governor, since the AR governor always works in Little Rock and the governor's official residence is there; plus Clinton lived and worked in Little Rock for many years before serving as governor. NJ's official governor's residence is in Princeton, as RAN mentions, and Christie actually resides in his family home in Mendham Township, according to his WP biography. Also, a nitpick: Trenton is NJ's capital, not its capitol. The New Jersey State Capitol is the building in Trenton where Christie's office (and the state legislature) is.
    • IMHO Magnolia comes out looking worse than Alansohn in this. I'd ask Alansohn to try to adopt a more straightforward and calmer dispute resolution style but I don't see evidence of misconduct, since Alansohn's original post that Mangolia complained about was a plausible assertion that Magnolia had breached or gamed the ban. It also claimed substandard editing on Magnolia's part, which combined with the Trenton example makes me think the quality of Magnolia's edits is a relevant topic of discussion if this dispute flares up again.
    • In any case, further disputes should be presented more concisely, identifying concrete problems being complained about, and documenting them with diffs. Part of the hassle of this thread was having to find the relevant edits because they weren't linked to. As an example, Magnolia claims Alansohn engaged in bullying at the article about Battin High School. A quick look at the article history didn't make this obvious, so diffs are needed to specify exactly where the problem is.
    • Overall I don't think there's much more to be done here. So I'd suggest closing with no action. Yes we may end up back here--that's no big deal, many recurring disputes make repeated occurrences here. People who don't wish to read them are not required to do so. But try to do a better job spelling out the problems, as described above.

    Sorry this is so long but the thread has been unarchived twice now, unnecessarily both times in my opinion.

    50.0.136.194 (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless you are somehow trying to redress the balance of opinion here, I find it odd that an IP with next to no viewable editing history (no matter what the explanation for that is, and all IPs tend to have one) comes down so clearly on the side of one editor in a two-sided dispute. There is no reason that Christie should not be listed as a person associated with and residing in Trenton, much less any reason to call that edit "childish" "POINTy", "disruptive", "bad faith" and "unwilling to edit like a mature adult". There is evidence of bullying on Battin High School -- the addition of a photo of the high school to the article was immediately reverted twice, even after talk-page explanations and citation that the opening date of the school was incorrect in the article. As to who is stalking who, or who is gaming who, well that's a matter for ArbCom if they aren't willing to come here and discuss without name-calling and accusations. Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, 1) Christie does not reside in Trenton and apparently never has, as has already been explained twice. So he can't possibly be a notable resident of Trenton. He works there but resides in another town, so at best he is a notable commuter. 2) Even if he did reside there though, that would not make him a contributor to Trenton's notability (and therefore worth mentioning as a notable resident in the Trenton article) any more than Barack Obama is a contributor to Washington DC's notability (Obama is not mentioned in the DC article). Obama is, however, mentioned as a notable person from Honolulu in the article about that city: do you understand the difference? So the Trenton edit really does come across as a childish and pointy. 3) Seems like your own comments have also clearly come down on the side of one editor. 4) Some specific diffs of the Battin High School bullying would be appreciated. I took a quick look at the article history as Magnolia suggested and nothing jumped out at me. I'm not saying nothing happened but if you know anything about Wikipedia dispute resolution, you know that to make a case for sanctioning someone you really need actual diffs. I didn't see any right away and it's not my job to go around digging if none have been offered. But I'll take a look at that photo issue. 5) I do share the concern raised by Alansohn about how Magnolia found his/her way to that article in the first place. If it was by examining Alansohn's contribs, that's not in the spirit of the IBAN that should be weighed against the stalking allegations being made at the time (the IBAN was not yet in effect). 5) See the unblock request on my talk page for my old address and feel free to check its edit history, as it was somewhat more active than the current address. I don't see the relevance though. I looked at the facts of the dispute currently under discussion, and reported what I found. 6) I doubt Arbcom would take this case (which is contained and basically nonsense) but even if they do, they won't sanction anyone without a bunch of diffs presented as /Evidence. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at the edits regarding the photo and there's some historical unclarity (conflicting sources) that should have been discussed more on the talk page. It looks like Joseph Battin donated a residential mansion to the city in 1889, that is shown in the picture and that was opened as a school at that time, but the Newark Star-Ledger article that Alansohn cited indicates that the mansion was later replaced with a new building that served as Battin High School from 1913 to 1976. This photo apparently shows the newer building and it doesn't appear to be the one in the 1907 picture. So I think some more research is needed to straighten out the history. In any case, Alansohn's first reversion of the photo was perfectly fine given the sourcing available at the time, but the second one was after Magnolia's talk page post mentioning the 1889 booklet, so it should have been discussed. Given the conflict that already seems to have existed between Alansohn and Magnolia, interpreting the reversion as bullying would have to be supported by further analysis. It all doesn't seem worth it.

    I also forgot to mention, the thread was originally started after Magnolia complained about a post Alansohn made on his own talk page. Magnolia and Alansohn: IBAN means stay away from the other editor: don't study their contribs or hover around their talk page--just check article histories before editing, to avoid crossing paths, but otherwise act as if they don't exist. So that makes the whole thread even less legitimate. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is some more info about the school, from its official site (it is now a middle school, grades 6-8). 50.0.136.194 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    FreeatlastChitchat yet again

    Only a day after the Rape jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article came off lockdown, this editor has resumed section-blanking: [11]

    In addition to continuing this disruptive behavior which prompted the other incident report submitted earlier this month, I shall add another charge: brazen lying in edit-summaries. For example, in this edit he claims "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given" (even as the very edit he was making was eliminating one such source,[12] and his immediately prior edit eliminated more).

    And all after claiming he was walking away from the subject (in another associated ANI submitted earlier this month by @Softlavender:):

    "...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..."
    (Lack of action stemming from these other ANIs has apparently emboldened him to renege).

    Could someone please implement Esquivalience's topic ban proposal from the first ANI? Pax 05:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    'RESPONSE' I was not going to bother with a response as crystal clear consensus on the talk page shows that section should be removed (98% supporting removal, with only PAX and one other guy whom PAX canvassed disagreeing), but this has gone on for long enough. It is clear that this is a clear case of pushing pov on part of pax. To be honest PAX makes it looks as if he owns that article and anyone who touches it should be banned and no one has any rights to edit that article, he even reverts any edits which have nothing to do with section blanking(I removed links to articles from a quote and was reverted without any explanation). His only explanation of why Consensus established at 'SIX' (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ) occasions on RS/N is not good enough is directed at me and is as follows
    "You're new here. Let me tell you how it goes: would-be fact-censors go to the RS board, inquire about a source, some politicos come out of the woodwork to gas "right-wing" and "Islamophobic"....and then the rest of us get to ignore them because it's not binding because those are piss-poor criteria for dismissal."[13] and more recently his reply to said consensus has been
    "I know partisan censorship-hunts when I see them, and discount them accordingly. Meanwhile, you're on record above thinking that a Russian front-group is a worthy source of information, so I'm seeing little reason to consider your argumentation credible."[14]
    Furthermore he launched a false accusation of sock puppetry against some of editors who removed the section that backfired ,and it was noted that statements by PAX were "blatantly inaccurate". PAX then went into the archives and edited the archived SPI removing his inaccurate statement and was reverted immediately.
    Even more damning is the fact that the user Раціональне анархіст has a history of being topic banned. As you can see from this Topic ban that more than ten users reached the consensus that Раціональне анархіст is not here to build an encyclopedia, rather he is here only to create disruption. He was recently topic banned for 30 days, with a high consensus saying that he should not nominate articles for AFd, but even then he has been continuing to do so again. I can ping those ten here and they will agree that this user should now be perm banned, but as it may appear to be a canvass I will refrain from doing that.
    Add to this the fact that user Раціональне анархіст is highly, highly uncivil in his comments and generally derides others and accuses them of, sockpuppetry, meat puppetry and general vandalism even when there is no such thing going on as a recent SPI proved. He has made my experience of editing wikipedia a highly unpleasant one, he replies to me every comment even if it is not directed towards him and uses insulting and sarcastic language. He started a new section on the Rape jihad TP labelled as Pattern of vandalism so far, which I had to changeto a more neutral heading. To him everyone who disagrees with him is a vandal or a sock.
    Раціональне анархіст has also been blocked recently due to his continued edit warring and for being highly uncivil to others. The blocking admin noted that Раціональне анархіст was being blocked for "Modifying other editors comments" and then "for edit-warring in an effort to preserve his editing of other's comments". This to be honest is the most uncivil thing that a person can do on wiki, i.e edit another person's comment when one is involved in a dispute with him and then edit war to preserve one's own version of anothers comments.
    Therefore, seeing this kind of behaviour where I am following consensus and even then coming under attack from a person who was topic banned for 30 days and blocked for another (i.e Almost 20% of the time he has been on wikipedia he has been banned in one form or another). I would like to recommend a Boomerang for PAX with topic ban on rape jihad.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) (Respose created 28 April, Last Modified May 4)
    FreeatlastChitchat has significantly enlarged the comment above since I replied to it on the 28th. His new material references a temporary ban placed upon me several months ago in nominating porn articles for deletion. FreeatlastChitchat demonstrates continued malfeasance by falsly implying that my limited activity in that area since then amounts to a violation, which it does not. Pax 18:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the SPI that you requested starting? (My final reply in that) Regards the composition of 2% and 98%, I shall leave it to others to determine whether or not your misrepresentational counting is a matter of WP:BADFAITH or a troublesome inability to handle basic arithmetic. Pax 07:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Раціональне анархіст(Pax) should first discuss this thing at the talk page, he has not yet discussed the recent developments, before dragging this to ANI. I don't see what disrupive behaviour Раціональне анархіст refers when he too is engaging in the edit war without bothering to discussing their grievances or differences. Per this I doubt Раціональне_анархіст's ability to distinguish vandalism from content disputes. One can put a level four on his tp for restoring the content back, but that's is not the way to go about doing things. If a user states that they want to walk away and eats their words afterward, it is a silly reason to bring them to ANI.
    This is more of a content dispute than diruptive editing, if a t-ban is warranted, it is more so for Раціональне_анархіст from ANI. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 07:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have twenty (and counting) posts on the TP this month. Section-blanking to remove massive numbers of RS while lying in the edit summaries in order to support spurious argument on the TP that the castrated article is then applicable for merging (in violation of the spirit of a recent AfD's closer's (@Davey2010:) suggestion to leave the article alone for at least five months) is not a "content dispute"; it is vandalism with an ulterior purpose. The editor has been warned of vandalism on previous occasions, warned specifically about section-blanking on previous occasions, been a subject in at least three ANIs over the last two months, not counting this one, and has been blocked twice during the same span for edit-warring. Pax 07:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This should be a very clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. The only disruptive editor on this article is Pax. His behaviour has been deeply problematic for a long time. Other editors who disagree with him have attempted discussion and had asked for input at other venues, notable WP:RSN. Pax merely dismisses views he does not like, stating that the consensus at RSN doesn't count because editors there are "politicos" (what on earth does that even mean?). There has also been clear consensus at the talk page for removal of the section, which Pax simply ignores. The article itself is a mess, thanks in large part to Pax's kneejerk edit-warring. Paul B (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul B has also sectioned-blanked the article.[15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Раціональне анархіст (talk • contribs)
    Of course I did, because consensus at all pages in which was discussed was to remove the section, as has been explained. This disingenuous attempt to make a consensus-supported edit look like vandalism is typical of Pax's tactics. Paul B (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drawing in a number of one-shot !voters with no history in the article, and swayed by discredited albeit voluminous repetitive blather to bury other commenters under mountains of text, does not constitute establishing a solid consensus for deleting the article by alternative means (the clear ulterior objective of the section-blankers). Pax 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean discussions do not count when they go against you. I'm glad we cleared that up. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with WP:BOOMERANG. Instead of justifying their sources in the face of consensus that they are unreliable and/or improperly used in the article there is only edit warring and dismissal. An overwhelming majority on the talkpage have agreed that the paragraph is unsourced and unrelated to the topic. This is ignored. WP:RSN have disqualified the sources used in the paragraph. This is ignored. At no point has the user attempted to justify their sources by anything other than assertion. I have been dragged to a frivolous WP:SPI case, which Pax continued to flog even after it had been thrown out for being without merit and archived [16]. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RatatoskJones has also sectioned-blanked the article,[17][18] and was a subject in a prior ANI regarding it.

    Comment I do not recall having had anything to do with either of the editors in question, so cannot comment on the appropriateness of a topic ban for either one; but in treating an Islamophobic slur as if it is fact, that article is a disgrace. That article has no more reason to exist than would, for example, Christian babies in Jewish cuisine. Get rid of it. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    2 cents (involved)

    (Non-administrator comment) I got involved. I'm not happy with the title, which fails WP:NPOV in my view. I have made an argument that sexual violence in Islamic culture (proposed new title) is worth an article or rather, should have an article in much the same way as Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. This cannot only cover atrocities by cookoo cults like ISIL and Boko Haram, but also the accepted violence agains women in (for instance) the Pakistani community in Britain. I have cited several sources quoting Muslims explicitly acknowledging the problem and without any exception these were either ignored or deemed not reliable without any explanation of why they are unreliable. I do not think that the goal of my esteemed opponents is reaching some kind of consensus, but rather that their main goal is to obstruct improvements as much as possible by simply opposing anything and everything. With respect to FreeatlastChitchat I have reached the conclusion that WP:IDHT is applicable and I'm beginning to wonder about WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with all of that that Kleuske wrote above, including the fact of NOTHERE and so forth. I agree that the title change would solve every problem the article (which has survived recent AfDs) is experiencing. I also would like to state that the level of disruption and SPA partisanship and intransigency on the article talk page (and in the edit-warring) has long been at the level of unconscionability and unworkability. I would like to see obvious partisans held off of the article for a good length of time while neutral parties cleaned it up, titled it something neutral and verifiable as Kleuske has suggested, and then keep the warriors and SPA partisans out if possible. (PS: I'm not involved in editing the article but I have reported some of the tag-team edit-warriors.) Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    'Sexual violence in Islamic culture'. Yes that sounds neutral enough lol. On a serious note, there is already a merger on the table which has been proposed with Slavery in 21st-century Islamism. If you want to rename the article, why don't you support the merger? After all, what you proposed is all but a merger. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly oppose that, since sexual violence against women in Islam is (sadly) not restricted to 'islamism' nor the 21st century. See, apart from the sources I already mentioned this listing of 20 fatwa's. You are, of course welcome to suggest a title you think is better suited, but I kindly request you do it on the appropriate talk page. The above just makes my point. Kleuske (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an article Islam and domestic violence which is 'exactly' 100% related to you listing of 20 fatwa's. I don't get it, why are you proposing making new articles about something which already has an article on wikipedia? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kleuske, thank you very much for the input, and I am more receptive to this title proposal than the other you posed on the TP (even though the current titles is in actual usage by sources, and thus my current preferred), but to be honest it should wait until after this ANI is resolved, because no serious work can be accomplished until the disruption ends. Pax 03:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed ban

    Since Раціональне анархіст is refusing to accept the consensus, (•RSN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 •NPOVN: 7 •TP: 8 9) the following remedy is proposed:

    1. User:Раціональне анархіст (Pax) is banned from editing the article Rape jihad for a period of six months.
    2. In case of breach of the above ban, the ban is reset and the user may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator for a period determined by them.
    3. The user is encouraged to contribute positively to the discussions on the talk page of the relevant article and suggest changes.

    --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 17:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fauzan has a prior ANI history of edit-warring and apologetics. Pax 08:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RSN1: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. FPM's claims were otherwise supported by reporting in the Washington Post.[19] RSN2: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. Spurious listing by an editor self-identified as a Marxist on his user-page. Discussion result was that the author was notable. RSN3: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. A muslim editor gets a few bites complaining about Islamophobia. RSN4: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. RSN5: Does not concern the writers or topic involved. A single question with a single response consisting of a red-herring argument. RSN6: An RSN posed by the subject of this ANI. A few participants (one overtly partisan) attempt to impugn author Kern (who it turns out is entirely correct regarding the other subject they were pillorying him for).
    These RSN arguments are at best tenuous, do not cover all of the sources involved, and the secton-blankers have been reverted by at least seven different editors. It is clear that they lack consensus to do so at this point, and the article has been locked twice now in a state which preserved the material they sought to delete. Pax 19:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean I have no interest in collaborating with other editors except @Softlavender:, @Esquivalience:, @Guy Macon:, @DawnDusk:, @220 of Borg:, @Kleuske:, @Helpsome:, @BengaliHindu:, @KrakatoaKatie: and @AlbinoFerret:? (That's a list of editors who've reverted the section-blockers, sided against them on the TP, and/or voted to topic-ban FreeatlastChitchat during the last ANI, or assisted in writing the article. I am not counting one IP and the two who both locked the article in a state not preferred by the section-blankers.) Pax 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not invoke my name as supporting something that I have never offered an opinion on. The edits in question[20][21] do not in any way refer to your behavior, and it is rather insulting to assume that just because I reverted some section blanking done by someone you are having a fight with that somehow translates to me collaborating with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding. "Collaborating" was Soldier of the Empire's choice of term, not mine. Pax 02:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Pax cannot engage constructively in this topic. His comments are typically sneering and dismissive in tone and he regularly demonstrates that he has no intention of engaging with actual arguments, just repeating assertions ad nauseam. None of the editors he claims to be "collaborating" with come close to Pax's dogmatic POV, though some have supported specific claims of his (and rejected others). Paul B (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (uninvolved non admin) Nothing here rises to the level of a topic ban, this appears to be a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So ignoring consensus, constantly misrepresenting evidence and rejecting out of hand the opinions of independent editors, unrelenting edit warring, constitute a "content dispute". Nonsense. Those are behavioural issues. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the opinions of an involved party. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I became involved because of the evidence I saw of Pax's behviour (which includes disingenuosly canvassing support by pinging you in a 'list' of his supporters, contrary to Wikipedia:Canvassing). Typical of his 'sneaky' tactics, to use one of his favourite words. Nothing to do with content dispute, everything to do with gaming the system. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented on the last AN/I section on this. I also watch this page and comment on it. If you do a find on it you will see 18 or so posts, so the so called canvassing isnt really canvassing. If you read the words after the list above, it explains why they are all exceptions to the canvassing rule. AlbinoFerret 22:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think he was canvassing, I think you are being very naive. Your other edits here are irrelevant to his motivations. I've no idea what you mean by invoking the "words after the list above", They simply demonstrate his disingenuousness. Paul B (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment shows how involved you are and that you have lost objectivity. That post is close to a personal attack and likely violates AGF. AlbinoFerret 01:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Attack on whom, you or him? I stand by my statements about Pax's disingenuousness. There is a mountain of evidence for his misrepresentations. This board is for discussing misbehaviour, so pointing it out with evidence is not a "personal attack". If it were, we would never be able to assess editor misconduct at all. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Silence at this point does not indicate consensus. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's supposed to mean something, I've no idea what it is. It's not a response to anything I've just said. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It means that this little conversation is going nowhere, and I if I dont respond, it does not indicate that I somehow agree with whatever points you may raise in additional comments. WP:SILENCE AlbinoFerret 21:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Both sides of the equation are problematical here; one side (Freeat lastChitChat and Xerxes...[sp?], etc. [sorry, it's early here and I can't be bothered with getting that username right]) with tag-team POV edit-warring and section-blanking on more than one article; the other side (Pax) with (possibly) ignoring consensus. I'm not sure a ban on one side, or one side only, is going to help matters or is equitable. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to deride you, as I said earlier. However I would like to ask if a consensus is reached on a talk page and numerous debates that a section ought to be blanked then someone blanks the section, how does that equate to "tag-team POV edit-warring and section-blanking". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This has all been discussed and well-documented on previous ANI threads. It's all a matter of public record; I'm not going to discuss further. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportFor the simple reason that this is 'The only' article where Pax makes any contributions and has grown to think of it as his own property. He thinks everyone else is wrong even when consensus has been reached. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pax's contributions dont show any real unhealthy focus. link He has made more combined posts to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and its talk page. AlbinoFerret 02:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite wrong. The combined green numbers in ebola pale in comparison to his activity in Rape jihad.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No; you're wrong. Look at it again. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked at it again and again, and furthermore it is not my opinion that you are obsessed with rape jihad. According to x's tools. 49 edits were by User Раціональне анархіст on Rape jihad (36.57% of the total edits made to the page) while 28 edits were by User Раціональне анархіст on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (0.31% of the total edits made to the page)
    You are being willfully blind and evasive; The Xtools link provided by AlbinoFerret reveals as of this post 49 edits by me to the Rape jihad article and 71 to the two Ebola pages, and 36 versus 63 to the associated talk pages. In other words, I am half as interested in this subject as opposed to the other one by that metric. Even less so if, of the 49 edits, we discount the 16 which are straight reversions of vandalism by you section-blankers. Lastly, since I entirely rewrote the article from the original, and it's relatively new, it stands to reason that a high percentage of the edits to it would be mine. If you ran that tool the moment after I created it and before the earlier version had been linked, it would show that 100% of the edits were mine. Yes, it's shocking that editing is going on in here. Pax 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A section-blanker wants a vandal-reverser out; nothing surprising there. Regards your falsely-asserted talk page consensus, a new arrival (Kleuske) is doing a wonderful job of demolishing various nonsenses. So, you can't even claim to hold that ground now even with lessened participation from myself and other previous participants who are awaiting administrative assistance in curtailing the disruption. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing sections that consensus says should be removed is not "vandalism". You are being dishonest again. None of your disputed edits constitute "vandal reversing". Paul B (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kleuske has not even attempted to justify Rotherham's inclusion in this topic (with the exception of a single source, found unreliable at every turn at WP:RSN), which is what this is all about. Nothing has been demolished. Personally, I hope that people go to the talkpage and check it out for themselves. There is a barrage of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues that would benefit from more eyes and voices, and could help with the WP:OWN issues. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Classic WP:IDHT on display right there: Kleuske is exactly the "more eyes and voices" you clamored for, and are receiving, and he has addressed your RSN argument at length on the TP (as I did here before he arrived) while you pretend no one has done so. Pax 05:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you ignore all the other editors who have commented on the talkpage because you found one other similarly ignores clear consensus from WP:RSN that you do not like? There is a great majority in favor of merging whatever can be salvaged from this article into Slavery_in_21st-century_Islamism, a majority that only grows with each day. As for the comments from Kleuske, they're running afoul of WP:SYNTH, which anyone who looks at the talkpage will see. None of the sources provided (except the Gatestone, which is unreliable) have anything to do with the topic. Even Kleuske wants to move the page, which you object to for reasons of, and I quote "What I seek to avoid during any potential move to a new seemingly "neutral" name is the WP:WEASELWORDED WP:COATRACKING then sure to smother the article, as it has Chitchat's preferred Islam and domestic violence (whose very first sentence reads "The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed")." which I personally find very telling. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't change the subject. In your comment immediately above this one, you claimed "Kleuske has not even attempted to justify Rotherham's inclusion in this topic." That's not true, as his dispute with you over the Gatestone source expressly concerns Rotherham. In fact, he's making solid arguments for extending article scope well beyond that. Dissembling like this is why I've amended the proposal to include you in the topic ban. You've sectioned-blanked the article, have the same WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE problems, and present false narratives to this noticeboard. Pax 08:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support In my very brief interactions with Pax I have seen him use the Rape Jihad article as a WP:POVFORK for the Rotherham article. He then attemped to justify his actions by misrepresenting sources, and claiming an article about an Oxford abuse case was about Rotherham[22]. The other source he linked to was so dubious it was laughed out of RSN the only time it came up. He has demonstrated a clear inability to use sources responsibly in this topic area, that combined with his itchy trigger when it comes to proposing topic bans makes it very clear that he needs a break from the topic area.Bosstopher (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another involved editor weighs in with a non-defense of FreeatlastChitchat's lying in edit commentaries. The topic-ban to be applied to him is a relist of someone else's proposal, so let's not imply it were my idea initially - he's generated a lot of noticeboard attention over the last several months. Regards the content issue, replied to Pax 23:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted Proposal

    (As originally submitted by Esquivalience t in the previous ANI concerning FreeatlastChitchat.) Pax 19:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    1. The community forbids FreeatlastChitchat for six months from making edits to articles related with Islam, especially to Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed.
    2. Any uninvolved administrator may, at 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.
    Might be a good idea to rescue the section from the archives. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous participation is here - vote below - Esquivalience t 01:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC):[reply]

    • Support: six months is reasonable. Recommend proposal be amended with "...broadly construed, including historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities" just to make things very clear that old Pakistan/India/Bangladesh bio and war articles are off-limits. The editor is fresh off a new (acquired same day as Esquivalience's proposal) 24hr block for committing five reverts in a twenty minute span. Given level of impulsiveness, suspect he'll hang himself long before the duration expires, but we'll see. Pax 23:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have added an amendment that places an emphasis on articles related with Rape jihad, any articles that Rape jihad has been merged from or spinoff articles, and historical articles involving Muslim armies or political entities, broadly construed. to make it crystal clear. <note: removed extra ping when moving previous discussion here.> Esquivalience t 01:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thumbs up. Pax 04:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you take some time to read the talk page at Rape jihad you will find that most editors (i.e 95%) support my actions of blanking the sections due to reasons ranging from synthesis to lack of RS and OR, this includes editors with good standing such as Fauzan, User:Paul Barlow and User:Nawabmalhi. Also if you see this opinion by an uninvolved editor, you will see that all edits on the Mughal wars made by me and Xtreme were rational and according to policy. At the talk page of rape jihad you can see that User:RatatoskJones, User:Rhoark, User:Fauzan, User:Blueboar, User:Paul Barlow, User:Nawabmalhiand four others 'support' the exclusion of rotherham from the article and merging the article or redirecting it. While there are only 2 people who say that rotherham is included.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    95%? You personally reverted a sum total of more editors (5) than were ever on your side during the blank-out war at the article page, or who've shown up to support you during the lockdown on the TP. Pax 10:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as currently worded. Looking at the history, both the sides have crossed the line. General sanctions need to be implemented that encompass the editng of the said article. And yes, BRD is an essay, not a policy. If the content is not suitable, you can't cite BRD to retain the content. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 16:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BRD is not a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT certainly is. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Moment of Truth

    I think this has dragged on long enough. It seems clear that PAX will not agree with what I am saying(Lets just say that taking out rotherham is not based on consensus and it is my own, personal, POV, biased action). And I am not going to agree to rotherham being in the article, to be honest I would like to delete the article, but for now rotherham should be deleted in my opinion. Therefore being mature adults, I propose that we let the community decide what should be the content of the article. To this end I propose that

    1. Both me and PAX, voluntarily remove ourselves from the Rape jihad article for the period of one month, to commence after the page is unprotected.
    2. We both waive our rights to comment/participate on the talk page of the said article and/or mention the said article on any other page in English Wikipedia.(except an admins TP).
    3. We both agree to voluntarily submit ourselves for speedy checkuser if an IP/anon is found to be editing the article in a way deemed "unconstructive" by more than 5 other editors.
    4. We are both allowed to participate in editing the article by placing our suggestions on the talkpage of an admin(preferably the admin who closes this debate).
    5. We both volunteer to be subjected by 1 revert in 24 hrs sanction even after this period is over.
    6. We make at least 300 major edits to wikipedia articles in general (excluding nominations and tagging) during the 1 month period. So that others can assume good faith that we are not here just to fight, rather to build an encyclopedia.
    7. We both voluntarily submit ourselves to an indefinite t-ban(non-appealable) if we are found to be editing the said article during this period of voluntary cool off, or if we do not comply with any of the conditions mentioned above.

    FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You reneged on your last non-binding declaration (quoted in italics at the top of this ANI) to leave it alone, and came back in to lie in edit-summaries. The only "truth" I see above is finally a stipulation on your part that securing the article's deletion is your primary desire, not its improvement. Since your presence in the article at this point is one of bad faith, my proposal (already submitted by myself and others) is that your removal from the subject be made binding in the form of the submitted topic ban. Pax 01:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what is going on here, but the tinypic image of a "diff" labelled a "lie in edit-summaries" presented by Pax does not correspond to the actual diff in the page record [23]. The so-called lie is nowhere to be seen. Paul B (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have made it absolutely clear that you "don't know what is going on here" and aren't making any attempt to listen or learn. As anyone can easily see by clicking your own link (which exactly corresponds, contrary to your claim above, to the picture -- which I created to preserve a permanent record of this malfeasance in the Incident archives should the article ever be deleted in the future), FreeatlastChitchat has removed a source whose title is "title=ISIS and the Rape Jihad" while including in his edit commentary: "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given", which is a patent falsehood (you'll note that Chitchat has not denied it despite the charge occurring multiple times in this ANI). Are you blind? Were you hoping no one would click it, or that you would not be called on it?
    At this point, it really doesn't matter as this nonsense from you three is obviously not going to stop, So, could we please get some administrative action in this notice? The section-blankers have richly earned a topic-ban from this subject. (Please see Amendment to the Relisted Proposal below.) Pax 06:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the article you will see that it does not mention rape jihad at all. Rather it mentions slavery. Hence my summary. But it is almost impossible to argue with you. You are highly uncivil to anyone who has a different opinion and therefore I try to keep my contact with you to a bare minimum. This reply is for any admin who is looking through and your further comments will not be replied to. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So "it does not mention rape jihad at all" except right in its VERY TITLE? Good God, please make this person go away. Pax 07:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Amendment to the Relisted Proposal

    For multiple reasons expressed elsewhere in this notice, I propose including Paul B and RatatoskJones (who have also section-blanked the article) in the topic ban restrictions to be applied to FreeatlastChitChat in the Relisted Proposal above. This would also address an unresolved separate ANI over the issue.

    Pax 05:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So let me get this straight, you want to topic ban three editors Me, Paul B and Ratatosk Jones? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of fantasy world are you living in Pax? This proposal is utterly frivolous, or rather it is a disgrace. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous. I've removed the poorly-sourced section twice, the last time on April 16th. Since then, my edits to the article mainspace have been solely to insert a citation-needed tag, which Pax removed twice (once directly, once by reverting FreeatlastChitChat's removal of the section one revision too far) without consensus. I'll WP:AGF and assume the second one was a mistake by Pax, but since I've edited and commented on the article, I've gotten nothing but attacks by Pax. I have been falsely accused of vandalism and sockpuppeting, of being "sneaky" [24] and "disingenuous" [25], and this nugget [26] where asking for comments from uninvolved editors is met by: "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." Ratatosk Jones (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm incredibly tempted to propose a topic ban that bans Pax from proposing topic bans at this point, because at this rate 90% of the ANI page will be Pax proposing topic bans for people. Bosstopher (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Humorous WP:ADHOM duly noted. But can you offer any defense of FreeatlastChitchat's lying in edit summaries? Pax 23:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another incident, May 4:

    No editor has any right to brand another editors actions as 'Vandalism' in a Talk Page section. If you think something done in accordance with consensus of the majority is vandalism you should go open a case somewhere and 'PROVE' it as vandalism. Just branding something as vandalism on an articles TP is highly uncivil. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you; you're a section-blanking vandal. You've section-blanked the article well over a dozen times:[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42]. You need to go away, and since you won't do it voluntarily, administrative assistance is sought to help you find the door. Pax 20:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Concerns: Technical 13

    Technical 13 has a history of permission removals and temporary blocks resulting from problematic behavior, often undone with the idea that he is doing "good work." The continuation of problematic behavior is a strong indication that previous situations have not been properly dealt with. It should be noted that "good work" is not a sufficient reason to allow a user to get off easier when they violate a Wikipedia policy, disruptive behavior and other policy violations inhibit other editors from doing their own work while they deal with the situation and it is quite easy for several editors to do more "good work" than any single editor.

    Past behavior

    This section is not meant to be a complete list, it is meant to briefly list some past problematic behavior.

    1. Discussion related to removal of TemplateEditor right as a result of edit warring [43]
    2. In a frivolous request for arbitration, Technical 13 makes accusations against a sysop in what seems to be part of several responses to having his TemplateEditor right removed and, when he notices the boomerang, appears to attempt to appeal to the emotions of the arbitrators before saying his original concern didn't matter and dropping the case.
    3. ANI posts by Technical 13 created after the removal of TE: call for removal of TE from another editor and a request for reinstatement of TE
    4. Evidence of another poor response to critisism/resistance [44], ending with the block being endorsed later undone on the condition of it being the "last chance"
    5. Unblock disussions related to the above block
    6. Modified 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Edit warring related block information can be found [45] and a related ANI thread [46]
    7. Added 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Here Technical 13 is confronted in relation to suspected canvassing. Additionally, in the thread starting "With another view," T13 is confronted about marking edits as minor and blames the tool.

    Recent issues

    Though I've tried to include as much as possible, most of the things here have some connection to me, that's how I'm aware of them, and so this should not be considered a complete list and others may wish to add onto it. Deciding between putting something here or in the section above was not based on a fixed date but more on if any actions were taken in response to the incident with some consideration for how long ago "ignored" incidents happened so the line may be a bit fuzzy when it comes to slightly old incidents. I've tried to keep the incidents here somewhat brief to prevent people from not reading due to length, I am, of course, willing to provide more information on request.

    1. Another unnecessary appeal to emotion [47]. While I don't have a reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims, Technical 13 was made aware in his request for arbitration that he should not attempt to use these sorts of "excuses." Regardless of the truthfulness of his statement, continued use of these appeals to emotion appears to be evidence of an attempt to sway the opinions of others by making them feel bad for him.
    2. Here a side discussion confronts Technical 13's marking of edits as minor where he claims that the only way he can not mark certain edits as minor is to revert them as vandalism, as the other editor points out this is not true and appears, to me, to indicate that Technical 13 feels that other editors are required to work around him and what he wants
    3. In relation to [48], Technical 13 recklessly reverted a fix to a template, even after being explained that the change was a fix and created a RFPP where one of his comments indicate that a reason for protection was to gain an advantage in the content dispute. Technical 13's reverts reference and misrepresent WP:BRD by saying that it "doesn't apply to highly transcluded templates and this kind of behavior could result in you being blocked." WP:BRD is not a policy and states that it can be used on "high-profile" cases. The RFC was created and so far no one except Technical 13 has considered the change as anything more than a fix. On the RFC, Technical 13 even says he does not object to the change, despite all the previous occurrences where he insists it would break all transclusions. Technical 13 quickly goes back to saying it would break transclusions, only giving an explanation of what exactly is broken a few days later and, to be honest, the reason seems to be whatever random difference in behavior he could find to avoid admitting he was wrong by dressing it up as an issue.
    4. Technical 13 again demonstrates recklessness when he indicates that he either did not read the proposal or that he intends to mislead other readers by claiming issues exist that do not here, the issues are explicitly accounted for in the proposal. In the same post he references a change he made to nicks after this one had be proposed, his change appears to have been made without any consensus or discussion. Technical 13 also attempts to use his status as "Editor of the Week" to give his opposition, which is based (almost?) entirely on false or questionable information, more weight. His idea that the truth of his claims is self evident does not seem to be isolated to this incident and is not a mindset anyone on Wikipedia should have.
    5. Technical 13 seems to often only reply to parts of replies directed at him. An example is here where hardly any of my concerns about his opposition are addressed, he even completely ignores my statement about fixing any technical issues with the code, simply reiterating that they exist after implying that the code creates a privacy and security issue without explaining what the issue is. This sort of behavior unnecessarily delays and complicates the consensus building process.
    6. Edits that appear to be POV pushing at Template:Centralized discussion, best demonstrated by [49]. The edit summary is "Misleading. This is about adding global javascript, claiming it is "just about a disclaimer" is deceitful and dishonest." however the edit reverted makes no indication that the proposal is "just about a disclaimer" it, in fact, mentions the sitewide JavaScript and so it appears that the intention of the revert is to include the phrase "add an extra step for new users to get live IRC help" in the link which, though accurate, is not neutral. There is a discussion related to the change here and was one here.
    7. Technical 13 made a controversial and major change with no apparent consensus to IRC nicks. Some of the templates edited were template protected. The change effectively tricks users into linking their username and IP address by prefilling the nick with what looks like a random number but is actually a revision ID. This was all done while a proposal on the village pump, that Technical 13 is aware of, that conflicts with the change Technical 13 made was active and editors have expressed similar concerns with the change as I have here.

    Suggested remedy

    I'm not entirely sure what should happen to Technical 13 as a result of this behavior but, as the very least, Technical 13's TE rights should be removed indefinitely per WP:TPEREVOKE. (1) Number 7 in the section "Recent issues." (2) Number 3 of the "Recent issues" section above indicates that Technical 13 does not always exercise sufficient caution when making changes to templates and (3) his RFPP shows an intent to use the right to gain an advantage in disputes. Removal of his TE right has already been tried, and as shown by the information in this post has be ineffective so to do just that would be ineffective. Regardless of what is done, if anything is done I feel that it should require community consensus here if anyone ever wants it to be undone to ensure that the community agrees it is appropriate. I ask that those who discuss this resist any urge to recommend minor remedies since it appears that the community has already put quite some effort into resolving issues with this editor and it is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to have the community continue to deal with the same problems. Since many of Technical 13's problematic actions can carry on without any "special" rights, I feel the only effective solution would be one that, somehow, limits or completely blocks Technical 13's ability to interact with Wikipedia and the community. Though this would restrict or completely prevent any further "good work" done by Technical 13, the fact is, his poor behavior burdens the community and takes away time that others could devote to do their own "good work". PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    • No to put it simply. I really think you are pulling at straws and digging through very old issues, remember we all make mistakes sometimes. More importantly, in my opinion T13 is one of the most productive and active template editors we have around here, and always is the one to answer my Template Protected edit requests. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the 7 points in the "recent behavior" section are what I would consider old, (with a quick look back I don't think anything there is older than a month) and quite a bit of it is unarguably recent. Everyone does make mistakes but opposing a change based on what appears to be, at best, a complete lack of understanding of what the proposal does (though that doesn't explain the fact that he still seems unaware even after being specifically told) is evidence of a serious issue with technical skill, if Technical 13 interacts with other editor's proposals in the same way he has interacted with mine then a high number of answered edit requests is a bigger issue than a low number. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This seems a bit trumped up. If there were a repeated pattern of very recent transgressions, that would be one thing to possibly bring to ANI. But I'm not seeing that in this. Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I currently, due to recent events, need to be neutral on this, but I feel as though the community should look through the diffs and past edits of T13 that PhantomTech posted, as they might pose a serious question on T13 usage of his Template Editor permissions, and should not just dismiss the claims outright due to T13 doing "good work" in the past, rather dwell on the fact that some of his edits currently might be viewed as breaking policy by other editors. The fact that they have done good work before, should not used to keep an editor that might be disrupting the community, and it should not be excused outright due to that fact. Thanks, TheMesquitobuzz 07:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Per above. Mlpearc (open channel) 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Cause for concern? While I'm not exactly sure about the remedy here, the user did breach 3RR through POV-pushing (diff above). While I have mostly interacted with Technical 13 on IRC, and I agree he does good work in templates, there is also a net negative that I see some users like PhantomTech concerned about. Additionally, while I understand that IRC is off-wiki, the user has been particularly argumentative and disruptive in IRC over the past few days in my opinion, templating newbies to the point where they are confused, repeatedly insisting on continuing arguments there ad nauseum, etc. For me to recommend a remedy would probably impose IRC bias. However, TheMesquito and PhantomTech have made perfectly valid points.
    • First of all, it is, in my opinion, unacceptable to use Editor of the Week in an oppose as a basis for your argument. We are all editors here, and in the end, admins do not say "My argument is better because I am an admin."
    • Secondly, while Technical 13 is indeed knowledgeable about templates and other technical know-how, it is imperative that he explains his technical rationales for supporting or opposing a change clearly and without the effect of the "technical walled garden" so that the community at large, not just Technical 13 and other template editors, can understand his rationale. In templates such as Template talk:Freenode, he should not simply say "It will break all these transclusions" yet fail to provide a single example of a template that it will break, expecting everyone else to be technically knowledgeable and able to find an example to support his argument instead of supporting it himself. This is also evident in the RFC for global javascript/disclaimer (diffs above), where he claims that it is against WMF code, but drops that bomb without elaboration.
    • Finally, one should not expect a buried proposal/suggestion comment without any replies on WT:WPAFC to construe a consensus. A widespread policy, involving the use of Revision ID to link them to IP addresses, should have been resolved by RFC, not unopposed edits to template-protected pages where editors in opposition of the change and concerned about their privacy are unable to oppose or revert. Seven days is not a very long time. In fact, while this is all a very recent trend and may not be a trend at all, Technical 13 did not seem to find it necessary to notify people about this widespread change, but rather actioned it in the morning while several users were asleep and unable to comment. On the other hand, he has been notifying, violating 3RR people about a change that he vehemently opposes. In another IRC change he opposed, he insisted on using the channel's bot welcomer to welcome everyone who came to the channel in an effort to ensure that every single person was able to comment on the proposal, often spamming the channel when multiple users entered or quit and reentered in a short amount of time.
    • While I do not see this as a support or oppose situation, I do see some cause for concern, and recommend that editors here carefully take a look at PhantomTech's diffs and avoiding the "editor X is too valuable, it doesn't matter what else they do" argument. — kikichugirl oh hello! 18:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statement: I agree with PhantomTech and KikichuGirl above. However, my interactions with Technical 13 has been almost entirely, if not entirely, on IRC, making it impossible for me to accuse him. I don't make a habit of keeping IRC logs. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - a discussion probably would have remedied this whole issue. I don't find him to be unreasonable or uncooperative. Quite the opposite is true. Atsme☯Consult 01:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may very well be that he's reasonable and cooperative most of the time, but he appears to suffer from frequent bouts of terribly bad judgment - which would've been fine if he'd ever fess up, but he doesn't. This has to stop. In addition to the diffs provided by the OP:
        1. Here's where I asked him not to flag his reverts in content disputes as "minor" and he responded with, 'I'll have to click on "Vandal Rollback". Your choice.'
        2. Here's where he was casting aspersions in all directions out of the sweet blue.
        3. Here's where he threw a tantrum about being reverted once, requesting admin assistance and sanctions. Alakzi (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is far from a single issue, I alone have listed a significant amount of concerns and other editors, like Alakzi, have brought up more. Additionally, some of the issues are related to cases where editors attempt to discuss with Technical 13. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 to kikichugirl and I Dream of Horses. Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if it can't be resolved at this level, it's pretty obviously going to be escalated through WP:DR, so it's probably in everyone's interests if some sort of voluntary agreement can be reached to move forward - but I don't think anything is going to result here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Urge caution when using tools and understand that technical issues are often subjective. T13 is bright and very enthusiastic. More consideration needs to be given to opposing viewpoints. I ask T13 to understand that working in a collaborative technical environment has all the pitfalls of working in a collaborative environment and a technical environment. Just slow your roll and understand that your actions need to be copasetic with the technical workings of Wikipedia and the community. Things break fast when you don't work well with others. I don't think any action is called for at this point. Chillum 17:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is true that technical issues can often be very complex and cause disagreement based on many different aspects. T13 does seem very enthusiastic but he has a history of assuming all opposing viewpoints are wrong and this has been pointed out to him. While your advice to T13 would likely resolve many of his issues, he doesn't know how to take a hint and I don't see a reason to believe he will take the advice this time as similar concerns caused him to lose his TE right the first time. I do not believe it is sufficient to let off a user, who has a history of problematic behavior, with a warning. It is an unnecessary burden on the community to allow editors to behave in this way and does nothing but encourage others to do the same. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have found some more relevant past behavior, it has been added to the original post as a modification to Past behavior #6 and the addition of Past behavior #7. The latter is related to the information provided above by Alakzi as it contains T13 being confronted with their behavior marking edits as minor where T13 blames the tool, as he did in the interaction with Alakzi. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Darkness Shines, again

    Darkness Shines (talk · contribs), only recently returned from an indef-ban through a BASC appeal, is back to permanent edit-warring. He feels that I am "hounding" him, despite having been told only last week that this charge is groundless, and has been meeting each and every edit I make to articles of his interest with immediate, indiscriminate blanket reverts.

    Now, it is true that I have been touching quite a few articles of his. While he was indef-banned, I noticed he had recently created a series of articles on medieval philology – undoubtedly a laudable idea, but unfortunately riddled with so many factual errors I saw myself compelled to fix or rewrite most of them. (Obviously, there can be no "hounding" of an indef-banned user, who isn't supposed to be on Wikipedia in the first place.) Last week I noticed he had again become embroiled in an edit-war elsewhere, at Female infanticide in India, so I did what I would always have done in such situations: intervened (in his favour!) to get a disruptive sock out of the way [50], found that the sock was wrong about most things, but that DS was also wrong about a few others, so I ended up challenging his poor use of sources on a number of counts [51]. This article is an exemption from an area he is otherwise topic-banned from, to allow him to get it up to GA status, but the points I raised will, I believe, make that aim difficult to reach [52]. Since I know from multiple prior occasions that DS has a persistent record of pushing poorly used sources through review processes such as GA, DYK or FA, I finally went to check up on another article that he got through GA last year, Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, only to indeed find yet more of the same kinds of problems [53]. Of course, per WP:HOUND, this is all perfectly legitimate: it doesn't constitute hounding to check a user's contribs history to clean up persistent patterns of unambiguous errors and clear policy violations on related series of articles.

    DS has reacted to each and every attempt at cleaning up behind him with the same tactics: immediate, repeated reverts, often abusing Twinkle rollback; in almost every instance indiscriminate blanket reverts including entirely uncontroversial, trivial cleanup edits; combined with an utter refusal to meet any of my challenges with substantial arguments on talk.

    This has affected the following articles:

    This is precisely the same disruptive pattern that earned him his topic ban from the India/Pakistan area last May [67], and it needs to be stopped.

    Note that Arbcom members were discussing part of this issue last week [68] but dropped the ball again and took no action [69] – but then, it doesn't seem they took any notice of how his hostile behaviour was still continuing on several articles even after they began their review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just looked at a few of the diffs but they didn't appear to be vandalism to me and seemed to actually add sources to articles. There are over 4 million articles on the English Wikipedia...could you take your focus being DS' unappointed monitor and have faith that if he makes mistakes other editors can deal with it? There is no shortage of work that needs to be done and I think your interest in policing another editor is misplaced and I can see how it feels like stalking to DS.
    You could also view ArbCom's taking no action not as dropping the ball but the fact that they didn't view DS' edits as disruptive. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said anything about "vandalism"? Please read again what I said those reverts were, rather than creating red herrings. Yes, they "added sources to articles" – misrepresented sources. And other editors aren't taking action on these things. The errors in the Rwanda article had been in the article for a year, and they had slipped through a GA review unnoticed. The errors in the India article were about to slip through a GA review unnoticed (at least the reviewer didn't spot them in their first pass). And the medieval articles are on such obscure topics it would be madness to hope that any other knowledgeable editor would even chance across them to fix them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the topic ban on "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed" imposed on DS is still in place, why is he editing our article on Human rights in Pakistan? [70] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that happens to be a violation of a topic ban too (though the edit as such would be justifiable on its merits.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you are probably right - it would be a bit harsh to block someone for reverting the deletion of sourced content. Though DS might be well advised to take such articles off his watchlist, and let others deal with problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit that DS reverted would count as disruptive, if not vandalism, in my book; surely BANEX applies in the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, no, let's keep clear about what the rules are. WP:BANEX exempts only "obvious vandalism". The edit DS reverted [71] was tendentious, I agree, but there's no indication it wasn't made in good faith, hence it wasn't vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Darkness Shines' edits are problematic. The edit to Human rights in Pakistan would be fine if he weren't topic banned, but he is, and I do not think the edit he reverted qualifies as obvious vandalism. Unconstructive, sure, but not vandalism. I don't think DS should be blocked for his edit, but he should not be involved in this article at all--so he should take the article off his watchlist, he should not revert any edit to the article, even the most obvious vandalism, so he doesn't raise any suspicions of having violated the topic ban. Any further edits in the area should result in an immediate block.

    The edits to other articles are also problematic. Take Prophecy of Melkin as an example: DS created this article, but clearly misunderstood the sources he used, to the extent that he didn't realize that Melkin is a legendary character, about whom no real biography can be written, and who is only known because of the text transmitted under his name. So Fut. Perf. rewrote the article and changed the title to better reflect the sources, and DS reverted these edits, without any substantial attempt to discuss matters on the talk page ([72] doesn't count, because Fut. Perf. explained at some length how the cited sources didn't support DS' version of the article). I haven't looked into Darkness Shines' history or the reason for his ban, but if behavior like this was the reason he was banned, he doesn't seem to have learned much. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And it goes on and on. I gave him 24 hours time to respond to my challenges on talk at Talk:Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, which he failed to do; yet he immediately reverted my reapplied fix within minutes just now [73]. I also found that the same misrepresented source was present on several other articles; there too I was immediately reverted, all with rapid-fire, blanket "undo" without even an edit summary [74][75][76]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When is this constant hounding going to be fucking stopped? Since my unblock FPaS has stalked me to five articles, as soon as I said I would no longer edit Female Infanticide in India because of his harassment he has since gone to two other articles I created for the sole purpose of pissing me off. This hounding has to be stopped and I insist an IBA?N is put in place. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And now it is six articles he has stalked me to. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, are you going to finally bring forward some argument why you think it's legitimate to take a statement made by one author about one historical event and present it to the reader as if it was by a different author and referred to a different historical event? Some might think that's a rather serious form of source misrepresentation, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times must I tell you, I want nothing to do with you, so leave me alone and stop fucking stalking me. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On Wikipedia, you don't get the luxury to choose who is or isn't allowed to fix your bad edits, as long as you keep making bad edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not the first time he has disregarded his topic ban, see here. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Calypso, that AE case was closed with the decision that there had been no violation. Fut.Perf., that edit was not very different from the one above; the meaning of the content was completely reversed, and a misleading edit-summary given. This is not to say that DS' conduct is perfect, but violating his topic-ban is not one of his sins. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanamonde , it's not clear whether you are supporting DS, or opposing him.C E (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CosmisEmperor, I am neither "opposing" nor "supporting" DS. I am pointing out that two of the edits linked above are not problematic, or certainly not as problematic as they are made out to be. I've worked with DS before in the one topic area that both of us edit (or used to, in his case) and he can be brusque, abrasive, and so forth; but on the articles I have worked with him on, his knowledge of the source material is far superior to most other editors, particularly those who turn up with a political POV to push. The articles that brought the matter here I have not sufficient knowledge of, and not the time to look into, so no comment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe that Darkness Shines requires rollback, and should be asked to forfeit the right. He's only used it twice over the past week: once to mistakenly revert me, and the other to revert Fut.Perf., for no immediately apparent reason. I've looked far enough into his contrib log; he uses rollback only sparingly, sometimes on - admittedly - clueless non-vandals. I have no opinion on any of the rest of it. Alakzi (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been able to look at some more of Darkness Shines' edits and I agree with Fut. Perf. that there are serious problems that DS is refusing to discuss. Something that really jumps out is a quote that DS is edit-warring over at Rape during the Armenian Genocide [77] [78], Rape during the Rwandan Genocide [79], and Rape during the Congo civil wars [80]. Notice it's the same quote in all three articles. If that quote is to be used in each of these articles, it should be about each of these three historical incidents. But it's not--the quote is from a 1994 article by Catherine MacKinnon, "Rape, genocide, and women's human rights", which precedes the Congo civil wars. Now, DS seems not to realize where the quote actually came from, because he cites a 2010 article by Lisa Sharlach that quotes MacKinnon. So he's not only misusing the quote, but mis-citing it as well. From a quick look at the MacKinnon article, it's clear she's discussing the wars in the former Yugoslavia, not the Armenian or Rwandan genocides, nor the Congo civil wars. So there is strong reason for this quote to be removed from these articles, and Fut. Perf. discussed these reasons on the talk page of Talk:Rape during the Rwandan Genocide, and DS has made no real effort to justify the quote's inclusion—he just accuses Fut. Perf. of hounding and edit wars against him. I think this calls for a block of DS (who, remember, has just returned from an indefinite ban through an appeal!) and perhaps a further topic restriction. Of course, the simpler solution is just to ban him again... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. I also do not see any wiki-hounding by FPAS. The topic ban on DS was put for a reason and there is no improvement. It is evident on this page too, instead of adressing the concerns raised DS goes on swearing and alleging wiki-hounding. --AmritasyaPutraT 07:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unarchiving this thread; it still needs resolution. At the moment, DS is lying low and has ceased reverting on this set of articles, but that doesn't mean the issue is solved structurally. At the very least, somebody will need to get the message across to DS that automatic edit-warring is not a legitimate reaction to other people's edits, no matter how much he dislikes them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am finding it difficult to assess the situation as several diffs have been presented but without commentary as to what in particular is meant to be wrong with them. In many cases, while the content may not be of a style that I would present, I tend to use lots of refs, in many cases the contributions seem quite valid. If any of the editors here can specify perceived problems then this would be appreciated.
    This is not to say that there aren't problems but my first thought when seeing the names "Future Perfect at Sunrise" and "Darkness Shines" was that perhaps these two were bound to clash.
    Darkness Shines Can I please ask you to make every effort to deal with others here with the highest level of respect possible. Swearing about situations may not be a biggie as long as people are not being attacked. Wikipedia needs to work together as a cooperative group and, in the same way as has happened in other situations, if it is not already happening, I'd ask you to do what you an to play your part here.
    Again I would be grateful to know what edits have been a problem. GregKaye 12:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All the problems (source misrepresentation, misattributions etc.) are outlined in detail at the talkpages of the respective articles. Akhilleus explained two of the issues quite clearly just above, too. Please follow the "talk" links at the end of each entry in the list of articles above. I'm afraid explaining all the issues in a way brief enough for inclusion here at ANI won't be possible; there are many of them, and it's in the nature of such issues that explaining them takes up some space and understanding them requires some reading. – That said, the objective quality of the edits is not really the main issue here anyway. The issue is the behavioral pattern of meeting challenges to them with mechanical blanket reverts and refusal to discuss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been laying low, I have been busy. Greg, I have no intention of editing collaboratively with someone who hounds me, forum shops to get me banned, and has wanted me off the project fro years. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DS, We do not always have that luxury in the Wikipedia community. It is down to all editors to work effectively with all other editors and, if paths legitimately cross on issues relevant to the improvement of content, then we have to work together. If another editor is hounding you on issues that have no valid point that seems to go beyond issues of accidental mistake then you can file report and get them banned.
    In regard to the edits mentioned by Akhilleus the problem I have is that they are references from books that I don't have to hand and regarding a topic with which I am unfamiliar. It creates difficulties when books are not on line for verification. Its an author who only one piece of published material accessible and not the book in question. The content of the citation is also problematic, ""It is also rape unto death,... It is rape as an instrument of forced exile,... It is rape to be seen ... It is rape to drive ... It is rape as genocide..." yes but what is "it"? In effect the citations present stand alone contents expressing a conclusion that there has been rape as genocide but giving no more detail than that. Worst: it is sitting on the mat. Better a cat is sitting on the mat. Best: the cat is sitting on the mat. GregKaye 12:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Isaid I will not cooperate with one editor, hardly grounds for a ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When you are reverting an editor without providing a reason related to article improvement and refusing to cooperate for the purpose of improvement of the article, you are disrupting wikipedia, and this is a ground for a ban. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I did a spot check of some material DS added during a past AE request. See AE archive and my talk archive. Although DS provides sources/authority for edits, those sources were misinterpreted and/or misrepresented. Misinterpreting sources can do substantial damage to WP. Many editors will AGF and presume that a cited source says what is claimed; offline sources may be difficult to verify. When material is challenged, DS does not undertake a careful or thoughtful review of the challenge or the underlying sources. I haven't examined the above edits, but comments above suggest that misinterpretation is a continuing problem. A ban would be appropriate for misusing sources. Glrx (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ... And now this thread is about to sink off into the archives unresolved for a second time. Why is it that despite mounting evidence of a long-term, persistent pattern of source falsification and other forms of disruptive content creation, ongoing blatant edit-warring, a history of disruption stretching over five years marked by literally dozens and dozens of blocks, and an explicit point-blank refusal to behave in a collaborative fashion, not one administrator can be bothered to do the obvious thing here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would take care of this except that I've posted on the talk pages of some of the articles DS has edited, so someone could say we're in a content dispute. I do think a block is in order, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkness Shines, can you improve your language please? How come that you are a senior editor, and still use fucking stalking me. Your language has been below standard for long. Please improve it. -AsceticRosé 00:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This post really requires admin attention, whichever way the admins intend to act. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock genius wanted

    Hi admins. A bunch of us have had problems with someone I've dubbed the Marhc Vandal. He's almost a daily annoyance. Anyhow, I'm hoping that one of the more technically-minded admins can help set up one (or twenty?) range blocks, or figure out something that will help suppress the disruption for a while. List of some of the IPs used are here. Please feel free to add notes to that document as you wish. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternatively, how about we start getting serious about eliminating this kind of crap once and for all with real name registration and sign-in-to-edit? Carrite (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody can help take a stab at this? Nobody? Anybody? Will this be another ANI report that gets archived with no action or reply? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you could try Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks. I've never had good luck with requesting range blocks. As a result, I briefly considered an edit filter, which eventually struck me as unworkable. Maybe you could try that route if the range block is declined. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyphoidbomb: Is this who ThePhantomBot's been detecting with LTA-10? Check the LTA-10 detections at the debug log and if it's the same person I'll try to expand the filter, otherwise I'll see if I can make a new one. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Even Handed

    Please see my comments here re the recent warning against me for edit warring. I believe the adminstrators have not been even handed nor strict enough on the editor that made a personal attack against me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Even_handed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For the WP:3RRN discussion, see here. [81] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to the personal attack that was struck through and for which an apology was offered? Tiderolls 20:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times is it allowable to ask someone "what the fuck are you doing", call them an "asshole", a "jerk" etc, just to be threatened with being blocked, say "sorry about that" and strike it out? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, what do you think would be fair? Tiderolls 20:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once? After which recurrent and overt personal attacks should be dealt with with short shrift and lame, artificially crafted apologies should be treated as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I find the most problematic thing about BMK's posts to be the initial assertion that because he's been editing Wikipedia longer, he's got the right to determine content [82] The swearing was uncalled for, but the WP:OWNing here seems to me to be more significant - it is entirely contrary to the Wikipedia ethos. Having said that I don't really think that further sanctions would be justified, given that BMK apologised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Both are equally problematic. BMK shouldn't have just been ticked off, he should have been sanctioned for his overt personal attack and ownership claims. The apology was pure "theater". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice job not notifying the party being talked about, everyone. Anyway, Robyn, per the discussion that unfolded, BMK apologised for what he said, was warned to be more cautious with his words, and both of you were warned for breaking 3RR, as would be expected when you both reverted 4-5 times-- what now? What else would you want an admin to do? Furthermore, based on your comments at the end of the AN3 thread, you give the air that you don't think you should have even been warned for editwarring, at least not to the same degree, and that's going to seriously undermine a request for further sanctions, especially against the opposing party in the edit war when the affair is over and done with. It doesn't matter if you're doing it in good faith-- if you're not reverting obvious vandalism, you don't revert more than 3 times, end of story. I'd think further sanctions against BMK would be warranted if he showed further behavioral infractions, and as an uninvolved/neutral party I don't know if he has a history of problematic behavior (or from an unbiased standpoint would constitute problematic behavior). BlusterBlasterkablooie! 20:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologizing for a series of shameless personal attacks doesn't excuse the 3RR violation here, and BMK's long-running combination of offensive personal attacks and blatant 3RR violations / edit warring is one that needs to be addressed. A look at BMK's block log lists four separate blocks for edit warring / 3RR violations, including two in the past 18 months:

    • 02:21, 10 March 2015 Swarm (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on Little Syria, Manhattan -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=650725160)
    • 10:02, 22 January 2014 Dpmuk (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on No Other Woman (1933 film))
    • 21:30, 5 December 2010 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on The Limelight)
    • 10:28, 15 November 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

    The warning given here for a blatant violation of the 3RR rule is entirely unjustified, especially from an editor who has regularly reported other users for their violations and is more than aware of his obligations under 3RR. Furthermore, BMK has received an inordinate number of such warnings and non-blocks in the past two years, in situations when blocks of mounting lengths would be amply justified based on his record (including in November 2013, here in January 2014, February 2014, October 2014 and here in April 2015, last month) for serial offenders such as BMK. A bright line violation here resulted in yet another mere warning. It's well past time for a block here. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe someone should ping @Beyond My Ken: to let him know about this thread? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He was pinged and acknowledged the thread, in his own unique way. Alansohn (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block on BMK for a long, persistent pattern of false accusations without evidence, a history of personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. Just recently, BMK accused me of being a sock puppet with no evidence. He's repeatedly been asked to provide evidence, and I'm asking him now to submit an SPI. Put up or shut up, BMK. More recently, he made additional bad faith accusations without evidence when I participated in an RfC about images on a page he claimed ownership. It's impossible to edit any article or participate in any discussion where he shows his face. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for the record, even after my comment above, BMK is still persisting in making paranoid, bogus sock puppet accusations.[83] Please block BMK for repeatedly making false claims to malign other users. BMK repeatedly refers to some kind of interaction we had in 2008. At that time, the only major editing we were involved with together took place in the Philip K. Dick article. As you can see from the page statistics, approximately 956 IPs have edited that page.[84] According to BMK, I apparently used one of those IPs as a sock, a sock which according to BMK only made two edits. As you can see from the page history during that time, there is no connection between me and that IP (wherever it is supposed to be, as BMK wont specify who or what it is). For the record, I have not engaged in any sock puppetry. However, for the record, BMK has.[85] I'm wondering if another SPI should be done on BMK at this point due to the continuing disruption. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, Viriditas...it's nice to know that you have not been socking as one of you is more than enough. Screeching for a site ban because an editor of your stature has been afronted has a certain laugh factor at least, and we thank you.--MONGO 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you think it is acceptable for an editor to continue to make false accusations without evidence? That's a direct violation of our policy on civility and personal attacks. Your comment makes it clear why the community, in a rare display of their best judgement, chose to desysop you. For that, I thank them. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read BMKs comments on his talk page and its obvious you're misleading the evidence as usual. Not to disagree with valid complaints made above your idiotic screeching for a site ban, considering your block log and history of personal attacks about all you deserve is indeed the door so it's truly laughable that you'd have the arrogance to demand anyone here be site banned.--MONGO 08:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. BMK's comments pertain directly to my request for evidence, which he deleted, which in turn refers directly to his accusation about sock puppetry made on this board. Since he deleted those comments from his talk page, you couldn't have "read" them, and since you didn't know about the comments he made here, you weren't aware of them. I'm sorry, but I don't speak MONGO-ish, so I can't parse "misleading the evidence", but if you meant "misreading", yes, that's exactly what you are doing. BMK has a long history of making baseless accusations and attacks and you defend this behavior. Why? We'll never know, because all you offer is tu quoque as a response. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one in their right mind is going to adhere to your arrogant demand that the editor in question be given an indefinite block. The only thing your demand does is reduce the validity of the more rational side of the complaint that was presented before you showed up screeching like a wacko.--MONGO 09:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Viriditas...you were blocked for three months for doing the exact same things you are accusing BMK of doing, yet you give no proof that BMK has done the things you claim. Earlier comments by others regarding BMK's editing issues have validity but your accusations are actually things you have done yourself, and received multiple blocks for them.--MONGO 09:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • BMK has most certainly done what I claim and the diffs are freely available:
    1. But such lack of judgment and perception are perhaps to be expected from an editor who created a sockpuppet in the attempt to win a dispute. 08:35, 4 February 2015
    2. Uh-huh, you deny sockpuppetry. Well, you could knock me over with a feather. Unfortunately, I was there, and I know better.08:55, 4 February 2015
    3. And that sockpuppetry? ... Well you and I just put on a show for the kids, right?, using puppets made out of socks -- Yeah, I remember it all now, just as if it really happened!! 09:19, 4 February 2015
    4. BTW, any admins want to advise me on what the chances would be on getting a block on a puppetmaster whose sockpuppet made two edits in 2008 and then disappeared? ... Yeah, that was what I thought. 03:23, 2 May 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank)
    • The false accusations are there and continue to be repeated without evidence. No amount of fallacious tu quoque distractions from MONGO will change it. The reason BMK can't produce any evidence of sock puppetry on my part is because it in fact never happened. When BMK is losing an argument, he has a tendency to make paranoid, false accusations to distract others from the discussion. This is quite unlike MONGO, for example, who will instead resort to fallacious tu quoque arguments and distorting block log entries. I really can't thank the community enough for desysopping him. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, so it's become glaringly obvious that people with laughably gargantuan snarling packs of dogs in this fight are beginning to coatrack this thread into something quite ugly and likely to be closed as no action by the admin least willing to wade through this garbage, so if this is going to go anywhere anyone wants it to go, I'll recommend we look at the following facts about this specific situation and only those facts:

    • BMK has been blocked for editwarring twice in the last 18 months. Bringing up issues from a gap of five bleeding years ago seems a little excessive, so let's keep it recent if this is going to be about addressing his behavior now and not nursing some unrelated wound. But why block him and not the editor, or why not both, since they both editwarred and equally should know better?
    • BMK has also been, in this case, using his editcount and tenure as reasoning to undermine another editor's contributions, which is needless to say not acceptable. He should be striking that comment out and apologising for that if anything else, and I'd consider it blockable if he made a habit of pulling that card.
    • However, I don't see how blocking him is going to actually address the behavioral issues. I'm new, but I'm not stupid; I know that it's all going to become irrelevant in face of all the gravedancing that's sure to come of a temp block, and indeffing him is needless to say excessive. But if you want his behavior to change, coming at him at any given opportunity with an army's worth of axes to grind ain't gonna persuade him, so grow the hell up and get back to editing if your own little snits with him from years ago are getting in the way of contributing neutrally to a discussion of his actions.

    Warning him for this incident is all that's really actionable from an administrator's standpoint, as far as I can see. Past that, I'd say his actions certainly were obnoxious in this case, but unless he obviously isn't going to work on playing more nicely with the other kids and says as such, I don't see what else can be done. The piling-on by unrelated editors who've had past bas blood with him is more obnoxious to me, but hey, par for the course on ANI. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 10:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The most recent diff related to the continuing false accusations of sock puppetry was dated today.[86] However, I can refer you to another recent interaction, this one having to do with an innocent RfC on Talk:William Street (Manhattan) that took place last month. Here are some highlights from that discussion:
    • Since you clearly know nothing about the street, or what's on it, and since you failed to suggest an alternative from the Commons image pool immediiately available to us, or do any research about other possible CC images which we might use, there's no particular reason to take your comments into account at all, except, of course, that your obvious superiority to us lowly peons requires us to get on bended knee and kiss your ring. Since we actually live in a democracy, however, and since Wikipedia is more of an anarchy than anything else, I'll just ignore your bullshit and wait for the comments of other editors more interested in improving the encyclopedia, and less involved with the aggrandizement of their own egos.[87]
    • Is that something that you're able to understand, or shall I rephrase it in words of one syllable so you can understand it more easily?[88]
    • Thanks so much for your comments, but since you seem to be unable to follow a simple set of instructions, I'll just file your input away in the circular file, where they can keep the majority of your Wikipedia comments company.[89]
    This exchange was then followed by BMK's collapsing of my response to the RfC,[90] which of course, defeats the entire purpose of an RfC and illustrates the same ownership problems listed above. If that's a representative sample of the kind of interaction one can expect with BMK, then as they say, Houston, we have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seeing this as a representative sample of how BMK interacts with you, and in that RfC I'm seeing problems with how both of you approach the issue-- from my view, if you had a problem with the photos, instead of riffing on the photographer's skills you really should have suggested a better photo from Commons or something, but that aside, the both of you needling each other turned the thing into a dramafest. As for the sockpuppet accusations, they seem be some back-and-forth thing you have with him over some sockpuppet dispute that was over and done with in 2010-- and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be bringing it up if you wouldn't keep bringing it up, and vice versa. My suggestion? I think I speak for many when I say to both of you, grow up. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 11:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. For the record, I was not involved in either of the two disputes you mention. In the former, I responded to a random RfC (from the listing page) and in the latter, I had nothing whatsoever to do with either the SPI or discussion about BMK's use of multiple accounts in the past. There's no back and forth here at all. BMK's behavior in both instances listed here, to make false accusations about sock puppetry, and to make personal attacks during an RFC, are exactly the kind of behavior under discussion. The point in me bringing them here to this thread is to show that the behavioral pattern has remained consistent. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh... correct me if I'm misreading what you're saying, but responding to the RfC (especially one that he started; how did you imagine that would turn out considering your history?) and in turn getting embroiled in a spat with BMK means you are most definitely involved with that conflict-- you're one of the belligerents in said conflict, how could you not be involved? As for the sockpuppet thing, you're the one who brought up BMK's old SPI in this very discussion. I'm certainly not saying he should be implying you were socking way back when if he can't back it up, because that's just him continuing the utter timesuck of a tumultuous history you two have, and he ought to cut that the hell out at this point. But you have some responsibility in all this, too; he's not going to quit being acerbic to you if you don't quit responding in kind. Be the first to take a deep breath and stop responding, even if you don't think you're wrong for doing so. Something about taking the high road. And moreover, try to be considerate about how you phrase things, if that RfC post you made was any representative sample of your own conduct--if you're trying to make yourself seem spotless in comparison to him, it's not really working. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second time you've implied that I have a "history" with BMK, and this is the second time that I've told you that I don't. BMK apparently participated in a dispute with several editors on the PKD article back in 2008 in which discussion on the talk page went against his position. Several editors participated. Other than participating in the same discussion about a topic that was not about BMK seven years ago (before your time, it seems) I have no "history" with him. Yes, he is the type of person who believes he has a "history" with anyone who disagrees with him, so I'll give you that. Our policies on civility and personal attacks make it clear he is engaging in unacceptable behavior and that's why I've brought it up in a thread about the same subject. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of a list of open Rfc's you just happened to pick the one he opened? This was done for the purpose of.....what exactly? I suppose your purpose of picking that Rfc had nothing to do with prior animosities of course.--MONGO 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your interest in my extensive contribution history, particularly in regards to my participation in community processes. I was drawn to the list of open RfCs during the second week of March after opening an RfC myself on the naming of Cypress Hills Massacre in the history topic area at 03:19, 13 March.[91] While watching the RfC queue for Cypress Hills Massacre to see when the bot would list the RfC, I watched Legobot get its knickers in a twist as the bot posted both the RfC ID I posted and William Street to the same history queue at exactly 4:00 UTC [92][93] You can see it for yourself.[94] Legobot's page history looks like this:
    04:00, 13 March 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,850)‎ . . Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography ‎ (Added: Talk:William Street (Manhattan) Talk:Cypress Hills massacre.)
    04:00, 13 March 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+14)‎ . . Talk:William Street (Manhattan) ‎ (Adding RFC ID.)
    04:00, 13 March 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+14)‎ . . Talk:Cypress Hills Massacre ‎ (Adding RFC ID.)
    This allowed me to watch the listing of both the Cypress Hills Massacre RfC and William Street RfC in real time in the same exact history queue, allowing me to comment on it seven minutes later at 04:07, 13 March, William Street RfC (History and geography); I then made my way to two additional RfCs: 04:12, 13 March, A Fine Frenzy (Biographies), and 05:57, 13 March, Kokuchūkai RfC (Politics, government, and law; Religion and philosophy). I hope this simple, prosaic explanation doesn't ruin your complex conspiracy theory. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me be clear (I have said these things before). I accept that I broke the 3RR rule. I accept that there is a sanction for this. I accept the warning given. I do not accept the way Wikipedia deals with editors that persistently are uncivil or break the rules and guidelines (or the way some administrators interpret the rules). Editors who persistently are uncivil or break the rules as seems to be the case in my brief look at BMK's editing history should have stronger sanctions than repeated warnings and requests to apologise. Its a bit like parenting really: constant warnings don't change behaviour, clearly defined sanctions that are enacted do. My request for further sanctions for BMK is not motivated by anything personal even though I received a personal 'attack' from this editor. Rather it is motivated by improving the process of Wikipedia editing. I think temporary bans enacted earlier in these situations are a possible way forward giving any editor time to reflect and change their behaviour. I am happy to accept any consensus about this and do not want this to drag on. I just needed to make my views clear. Robynthehode (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you're coming from there and I appreciate you clarifying your stance on the matter, but at this point what complicates matters is that your call for further sanctions is getting completely railroaded by editors who are pursuing the same thing out of spite, due to prior interactions with BMK that went sour, and it really risks admins not taking your request seriously or the issue being closed as "no consensus". As for improving the behavior... blocking him is probably not going to teach him much, if it's already been done. I'm obviously not privy to his thoughts and I can't speak for how sincere his apology was (some seem happy to, though), but I doubt he's going to be preoccupied with thinking about what he did wrong if he gets blocked, especially with all this lot waiting to dance on his grave the second it starts. I'm not entirely sure what the best route would be at this point, but since there's a chance that he'll learn from this and tone it down, it seems likely that he'll be given the chance to do so. A lot of it has to do with the space of time between his edit warring/civility infractions, I think-- he doesn't do it often enough to be considered a net negative for the project which is common in these cases, and it's not generally clear to judging admins that he truly thinks he's in the wrong for doing what he did, apologies and redactions notwithstanding. His meeting of others' immature behavior in disputes with more of the same and his constant potshots about stupid stuff that happened years ago is very telling, as much as I'd like to take his withdrawal of his comment against you at face value. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To summarise the above, BMK has been given a pass to swear at and bully editors because he occasionally improves the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. Sorry, Robynthehode, you had to be on the receiving end of one of his periodic outbursts. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ...That's putting a really hyperbolic spin on my words. I've already said that getting dramatic about wanting him sanctioned is making it less likely he will. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think I've summarised your position precisely. The idea that a self-proclaimed experienced editor can tell another more experienced and more productive editor "To expect me to treat you as a colleague under those circumstance is asking too much, so this is how you'll be treated instead, like the pest you have become." is fine in your opinion. Or the "Hey, asshole, stop fucking around" charm to a new editor? Apologist barnstar awarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hooray, and it's my first one too! Confetti all around! Lmao, what? Did you not notice that I said his actions are immature and deserving of address, or are you 'trying to pick a fight when I'm not opposing you? I wasn't excusing his behavior, I was saying that based on the circumstances the other admins probably won't do anything-- and that's not to say I agree with that outcome. Moreover, you're just proving my point-- the original reporter's complaint is not going to be heard if it's getting drowned out by others deafeningly grinding their axes, being combative and melodramatic about this whole thing. I suppose I could argue that you made a personal attack and are assuming some catastrophically bad faith in me by saying what you did, but I'm honestly more amused than anything, so it doesn't matter. It just obfuscates the issue at hand. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 00:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robynthehode has a valid complaint and it would be nice if Beyond my Ken might chime in briefly but that is unlikely it appears. Meanwhile, I think regardless of what may or may not happen, I'm going to award him a barnstar for his interactions with Virditas.--MONGO 15:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to the above editors for their positive words. It still, however, begs the larger question as to what is to be done about editors who are repeatedly uncivil, distruptive etc. Are there not advisory guidelines for administrators in such cases or does it all come down to discussion and consensus? As there is a 3RR rule which usually results in a brief block why not a 3 x uncivil rule which results in a much longer block? The actions of these types of editors is not random. There are clear patterns of behaviour which can receive reasonably rapid sanctions without endless discussion. Bullying editors (whether they 'intend' to bully or not) are a reason for new (ish) editors to stay away from Wikipedia or other editors to leave. This leaves Wikipedia the poorer and may be the result of not dealing with these issues quickly and decisively. I am not trying to suggest that administrators do not try to deal with these issues (dispute resolution of this kind is nearly always difficult) only that maybe we should review the process of dealing with such editors as has prompted this discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't get the point of all this. BMK and robybthehood were edit warring, BMK withdrew their 'personal comment', both were warned by an admin. The matter should be done with. If you have complaints about the course of action adopted by the admin, then take it up with the admin. If you think BMK has been getting away with murder, then open an RfC/U. this sort of pointless "how come he gets two lollipops but I get only one" carping is a complete waste of time. --regentspark (comment) 17:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • RfC/U is closed, and ANI is supposedly the place to post what used to be posted in RfC/U. It remains to be seen whether the admins at ANI are actually willing to take on this new workload, but you cannot fault a user for posting what amounts to an RfC/U here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. The complainant has the right to voice concerns and while I would prefer to see no action taken, the diffs provided do indicate that corrective measures may be needed.--MONGO 20:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You might all be right. But on ANI lately, the straight-forward cases get closed fairly quickly and more complex cases get archived, unresolved. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we probably need more admins. Thinks... Hey, now you mention it Liz, I don't suppose you'd consider standing? Begoon talk 15:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tiptoethrutheminefield, possible sockpuppetry

    MOVED
    Moved to SPI – see report: here. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is at it again. Check his talk page for more information on his disruptive behaviour. --92slim (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It means that he is disruptive, as he adds citation tags for no reason. --92slim (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it does not mean that. You're going to have to establish that in this particular case the user's edits are indeed disruptive, because right now I don't see it. In fact, the user seems to make what appears to be a very detailed and substantive argument--much more detailed than yours. So, from what I can tell we have a content disagreement here which should be hashed out on the talk page and until there is evidence that Tiptoe is somehow being disruptive here after your cursory and false claim of vandalism. (You're both edit warring, of course, but their edit summaries are much better than yours.) Did you notify them of this? You're supposed to. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Three times [95], [96], [97] in recent days 92slim has deleted citation required tags that were added to the Malatya article, as well as making edit summaries displaying bad faith and an absence of reasoning. I asked him to self revert his last edit, but instead he has escalated his bad editing behavior by making this complaint (which he did not notify me about). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not three times in 24 hours or even recent days. Also, the citation tags are not required. See this for my argument, which refers only to his tags and not the content. He didn't ask me, but made me an WP:ULTIMATUM in my talk page which was promptly deleted. --92slim (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors SHOULD NOT delete citation required tags. Editors should leave them in place or provide a source for the tagged content. It is not up to you to decide that they are not required and then delete them, especially since your sole argument on the article's talk page consists of "obviously". Editors also should not use words like "vandalism" in edit summaries. I asked you to self-revert because you had clearly exceeded what was acceptable. All you are doing here is adding to that excess. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to this long paragraph full of nonsensical stuff, all I have to say is that the source (Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia) was already provided before you placed the tags. Please, stop being disruptive. --92slim (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to add to this discussion that Tiptoethrutheminefield has a long history of personal attacks against me. Could something be done about that also? 37.136.37.236 (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To 37.136.37.236, I wouldn't be surprised. User:Tiptoethruthemainfield is now using an obvious IP sock (IP:176.239.33.146) to evade his personal account. Keep it up. --92slim (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So, at exactly the same time as using an IP address in Britain, according to 92slim I am commuting all the way to Turkey in order to use a Turkcell IP address. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I am monitoring your other IP with which you edited similar articles (such as Malatya or Lake Van Monster, and others), and it does sound like you. --92slim (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    37.136.37.236, no one can do anything about "a long history of personal attacks" against you because this is your only edit to Wikipedia. If you want to log into your account, you're welcome to file a complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 15:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, 92slim, that socking charge is a bit silly; nothing indicates that these are the same person and the language they use suggests they are quite different. The IP is not a native English speaker (or they're from Alabama). You know, I think I ran into Tiptoe before, and I wonder if at one point in time I was thinking about blocking them for all kinds of admin-abuse related reasons, but your dismissive tone is so awful that I want to jump to Tiptoe's defense immediately. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well @Drmies:, that means you have a slight personal interest in Tiptoedwherever, as there is no reason to defend a suspected sockpuppet using an IP address whose edits you haven't even checked. I can be dismissive when someone might be abusing accounts against Wikipedia policy, yes. --92slim (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies and many others are nothing but vandal defenders, this page is full of belittlement of the damage that hoaxers and distructors make. Arguments like "your tone is awful therefore i sympathize with vandal you accuse" are the pinnacle of absurdity. Its more important apparently that everyone has a chance to vandalize than making of a reliable encyplopedia. Im just fed up with you. And of course someone "clever" wikipedian who wants to have the witty last word now shouts: its your only edit, how can you be fed up? Well I had another account, that's all. Diminsh you nobodies in your little imaginary world the only place you are something in. Boothian Peninsula (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Boothian Peninsula, please name your other account? Or is that "another account" currently blocked? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)No one is defending vandals, Boothian Peninsula. But if one makes accusations against another editor, they need to present evidence to back up their claim. Editors are not going to be blocked just because another editor calls them names, there needs to be some sort of proof that supports their accusation. This protects everyone, including you, from retaliation by editors you have a disagreement with who might want to get you blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another sockpuppet of Tipetc here (IP:176.239.103.190). It doesn't look that he's going to stop. Notice how both sockpuppet's edits are synchronized perfectly with Tipetc's edits on Malatya and to each other's edits on Kurdish recognition of the Armenian genocide, for example, and both have similar numbers. --92slim (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My commuting must be relentless, not only from Britain to Istanbul in a matter of hours, but now to Malatya as well. Can something be done about 92slim's stupid and unrelenting sockpuppetry allegations? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins have nothing to do about sockpuppetry here on this board; you should report your case in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. Logos (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done here. Thank you. --92slim (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Privatization in Croatia

    Based on a RFPP request from User:AlbinoFerret (conduct not at issue) I came across a rather large bout of edit warring at Privatization in Croatia. From the edit summaries, article talk page, and user talk page messages, its clear that some of the editors there just cannot get along with each other. All three also have past edit warring history. As such, I would like to ask for discussion on what we should you about the following 3 editors:

    Timbouctou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions notification: [98]

    Tuvixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions notification: [99] (Didn't link to the case properly)

    Tzowu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions notification: [100]

    There is an AN/3 report against one of the editors Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:.E2.80.8ETzowu_reported_by_User:Tuvixer_.28Result:_.29 but I think this goes beyond mere edit warring, and that the community needs to take a broader look at the issue. As an interim measure, I have full protected the article for 3 days. If this is resolved in such a way that removing the protection before then would make sense, please do so. Monty845 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Monty845. I was canvassed into this on my talk page link1 link2, I have never edited the article. I did attempt to add Timbouctou to the existing edit warring dispute but I agree moving this here is probably better. Timbouctou reverted 9 times today [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]. Mixed in on the edit comments are civility issues. Tuvixer is not innocent in this as he was involved in at least as many reverts as the diffs in this comment show he was reverting Timbouctou's reverts. AlbinoFerret 15:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, a broader look is definitely merited as this is not the first time User:Tuvixer is displaying paranoid trolling behaviour, mixing hysterical edit-warring with rants about him being stalked and/or politically persecuted. Timbouctou (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure everyone will be looked at. But lets take a look at WP:CIVIL. Name calling is wrong, but you repeatedly call Tuxixer a troll on the talk page [110] [111] [112] [113] and in the edit comments I added diffs for in my last post. Article talk pages are not the place for such comments. Comment on content, not other users WP:TPYES. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not another case of rude and hostile editors in a Balkan article! Personal attacks and other violations of talk-age guidelines in a subject area that is subject to discretionary sanctions, in this case under WP:ARBMAC, can be dealt with at arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If this starts looking like its not going anywhere thats the next step. A day or so at most. AlbinoFerret 13:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, this is what talking to Tuvixer looks like at LGBT rights in Croatia, or Economy of Croatia or Privatization in Croatia or Social Democratic Party of Croatia or Ministry of Culture. He simply starts by edit-warring, then starts asking everyone who does not agree with him what is "wrong with them", calls everyone names, accuses everyone of political bias, rants on and on about him being stalked and then abandoning discussions started by himself at his whim. With all due respect, if that does not fit the definition of a troll, I don't know what does. Timbouctou (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Back in March, I found a copyright violation in this article and removed it. This is documented on User talk:Scholar081504.

    Scholar081504 (talk · contribs) reverted it back into the article, and I posted a copyvio notice on his page. He reverted it again today and disputes that it is a copyright violation on his talk page. It is a complete book review from a paper posted on Academia.edu. User does not seem to get that freely available is not the same as public domain. Skyerise (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Skyerise: After copying-pasting the content that the user added into Google search, yes it is WP:COPYVIO, from more than one source. The user also does not have mcuh experience in proper <ref></ref> techniques. I will add my own comment on the user's talk page, and hopefully an admin will do something about this. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 18:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Callmemirela! That's usually what the violators need, a second opinion.... Skyerise (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added them to my list of people to watch. Any further copy vio will result in an indef block. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Sir, I respect the copyright law and regulations that wikipedia has. I tried to edit the contribution to Shelina Zahra Janmohamed for several times, to make it suitable for wikipedia. You may check the editing history. You are talking as if I am adding info to a fake person or fake information. I have not provided a single word of info that is wrong. I gave reference to every single sentence I added. I thought this is the authentic way to contribute at wikipedia. I have seen in many other places at wikipedia, where people added info from an website/article/newspaper and acknowledge the source. If you kindly notice, you will see that I cited at least 5 sources. In some places I tried to rephrase and, in many places, I copied and acknowledged. As I know once we acknowledged, it's not plagiarism or copyright violation. I have been alleged that I copied the whole info from an article published in academia.edu, which is completely false. That particular article is simply one of the 5 sources that I added info from. Should I simply write/rephrase info as I want without citing the source. That would be a much more easy job. If I provided any wrong info, you could take legal action against me. I am just lost. I don't know what to do. To contribute to wikipedia, I had to go through many materials. Now I realize that it is wrong to cite the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar081504 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied at User talk:Scholar081504#Response to your concern. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pushing POV and "Serbianization" of Articles by User:Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul

    I don't know where to put this, so I'll just put it at general ANI. User:Yerevani Axjik pushes POV in their contributions. Not so long time ago, he/she started editing articles about some places in Bosnia, putting in them this photo and putting changes like this one. There is list of affected articles on this Commons-picture. Thanks in advance. --Munja-x86 (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are those places in Republika Srpska? --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? Sarajevo is in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What would be if we put it on the separate map, and not in Bosnia? This is clear POV pushing. --Munja-x86 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear POV pushing? How come? Is linking to the municipalities of Republika Srpska article problematic as well? All articles clearly state that those geographical places are in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in Republika Srpska, a federal unit of Bosnia and Herzegovina, same as the states of the USA. To me, this isn't a problem at all. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You stated that you like Serbian nation. That's fine. But editing in disruptive manner is not, which you are working on. In Bosnian map there is currently entity line, so what is the reason to change map to the new one? You are just making mess by involving new map. --Munja-x86 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't remember that I said I like Serbian nation or anything similar. The truth is, I do, I studied in Serbia and lived there for some time. Regardless, Republika Srpska location map seems fine, all articles using this map contain a very visible information that they are in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, who here likes whom or hates whom is clear from your edit where your edit summary was "Fuck Republika Srpska (RS)", or literally translated from Serbo-Croatian - Republika Srpska fucks you. I do not know to which user you referred to, but it's clear that you're the one pushing your own POV, and a very interesting one. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems the user "Yerevani Axjik" was renamed to user "AnulBanul" in the meantime, so I amended the section name.

    The location map is a moot issue as far as POV-pushing, because it's rather subtle. It's reasonably fair to tell the readers that there's both Republika Srpska and Federation on maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps the POV indicator is that the color of the Federation and of surrounding states is the same. This may give the readers the mistaken impression that these are all sovereign states, which they are not. But you can trivially fix that issue by editing the image file on commons. Only if such edits were e.g. reverted without explanation you might have a case of abuse.

    Perhaps a more egregious example of POV pushing would be what seems to have transpired at Talk:Emina (poem) recently. The first edit was tagging the 1902 poem article with Republika Srpska, which seems bizarrely anachronistic on the face of it, and then there was the flamewar about whether it's Serbian or Bosnian.

    Another admin should have a look. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to make things clear. The WikiProject Republika Srpska has both, Republika Srpska and Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina in its scope. --AnulBanul (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because you yourself invented it on 17 February 2015‎. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there something wrong about that? Yes, I have invented it, which means it's not limited to the territory of Republika Srpska only, but also Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is wrong to see it as a Republika Srpska-only project, since it's not that. --AnulBanul (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually user is not the person who is pretending to be. He used name Wustenfuchs with same nationalistic agenda, and has been banned on hr.wiki for sockpuppeting. His native language is Bosnian, not Russian nor Armenian! User is trying to imply he is some other person, while pushing POV "from behind". I will change all maps on affected files. Image map (on commons) of RS is fine to keep if used in right context. Thanks Joy for the insight. P.S. I don't know how renaming passed, because person is blocked on hr.wiki. --Munja-x86 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, User:Wustenfuchs? But, that person is a Croatian? Munja-x86, please take a moment to stop and think about WP:AGF. You can't go around blaming people for serious abuses so aimlessly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy: yes, that user! Whatever, same language, Bosnian, Croatian, but he is from Bosnia. Please check this out [114]! (hr.wiki part) I know what I'm saying, I have a good faith ;) --Munja-x86 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I was blocked at hr.wiki, but have no connection to the said user whatsoever. Croatia admins are group of 19th century nationalists, so they ban you for whatever the reason. Also, you should wait with your agenda of reverting the map where ever it's used. We should finish the discussion here or elsewhere first. The map of Srpska is used in the right context. All those geographical places where it's used are in Republika Srpska, and it is clearly noted they are all in Bosnia and Herzegovina. --AnulBanul (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have several things to add about User:Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul since she is already being discussed. This user has had issues with several editors and has been called out on it by a couple, including me. User:Surtsicna confronted the user about the same issue discussed here. Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul has a history of denying Bosniaks of an ethnic identity, language, etc. You can look through the users edits. The user has been on an edit-spree, removing the term Bosniaks or replacing it with with the Yugoslav-era Muslims. On Emina, Yerevani Axjik seems to believe that those 24 years of Communist propaganda (1968 to 1992, when Bosniaks were called ethnically Muslims) should rule all of history, even Ottoman times. The user replaced the term Bosniak to describe the subject of the poem, Emina Sefic, with Bosnian Muslim and linked the Bosnian part with the Bosnia Eyalet... a division of the Ottoman Empire which lost control over Bosnia in 1878 -- Emina was born in 1884. The user has also made it a hobby to replace the Bosnian language translations on articles with either Serbo-Croatian or Serbian, and has called the Bosnian language a "political term", and not an actual language. To say that the Bosnian language is a "political term" rather than a linguistic term is yet another attempt to deny Bosniaks of an identity. If that's the case then Serbian is also a "political term" and not a language. Emina was written by the Bosnian Serb poet Aleksa Šantić in the dialect of the Bosnian language in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The user also has been moving pages unnecessarily. For example, the user moved several pages like Petrovac, Bosnia and Herzegovina to Petrovac, Republika Srpska. That particular move was reverted by another user. Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul has resorted to accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a user that was blocked two years ago because I, like that user, say that Santic was a Bosnian Serb rather than Serbian. Because he WAS. Yerevani Axji/AnulBanul literally went onto Santic's wiki and replaced "Bosnian Serb" with "Serb" to prove her point. Everybody else agreed that this man was born in Bosnia-Herzegovina, raised there, spent his entire life there, and died there... he was a Bosnian Serb, it's fact, not an opinion. You explanation for your removal of "Bosnian Serb" on his wiki was "Šantić contributed greatly to the whole Serbian culture, therefore canot be exclusively described as a Bosnian Serb poet, since he was a member of the Serbian Royal Academy and was active in Serbia as well." So if Barack Obama joined the Serbian Royal Academy, he would be Serbian and a Serbian politician? Logical. User:Munja-x86 hunch that User:Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul is a sockpuppet of User:Wustenfuchs should be looked into. Wustenfuchs became active 31 October 2008 until 20 September 2014. Yerevani Axjik/AnulBanul became active TWO DAYS later 22 September 2014. Coincidence?--Dragodol (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying it's anachronistic to apply the term Republika Srpska (made official in 1992) to Emina, but don't see the exact same problem in applying the term Bosnian language (made official in 1993). To an innocent bystander, both of your positions will be seen as nationalist.
    Nobody has explained the correlation between Serbian nationalist positions held by AnulBanul and Croatian nationalist positions held by Wustenfuchs. How and why would one make such a transition?!
    In any case, this discussion seems way too intricate for ANI, if you want to argue a WP:ARBMAC violation, please follow the procedure at WP:AE instead. And for any sockpuppetry accusations, use WP:SPI. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks and canvassing

    Final warning: Anything remotely close to a personal attack or canvassing by Sub-Tropixal Man will lead to a block next time. Please notify me if any further problems arise. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In the discussion at Talk:Malta#Terrible map and Talk:Malta#Which map should we use in main infobox? @Subtropical-man: has repeatedly used personal attacks and unfounded accusations against me [115][116][117]. This includes calling others "idiotic", implying that I have sinister motives, and calling all four editors who happen to disagree about a map "Opponents of EU". After repeated warnings to comment on content, not contributors, Subtropical man next escalated to WP:CANVASSING here, which produced the desired sympathetic !vote here.

    Per the canvassing guidelines, I placed a uw-canvas warning on Subtropical-man's talk page and a notice of canvassing on the discussion [118][119]. His response has been to accuse me of "trolling" and personal attacks, and to delete the canvas template, then strike out my comments.[120], in violation of WP:TALK. And of course, bizarre and inappropriate warnings on my own talk page to top it all off.

    Aside from the disruptive editing and canvassing, we had four editors in support of the proposed new map at Malta. Now we have a skunked request for comments and lots of hurt feelings. I don't know if a temporary block or topic ban can fix this. Or a preemptive close of the discussion, going with the previous consensus. Or some other solution? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Personal attack? Where? I never uses insults or profanity against your person.
    • Please stop manipulation. You wrote "calling others "idiotic"" - where I uses term of "idiotic" about other users? Please citation and link.
    • Canvassing? It is a private ask to user Rob for an opinion [121], I have not request to opinion in talk page of Malta, even not give a link to this discussion.
    • There is rule, if user do not want any post, can remove from own talk page. You break rules of Wikipedia: [122] - edit-warring in my talk-page.
    • You accused me and user Rob [123][124] - this is personal attacks.
    • "I don't know if a temporary block or topic ban can fix this. " - it is an attempt to block a user who has a different view than user Dennis Bratland in matter of the map. It is clear your intentions. Subtropical-man talk
      (en-2)       19:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Subtropical-man: "Please, stop idiotic ideas." is WP:PERSONAL. "EU opponents" is an opinion, not a fact. I would consider this as a personal attack as well. Asking for other users' opinions is WP:CANVASSING. You asked them which map was appropriate for the subject. After your comment, the user you asked for help commented on the talk page of the subject, stating their opinion. And again, you are accusing the user over something you are doing. Accusing you and Rob is not personal attack. You are violating WP:CANVASSING. A personal attack is what you did, by calling edits idiotic and accusing others as opposing. Your case is very weak, Subtropical-man. You do not know what defines WP:3RR, because Dennis (I am assuming it's his name) is not edit warring by adding templates. You are removing templates which, quite frankly, were necessary. You are not respecting Wikipedia's rules, by making personal attacks, canvassing and accusing someone of 3RR when it was not. You wrote as an edit summary that Dennis stop editing your talk page. Quite frankly, everyone is allowed. That is the whole point of talk pages. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 19:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Subtropical-man: Asking for other users' opinions is not CANVASSING. It is a private ask to user Rob for an opinion [125] on only private talk page, I have not request to opinion in talk page of Malta, even not give a link to this discussion!!!!!!! I just wanted his private statements in his or my talk page. If I gave link to discussion in Malta talk page and asked for a vote - that would be CANVASSING. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.[...] Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." This is exactly what is written on WP:CANVASS. Asking Rob for their opinion is canvassing. Yes, you did not link the user to the discussion, but you informed them of what you thought and asked them for their opinion. Again, canvassing. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 20:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Callmemirela. I understand what you're saying but you do not understand what I saying.
    • It is a private ask to user Rob for an opinion [126] on only private talk page, I have not request to opinion in talk page of Malta, even not give a link to this discussion!!!!!!! I just wanted his private statements in his or my talk page. There in no intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion. I ask only in user talk page, I wait for answer in user talk page, I not give link do discussion about maps. What you write about me is speculations and slanders. How can you behave like that? You instruct others and himself behaving outrageously.
    • You wrote "Dennis (I am assuming it's his name) is not edit warring by adding templates" BUT user Dennis first restored own previous post and wrote new. Every time. This is edit-warring on talk page of other user.
    Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     20:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Subtropical-man: "Speculation and slanders"? Wow. I am enforcing rules. I am not ruining any images or reputations. I am commenting with what I am given with proof. The evidence shows you committed WP:CANVASS. You asked Rob for their opinion, whether you included the link to the discussion on the subject's talk page or not. You asked what they thought was appropriate for Malta in terms of maps. You fail to understand that you canvassed to ask for someone's opinion, which is canvassing. It does not matter if you referred Rob to the discussion or not: "Hello Rob. I have a question: what map you think should be in the infobox in article of Malta. Current map is standard map on based on map of EU and Europe, used in thirty articles about countries in EU/Europe. [...] What is your opinion?" Canvassing going on. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • At one time I doing the same - restored my posts (warnings) in user talk page, who user reverted. Administrator gave a link to the principles of Wikipedia (I can not remember the name) and wrote I have no right revert on antoher user talk pages, other user has the right to delete even all posts from own talk page.
    • Canvassing is deliberate action, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion" BUT if I ask on only private talk page (not give link to talk page of Malta) and I expect a private response in my or this user page - where is "influencing the outcome of a discussion"? Stop by all means try to see canvassing.
    • Callmemirela, you are not honest and neutral. Maybe I am guilty, but Dennis Bratland also (edit-war in talk page, false accusation, intentions to blocked user who has different view). Good advice: not everyone who is accused is guilty as the only one, often also nominator is guilty. You are not neutral in this matter, trying not see bad actions by Dennis Bratland. Please - give it a rest. Subtropical-man talk
      (en-2)       20:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I used words that could be considered personal attack (but not about person, only ideas), sorry. Currently I have a stressful period and quickly let go my nerves. I did not want to offend anyone, but effusively describe what I feel (about new map). Dennis Bratland - I apologize for my words. Subtropical-man talk
      (en-2)       21:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this troubling, as Sub-Tropical man has been blocked multiple times already for canvassing and personal attacks. I recall intervening in ANI discussions in the past regarding it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a three blocks: one for canvassing (2012) and two for 3RR (2013, 2014). Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Subtropical-man's exact words were "Please, stop idiotic ideas." This is extremely rude and counterproductive, but he is attacking the ideas and not the person. So I think that accusation fails. As for WP:Canvassing, yes, he notified one person, but that, I think, is a far step from making a canvass (I think you can look up the word on your own). (Did he ask anybody else?) Everybody should quiet down and go relax on the beach, in Malta, if possible. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, apologies, it was edit warring, not attacks. Still, you've warned so many times about canvassing in the past, so much that KWW had to block you until you promised to stop... Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is not constantly repeated action in the months/years, this just one episode. I did, I got block, I stopped and I was unblocked. It took a few minutes. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Bratland: This user continues to be denial that they haven't committed WP:CANVASS, which is certainly frustrating. They did it in the past, and they've done it again. They blatantly admitted that they asked for Rob's opinion but denies canvassing. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 21:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis Bratland, you wrote: "Subtropical-man requested Rob984 to come (red. on Talk:Malta) and give his opinion" - this is 100% lie. How can so manipulate and deceive others? This is unacceptable! Subtropical-man talk
      (en-2)       21:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Callmemirela, please see - Dennis Bratland wrote: "Subtropical-man requested Rob984 to come (red. on Talk:Malta) and give his opinion". I'm not requested Rob984 to come, nowhere wrote about Talk:Malta. Subtropical-man talk
      (en-2)       21:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked him for input. And linked to the article. What would the intended response be other than him commenting? What did you realistically expect? Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not ask him to vote and discussion in Talk:Malta and even not give link to discussion in Talk:Malta. I ask for private opinion on his or my talk page, nothing more [128]. This is Rob' own initiative (comment in Talk:Malta), as he wrote [129]. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     21:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, you asked him for a response, and linked him to the article. You didn't word for word say "Hey Rob, I'm canvassing you. Please vote for my stance", but you obviously meant to get him involved. Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In no way I can prove my innocence (because how?) and you in no way can prove my guilt. You based only on conjectures or speculations. I wanted to know the private opinion of another person, nothing more. I writing this to you in 100 different ways and nothing. But problem is elsewhere, here: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You are assuming bad faith :( Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:DUCK. Anybody who's been around Wikipedia a while knows if you go and say, "Hey Joe, which picture of Foo do you prefer, A or B?", Joe is going to browse straight over to Talk:Foo and see what all the fuss is about. Which is exactly what @Rob984: did and exactly what anybody would have expected him to do. And now how do we unring that bell? The poll is no longer an unbiased sample. You managed to dig up one other editor to support you, where before you were batting a big fat zero. The question is how do we resolve this now that the discussion has been skunked by dubious shenanigans? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Rob984 is a wise man, has own opinions - no matter what I vote - Rob984 expresses his own opinion. And it's his right. It does not change the fact that I asked about personal opinion, not request for vote in Talk:Malta. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     22:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's easy for you to say now. It's either that or admit you tried to cheat, and I don't think that's ever going to happen. Since you say you never intended to get his !vote, then don't you agree it should not be counted? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good manipulation, very good. But, this is not possible. I asked about personal opinion in user talk page, not request for vote in Talk:Malta. Rob is free man and user, if wants to vote, has the right to this. Dennis, I know - you trying get rid of me and Rob, the two opposition votes. It is clearly visible. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     22:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again with the WP:PERSONAL, Subtropical-man. Accusing others of "trying to get rid of me and Rob". Very wrong. It's called enforcing Wikipedia rules. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 22:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again with the WP:PERSONAL, Dennis Bratland. Accusing others of "canvassing". Very wrong. It's called enforcing Wikipedia rules. Callmemirela, so. Dennis Bratland create post in WP:AN/I and asked for a block for me (see above). Remember, voting in Talk:Malta is in progress. Now, Denis wants to cancel vote by Rob - other opponent. How long are you going to pretend that nothing is happening? You're very neutral :-[ Very, very neutral. I have no words :( Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     22:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your whole argument is flawed. You didn't ask for a "private opinion". You publicly asked him a question and then linked him directly to the public article/images in question. Your comment made it clear you had s certain stance on it. Then he just "happened" to go comment and side with you. You canvassed him, plain and simple. It's sad that years later, you still don't understand the concept... Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know best what I did and what I had intentions, I wanted to know the only private opinion in user talk page. I give links to maps, because I asked a question about these graphics but I did not give a link to a discussion Talk:Malta precisely because I wanted to have only personal response in user talk page. If I wanted to Rob voted, my post would have a link to the discussion Talk:Malta. What are you doing? You are assuming bad faith and by means of conjectures and speculations you are trying to tell me that was different. It is downright insolence. Today I read again WP:canvassing ("cool look") - my ask to Rob in user talk page does not meet the requirements of WP:canvassing because is "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion" - I did not request to vote, I wanted to get just a private opinion in talk user page and that was my purpose. Even if you do not want to believe, you have to prove guilt and later without proof of fault does not have the right to use slanders (Subtropical-man doing canvassing etc). In addition, at this stage of the discussions, you completely break the rules Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Harassment. You are assuming bad faith and by means of conjectures and speculations you use slanders and harass user. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     09:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly they informed me of the discussion because I have been involved in a number of other map discussions,[130][131][132] I produced and updated a number of vector maps,[133][134][135] including some of other European countries.[136][137][138] The proposed map isn't a vector image, is low quality, is unconventional (the majority of other countries maps use a variation of the standard green-grey scheme), and includes text with can't be read. Subtropical-man going and seeking an opinion from a map creator, of whom could create an appropriate, high quality map in line with whatever the consensus outcome is (I often make maps that aren't how I would want them, because of consensus), would seem to me to be in good faith. As for me having a "predetermined point of view or opinion", other than the fact that I often oppose adding poor quality maps to infoboxes, I don't know how Subtropical-man could anticipate my view. And lastly, I actually only gave an opinion, not a "vote". I gave feedback on the proposed map (such as using a zoom insert and removing labels). Rob984 (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Раціональне анархіст

    I came across User:Раціональне анархіст when I initiated a deletion discussion concerning The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. I am not a Muslim and I have no conflict of interest. Yes, I may seem like a slightly advanced editor, but I am not a sock. I learn fast, already know a lot about computers and programming, and have read up heaps. I unfortunately would like to raise the following issues about the user's conduct:

    • Breach of WP:GOODFAITH and deletion discussion guidelines. Of the approx 80 words they used at WP:Articles_for_deletion/The_Myth_of_Islamic_Tolerance_(3rd_nomination) around 60 were aimed at making false accusations against me, claiming without evidence I have a WP:COI and am a sock.
    • On their talk page, the user repeated their claims and uncivilly alleged I have an 'impulse-control problem (reinforcing my suspicion that you are a new sock of a previously banned editor)'
    • Placed a template accusing me of canvassing for votes on 'sympathetic forums'
    • Constant edit warring at Rape jihad, an article the user created (few credible sources use the term). The article absurdly lists the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as an example of rape jihad
    • Writing at Talk:Rape jihad#Proposed_title 'Britain, Nigeria, et al, aren't "in the Islamic World" (well, at least not until they're conquered)' and 'True, that. (The arguable clear intent of "rape jihad" is demographic conquest. Several hundred captured schoolgirls sold off to jihadi husbands have a thousand holy warrior babies, not a thousand babies brought up another way.)', exposing possible bias and Islamophobia. Countless other examples of aggressive and unpleasant conduct, edit warring and unacceptable behaviour are demonstrated on the talk page of Rape jihad
    • Breaching WP:3RR at Rape jihad
    • Removing speedy deletion tags I place, not just contesting them ([139]), including spuriously
    • Following me and reverting my edits, [140]
    • Closing an adminstators noticeboard discussion I started with no responseshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=660463129 Corrected, see below

    The editor seems to be engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and trying to make WP:POINTs. I now also see their is a discussion concerning his conduct. AusLondonder (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I accept I have made mistakes - but that is precisely because I'm a new editor. AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    • 1. On my talk page replying to you, I wrote: "Your willingness to fight over a clearly lost cause at the nomination suggests an impulse-control problem (reinforcing my suspicion that you are a new sock of a previously banned editor)" You are doing everything to confirm and nothing to dispel that initial impression. The current !vote at the AfD is presently 7-to-1 in favor of Keep (with you-the-nom being the 1), so this is a lost cause more so now (when you filed this notice) than yesterday (when I cast the 2nd Keep !vote). Regards your request that I "file a sock complaint to clear the air", as far as I know there is nothing preventing you from submitting yourself to a sock-puppet investigation. (Strike that part, as informed otherwise.)
    • 2. Your accusation of a WP:3RR breach is false (not that vandalism reversals count toward 3RR anyway...and not that it matters in this case because it didn't happen).
    • 3. Regards WP:Battleground, it is you who have chosen to escalate WP:ADHOM in new venues such as here and here. Prior to this, my comments were confined to my one AfD !vote and two replies to you on my TP. You will note that I have not participated further at the AfD (while you have hassled nearly every voter).
    • 4. Spending a hour removing a mass of Speedy delete tags and PRODs with poor rationales generated by a new editor who brought himself to one's attention is not stalking; it's housekeeping.
    • 5. As is plainly evident, Chillum closed your noticeboard query, not I. Pax 22:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang Topic Ban Proposal

    In order to stall the flurry of inappropriate deletion nominations, incorrect tags and battleground behavior over them by this admittedly inexperienced editor, I propose that...

    The community forbids AusLondonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from adding tags to articles of any type and from creating or participating in deletion discussions (save concerning his own created articles, if any) or of move or merge discussions (broadly construed) outside of his personal talk page for a period of thirty days. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block AusLondonder from editing and/or impose longer ban if he/she finds they are in violation.

    Reformed based upon suggestion by Bosstopher below:

    The community forbids AusLondonder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from starting deletion, merge and move discussions for a period of thirty days. Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, block AusLondonder from editing and/or impose longer ban if he/she finds they are in violation.

    Pax 22:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    Semi-oppose Preventing the editor from participating in discussions will make it more difficult for him to learn. Would be better if he was simply banned from starting deletion, merge and move discussion.Bosstopher (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. (Proposal rewritten.) Pax 00:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usually a topic ban pertains to a subject where there is conflict. Also, CUs aren't run to clear people's name so, no, you can't propose yourself as a candidate in a SPI. And you shouldn't accuse another editor of being a sock account unless you have evidence to back up your assertion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did list a duck-like indicator (account's first edit was creation of a large article with advanced formatting). I didn't go to SPI because I hadn't any hunch on who the master might be, and I don't like submitting single names. Pax 00:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Complainant response

    When I first read the response by User:Раціональне анархіст to the issues I raised, I thought he must be having a laugh! How could someone have such a hide to fail to address the issues I raised and instead propose a ban on me is truly breathtaking. Unresolved issues: 1. Continued misleading inferences that I am sock - the editor cites my first edit as evidence (I used 'complex forms they said here and claimed during this discussion I 'created a large article with advanced formatting) - this is false. Please see my first edit here to disprove these claims

    2. Acting in bad faith by continuing to falsely accuse me of being a sock, without a shred of evidence, and refusing to withdraw those claims. Suggesting I should nominate myself for investigation, and declining to put forward a single piece of evidence

    3. Acting in a disruptive manner during a deletion discussion against me, by engaging in WP:PERSONAL attacks against me and making false allegations against me without a shred of evidence here and failing to assume good faith

    4. Engaging in personal attacks against me on his talk page, by stating I suffer from an 'impulse-control problem'

    5. Constant edit warring at Rape jihad, an article the user created (few credible sources use the term). The article absurdly lists the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as an example of rape jihad, as discussed at Talk:Rape jihad

    6. Breaching the WP:3RR rule at Rape jihad, as discussed on the talk page.

    7. Battleground behaviour at articles, talkpages and discussions relating to Islam

    8. Disturbingly, writing at at Talk:Rape jihad#Proposed_title 'Britain, Nigeria, et al, aren't "in the Islamic World" (well, at least not until they're conquered)' and 'True, that. (The arguable clear intent of "rape jihad" is demographic conquest. Several hundred captured schoolgirls sold off to jihadi husbands have a thousand holy warrior babies, not a thousand babies brought up another way.)', exposing possible bias and Islamophobia. Countless other examples of aggressive and unpleasant conduct, edit warring and unacceptable behaviour are demonstrated on the talk page of Rape jihad

    9. Removing speedy deletion tags, for example at Anshul sdr, now prodded and numerous other articles now deleted

    10. Calling for a discussion I sought to begin regarding book notability to be closed. (I earlier stated that User:Раціональне анархіст closed it, however they only called for it to be closed)

    11. At the same time as accusing me of having a 'master' and being a sock, the editor has called for me to be topic banned because I am 'inexperienced' despite the fact virtually all of my speedy deletion nominations (other than those removed my User:Раціональне анархіст) were supported by admins.

    12. Arrogantly attempting to muddy the waters by proposing that I be banned from proposing articles for deletion, even though the vast majority of speedy nominations have been approved and the fact the editor is not an admin. If I were so arrogant as to make any ban suggestions, I would suggest the editor banned from articles relating to Islam

    13. Referencing the WP:COMPETENCE essay towards me

    AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Furthermore, here are some examples of articles I nominated for speedy deletion now gone:

    From memory, at least some of these deletions were opposed by the editor in questionAusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies:
    1. Repeatedly bringing up a subject (the Rape jihad article) whose associated disputes (two AfDs and three ANIs over the last several months) predate your new account creation is not a good idea (someone else might get the notion that you're a sock). You're simply not up-to-speed, don't know the material, haven't participated in the discussions, and haven't met the players. Twice now you've accused me of violating 3RR without evidence (and it's a charge not even the section-blanking vandals made in during the ANIs, one current ongoing).
    2. You need to provide "difs" when making serious accusations, such as the aforementioned 3RR breach claim. For the purposes of your bringing your deletions in here, nobody in the gallery cares about your "good" nominations that I was not involved in (they're the definition of irrelevant); what's important are the ones I was involved in, such as these:[141],[142],[143],[144],[145] Those are articles with PROD or Speedy tags. Any editor (except the article creator) can remove those; hell, they don't even need a reason in their edit commentary (although they are always appreciated). Your not knowing this, but jumping to drag me in here over it, supports my competence and "impulse-control" assessments, suggesting that the proposed temporary ban is appropriate.
    3. I've submitted the Anshul sdr article to general AfD. Pax 18:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It really is ironic that you have the brass neck to ask me to provide evidence of 'serious allegations' - you've provided no evidence for your constant allegations of sockpuppertry and WP:COI. However, the evidence for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:3RR breaches is discussed at Talk:Rape jihad. I became aware of your conduct regarding Islam when I tried to discover what prompted your aggressive input at the deletion nomination - I then discovered your history WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour regarding articles and discussions related to Islam. I have today continued important work on the encyclopedia including speedy deletion nominations. It is entirely relevant to bring in my other speedy deletion nominations I have made given your accusations of incompetence towards me. I think it is right to raise your removal of speedy deletion tags at articles subsequently deleted, because it smells of WP:POINT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just found this. Just look at the editors conduct here - more WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:UNCIVIL. Any other editor would have been banned by now. AusLondonder (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "...I became aware of your conduct regarding Islam when I tried to discover what prompted your aggressive input at the deletion nomination..." — I'm curious: what did you find out about the other seven editors who likewise voted to keep the article (that being all of the editors who've cast votes)? Pax 20:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the diff. "we have to take legal action if you guys dont remove dethron words from wikipedia". I am involved and so would feel better if somebody else reviewed this. Thanks. --Geniac (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This account is a SPA claiming to be the manager of Urvashi Rautela and has been blocked once for edit waring over sourced information on Rautela's article. Whether he/she is blocked for making a legal threat, they are definitely WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 22:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it a little strange that ImUrvashiRautela wrote a legal threat to himself at an article in his/her own sandbox? Who does he think will be reading his sandbox? Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked per WP:NLT. Per NLT guidelines, after blocking, we should make sure to deal with any legitimate complaints they may be making in the threat. The only thing negative is in the lead at Urvashi Rautela, regarding the dethroning and age controversy, which may be what they were saying with "remove dethron words". Of the 4 references, only 2 mention it, both in passing, though they are at least arguably reliable. To fully comply with BLP policy, we should probably find at least one RS that clearly talks about the incident and add it as a reference. Monty845 23:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent page protection needed

    Floyd Mayweather, Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao is being spammed with links to illegal streams for the boxing match approximately every 2-3 minutes. No response from WP:RPP, it really needs protecting urgently. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. 24hrs should suffice, as the fight is tonight IIRC. Pax 00:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the previous semi-protection expired. I have semi'd it for another couple of days. If it turns out to need full protection due to sleeper accounts you can let me know on my talk page. Chillum 01:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the semi-protection did the trick. An admin might want to go through the history and block the usernames used by the spammers before they become autoconfirmed and cause trouble on the page of some future pay-per-view sporting event. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mizzou Arena (3rd round)

    The issue with the Mizzou Arena article has already been brought up twice before, and the editor who has saw fit to OWN the page has once again started the dispute. Basically the arena was named for a Wal-Mart heir's daughter just before it opened, it opened under the daughter's name, but then said daughter's school discovered she was using her roommate to commit academic dishonesty and the school and Wal-Mart heir who were rightfully embarrassed quickly pulled her name off the building and went with the neutral Mizzou Arena title it has today; this has all been well-sourced in the article and many, many other sources outside.

    However, Eodcarl (talk · contribs) has been on a long crusade to remove all mentions of the arena naming, no matter how much article editors try to minimize it. The editor's entire history since December 2013 has been devoted to removing the arena's naming history against all consensus. I thought it was settled the first time, but they came back in July of last year to continue to remove it. Again, we established consensus and thought they moved on. Then at the end of February when nobody was really paying attention to the article, they removed it anew. I came upon it last night upon checking my article history, re-added the sourced information and warned the user. They came back on my talk page to call me a bully and call the sourced info 'libelous', and then asserted OWN by removing the team's 2014 record they edited in through the 2014-15 Mizzou basketball season, as if they are the only one who can edit information on the article; their response was to call me a 'facist'. I ask for some kind of action to be taken against Edocarl, as it's obvious trying to come to some kind of consensus with them would be fruitless. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    24-hour block levied. If he resumes, report for a long or indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this been discussed at WP:BLPN? At first glance, it looks like the blocked user might be correct, although unaware of how they should proceed. The disputed text appears to be a classic misuse of an article to permanently record stupid behavior by a living person in a way that is totally unrelated to the content of Mizzou Arena. At BLPN I would argue that if the event (someone cheating at school) is notable, there should be an article on the incident. Failing that, and assuming there is no ongoing discussion in reliable sources, all mention of the living person's problems should be removed from the article about a building. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as the building's history is deemed noteworthy and this incident is the explanation for an important part of that history (name change), I don't see how one could avoid some mention.-- Elmidae (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The detail in the article at present is startling and seems WP:UNDUE. It would be quite enough to say that the stadium was to be named after the donors' daughter but they renounced naming rights following an unrelated scandal, and even that might be - as Johnuniq points out - more than enough. NebY (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't seem to be contesting the naming detail (which with the cheating scandal and the revocation of naming rights, is related; there's only so much reducing you can do when the two are intertwined but if you want to give it a shot I won't be in the way at all), but that they played under the first name for three home games, which were mainly the usual early season college basketball cannon fodder opponents, but it still was under the original name for those games until Mizzou announced the termination of the deal. Seeing as in the past they were needling editors on articles related to the Kansas Jayhawks with negative details about that team's history, this seems to be a Tigers fan who doesn't like that we aren't going to be able to make Mizzou look golden at all times but we also have to be balanced. Also, since this is an arena and not a person, I felt BLPN would be an awkward venue. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've done that.[146] The wrongdoing led to the stadium renaming but the naming didn't play a part in the wrongdoing, so they were hardly intertwined. The material does fall within the scope of WP:BLPN (WP:BLP begins "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." - emphases in the original) and Johnuniq's comments above have merit, so we may still need to discuss it there. NebY (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your edit at the article which I am watching. I repeat that if anyone wants to list the faults of the doner's daughter, they should do so in a separate article on that incident. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)As for team partisanship, I've left the section Mizzou Arena#Men's basketball record at Mizzou Arena in place but its inclusion is surprising. Such sections aren't part of the basic structure recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force#Structure and I could only find one such table in Category:Basketball venues in Missouri and Template:Southeastern Conference basketball venue navbox. NebY (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a similar point, as did others, for a long time. The editor who got me blocked claimed there was consensus to give the Paige Sports Arena name prominent first billing at the top of the page, when no such consensus ever happened. It was nothing more than editors who liked the idea of highlighting embarrassment for Mizzou. It was certainly embarrassing, but it is a footnote. I never removed all mention of the naming controversy; Like you said, I always thought it appropriate to include it in the article, just not as a redirect and IN BOLD prominence at the top of the article. It has been over 10 years since the arena opened, and the original name is already an obscure footnote, and Wikipedia should treat it that way. Eodcarl (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Presidents of Croatia, again

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#List_of_Presidents_of_Croatia. Again.

    Will any admin object if I implement the measures I suggested earlier? Nothing has changed and Director is still engaging in a clear and unambiguous WP:OWN violation.

    --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A user made an edit, two other users opposed that edit and reverted him. There were two reverts. There is no OWN. The only thing that's "clear and unambiguous" is that you're trying to push a POV over there. Joy, if you have a content issue to discuss, take that to the talkpage. This is no way to voice grievances about the article's state, its disruptive and frankly suspect (not to mention you didn't even notify me).
    For the record, Joy is heavily involved over at the article, his general position is opposed and and he's (rather transparently) trying to push a topic ban on me in order to have his way against clear consensus.
    My summary: a while ago user Timbouctou attempted to push certain changes, but was opposed by participants on the talkpage. As a kind of "consolation prize" he posted a POV tag. After weeks of no discussion, the tag was removed. Yesterday Timbouctou re-introduced it, and I reverted him twice and posted a thread, wherein another user (Tuvixer) expressed opposition to the tag. There is no OWN here. There isn't even an edit-war, and I have no intention of entering one. But I personally think Timbouctou doesn't give a damn he has no consensus and is opposed on the talkpage - he'll probably re-introduce his unwarranted consolation tag and edit-war for his edits in general. At that point I don't think there's much more I can do besides post a thread here myself and lay out what I believe is a pattern of disruption exhibited by the user over the past several weeks.
    As regards Joy, frankly I feel he might justifiably get BOOMERANGED for trying to push his POV through successive disruptive ANI reports, rather than, say, reporting Timbouctou (given how many edit wars the guy was in only in the past week). He agrees with Timbouctou, though, you see... -- Director (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody tell us what this freaking dispute is actually about? I would like both Timbouctou and Director to summarize, in exactly two brief and neutral sentences each, what their own position is and what they think the other side's position is. "Director feels that the article should… Timbouctou feels the article should…". Nothing more, no comments, no ridicule, no accusations, no justifications, no reasons. I will support a topic ban for either party, should they fail to provide this simple summary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the article should pretty much stay as it is, as it has been basically since its inception. I can't say what Timbouctou wants to do at the moment, but he started with demands to delete more than half the article (basically rendering it pointless) on grounds that he's really really sure the constitutional heads of state weren't heads of state - if they served that function during the Yugoslav period. He has very interesting personal views about what is or is not a "head of state". Personal views contradicted by scholarly sources. His motion would also necessitate the creation of about two or three additional, completely pointless articles.. and all for the same basic office of the same exact country (mind you, the current Croatian republic is defined, in the preamble of its constitution, as being the exact same country as was part of the Yugoslav federation).
    Its a politics thing, Future.. A right-wing candidate just recently became president in Croatia, and its not fitting to have good solid Croatian! heads of state be sullied by the presence of yugocommunist traitors in the same list! As if the Presidents of the Presidency of Croatia have anything to do with the Presidents of Croatia!... -- Director (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Director, you failed my easy little test, so yes, I will support a topic ban for you. Let's see if Timbouctou fares any better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant method, @Future. Truly thou art the Solomon of the Internets :). Only one who can say "how he feels" without explaining why he "feels" is the just party! (reasons are for idiots).
    Except I'm a busy man, at work, glancing over your post, and didn't read the last few words of the Socratic exercise you devised. Instead I stupidly made the effort of replying to your request, as opposed to simply ignoring you - and/or pointing out that the content itself has no real relevance to this ANI thread. I sincerely hope you're joking. I've seen arbitrary, but this would be a new low.
    Seriously, though, I have no idea why the content dispute is being discussed here. Its not just between me and Timbouctou.. there are many participants with differing points of view - on the talkpage. Is this an RfC...?? -- Director (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: its not that simple, or we wouldn't even have a dispute. On a basic level, a "president" is defined by the OED as "the elected head of a republican state", which is a definition all these people fit. Moreover, they were all formally titled "President" ('of the Presidium', 'of the Presidency').
    More importantly: every single Prime Minister and Presidents list article for every one of the six (ex-)Yugoslav republics lists all republican heads of state (presidents) in this manner, and has for years and years, since its creation. This is because they all had the same republican history, and the alternative would logically necessitate the creation of at least two additional articles for each of the states, each with just a couple of entries. Its pointless.
    The trouble with an article titled List of Croatian heads of state is that there were many, many kings of Croatia. -- Director (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are conflating "elected head of state of a republican state" with "President". Per the OED, all Presidents are elected heads of state of a republican state, but not all elected heads of state of republican states are presidents. Case closed. If you want to include the other heads of state, figure out a way to re-title the article, such as List of elected Croatian heads of state. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we please not delve into an in-depth debate over the content here? This belongs on the article talkpage. If this trivial editorial decision is in dispute, why hasn't there simply been an RfC? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I totally agree, Fut.Perf. But it's apparently the second thread on this article in two months. Suggest they all be reprimanded and told to solve content disputes via WP:RfC(s) or other WP:DR, and keep this off of ANI. Alternatively, since Director seems at a glance to be a significant source of the problem, suggest possibly topic-banning him/her from all articles on Croatian heads of state, as suggested in the former ANI. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There hasn't been progress at resolving the content issue, rather only a deterioration (removal of valid cleanup tags), and you already observed the root cause - this is almost too ridiculous to actually be a content dispute. It's a behavioral problem, and it has to be addressed with precise and fair administrative sanctions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a proposal - it was rejected. Just because something isn't resolved to your satisfaction - doesn't mean it isn't "resolved". Your dissatisfaction with the resolution is further no justification for the nonsense tag staying there in perpetuity. The rationale behind it is patently ridiculous and rejected on the talkpage.
    And yes, I agree that repeatedly attempting to use this board to resolve your content disputes - is a behavioral problem. It must be very comfortable WP:GAMING the system in this manner - just ignore discussion when it isn't going your way, and post cockamamie reports over and over again. -- Director (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    By the way, can someone please block Robtransit archdurbar as a troll? Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • #1 The user proposes changes.
    • #2 Four users end up opposing him, myself included.
    • #3 In spite of having no consensus - he edit-wars to push his edits in.
    • #4 After a month of no discussion, his tag is removed.
    • #5 He restores his tag (and other edits!) twice, and is opposed once again by two users on the talkpage.
    • #6 I get reported by Joy, who openly supports the other guy's position, in an (extremely transparent) attempt to shift the consensus. I get on report - rather than the guy pushing his edits by revert-warring, against consensus (he just reverted for the third time; does he give a damn others disagree with his edit? - not on your life). Yeah, I get on report. For reverting the guy twice. Under a stupid, arbitrary rationale of "OWN" - in spite of my position being shared by three other participants, and being the status quo of virtually ten years both there and on all twelve comparable articles! Why is it OWN? Because its very convenient, my having written most of the article - and for no other reason at all: not a single argument or elaboration was posted for the rationale at any point. I can't see a violation of any policy here.
    • Finally, #7 - instead of ignoring this farce of a thread for the transparent attempt at "strategizing" that it is, my respect for the participants leads me to make the mistake of actually investing time and effort into responding, thus making myself the "cause of the problem at a glance".

    Do what you will, guys. Topic ban me for twice restoring the consensus version of an article against right-wing nationalist POV-pushing, by a user who by rights should be on report here instead of me, and has no qualms shattering Wikipedia's coverage of a topic into absurd little fragments for the sake of a political agenda. I will appeal any sanctions - on grounds of not having done anything. As regards the article, that's simply the best way to list those officeholders, which is why its present everywhere in all of the twelve comparable articles. Anyone who doesn't want to split it into three or four non-WP:NOTABLE stubs, listing maybe two people(?) - should agree. Now I think I'll stop playing into Joy's hands. -- Director (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you check the user's contributions, you'll find he was active in revert wars on about a half-dozen articles just in the past week, pushing various Croatian-nationalist edits. -- Director (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I've just grown too old to tolerate utter imbeciles who come here with the express purpose of political soapboxing and trolling around talk pages. Direktor's editing pattern shows clear signs of pyschopathic behaviour and User:Tuvixer has serious WP:COMPETENCE issues. I guess I would need to spend 16 hours of my time collecting evidence to prove that to admins who earned their stripes editing articles on Pokemon, but guess what - I value my time too much for that crap. Timbouctou (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    God knows what we might find if somebody took to time to check your "contributions". Also, I don't suppose you have an example of a "Croatian-nationalist" edit I made, do you? Timbouctou (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not like my contribs are hidden somehow, feel free to have a look.. not much to see, I'm afraid.. just created a new article a day or so ago, nothing much else. In regards to Croatian right-wing agenda-pushing, it'd be harder to find exceptions than examples. And your "getting too old"? I'm sorry to say we all are, Timbouctou. But don't try to paint your extreme incivility and apparent annoyance with everyone on this project as something "new".
    Also - this is ANI, I hope at least here you'll try to make an effort not to modify or move around other users' posts. -- Director (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So I guess we'll be seeing no examples of my alleged "Croatian-nationalist" edits from you then? You'll just resort to slanderous accusations? Yeah, this is ANI - the place which spent years buying your bullshit, never questioning how is it that you seem to have issues with someone at least once a week. A new admin born every day I guess. Timbouctou (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Right. At this point, the way I see it, it is little use trying to figure out who is originally to blame for this impasse – it seems pretty clear to me that there is no objective "right" or "wrong" on this matter (whether or not one wishes to list both sets of politicians on a single page or not is a matter of legitimate editorial discretion, and whether the one set were "presidents" and in which sense is a matter that could be easily explained and hedged appropriately in the text, if needed. There are clearly reasonable arguments to be made on both sides.) What is abundantly clear though is that neither of the two main parties involved is currently willing to work reasonably and constructively with the other. In this situation of dispute resolution breakdown, what we need is to get both parties off the scene. Could some uninvolved admin colleague please do the obvious thing and apply WP:ARBMAC? (I would do it, as being completely uninvolved in matters of Croation history, but I happen to have had disputes with Director on some other unrelated topics not too long ago, so I'd rather not be the one to act here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While this discussion has been going on, a new round of edit warring has taken place. I am asking for page protection while we wait. AlbinoFerret 17:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fully protected the page for three days. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark: whether his position represents a legitimate point of view or not, its been discussed and shown to lack support. But its not his position that causes the problem - its his disruption in pursuit of it. His edit-warring against status quo and consensus. I am perfectly willing to discuss with Timbouctou (in fact I posted a thread), the problem is he doesn't want to discuss - and quite logically. He doesn't say what he needs "verified" - because there is nothing to verify. The matter is one of editorial discretion - and his position was rejected on the talkpage: four users oppose it. His argument (about heads of state supposedly needing to be 'sovereign' before they can be called such) is both unsourced and debunked with sources. He. Has. Nothing. Which is why he doesn't discuss, just provoke with typical disdain. And I can not agree that anyone besides him should be sanctioned for his disruption.
    Its your decision guys, but I will appeal any sanctions to ARBCOM. Like I said - I reverted someone twice, restoring the consensus status quo version, and disagreed with him on the talkpage. I don't see myself as having done anything warranting bans of any sort.
    P.s. I consider you quite uninvolved, FPaS.. I don't even remember what disputes you're referring to. Do what you feel is best. -- Director (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't suppose you can name the "four users" who "reject my position", can you? And I don't suppose you have actual diffs for anything you claim, do you? And I suppose you conveniently fail to register an admin reported you (not me) for owning the article in question? Interesting how these details always somehow slip your mind whenever posting at ANI, isn't it. The amount of wikilawering you use to disguise an editing career that has been nothing but disruptive is mind-numbing. And the fact that there are always suckers at ANI willing to buy your shit is the most depressing thing about this project. Timbouctou (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whats depressing, is after edit warring on one article, and getting involved in an edit war on this one, while this discussion was ongoing YOU edit warred again. Breaking the WP:3RR rule [147] [148] [149] [150] [151]. Its time to look at your own behaviour and not at others. No matter what anyone else did, you acted in a way that is unacceptable. Pointing a finger at others is not a defence. AlbinoFerret 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest forwarding that to WP:ANEW. I would do it myself, but it probably makes more sense for the editor that looked in to it do the filing. It's clear that a "cooling off" period is needed here, for at least Timbouctou. --IJBall (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Timbouctou is pointing fingers at others because he is trying to hide what he has done, and as you said, he has broken the 3RR. He has engaged in a edit war and ha ignored the talk page. He has started all of this and the page is protected because of his edits and unwillingness to stop the edit war and engage in a constructive debate. He has done all of that because he has no consensus and he has no valid arguments to back his position. In three days we will again see a edit war because without arguments and a consensus that is all what timbouctou has to push his political or better to say insane agenda. Everyone can see that he is mean and insults other users, he calls other users trolls but we all can see who the actual troll is. I don't have to say his name. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IJBall there is already a section he is involved with on WP:ANEW. What I'm thinking is perhaps a 6 month topic ban broadly defined. AlbinoFerret 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem there is that the filing against Timbouctou was simply "appended" on to a pre-existing filling, rather than being put in as a separate report. As a result, both ANEW filings seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle there, as the Admins probably don't want to tackle that wall of text. I think I'd suggest breaking the Timbouctou report out into a separate entry... --IJBall (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of view that advocates an wholly unreferenced list is not actually an argument that should be entertained as reasonable because it's against a core Wikipedia policy of verifiability. This has been fairly clearly articulated at the talk page already, but it has been completely drowned out by the surrounding flamewar. It's rather similar to this discussion - Director grew a forest of text and now most people can no longer see the trees. It had the effect of dissuading most people from participating, and making Timbouctou start one of his revert binges. Make it stop... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wholly unrefrenced list" - now that's manipulation. Nobody (you and Timbouctou included!) ever challenged the basic fact that these people served in those roles as laid out - because if that were the case sources can be found instantly for each of them, and for the fact that their offices were those of the head of state. The only thing that's been challenged is placing them in the same article - which is fundamentally a matter of editor discretion, and not sources. Asking for sources over and over again and tagging the article for no reason - is disruptive, and nothing more than a red herring. -- Director (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IDHT... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, its you who's not listening.. and I think that's pretty obvious. You: "I want sources". Me: "This is editor discretion, it doesn't have anything to do with sources". You: "I want sources! You have no sources!".
    And I think its pretty clear from all the reports and edit-warring going on even at this time - that Timbouctou doesn't need anyone's help to go an a binge. His attitude of dismissive disdain and condescension is standard for him. -- Director (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Article titles have to be based on facts. You can't waive that requirement by asserting some magic of editorial discretion. If someone wasn't called a President of Croatia, they shouldn't appear on the list of Presidents of Croatia. This would be a trivial WP:COMPETENCE issue if it wasn't accompanied with 4 years of bullheadedness ([152]). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to respond, I'm only going to quote Future from his post just above: "whether or not one wishes to list both sets of politicians on a single page or not is a matter of legitimate editorial discretion, and whether the one set were 'presidents' and in which sense is a matter that could be easily explained and hedged appropriately in the text, if needed". A position shared by participants on the talkpage. All this, all your gaming the system and that troll's edit-warring - is just a hissy fit that you didn't get your own way.
    And the article is most certainly based on facts. It has been, in this form, for nigh on ten years. All those people are listed in precisely the function they had. As for the title - propose an RM and seek consensus! But up to this point, neither you nor Timbouctou ever challenged the title: because the point is to push a right-wing political agenda and remove the Yugoslav-era officials from the same list - not any concerns over accuracy. -- Director (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, do you really agree with Director on this content matter? That it someone who wasn't ever referred to as the President of Croatia, and whose characteristics didn't match those who were, can freely appear in the list of Presidents of Croatia? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh will you stop trying to mislead already?! Is bold-faced deception all you've got on this? Could you once try to frame this issue in honest terms?
    Anyway, I'll take your inquiry alone as a concession that this is indeed a matter for user consensus - otherwise why ask around? To that end, if you need users disagreeing with you, you can find enough of them on the talkpage. I think it should be pretty clear by this point that this thread is just a manipulative attempt to solve a content dispute by WP:GAMING the system. In a month or so we'll see another.. -- Director (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation: Director and Timbouctou engaged in an astonishing 102-round edit war on February 17, all within 5 hours, which must be a world record. And nobody stopped them, talk-page warned them, or blocked them. Something is broken on how that page is being handled, and yes administrative oversight and WP:ARBMAC need to be enforced, in addition to probably removing one or more of the main combatants from the field. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a stupid thing to do, I lost my temper there, and I apologized profusely. Markedly - Timbouctou (the party introducing new edits against talkpage consensus) did not at any point condescend to even admit he did something wrong. And, as I promised, I did not revert war again - nor will I (while he just broke 3RR again). The matter was up in April, and I don't think anyone should be sanctioned for it now. -- Director (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahahaha, I'm just infinitely amused with Director's bullshit artistry. It's amazing how none of the admins ever bothers to take a look at what actual discussions with Director look like, how belittling and insulting his posts routinely are, the scope of his WP:OWN issues are, the years he has spent abusing the project, etc. There must be a userbox for that somewhere lol. Has it ever occurred to the geniuses at ANI that revert-wars happen precisely because of the complete uselessness of reporting anything at ANI? Timbouctou (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Timbouctou, edit wars get reported at WP:AN3, not ANI. It's a simple quick process, and gets immediate and guaranteed results. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Balkan editwars often get results at AN3. Certainly not guaranteed; it depends on the topic and on support from the editwarrior's allies &c. bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this ([153]) a constructive discussion? As I said, when the protection ends timbouctou will again engage in a edit-war. And again, as many times before, break the 3RR. Please, you have to stop him. You all can see his attitude and what kind of language he uses. Nothing can be achieved with him, he only attacks and bullies other users and that is all. It is horrible. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The amount of venom between both of the main parties here is so great I am quite convinced now we need a topic ban for both, and I was just about to impose one myself (given that the party I thought I might be seen as "involved" with said that he himself didn't consider me to be), but I'm just not quite sure what the exact scope of the topic ban should be. Everything related to Croatia, just the issue of Croatian officeholders, or something in between? Any ideas?

    In the meantime, I warn both participants that they are definitely going to end up topic-banned from the specific article and dispute in question, and should therefore stop fighting over it immediately, both on that talkpage and here, at the risk of getting blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    At least or Timbouctou, I would recommend Croatia topics since this is the second article dealing with Croatia he has edit warred in and the Privatization in Croatia section on this page is still open. AlbinoFerret 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When there's "venom between two users" (and I don't dispute that there is) - isn't an WP:IBAN the solution? Rather than a topic ban? The "venom" is hardly topic-specific, the tban only seems to be discussed here due to Joy's preference in the content dispute. And, in actual fact, Timbouctou and myself were interaction-banned in the past [154], with good effect.. its just that it expired, unfortunately. -- Director (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Account hacked; block ASAP

    This account seems hacked. Unexplained reverts and vandalism-type edits in the past couple of minutes. Please block ASAP. Mar4d (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur, what just creating a section about this. AHLM13 seems to have lost control of their account or is going on a rather odd vandalism spree. They're reverted a fair number of recent edits I've made which effectively restored vandalism ([155], [156] and [157] for example). They've made some odd changes to other editor's user pages] and just recently asked for a block. This is not their typical behavior from my experience. They are a difficult editor that doesn't handle criticism and disputes well, but not something like this. Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does indeed look that way. The account has been blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. And thanks to those that helped clean up from the short spree of vandalism, appreciate it! Ravensfire (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. Cheers for the prompt action Favonian. Mar4d (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Checkuser note: The account does not appear to be compromised remotely. Thus, it possible the user performed the actions or someone gained access to his or her computer. Mike V • Talk 15:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks just like an opportunistic spree by someone who's gained access to his computer - e.g this edit to the account's own userpage - and quite unlike AHLM13. NebY (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree with Mike V with what he is saying, there is a possibility that the editor did this all himself. I don't see if he had full consensus from Mar4d or AsceticRose on any of the matters. Ravensfire was his opponent, the way he has used TW rollback on a few of the recent edits is similar to the way he did that before. Well, there are no hurries, we can wait for unblock request. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say it would be too early, premature and also unfair on AHLM13 to point fingers until he returns and has the chance to clear himself. With edits like these, I certainly don't think, neither find it convincing to believe that it would be him. There is a high possibility the account was abused by someone who gained access to his PC. Mar4d (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Either scenario is possible and I've seen both in the past. Sometimes it's someone who gets burned out and goes on a quick vandalism spree before leaving. Other times the user left his or her computer unlocked and a friend/relative/random person decided to do it. Checkuser can't see who's behind the screen, but I can confirm that the account wasn't remotely hacked. Mike V • Talk 17:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say, Checkuser can't say who is behind the screen. In fact, that is the whole point to the little brother essay. There is a type of "remote hack" that Checkuser can't identify, and that is the use of a trapdoor that has turned the computer into a spam zombie. What Mike V. presumably means is that the password hasn't been compromised. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the account has been misused by someone else. I have the impression that if it had been AHLM13, he would not have vandalized my user page at least, because I see no reason to do so. The whole thing came to me as very bizarre and shocking.
    I think AHLM13 should be given one chance. However, AHLM13 should come up with more convincing points. -AsceticRosé 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AHLM13 states that no one in his office knows how to use Wikipedia in his unblock request.But the edits appear to be from someone who is familiar with Wikipedia using Twinkle from his first edit and editing pages like Washiqur Rahman Babu in which AHLM13 was involved. Refering to the edits between 14.55 to 15.09 May 03 .It clearly fails WP:DUCK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Previously blocked IP now falsifying sources for medical information

    64.222.173.126 (talk · contribs · logs), recently blocked for a 72 hours for adding unsourced information following this AN/I complaint, has now started falsifying sources for medical information. The source given does not support the information added. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Falsifying sources? Which source has he falsified?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The cited source contains very little of the information they added. Therefore, the IP has misrepresented their source. It looks like they picked a random source already in the article to avoid scrutiny. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at this and I see that the ip banned for disruptive editing. The disruptions seems to be that they were adding stuff without a source repeatedly with multiple warnings. Here they have provided a source. A source that you say has been misrepresented. If may be that is the case. However this seems to be a content issue. This content issue does not seem to reflect their prior disruptive editing. I notice that you made no actual attempt to discuss your content issue with them. ANI is for conduct issues. Take it to the articles talk page or the users talk page and discuss it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is adding a fake source supposed to be an improvement upon no source at all? I see this as a continuation of the behavior they were blocked for. 173.252.16.206 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Before they did not add sources. They have multiple warnings on their talk page for doing so. They have now added a source. Is this source bad? I have not checked. This is a content issue. When they start misrepresenting sources, ignoring warnings, and not attempting to discuss the issues there will be an issue. That would be conduct issue. You have not tried to discuss your content issue with them. There is nothing for ANI to do here but send you to the talk page to discuss.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should check - the source cited does not in any way support the material added. Misrepresentation of sources is not a 'content issue', it is a behavioural one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy is correct. This is not a debate about what a reliable sources is, this is, if true, about making stuff up. Lying is a behavioral issue, it doesn't matter what is lied about it's the fact that false information was knowingly included in an article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A good faith mistake by a new editor is acceptable. The source is about the same subject as the article. There has been no reason presented to believe that they are attempting to misrepresent the source. If it was clear they are lying this would be a conduct issue. However all there really is evidence of is that there is a mistake common to new users.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IP is continuing to add unsourced claims.[158][159][160] 173.252.16.206 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is all some big misunderstanding then we have a competence issue, because the IP has been warned, many many times, about his/her behaviour. If not this is just a person who is screwing around. Either way, a long block is in order. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An indefinite block would be a good call at this point. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    [161], [162] it continues. Can we indef an IP? I mean I am sure it is possible, I am more wondering is it something that is done I guess. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

    Adminstative attention is really needed on this article. A new account, NPOV Ninja, as well as multiple IP’s, have been removing sourced content and vandalizing the article. One of the IP’s, 2601:84:C801:6529:30DD:8C06:907E:A9EA, is apparently NPOV Ninja. He admitted this on article talk page: [163].

    NPOV Ninja apparently just joined WP yesterday, yet he is familiar with move discussions [164] and speedy deletion tags [165]. After removing large chunks of content on the article Dominant-party system, NPOV moved to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), deleting large chunks of sourced content. Account appears to be WP:NOTHERE. Ninja was warned about his editing on talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) by Sarah(SV) [166], but instead of heading the warning, NPOV Ninja deleted Sarah(SV)'s warning from the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Talk:Mattress_Performance_%28Carry_That_Weight%29&diff=660537239&oldid=660535206] and continued to gut the article, changing the title, and rewriting the lead to an incoherent version. [167]

    Read the lead here prior to NPOV's changes: [168]

    Verses here. Where NPOV rewrote the lead to be incoherent:[169]

    There’s more. Just go to the article history. Granger has been diligently trying to deal with the disruption, which also includes various BLP violations from IP’s such as [170], but the disruption is really getting too much for good faith editors to manage. Looking over NPOV Ninja's brief editing history, it seems he should probably be blocked as a WP:NOTHERE, but at a minimum it seems they should be topic banned from Mattress Perfromance (Carry That Weight). SlimVirgin already tried warning them and they just deleted the warning from talk page and continued the disruption. It would also probably help if the article were semi-protected. Because there are multiple IP's that edit similarly to new registered users, but the IP keeps editing, and there is also ongoing IP vandalism/BLP violations.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing? I said I would stop. So many unanswered questions. I don't get it. You're only proving my point more. The same people every time enforce the consensus rule. That is not a consensus. Read my own talk page. I was forgiven. I said I would never do it again and I wont. Having an outdated article on an ongoing topic. Before I'm automatically blocked take a look. Really. There's a reason I haven't been blocked yet. NPOV Ninja (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that just a few minutes ago you were edit waring with Sergecross73 [171] regarding deletion tag. Sarah(SV) warned you to stop yesterday and it's just continued.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You identify yourself as Exposer of NPOV of all political or ideological orientations...you should probably read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a fast-track solution here in that this is BLP material and subject to sanctions that can be imposed by any admin. I have just posted a BLP sanctions alert on NPOV Ninja's talk page. If their disruption continues we can escalate to topic bans and/or blocks without the need for a prolonged discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • For reference, this user has tried to delete the article in question via prod, which got removed (and thus could not be attempted again, although not for lack of trying). Next was trying to get it deleted via deletion review, which is obviously not the correct venue for that discussion. When I tried to explain that, it was not well received. The Ninja states he or she will be going to arbitration review on the subject. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just blanked the article, as a clear violation of WP:BLP policy - if this is restored, I will contact the WMF, and ask that they take action themselves. An article concerning allegations of rape masquerading as an article on 'performance art' is simply untenable, and I am frankly astonished that this has been permitted to exist for so long. Has everyone else gone batshit crazy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I predict that edit will be reverted and I expect you'll need to write WMF then. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if it is reverted, I will not only contact the WMF, but consider contacting the male individual concerned, advising him of the appropriate manner to begin legal action against the editors responsible - the article as it stands contains at least one clear libel, and probably more (and for the benefit of anyone about to cite WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, I don't give a flying fuck - this article is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and if I end up being permanently blocked for drawing attention to the gross misuse of the encyclopaedia, I don't really care). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After seeing the article I have to agree with Andy that it is a disgrace to WP. Violating BLP policies, NPOV and just about everything else, and full of slander/libel. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag. Thomas.W talk 21:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AndyTheGrump just removed my warning on his Talkpage with a PA in the edit-summary. He might not even have read the warning to the end. I stated that I agree with him, but he should not undermine NLT to make a point. Andy is totally over the top. 80.132.93.228 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Get real, dude. There's no legal threat in what Andy wrote a couple of steps up in this section, if that is what you mean, so your warning was totally inappropriate. He's also free to remove any warning of any kind from his talk page. Seeing an IP issue a NLT-warning as their first ever edit, and then run to WPANI and complain about Andy as their second edit, also makes me wonder if there's socking involved, because the IP is clearly not a new user. Thomas.W talk 22:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that it's no creditable legal threat. The point is that it is a slippery slope to allow such things because someone is right. Regarding the PA: so I gather it's free for all, User:Thomas.W? 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What personal attack? Thomas.W talk 23:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Thomas.W: See the edit summary, as i wrote above. 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Wasn't it obvious from Andy's post just above in this thread that he has heard of NLT and doesn't care right now? No need to post a mealy-mouthed template, 80.132.93.228. Don't poke, please, and use your account. Assuming it's not blocked, of course. Bishonen | talk 23:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    @User:Bishonen: I knew that he knew it. That makes it a violation of WP:Point. So it is free for all, or not? 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers." You only seem interested in one particular part of what people say to you, and ignore all suggestions that you use your account. If you're here in the hope of getting Andy blocked for a minor explosion when removing your annoying template, no rational admin is going to oblige. But I've fed enough. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    @User:Bishonen: I said nothing about blocking. AGF much? You are asuming a lot of things about me. More important you are not feeding the trolls but the drama, by again allowing certain editors to be "above the law" because they are right. 80.132.93.228 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It should probably be noted that after the article was completely blanked, it was restored and frozen at a much earlier version, which omits all mention of the accused student's lawsuit, making it seem more one sided in that respect. This has been objected to by multiple users on article talk page [172].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here is the situation right now as I see it:
    • I have indef blocked NPOV Ninja for edit warring, personal attacks, disruptive editing, and general incompetence. I do not expect that block to be lifted anytime soon.
    • If they show back up under another identity, contact me, or another admin, or file at WP:SPI
    • I have repeatedly asked those alleging libel to either email me or use WP:RFO so it can be suppressed out of existence. So for nobody has done so, for reasons that are not all clear to me. If it is there, the oversight team will get rid of it, completely and permanently.
    • The underlying issue here, whether this young man's name should be in this article, can continue to be debated, but I would note that his lawyer spoke with national news outlets about it and his name has been in the banner headline of nationwide news sources, so that ship has already sailed regardless of what we decide to do and it is clear his lawyer is not trying to keep his name out of it.
    The only thing that has really changed since the last BLPN, is that the accused student filed a lawsuit against the school, arguing that approving the mattress performance for school art credit constitutes the university engaging in sexual discrimination against him in violation of Title IX. He filed suit under his real name, not as a John Doe, so the press has been reporting it using his name.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent edit war on Ultraman

    User:Medeis continues to revert new edits back to his edits. The focus of these edits are of a picture (which he uploaded personally) which he keeps re-adding to the article's infobox, always referring to wiki's MOS (never specifying which rule) as his justification. WP:TVIMAGE clearly states this, The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself. The user has ingored these rules and the issue continues to persist. The user has a history of restoring his photo back into the article, shown here and here, and keeps deleting new pictures claiming that they are not in fair use or so. I've tried discussing the problem with the user on the article's talk page but never recieved a response. I believe it is now only fair to get an unbiased opinion from a third party. Armegon (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FTR, I think I prefer User:Medeis' version, rather than separate Japanese and English title cards. --IJBall (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but his picture is not an appropriate spot for the infobox, per WP:TVIMAGE. And given what the guidelines say, the English title card is appropriate and it is subject for commentary. Armegon (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, it's a style guideline – it's carry the "force of law" or anything. Second, two title cards seem like overkill. Perhaps the best solution is to put one titlecard (probably the English one) in the Infobox, and move the Japenese titlecard, and Medeis' image, out of the Infobox and into the article itself. --IJBall (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fair. However, I recommend leaving the Japanese title card, since the show is Japanese. I tried moving Medeis picture into the "Heroes and Monsters" section of the article because I thought the picture itself illustrates the subject of the section but once agaain, Medeis moved it back to the infobox, claiming that the "named character belongs in infobox". Armegon (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not remove the Japanese title card, I retained both the card and the image so they were visible without scrolling to find out what Ultraman looks like. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Medeis

    The version IJBall has said he likes was a long term compromise showing both the character and the Japanese logo which only a small minority of English speaking readers can understand. Indeed, according to policy, only one version of a stylized trademark logo may be used in an article, not two, and no rule prevents showing the title character of a show in the info box:
    • The television infobox template says: "A suitable image relevant to the show. ... Typically the image will be the series' title card, although this is not mandated." Obviously a picture of the main character is quite relevant, especially when many readers will be unfamiliar with the name and unable to read the Japanese text.
    In addition to those two points, I'd like to formally request an WP:SPI of the recent editors and in comparison with the recently arbcom-blocked Ryulong whose last edit summary removing the picture of Ultaman was edit summaried: you know what, we're not going to use either efing photo.. (If I need to do so elsewhere please let me know.) The last four reversions of the article removing the character from his infobox have all been by anonymous single-purpose IP users, one of whom has himself been blocked:
    1. diff Special:Contributions/2601:A:1700:516E:A49C:E96B:123E:FA6A "stop getting rid of the English title card in favor of that screencap" (user has one edit to Kamen Rider and remaining three edits to ultraman)
    2. diff Special:Contributions/85.194.75.18 "this is about the show, not the character" (user blocked as proxy for two years by Zzuuzz)
    3. diff Special:Contributions/189.18.36.204 (user's sole editing was to revert image, no edit summary
    4. diff Special:Contributions/2601:A:1700:516E:9015:C39E:5C31:E615 "stop putting that ugly screencap in the infobox" (user has three edits, solely to Ultraman)

    In summary, (1) we cannot have two stylized trademarked logos in the same article one of the logos (I say the English) must go. (2) We apparently have socking insisting on enforcing the position Ryulong held. And (3) a picture of the main character supplementing a Japanese language text with no picture is a reasonable, permissable compromise that had stood for a long time.

    μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, WP:TVIMAGE clearly states this, The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself. The article is about the show, not the character, so an image of the character is not the ideal or appropriate image for the infobox. User:IJBall and I have agreed to limit the infobox image to one image and move all other images down the article. Like I've said, the article is about the show, so the Japanese title card should be the only image in the infobox, per WP:TVIMAGE guidelines. Armegon (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the important thing at this point is that any further discussion of content issues like the Infobox image should go back to Talk:Ultraman (if that happens, I may even head over there to offer my $0.02...). But the only issue that should be discussed here at ANI is the slow-burn edit war that's been going on at Ultraman. If both of you commits to not revert the other for a while, and take the discussion to the Talk page, then I think then we can close this as an ANI matter... --IJBall (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. The issue about the infobox image is clearly still not settled, so User:IJBall, your input at the talk page would greatly be appreciated and beneficial. I hope we can kick this off from my original post on the talk page, "Edit war of the page" rather than create a new section. Armegon (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want the issue of the socking on that page to be addressed. That's not a content dispute, it's someone gaming the system. Four separate anonymous and single IP users make the same edit over three days, and only when I mention SPI is this issue brought here? There's something going on here besides a content dispute. If I should file a separate report, let me know. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Scalhotrod --Outing efforts

    Scalhotrod and I don't get along, but this goes well beyond what's acceptable. Earlier today, due to a glitch involving the incognito browsing function on the tablet I was using, a single edit I made at Commons appeared under an IP address. Although I corrected the edit signatures immediately, Scalhotrod later posted an accusation of sockpuppetry, associating me with the IP address, which, since I'd acknowledged the edit, just reeks of bad faith. He's lately made talk page posts summarizing what he thinks he's figured out about my identity and personal info (eg, [174], which have no legitimate purpose, and he's also made strange posts insinuating that editors who associate with me are likely to be blocked [175]. Some of these seem to be laughably crude attempts at chilling discussion, but gratuitously identifying an editor's IP address is reprehensible, given the tracing tools that are out there -- some giving rather pinpoint information via Google Maps (so I'm not linking to Scalhotrod's post, to avoid republishing the information, but it's easy enough to find in his global contributions.) This is serious misconduct, deserving a sanction with teeth. There's no excuse for doing something like this to spite one's opponent in a content dispute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Uninvolved editor comments: The possibility of having your real life identity outed is worrisome, but I just don't see how this incident equates Scalhotrod outing you. Stating "From statements he's made in the past, he lives in the UK and is an older gentleman since he talks about his grandchildren. I've wondered if he is of Indian descent given some of the articles he works on" isn't outing -- especially since part of what he said was gleaned from information you provided. The rest is just noting editing habits. As far as the IP address: you made the mistake of editing with your IP address exposed. The tools to identify the IP are provided on the editor's contributions page, so looking up the IP isn't a violation. I honestly don't see a violation or an outing attempt, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But it certainly isnt a behavioral standard we should condone, or which is in line with the policy of focusing on the content not on the editor. Taking advantage of an ditors mistake in that way at least runs afoul of WP:DICK.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, there is that, Maunus. I just don't see how this is quite as egregious or drastically horrible as the filer seems to believe. But, yes, it's not okay to take advantage of an editor's mistake. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Until you've been outed, you cannot appreciate the damage that this can do to an individual. Dancing around the outskirts of the policy is not acceptable, and if Scalhotrod can't restrain himself on this, he should be blocked. Nothing he can say can excuse a veiled attempt to out another editor, he is compiling information and opining on who BBW may or may not be. GregJackP Boomer! 03:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when you put it that way, I guess there is a possibility that more is going on. That said, you seem to be making a judgement/assumption that may or may not be true. Only Scalhotrod knows for sure and we've only heard one side of the story. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you block him until you hear his side, but you do not play around with someone's real life identity. I was outed and lost my job over it. It changed my entire life, and it is not something that should happen to anyone else. This isn't a situation where you take any chances on what his motivations are. You block him, and he can explain how it is not outing in his unblock request. GregJackP Boomer! 05:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the second diff is a comment to me by Scalhotrod, I think I should comment: Scalhotrod simply shouldn't be discussing these matters at all, unless he believes it is strongly relevant to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz editing, and then do it on an appropriate noticeboard or the like, while closely following our behavioral policies and guidelines. Granted, I work with COI-problems a great deal, which I believe requires an extremely careful avoidance of WP:OUTING violations. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - For the record, from my perspective I think that I get along just fine with HW. Generally I consider them a conscientious Editor that makes a lot of valid edits in their perceived role as a "watchdog" or "gatekeeper" of a great many BLP articles. And I mean that in a positive light, HW's steadfastness is something that I respect about them. That said, while I make the effort to WP:AGF about any Editor's efforts, in light of my experiences and various interactions on WP I do not take some things for granted. Thus, I tagged an IP User page with my concern about Socking. Sock-puppetry is also a very serious issue. Again, experience has shown me that new as well as seasoned Users who I had no reason to believe would Sock, have done so. And as has been mentioned already, I have only commented about information that was revealed by HW.
    With regard to my linked comments above about HW, this is coming from a User who likes to refer to me by my first name for whatever reason such as here (same User page mentioned above) and here (HW's own Talk page). It's always used in a somewhat odd context, but I get the impression that HW gets some vicarious thrill from announcing to all of WP that they dug far enough back into my User page history to see that I had it posted there. I took it down quite some time ago because almost no one called me by it, it was always "Scal" or "hotrod" or "rod" etc. I've considered just posting my identity as many others do, but it would seem that the temptation to misuse that information is too great for some. In as much as I do not wish to be outed any more than I already have, I have no interest in doing so to anyone else. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't play the ingenue, Scalhotrod. You didn't have any legitimate concern with sockpuppetry. You didn't post until after I'd acknowledged the edits, and put my signature in place wherever I could. You only knew I was responsible for the edit because I'd acknowledged it. And rather than admitting your bad behavior, you're doubling down on it, making up a story about me digging back into your user page history, when you certainly know perfectly well that you used to sign that name to your talk page posts regularly. There was no justification for your actions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, after I made this comment[176] on Sue Rangell's Talk page in July of last year and then got called on it[177], I never in my wildest dreams would have imagined that it would come to fruition, but 4 months later it did[178]. After that, I became convinced that anyone can become a Sockmaster. As much as I respect your overall editing efforts, you've demonstrated that you are capable of spiteful and vindictive behavior as well as making your arguments personally directed. In other words, I don't feel I can trust you to just leave well enough alone so I have to be on my guard around you. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing abuse of revision delete by User:Kww

    CLOSED
    I've decided to close this, despite WP:DENY, because I think it's worth keeping around another reminder that these continuing claims against Kww are completely frivolous, and as a reminder that there's a very persistent block evader out there who needs to be squashed with prejuduce the next time they pop up... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Kww is continuing to engage in serious policy violations regarding the use of revision delete. He is engaged in a systematic campaign to undo whatever edits he can find of mine, explicitly stating that he has no regard for the quality of the encyclopaedia and simply wants to get rid of me [179]. He does not just undo them but has taken to deleting the relevant revision as well. WP:REVDEL says that "The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy", but Kww has abused the tool as follows:

    1. According to WP:REVDEL, "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal." None of my edits are even remotely offensive, and there is significant dissent about their removal.

    2. "If deletion is needed, only redact what is necessary (i.e. leave non-harmful fields visible)" - none of the fields are harmful but Kww has generally deleted all of them. The potential harm of the IP address I edited from is hard to imagine.

    3. "RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or for claims of editorial misconduct" - Kww has no consensus even to revert my edits, let alone delete the revisions.[180]

    4. "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." - Kww has restored serious violations of core policies to the encyclopaedia. See for example the extraordinarily biased and promotional text that he put back to Alex Lowe.

    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#User:KWW_abusing_revision_deletion I pointed out these violations before, and was surprised to find that no-one particularly cared about abuse of revision delete. They told me to take it to the policy page, which I thus updated to reflect the fact that these violations are apparently acceptable, and that the community apparently no longer minds that much about the potential for abuse of the tool. But that got reverted, and people said that if there were policy violations they should be reported on AN/I. Kww has continued to abuse the tool, so one of two things must happen:

    1. Either Kww's policy violations are not acceptable, in which case action needs to be taken to prevent him from abusing revision delete.

    2. Or, they are acceptable, and the policy pages need updating to reflect that. Perhaps you all think it's OK to violate policy as long as you're doing it to get rid of someone you really don't like? If so, then you need to write the policy pages accordingly, and it would be good to define the circumstances in which people are allowed to ignore policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.132.172 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You only have one edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revision Deletion Criteria 5 is Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete. Deletion Policy includes by reference all Speedy Deletion criteria. WP:G5 in turn allows the speedy deletion of contributions by blocked or banned editors, made in violation of their block or ban. As you admit to being a banned/blocked editor, I don't see a problem. Also, your block evading. Monty845 01:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now blocked the IP for block evasion. I'll leave it to others to decide if this section stays or goes. Monty845 02:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring over Martin Garrix articles

    I don't know where to turn because the problem I am seeing is a little bit of this and that. There are violations of WP:MULTIPLE, a lot of edit warring, and likely a problem of conflict of interest. So rather than choosing SPI or ANEW or COIN I am bring the problem here:

    Timothe8872 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Timothe8872 appeared last December to work solely on articles related to the young Dutch DJ Martin Garrix. No other topic interests him, so that makes Timothe8872 a single-purpose account. SPAs are often suspected of WP:COI, fairly or unfairly, and it appears that this case may have such a problem, since Timothe8872 continually adds unreferenced text about future works by Martin Garrix,[181][182][183][184][185] and even unreleased tracks.[186][187] (Unreleased tracks should not be of any concern to Wikipedia unless they have been discussed by reliable sources.)

    Timothe8872 is accompanied in his edits by a handful of IPs from northeast France:

    The intertwined edit tool shows that Timothe8872 and 90.40.46.221 both edited the Garrix biography on 26 April, demonstrating the pattern of a registered editor getting logged out, then logging back in. Same with IP 90.40.163.44 on 20 April. Same with IP 90.40.158.162 on 22 March.

    90.40.46.221 went silent on 25 April in concert with the 24-hour block of Timothe8872. I would have to ask blocking admin MusikAnimal whether the IP range was blocked along with the registered account. If not, the user was adhering to the block.

    The big problem here is edit warring to re-insert unreferenced information over multiple articles in the topic. The latest round is all of the following reversions/re-insertions which were made in a 15-minute period.[188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197] On all of these edits, the previous concern was that the information was unreferenced. Timothe8872 did not address this problem, he just reverted to his preferred version.

    What should be done here? Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I unfortunately don't have time to look this over in detail, but I can say I did not perform a range block on the said IPs. Best — MusikAnimal talk 02:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Elindiord's reverts, again

    BLOCKED (AGAIN)
    Editor resumed his/her disruptive use of Twinkle despite a final warning. Reblocked for a week.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After a 48-hour block stemming from a report here at AN/I, Elindiord has resumed Twinkle mass-reverts of constructive IP editors. Again, they've given no edit summaries or reasons for the changes, and evidently don't understand what they're doing wrong, as demonstrated by their unblock request and failure to respond to yet another warning after the block expired. Conifer (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Conifer (Non-administrator comment) Please read the top template on this page "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Please do so.
    But yes, this is disruptive, and the user in question seems to think that as long as an edit isn't vandalism they aren't going to be blocked. They appear to be fairly familiar with editing though. Banak (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my bad. I made the report right before going to bed and failed to notify in my haste. Conifer (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to have stopped for now. I have left an abundantly clear warning of the risk of a further block on the editor's talk page.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nandinigoel.india socks

    BLOCKED
    Socks indefed blocked by Kelapstick. Back to the drawer! (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Socks of Nandinigoel.india (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    82.132.225.61 (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked and blocked. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bright line violation of Interaction Ban

    This edit to the article for Trenton, New Jersey blatantly violates the term of the interaction ban mutually agreed upon by me and Magnolia677, having been made immediately after an edit I made to the article without any other edit having been made. And we're back. Quite sadly.

    The terms of the Limited Interaction Ban proposed on April 16, and adopted two days later are rather clear in stating "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."

    The other editor is clear that he understands and supports the interaction ban, stating "Do what you want. I'll agree to an interaction ban" and that "I now completely agree with the IBan. All this feuding doesn't move the project forward, and wastes everyone's time." Yet, before, during and after the implementation of this interaction, similar harassment has been ongoing. All I ask is that this persistent pointless feuding and abuse be stopped, once and for all. May I please ask an uninvolved editor to notify the other party. Alansohn (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have notified Magnolia667. Do you seriously have a problem with them adding in something innocuous to the article that is unrelated to their edit? How does having another editor make an unrelated change in the middle make that edit suddenly acceptable? Spartaz Humbug! 13:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm uninvolved in this, and I get an IBAN is an IBAN, I've seen you two having what, three ANI topics? Anyhow, Magnolia's edit is almost a day later, and while yes they should have waited for someone to edit as per the IBAN, there isnt need for much more than a slap on the wrist here it looks like. cnbr15 13:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh FFS, again? It's obvious now that both of these extraordinarily annoying people are only interested in gaming the topic ban and infuriating each other with petty sniping. Block both for a few days because otherwise we will be here every few days until the end of time. Reyk YO! 14:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This Interaction Ban was imposed in the wake of persistent harassment and WP:HOUNDING, be it at Scotch Plains or Battin High School, with the persistent pattern continuing here at the article for Trenton. If this Interaction Ban is to have any value, it needs to be respected by both parties and it needs to be enforced. All I want is to get this editor to stop riding my ass. Alansohn (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, if the interaction ban is to have any force it does need to be respected by both parties. But you broke it first, and repeatedly. I don't doubt that Magnolia is winding you up on purpose and I think it's blockable. But if I voluntarily agreed to a topic ban that the other guy then immediately broke with impunity I would no longer consider it to have any force. Also, a lot of the problem is because of your ownership issues about New Jersey and your tendency to immediately go to Defcon Screech at the tiniest provocation. Reyk YO! 15:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the only solution which is equitable and reasonable here is to topic ban both editors from the articles they both frequent. If neither is allowed to edit any New Jersey related articles at all, problem solved? They can go on editing topics that the other doesn't edit, but neither gets to "own" New Jersey... --Jayron32 14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Block of both (non admin) The gaming of the IBAN seems to be an ongoing problem. An edit that is unrelated to the edit by the other party, while technically a violation, should never have been brought here. Block them both for a week. Perhaps that will end this endless nonsense. AlbinoFerret 14:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block both - I'm all for assuming good faith and all that but they've been here what 3 or 4 times.... if neither of them can even stick to an IBAN then I think blocking is in order till they both get the hint and stop interacting with each other. –Davey2010Talk 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Troutarang. This edit? Do my eyes deceive me? This edit is what you're coming to ANI to complain about? How did you manage to get a trout so firmly attached to your boomerang this morning? HiDrNick! 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block Magnolia677, ping Euryalus, possibly trout Alansohn but I don't see the justification for a block against him. Magnolia677's edit looks to me like an intentional and pointy breach of the iban. It followed almost immediately on Euryalus's closure of the earlier thread, saying that the iban was going to be strictly enforced, and specifically naming the "intervening edit" rule as a target of enforcement. I'm never big on the zero-tolerance thing but that edit appears to just be asking for it. Besides breaching the intervening edit rule, it's a crappy edit that exactly echoes a similar crappy edit (regarding Chris Christie) in the same article. I agree with Reyk's statement "I don't doubt that Magnolia is winding you up on purpose". That winding-up is harassment and battleground editing all by itself. Yes there were earlier incidents, they were discussed and resolved, putting us at a place where the editors were supposed to drop the stick and observe the iban. That didn't happen, Magnolia677 breached apparently on purpose, Alansohn might have handled it a bit differntly, but it's not a symmetrical situation. Only one of them breached the ban. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang There's clearly an established context of disruption here, and there may very well be an argument for blocking both parties, but Alansohn has brought a complaint to ANI that can be best summarized as "Mooooooooooooom, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaad - Magnolia has his knee on my side again!" Interaction bans are meant to restrict (yes, that's right) interaction, and Magnolia's edit made no alteration to (nor was it in any way particularly connected with) content added by Alansohn. I did not see the previous discussions which lead to the IBAN, so I can't comment on what justification was given for its implementation, but I will say that the community does not support the tool broadly as means of providing peace of mind to the sanctioned editors but rather to decrease the amount of disruption caused by their personal grudges while retaining their useful edits. Alansohn seems to have missed that distinction in bringing this particular edit to this particular space as evidence of something that supposedly requires community attention. And being the immensely experienced editor that he is, he really ought to know better. If he's lucky enough to avoid a block (or a TBAN, yikes) then he should at least take the comments here as a firm warning about what the purpose and spirit of an IBAN are, whatever the specific wording of his and Magnolia's particular sanction. Snow let's rap 00:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Recommend both editors see their doctors for a prescription for tranquilizers, nothing heavy-duty, just some "happy pills" to take the edge off. In other news: Magnola677, you must work harder not to piss off Alansohn violate the IBan, and Alansohn, you really have to get over the idea that you own New Jersey, because if you don't, people are going to start coming to you to solve their problems instead of to Chris Christie. As to who should be blocked, or topic banned, or what, I dunno. Perhaps all the rest of us should be banned from reading these threads and commenting on them. Then we'll find out what happens when a tree falls on AN/I with no one around. BMK (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomarang for Alansohn I've just realized that the edit Alansohn reported Magnolia677 for was the addition of Jon Corzine, former governor of New Jersey, to a list of notable people of Trenton, New Jersey. IBan are IBans, but we're not expected to throw our common sense in the trash can when enforcing them. This thread is an egregious violation of the community's expectation that both parties to the IBan actually do a little work to avoid exacerbating matters. BMK (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally disagree. The edit came after an edit by Alansohn, with no intervening edit, which is a direct violation of the IBAN. Not only that, the edit was a direct provocation in that the wording and profession mirrored Magnolia77's contentious attempt to add incumbent governor Christie to list, which Alansohn criticized in the just-closed ANI thread; even the wording of it is the same. It appears to me that the edit is a blatant attempt to get Alansohn topic-banned from NJ (along with him/herself) by baiting him to take this to ANI less than 24 hours after the previous thread which threatened such if this appeared here again. In my opinion, Magnolia77 needs a violation block and possibly a NJ topic ban, but not Alansohn in this case. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I don't deny that there's a possibility that M677 made the edit to needle Alansohn, but, at least in my view, that's not been shown to be the case. In looking at the situation in general Alansohn's proprietary attitude towards New Jersey articles is a much more significant problem, and he's already received two passes for violating the IBan himself. At this time, I'd be agreeable to a trout of Magnolia677, but I still believe the boomarang for Alansohn is the most appropriate sanction in this case. If there's a next instance, and there's any possibility of it having been provoked by M677, I'll be supporting a topic ban for both, as the net value to the project of both of these editors, which has been so far the reason they haven't been blocked, goes down with every disruption of the peace of the community they cause. BMK (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he had to report it somewhere, and chose to report it here (just as Magnolia77 hoped he would, it seems). If Alansohn has "already received two passes for violating the IBan himself", that was before the last ANI closed. Since then the only one who has violated it was Magnolia77, and it was nearly instantaneous and blatantly provocative. As Euryalus said in their close last night, "Final warning to Alansohn and Magnolia677 that absent any further community decision the I-ban will now be strictly enforced and blocks applied for any breaches, including of the "intervening edit" rule and/or any interaction or reference to each other on talkpages". I'm not denying Alansohn may be gaming by editing lots of NJ articles, but he didn't break the IBAN today, Magnolia77 did. Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-Ban

    • Support Topic Ban I previously supported both of these editors, as they have both contributed prolifically to Wikipedia. However, Alansohn's ownership of New Jersey is an ongoing problem for everyone who dares venture to that topic. As for Magnolia677, I'm not so sure...While it appears he may be challenging Alansohn to take his bait, the root of the problem lies in Alansohn's combative ownership of the topic. I think Jayron32 has the right idea Jacona (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban This has passed way past tedious and is sucking attention away from other activity. Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still don't see how this is even slightly justified. I'll hold back on outright opposing since some sensible and apparently uninvolved editors are supporting. That's unlike the earlier thread, where the supporters either (IMHO) either hadn't examined the situation, or else had crossed the border into involvement. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Topic Ban I think the frustration of uninvolved editors is leading to thoughts of draconian solutions. Both editors have contributed a lot to Wikipedia and I think it is better to dole out limited, but increasing, blocks for violations of the I-ban than topic ban either editor from ALL articles or parts of articles that involve the state of New Jersey. The problem isn't that they don't make constructive edits but that they don't get along. An I-ban was created to try to resolve this feud and if either party has violated it, at all, they should get blocks of increasing duration, not a ban from a primary area of the project they contribute to. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies for this edit. When 406,256 edits have been made to New Jersey by just one editor, it's hard not to let one slip by. I'll try to be more careful. My edit had no impact on him though; any good faith editor would have recognized that and turned the other cheek. A few days ago, when he went onto a talk page here to denounce an edit I made, I didn't run here in a hissyfit. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's a clear violation, and in this case I agree it is WP:POINTy. I don't think this ANI thread is necessary though; I think notifying Euryalus and having him institute the IBAN block would have been sufficient, since he closed the relevant thread yesterday. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It took 4 hours and 6 minutes from the closing of the very long previous thread by Euryalus to the opening of this thread. One gets the impression of runners in their starting blocks, just waiting for the first action that could be reported as a violation. BMK (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Sudipmisra is an account purely created for advertising purposes who is violating all rules surrounding CSDs and advertising.

    PAGE DELETED
    The offending article has been deleted. Nothing more to do here.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So another user, User:Pishcal, stumbled this article: Dck worldwide, and, in my opinion, rightly found it to be a blatant violation of advertising policies. So they marked it for a CSD.

    The user who created it, User:Sudipmisra, promptly removed the CSD, and instead added an improper file link to the company's logo, a violation of copyright! Though I suppose there's a funny loophole here if they release it themselves, though it's still an advertising violation.

    If you look at Sudipmisra's contribs, you can see its an account purely intended for advertising. I wager the account should be blocked and its contribs be reverted. Thanks.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this belongs over at WP:AIV. Pishcal — ♣ 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Self-reporting

    I'm under an ArbCom 1RR, and I wanted to check that two reverts I made fell under the "obvious vandalism" exemption - if not, I'll self-revert. A user at Curtis Culwell Center attack is removing merge tags for an ongoing merge discussion because they personally don't want to merge the article - it seems to me that this, like the removal of AFD tags by users who don't want the article to be deleted and see "make sure no one knows about this conversation" as a better choice than "try to convince others of my position", is the sort of vandalism that's exempt from RR rules. But, as I said, I'll self-revert if that's not the case; what do people think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do think that self-reverting would be a good idea. Looking at those 3 votes, all oppose, it would be a better idea to try it out but later. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion has been going on for less than an hour. It doesn't mean that consensus against a merge won't still develop, but what I'm asking here is whether attempting to unilaterally end a discussion you don't like by removing tags, like AFD tags, constitutes vandalism that is exempt from RR - not whether or not you think the article should be merged. Similarly, you can't repeatedly revert the addition of AFD tags just because you really want the article to be kept - you need to wait for the discussion to be closed, even if it's a snow close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptive indeed, but not really vandalism, you can make a call on the talk page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the tag was removed a bit too quickly, so I restored it. Per this amusing essay, I think the merge discussion deserves more than two hours to find consensus. I'm hoping people will avoid edit warring over a tag. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated creation of Eastern News Agency,(ENA) and similar articles

    Hello, editor SpokesManBD has been repeatedly creating articles such as these, several of which contain copied material from [198]. The editor has been warned that they should probably not edit this article due to COI. Moreover they are continually updating copyrighted files such as Eastern News Agency.gif (which has just been deleted). I would go to RPP and ask for a create protection, but the articles appear to have a variety of names. JZCL 15:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I got an email from them when an OTRS reference (Ticket#2015050410008377). I deleted it as a copyvio, and am unable to verify the OTRS claims. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've protected Eastern News Agency,(ENA) since it was repeatedly created at Eastern News Agency plus since this wouldn't be the proper place for the article anyway. I know that there is a request to restore some of the content at REFUND, but there is somewhat of a problem with this since the copyrighted material (OTRS ticket or no) is too promotional to restore. We're waiting for some confirmation on the ticket before restoring an edited version of the article at Enanews that does not contain promotional or copyrighted text. I'm mildly worried about someone trying to restore the promotional content since User:Enanews and User:SpokesManBD have been pretty gung ho about doing this. I don't see where he's been explicitly warned about reposting promotional content, so I'll give him a formal warning about this and let him know that he can be blocked for repeatedly posting promotional content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Factchecker at your service"

    Block request for two weeks for overly antagonistic notes like this on Talk pages, plus user name "Factchecker at your service" differs from signed name ("Centrify") on article talk pages which he justifies on basis of nobody calling him out on it for 2 years. Recently this. Thanks--A21sauce (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not believe that there is any policy/guideline requiring or even suggesting that a user's signature should have their actual username, and can think of a couple examples where this is the case. If there is, could someone point me to it? No opinion on the rest. ansh666 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Found it: in WP:SIGFORGE, While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents. So that's no reason for a sanction. Again, no opinion on the rest. ansh666 21:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The signature is a side issue: very annoying, but not a blockable offense. What's blockable is to be a disruptive POV-pushing editor, and the nickname is indicative of what that POV is: Wikipedia is dominated by a cabal of left-wing editors, and saviors like Factchecker_atyourservice must edit in a right-wing fashion in order to "Centrify" it. He will now, most assuredly, post here to totally deny this, and comment on my mental disconnection from this corporeal plane, but it's what makes sense and accords completely with Factchcker_atyourservice's behavior, editing and commentary. This person is not actually here to improve the encyclopedia, whatever he thinks he's doing, he's here to push a specific political point of view, and that is blockable. BMK (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So the editor has user names emphasizing that he wants to check facts, and that he likes to limit sources to the mainstream. If you really want him blocked or banned or whatever, I would suggest keeping the weird argument about his usernames to yourself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: it appears that the OP is here continuing with another ANI thread that the OP started recently on the same subject.[206]. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it is worth noting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP's first diff above [207] shows the OP making an accusation of "yammering". So it seems the incivility was not unidirectional.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP cited this diff at the conclusion of the original post of this thread (above). The diff shows Factchecker basically asserting that certain accusations against one editor (Collect) would be more appropriately made against another editor instead. I see nothing remotely blockable in what Factchecker said there, even if his assessment was mistaken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this 2014 edit to which Mr. X objects, not only does it seem rather stale at this point, but it also shows FactChecker removing BLP material that apparently did misrepresent the cited source. Does anyone dispute that the material was unsupported by the cited source?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    On KMPlayer I tried to remove a Download.com malware link, but another contributor was unconvinced that at this time rather old or on CNET#Download even unsourced warnings are still applicable. Meanwhile I've added two referenced statements in this section, updated the fresher "bare references" on Download.com#Adware to {{cite web}} style with authorlink= where applicable, added new references for the years after 2011, and a video while at it. Could somebody please remove the offending section from KMPlayer, the link can't be a good idea (IANAL). As SoFixIt-fan I am already at three attempts to get rid of the crap. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Download.com/CNET is not a "malware site". I have no idea what the issue with this user is, but they seem to be on a very mistaken crusade. Download.com is perhaps the biggest website of its type, and is most definitely not a malware site... there was some speculation of issues with an installer in 2011, which are completely irrelevant four years later, and the source used as an explanation for the last revert was still a year old, and was far from calling Download.com a malware site... it simply stated that there was an issue with AVG (a well-known anti-virus provider)'s search tool where it wasn't secure, and it was included in the Download.com installer. Note please that this user, who as far as I can tell is failing terribly at WP:CIR, hasn't once tried to discuss this, despite me pointing out BRD twice in edit summaries (even if I mistyped it in one of them), and has simply marched off here. Quite frankly, I don't think this user understands what malware or adware are... because the things they've added to the Download.com section are either dubiously referenced, not calling anything adware/malware, and are still old. "In 2013 a groovypost editor explained how to uninstall the potentially unwanted programs left after an installation opting-out from additional offers." - seriously? Where's the evidence they're a reliable source? Random mailing lists certainly aren't, and those are being used as references as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    JFTR, I informed the user on his talk page about this thread after starting a thread on Talk:KMPlayer with a {{ping}} four hours earlier. So far for not once try to discuss anything, the edit history of KMPlayer with some kind of discussion in the edit summaries is pretty mild in comparison with Download.com. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You notified me about the ANI thread, yes. You did NOT notify me about the talk page discussion, which is what I said - so don't try and flip my comments to be something they're not. And not only did you never notify me about the KMPlayer talk page discussion... you ran here with a content dispute just four/five hours after making the initial post. That's lame. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most of those sources are either obviously unreliable (mailing list, teacher's blog, random websites with no oversight whatsoever), or of dubious reliability" in this edit about Brian Krebs (Krebs on security), Ed Bott (ZDNet), Scott Hanselman (Microsoft blogger), insecure.org, howtogeek.com, The Register, US-CERT, twit.tv, Gordon Lyon, etc. in six fully referenced links and a video. Three of these links actually as they were as stated above, i.e. converted to {{cite web}} and now reverted, the newer references + video removed. After the user claimed that everything is old, as it in fact was (2011, only The Register/US CERT was 2014.) Interpreting that as request for fresher references was plausible, resulting in 2012+2013+video (also 2013)+2014+2015, five good new references from notable sources. Removing referenced on topic statements is vandalism in my book. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did say most, not all. ZDNet is good, yes, but I fail to see where that was actually being used in any way as anything other than just a video. There was certainly no justification for dumping it in the article in that way - use it as a reference by all means, but not like that. That's not how Wikipedia works. The Register was already in there, and remains in there. In the meantime, there were things cited to mailing lists, blogs of random teachers, and sources that have no evidence of being reliable. Howtogeek.com is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. There's no evidence for insecure.org being a reliable source for Wikipedia. Etc, etc. Even if I'm wrong, then I'm misguided, not a vandal, and THAT is why you are failing CIR. Please note how I have used reliable sources to tidy things up a bit, whilst fixing various formatting issues myself. Such a great vandal, aren't I? But by all means, continue grinding your axe with unreliable sources and things being added in badly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also worth noting that CNET/Download.com is owned by CBS Interactive, who are owned by CBS Corporation - hardly the sort of place that would actually be deliberately, and consistently, providing a "malware site" now... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and as a further note, it's such a dangerous site that the likes of PC World Magazine are more than willing to provide download links that use that site - and that was from last year as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    google:download.com+malware to find more potential links, only one is "teacher" Scott Hanselman. The issue that CNET used to be a trustworthy site before 2011 is addressed in almost all references, removed by you or still there—actually I haven't checked anything older than Brian Krebs+Gordon Lyon. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one was a teacher, yes, but that is an example of the multiple sources that are either blatantly unreliable, or do not comply with the reliable sources policy. Whether you added them in or they were already there, we had information cited to a teacher's blog and a mailing list. And yes, I've been Googling the information to see if there's anything out there... there's a fair bit of discussion of the 2011 issue (again, four years old), and basically nothing bar The Register's piece that is a properly reliable source since then. The fact I've been Googling the issue should be obvious by the fact I've added in a couple of actually reliable references myself... And I've even left in something with an unreliable source tag, to give you a chance to prove that it may be an acceptable source for use on Wikipedia - since a lot of that section is dependant on it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't even understand that policy! I made three reverts, not four, which I would need to have made to violate the rule... meanwhile, given that you were removing things from the KMPlayer article, it could be technically stated that you made four reverts there - and I've seen that definition used before. But by all means, continue to destroy your own case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The blatantly unreliable teacher Scott Hanselman is quoted as expert on 21 articles about Windows topics on enwiki, because that's what he really is, after all MicroSoft employs him, and he published various often quoted articles on his blog. Interpreting policy is the job for an admin, that's why we are on this page. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Most issues are obvious for somebody trying to figure out what happened, but this edit summary was not on one of the three directly affected articles or their talk pages. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I stand by it. You don't understand what vandalism is, you don't understand the 3RR policy, you're relying on sources that are at times blatantly unreliable, and at others are dubious at best, and you're edit-warring content that is inappropriate into articles in defiance of general practice. You also completely failed to allow any discussion to take place before running here... five hours is nothing, and without any ping, I didn't even see the discussion at first. WP:CIR is a thing, and I'm seeing a striking lack of competence here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:6RR field trial in 4, 5, 6 by a user who has serious problems with a "howtogeek.com" reference, a site quoted on nineteen Wikipedia articles. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The one EMSISOFT link you added tested the top ten downloads individually with both antivirus programs. The Howtogeek test published two months earlier tested the top ten downloads in a row skipping the 2nd antivirus program for obvious (and explained) reasons. IOW they tested the same nine downloads + one different program, and arrived at the same results, EMISOFT with a summary that 62% of the programs while avoiding "voluntary" add-ons were bundled with PUPs. One of the links you conveniently avoided inventing a new term "potentially unwanted software" for the issue. EMSISOFT didn't bother to count minor issues like modified browser homepages.
    Their definition of PUP is close enough to the definition here to be considered as in essence the same thing. So removing references totally agreeing with what you later added using another source might be also some bad case of WP:OWN. There's still a missing good recipe how to get rid of one "opt-out everything but" PUP, a missing video interview with an expert published two years before the EMSISOFT pages, the missing howtogeek now confirmed by your research, the missing Microsoft expert Scott Hanselman, and the missing criticism on CNET—apparently a point where we actually agree, one page for this cesspool is enough, but my merge suggestion failed. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's a more recent claim I've found that adware can be installed like Superfish which installs a root certificate in the user's computer to extend adware to SSL sites (google encrypted search). (howtogeek - copied in Forbes blog NDTV churnalism The Guardian Technology) Lifehacker writes that Wajam is adding Superfish-style SSL root certs, and Wajam is accused of being one of the companies that has a deal to install additional software though wrapped installers. This might not be RS. Note, CNET admits that they bundle Wajam software, see this interchange from 2013:

      We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience here, and we have shared your feedback with the appropriate site managers. It sounds like you may have inadvertently accepted this offer in the CNET Download.com Installer.... You should be able to uninstall any offer(s) via your computer's Add/Remove Programs panel, but if for some reason that does not work, you might want to try one of the programs listed in our uninstaller software category (keeping in mind that some do use the CNET Installer too)... And instructions for resetting your browser(s), if you need them, are here: http://download.cnet.com/2701-2023_4-2107.html... Should you need any further assistance, please feel free to contact our support team directly by filling out the form ... In the "Description" section of the form, please include a link to the Download.com page from which you downloaded when Wajam was installed as well. - Jen

      Yes, CNET bundles Wajam and a range of other "offers" that provoke user frustration, some of which which break internet security by forcing an SSL root cert into the system. I don't have an RS for this, but Facebook is accused of making an "evil interface" that allows them to claim that users have choices, when in fact the users haven't chosen their own privacy settings. I'd argue the average technical competence of the average user is why they accept "offers" that they later, in frustration, find difficult to remove, and didn't understand they were getting in the first place. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for providing a useful response. The Guardian piece is a reliable source, as is the Forbes blog; not certain about Lifehacker or NDTV. How-to-Geek does not seem like one. I'll read those pieces and put something in the article that fits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. The Guardian piece would normally be a reliable source... but it references this article, which relies heavily on How-To-Geek without verifying anything itself. So that one is out of the window. The Forbes piece does exactly the same thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it may be churnalism. Note, see here.

      The Download.com Installer securely delivers software from Download.com's servers to your computer. During this process, the Download.com Installer may offer other free applications provided by our partners. All offers are optional: You are not required to install any additional applications to receive the software you selected... The Download.com Installer may show offers for other free applications. All offers are optional: You are not required to install any additional applications to receive the software you selected. We screen all application offers to ensure they are safe and can be uninstalled. No offers are ever automatically installed without your acceptance.

      Note that these kinds of vague statements are usually highly mendacious - "choice" is a euphemism - most users lack the technical competence or patience to read warnings and "click though" dialogs to the default option (Browsers now offer bright red warning pages to tell people SSL certificates are not safe, after studies showed that small yellow triangles were often used in harmless/meaningless boxes that pop up on a user's computer with out of date/misconfigured software). -- Aronzak (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to why I don't believe HTG is compliant with Wikipedia's RS policy; I don't see any evidence of a proper editorial process that a reliable source would require, and as the name suggests, this is primarily a How-To site, not a journalism site. It's also worth noting that they're criticizing all free download sites, but only mention CNET/download.com by name as it is, well, the biggest and easiest target. HTG even admits that Note: the installers are so tricky and convoluted that we aren’t sure who is technically doing the “bundling," Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paper on browsers, by the way is here - 70.2% of Google Chrome users clicked though SSL warnings in one trial. I think there's a peer reviewed study or at least a professional survey asking people if they have software on their computer they didn't install. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That one looks good to me. I'll add in a comment with regards to that, making sure to note that every other site tested had an issue as well. I'll use the unwanted program term rather than malware, because most of the programs are obviously reputable, and there are multiple ones I'd vouch for myself. Still don't see how this would justify axing CNET as a reference in other articles, but it's certainly worthy of note. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't, the CIR issue still stands and the user should be warned sternly. It just raises the question here of a content issue, where on the CNET page there is a need to educate users. And forgive me for being sentimental, but the content issue just rankles me - in the early days of the internet it was run by academics wanting to make useful software that would open up a community of free inquiry and exchange, and now the top results for open source applications are scam links that bundle PUPs that track their online activity. -- Aronzak (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more - the number of PUPs loaded in is just a pain in the backside. It can be a nightmare trying to find obscure drivers, for example, without hitting these sites. But I do recognize they have to make money somehow... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the user and have given them an edit warring template on their talk page. I told them to wait until the issue has been resolved on ANI. I'll wait for an admin to take action. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning/block needed for user User:\\'arrior 786

    Hello. Could any awake admin drop another warning or perhaps another block for this user? Apart from adding unsourced additions, and spreading some ethnic nationalism, there is virtually no single use for his edits. Though he got blocked on the 10th of April for disruptively editing, which is very recently, he still hasn't understood it. It's rather quite annoying for other users who have to rv, rv, rv his edits. Some of his disruptive edits we had to revert these days [208], [209], [210], [211]. Regards.

    - LouisAragon (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @LouisAragon: You need to notify editors you report to AN/I that you have done so. Best practice is to use {{subst:ANI-notice}}. Monty845 02:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, check! Had forgotten to do so. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    vandal copy/pasting edit summaries to fake an ip block

    Some random IP User:10.68.16.57 marked User:103.251.65.66 as blocked by User:Gillam, although I cross-checked the block log and vandal's talk page that User:Gillam didn't block them. That admin says somebody is faking ip blocks. Could you guys please take care of that? purely bizarre. See also Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism's history. thanks --Fazbear7891 (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is User:HBC AIV helperbot5 logged out. I've temporarily blocked the IP until the bot owner can correct the issue. Please note that any IPs in the 10.0.0.0/8 range will be from Wikimedia internal servers and are not random editors. Nakon 01:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nakon: Not sure it makes sense to block the bot now that its logged back in, which would suggest the problem is resolved/resolved itself, and even if its not, the bot would then be editing logged out and unaffected by the block. Monty845 01:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has now been unblocked. All seems resolved now. Nakon 01:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean blocked Nakon? FWIW part of the problem was that the wrong template was used in the original AIV report. The template used read {{vandal|User talk:103.251.65.66}}. It should read {{IPvandal|103.251.65.66}}. The bot might have been kicking the report out since there is no User talk:103.251.65.66 (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 02:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh - Nakon I see that you mean the IP that was running the bot - not the one that was performing the vandalism. MarnetteD|Talk 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if my statement was confusing. The 10. IP was the bot editing while logged out. This IP has been unblocked as the bot has been fixed. Nakon 02:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose topic ban User:Studentcollege at the Teahouse

    Propose topic ban for the Teahouse. The editor has made more than 40 posts to the Teahouse and has ignored all requests to stop, see here, here and here. Editor is not here to contribute to the project Flat Out talk to me 03:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In agreement on the topic ban, but it is my feeling this is more a CIR issue and as such would also support a competency block. I'm afraid a topic ban would just shift the problem elsewhere. He had yet to make one single actual main space edit. A couple to user talk pages, all the rest at teahouse, Over a month of repeated questions that are far from clear. John from Idegon (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with reluctance and a heavy heart. The Teahouse is supposed to be a friendly, welcoming space to assist new editors, and I have made over 2500 edits there to advance that goal. But the goal is always to assist new editors in improving the encyclopedia, in even the smallest way. I have tried friendly, helpful answers with this editor, and I have tried chastising. Nothing has worked. This editor has contributed nothing so far that I can see to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't consider that a topic ban will stop this editor trolling, I have blocked indefinitely as they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term disruptive editing by User:Eshwar.om

    Can some admins look into the disruptive editing and POV pushing by Eshwar.om (talk · contribs) at a large number of article over several years? Frankly I believe he is editing in good faith, but is hindered by issues of:

    • competence, which makes his talkspace posts, which are very rare, often incomprehensible (sample at random). Article space contributions are even more troubling and detailed below.
    • Bad faith (see posts here and here)
    • POV pushing of Tamil language, history and literature.

    Some examples from week, although the problem has persisted for years

    Evidence of article space disruption from just one week

    By the way, even this is not an exhaustive list of problematic edits from the week!

    Let me know if any clarification is needed. And thanks in advance to whoever looks at the volumnious evidence and the users longer editing history, which in earlier days would have belonged at RFCU. Abecedare (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Should have mentioned that Eshwar.om has been amply warned/advised about his edits as a quick look at his talkpage will show (and that's just since April 2015). Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Oops.He given wrong information about my contribution.my edits and his Edits are visible for all in wikipedia.Every one will look on that.but i dont know why this editor saying like this?!but yes i will look on that. i will give diff and page links.thank youEshwar.omTalk tome 04:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid this is a competence issue and the competence seems not to have improved in the slightest over time. I do not question that they mean well but the level of disruption is pretty extreme. It has, by the way, included unfounded accusations that I was editing while drunk, seemingly just because I disagreed with something that had been done. A topic ban from Hinduism articles isn't going to achieve much: they have exhibited problematic behaviour all over the place, as demonstrated by the sample diffs provided by Abecedare. We are at the stage of a parting of the ways, unfortunately. I'm guessing that English is not their first language, so perhaps it would be more useful if they were directed to a native-language project. - Sitush (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • July 2014 ANI discussion: "User:Eshwar.om disrupting" that led to a one week block by User:Bbb23 (the user has had other 30 and 59 day blocks). Note that the main issue at that ANI was disruptively adding large number of (often copyvio) images to several articles, which as I noted in my post above are both still a problem. Also note the problems are also seen in the user's edits related to Indian history, languages, and geography. So any edit-restrictions limited to a few months or Hinduism-related articles alone are likely to result in a recurrence and us being back here sooner or later. Abecedare (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Abecedare saying Long term disruptive editing by User:Eshwar.om.it is not true. he is saying that iam pushing POV pushing in the name of one particular language.i will not agree that.see the article which is created by me recently List of Hindu Female saints .it covers all languages and literature from india.if i like only one language then why do i create this article?!.India and Hinduism covering more information.my contributions are based on that. even i used to provide more Reliable source too.also i am wondering he showing almost all my edits.oops.Eshwar.omTalk tome 06:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=660906197"