Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

FreeatlastChitchat yet again

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

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: [1]

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,[2] 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)

Response to Allegation(Boomerang)

My response to this frivolous allegation and an appeal for Boomerang is as below.

Content was changed according to consensus with more than 90% support

The 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). The Rotherham and Rotherham sourcing discussions on the Rape jihad Talkpage show that almost everyone agrees with its removal. Some editors reverted the section blanking during the edit war launched by PAX but all of them ,except one, later said that their actions of reverting were in the spirit of protection(They saw a section removal and reverted it, just to be on the safe side. Guy Macon(I won't ping him, looks like canvass) said "I reverted when I saw section blanking with an edit summary that gave an invalid reason for the blanking. I had and still have no opinion on whether the passage should stay or go; that's an editorial decision that you folks need to seek consensus on". Another editor Helpsome reverted the blanking but said "An IP removed a whole section without giving a reason in the edit summary. When they did it a second time, but this time provided a reason I left it alone. I have nothing to do with the edit wars happening here." So you can see what the consensus is.

It is clear that this is a case of pushing pov on part of pax. To be honest PAX makes it looks as if he WP: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).

My edits were in 100% accordance with WP:NEO policy

When I read the source given I immediately saw that the entire article did not mention the term Rape Jihad even once. It was only the title of the article which was Rape Jihad. The article did not explain the term, nor did it use it in anyway. The article talked about slavery in 21st century Islamism and I removed it as a source from Rape jihad according to the following policy at WP:NEO

To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

PAX has displayed classic IDHT attitude

PAX has not even ONCE tried to defend any of his sources. 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."[3] 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."[4]

PAX has a history of launching frivolous accusations

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. It is also common for PAX to accuse almost everyone of being a sock puppet. To date he has accused 8 editors of being a sock and not provided even a shred of evidence about them. He thinks that just because some people disagree with them, then they all must be socks.

Just for reference, here is the SPI, referred to: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RatatoskJones/Archive, I commented in the SPI in defense of Reddogsix as I knew him to be nothing but a good-faith editor. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

PAX has been banned(in one form or another) for 20% of the time he was on wiki

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. 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.

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 another's comments.

It is quite true that I have been blocked for 48 hours. But the period PAx has spent under sanctions is almost 16 times longer than mine.

PAX is highly uncivil

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 my every comment even if it is not directed towards him and uses insulting and sarcastic language, as is clear from the counter response he posted. 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. As this ANI has progressed PAX has displayed even more uncivil behavior, as is evident from his comments on this board.

He calls me a liar repeatedly even without any reason(such as his claim that I lied about studying books on Southeast Asian frogs. Had he asked I would have told him that I gave my class the said article as a project so that they could look for sources, they spent three days and worked tirelessly to find sources but could not, I was therefore quite proud of their efforts and mentioned the time spent in my edit summary)

One of his habits is to insert his own comments into other people's comments. He inserted a counter response inside my response. Pax should realize that even though there is an edit button, everything should not be edited by everyone and other people's comments are no-go areas.

Result Should be a Boomerang for PAX

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. And another additional ban to prevent him from accusing people i.e PAX should be banned from launching any SPI or ANI reports himself, he should contact an uninvolved admin on thier TP to report something. Both bans should run concurrently for 2 months. (Response created 28 April, Last Modified May 7)(PAX modified my comment without permission and inserted a counter response within it, I have moved the said section out of my comment to a position directly below it)FreeatlastChitchat (talk)

Counter-response by PAX

Note: the itemized allegations list above was created by FreeatlastChitChat after most of this discussion had already occurred. It, and the counter-response immediately below, are therefore newer than the rest of the commentary.

Note2: FreeatlastChitchat has considerably altered his list above after I formed my replies below, such that many of them no longer correspond. He also removed the numbers from his entries, making it even harder.(My response addressed his material as it appeared at this point. I'm done playing Whack-a-Mole.

Wow. You almost had it pulled off: drowning this ANI under a gargantuan wall of text so huge that no admin was brave enough to step forward and tackle it. Archival without a clear resolution seemed almost certain a second time. But you just couldn't help yourself bloating it out even more and adding so many new sections that it's bloody impossible for anyone on the board to ignore now.

1. Your claim of "over 90% support" (edit: now upgraded to 98%) is pure absurdity galloping over the border into outright lying. People here can do math. They can count. The section-blankers have been reverted by at least seven editors (or is it higher now? I've lost track); do you have seventy or more people on your side? No you don't. Not even close.

2. You're lying by equivocation (with an assist from Paul B) by claiming that a phrase isn't "in" a source if it's not in the body of the source article even though the phrase is in the title in fat, bold letters.

3. You're confusing WP:IDHT with me having exhausted patience with an editor who tells lies.

4. My accusations of you lying are not "frivolous"; you've been caught red-handed. You could have just said "Oops, that was a mistake," but instead you've doubled and tripled down defending the lie, going "all in" with deuce-7. This unvarying pattern of behavior basically brings every claim you make under scrutiny. For instance, I find it incredibly unlikely that you've read "1007 news stories" or "wasted 200 hours reading books" about southeast Asian frogs. Could it just be that big numbers are irresistibly shiny to you? And: an outlook shaped by Russian and Islamist propaganda mills doesn't bode well for any issue you're involved in.

5. Your name has graced the title of an ANI thread for a longer percentage of your "career" here, and you've been blocked more often, so calling the kettle black really isn't the best tactic.

6. It's true: I dislike people who tell lies unabashedly and unapologetically, which is why I brought this to the noticeboard in the first place. In fact, I am beginning to have serious doubts as to whether or not a mere topic ban (see Relisted Proposal below) is going to rein you in given the clear ethical issues. Pax 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat has significantly enlarged this discussion since I first replied to it on the 28th; the material below does not seem to be replying to wording directly above due to material having been inserted, altered, or removed. He references a temporary ban placed upon me several months ago in nominating porn articles for deletion. FreeatlastChitchat demonstrates continued malfeasance by falsely 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)

---

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)

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)

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)

PAX, do you think just because an editor got tired of you accusing them of being a sock and told you to just put in the SPI in order to clear their name, that this somehow exonerates you from taking responsibility for opening the SPI? An SPI that was clearly erroneous, perhaps you should have seen the truth in your ridiculous accusations, stopped the accusations and made the choice never to open the SPI. I came to the ANI page for a completely unrelated matter, but when I saw your name posted literally all over ANI and recalling the SPI case I had to look into it. I'm not going to get involved in whatever is going on in the Muslim-based articles, as I know it's a highly contentious area in general, and an area I'm no expert in. But from what I've seen of these behavior based discussions is that you've made some questionable decisions recently. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I take that back, after perusing the main article in contention, I will say that I support PAX in that this article should be kept. As a society we need to start recognizing these thugs for what they really are, the world would be better of without the Muslim religion (and without any religion for that matter), and especially better without these extremists (who really are the best example of Muslims if you follow the Quran to the letter, other Muslims don't really follow the Quran). That being said, we still have to follow Wikipedia policy and only put verifiable facts into the article which I'm sure is a never-ending frustrating task as the views on this subject are so polarized, that misinformation abounds. Given that fact we should be editing with extreme caution and prudence on any article of this topic, but we certainly should not be censoring the horrible documented murders of women, children, and "infidels" that occurs daily due to ISIS, Taliban, etc. And I do have some sympathy for PAX, in the regards that this can be an extremely emotion-provoking topic and maybe we should try and understand that while emotions shouldn't be involved, on such topics it is bound to happen. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@War wizard90: <nod> Yup. It's easy to get the wrong impression at the first glance (and regrettably many are). But when you wade in up to your armpits, you go, "Hey...wait a minute...." Btw, the only reason that SPI (requested by at least three people and CU endorsed by two IIRC) was denied was because I screwed up and forgot to remove a sentence when adding a few more suspects to the list (which made the formerly-good sentence erroneous). It's all in the link in the "My final reply in the "SPI you requested?" paragraph up above. (That doesn't appear in the final close because it literally "turned blue"/close while I was typing and I missed hitting Send by about ten seconds.) Concerning the editor who is the subject of this incident report, get a load of this nonsense. It just never ends. He has quite the history of misleading edit summaries. Pax 06:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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)

Paul B has also sectioned-blanked the article.[5] — 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)

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)

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)

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 [6]. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

RatatoskJones has also sectioned-blanked the article,[7][8] 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)

If there actually were Jews cooking babies and citing scripture for it, we'd have an article, right? (They're not, and we still have an article - what does that tell you?) Anyway, the AfD was last month. Pax 21:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And if there actually was such as thing as a 'rape jihad', then the article as it currently stands may be warranted. There isn't, so it isn't. And if you'd bothered to follow the link I'd provided, you would have noticed that the anti-Semitic slur in question was discussed appropriately, compared to the way the Islamophobic slur in question is not discussed appropriately. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You should perhaps also read What is not vandalism. Your false accusations of vandalism are becoming disruptive. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

Fauzan has a prior ANI history of edit-warring and apologetics. Pax 08:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

RSN1: Seven years old; does not concern the writers or topic involved. FPM's claims were otherwise supported by reporting in the Washington Post.[9] 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)

• Support Clear indication that Pax has no intention of collaborating with other editors and encourages WP: BATTLEGROUND behavior. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

Do not invoke my name as supporting something that I have never offered an opinion on. The edits in question[10][11] 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

Thank you for the opinions of an involved party. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Silence at this point does not indicate consensus. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

No; you're wrong. Look at it again. Pax 05:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Support per Paul B. Ignoring WP:V and WP:OR as well as consensus from talkpage and WP:RSN because they don't agree with it is not productive. I had hoped that Pax would start to defend their sources or find ones that actually can be used, but they have spent more time opening WP:ANI and frivolous WP:SPI cases. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, things continue to deteriorate. Now Pax removes POV, disputed, notability and reliable sources tags from the article in spite of heavy discussion on the talk page, where most people disagree with them [12] [13]. Then they remove the merger tag from the article, in spite of the merger discussion having 2:1 support for merger! [14] When a new editor comes in to discuss the poor sourcing in the article they attempt to shut down the discussion with threats of blocking [15]. Considering their refusal to acknowledge the clear consensus regarding their sources (Gatestone Institute, FrontPage Magazine and self-published books factor among them), talk page discussion has proven fruitless. This is how they regard the consensus against them:

[16] 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.

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

Then there are these charming comments:

[18] Nobody is going to report on a demographic-warfare tactic without having a pretty strong opinion of it, either for (Muhammad) or against (the filthy kafir targets).

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

At this point, it's clear that this user is less interested in collaboration pr good sourcing, and more interested in sticking it to the muslims. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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[20]. 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)

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)

• Oppose Paul B is correct but Pax is mostly correct about the behavior of other editors who have disruptive many other similar pages. There is some hope with Pax, but there is no hope with those editors who are engaged in these edit wars. Delibzr (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Paul B. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The following text is present on Gouncbeatduke's user page: "...Wikipedia('s) systemic bias can only be corrected through a new aggressive Wikipedia policy of topic bans of Islamophobic and Anti-Arab editors." — Given that he is !voting to exonerate serial section-blanking and lying in edit summaries (with his !vote in the Relisted Proposal below) while simultaneously !voting to condemn (with his !vote in this section) the person who brought the disruptive activities of these vandals to notice here, I can only assume he is abandoning any semblance of non-partisanship in order to pursue that stated "aggressive" agenda of harassing editors involved in articles delving into the less savory aspects of the religion he obviously seeks to protect with the ultimate aim of censoring those articles involving it. Pax 05:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Just repeat, there is no rule against "section blanking". Sections are content like any other content, which can be deleted for the same reasons as any other content. And no one "lied" in an edit summary, as has been exhaustively demonstrated. Perhaps you think that if you repeat this often enough it will somehow become fact. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke has a prior block stemming from an incident involving section-blanking of an Islam-related article, and has another recent block as well. Pax 20:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (semi-involved) The section blanking is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS. This proposal seems like an attempt to reinstate the blanked version of the article. Restrictions are used to prevent damage or disruption to the encyclopedia, not to instate an editor or group of editors' preferred version. Esquivalience ^t 23:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Paul B as an absolute minimum, with preference to a topic ban from Islam, broadly construed. The editor opposes any content not coinciding with his/her own POV: [21], where neutral wording is replaced with internal POV; and [22], where sourced content contrary to Pax's POV is section-blanked (the same offence Pax accuses other editors of). Daveosaurus (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per reasonings provided by Paul B. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

'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)

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)

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)

All of the fatwas you link are about beating. None of them say anything whatever about sexual violence. Do you understand what the phrase "sexual violence" means? It does not mean any form of violence to someone of the opposite sex. Paul B (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

Relisted Proposal (to topic-ban FreeatlastChitchat)

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

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.

• Comment: There are also votes in the previous ANI, anyone closing this proposal should take them into account. Esquivalience ^t 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to rescue the section from the archives. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Previous participation is here - !vote below - Esquivalience ^t 01:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC):

• 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)
• 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)

Thumbs up. Pax 04:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• support He's causing a ridiculous amount of problems across a wide swath of pages. It has to stop. KrakatoaKatie 16:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved non admin) Edit warring in one topic area is never a good idea. Consensus is how articles are edited. The actions linked to show he has is acting as an advocate, removing negative things that have some relation to Islam. AlbinoFerret 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

WP:BRD is not a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT certainly is. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

BRD is just more popular. Delibzr (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Everyone has said it. If he is removing those things that he found to be negative then he has to select other topic. Delibzr (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fauzan. -- Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's right. The article does not mention it. The title is a catch phrase not mentioned even once in the article. In journalism, titles are often eye-grabbing phrases created by editors and sub-editors, not the article writer. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That has to be the most disingenuous argument I've ever heard yet to justify lying, maintaining that the title of an article is not part of an article. Pax 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It isn't. Article content is what matters. We are writing about subjects, not catch phrases. And in any case the "article" is an unreliable source, so it can just be discounted. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pure deception. Pax 21:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to create a tinypic, as the diff is a permannt record. THe fact that byou have linked to an image you created rather than the diff indicates your disingenuousness. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know perfectly well that if an article is deleted, its history is deleted too, and thus the dif link would become 404 to anyone except administrators. *That* is why I made the picture: for a permanent record of this malfeasance that anyone can see. Pax 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Another incident, May 4:

• Battleground, incivility, and vandalizing a talk page with a single edit (his first there after not posting for three days). Pax 10:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Removing content in accordance with consensus is not and never has been vandalism. There is nothing magical about content that happens to have been stuck under a sub-heading, so that removing it becomes some offence of "section blanking". People add and remove sections all of the time for legitimate reasons. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But you didn't have consensus. FreeatlastChitchat lied in edit commentaries. That's why you need to go away for an extended duration. Pax 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

He did not in any sense lie. OK, you can disagree with his view that there was consensus (which has no clear defintion), but there was certainly a significant majority in favour of that view. Please don't make out-and-out false accusations. Having read the discussions and compared Freeatlast's comments and yours, I know who I trust more to be truthful. Paul B (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Because some people have WP:IDHT problems, I shall repeat myself yet again: FreeatlastChitchat did lie in this edit[[43]: The exact phrase "rape jihad" was in the very title of the source he was deleting as he was making an edit whose commentary maintained "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given". His immediately prior edit eliminated more sources containing the exact phrase.

Yes, you certainly do have WP:IDHT problems, as several editors have independently pointed out to you. It is not a lie to say that the article does not contain the phrase. Again, this is a fact that several editors have pointed out, and which you just ignore, ignore, ignore and splutter and bluster. The edit removed content that was cited to sources that do not mention rape jihad in the content. Of all the sources the phrase appears in one unreliable one in a catchy title and even in that case, it is not in the article content at all. You are just blowing smoke as usual. But the main problem here is that you are not interested in trying to work with other good faith editors, you are just trying to catch someone out and then blow up as big as possible that editor's supposed (and in fact non-extistent) transgression. This should not be an issue of wikilawyering over exact phrasing in an edit summary. The summary was an accurate and correct application of wikipedia policy. No reliable source, of the ten that were cited, used the term at all, or made any reference to any such concept. Paul B (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This ANI isn't about content (however much you wish to derail it). Pax 23:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for administrative closure

Due to the size of this discussion and the fact that a previous iteration was closed by a non-admin, I have requested that an admin review and close the topic. Pax 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

24-hour block levied. If he resumes, report for a long or indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks, I've done that.[44] 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)

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)

(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)

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)

Quick point on the side. You should pay attention to the text above the save button "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." You can't revoke permission for other editors to work/edit/delete/use it since, by hitting save, you have irrevocably released it. Blackmane (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care about minor points like that. It is this sort of Pharasetical stuff that makes Wikipedia so irrelevant. This incident has convinced me to leave Wikipedia. The page in question is still a farce because of your point of view. I'll leave it to you and the others who make Wikipedia a joke. Eodcarl (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a minor point as it has legal ramifications. It's copyright law. I have no horse in this race and what people think of as controversial at an irrelevant little arena in the back end of some random state university campus is of little importance to me. Blackmane (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment from completely uninvolved editor: If the title of the article is List of Presidents of Croatia, then the article should begin with Franjo Tuđman and exclude anything before that, since he was the first President of Croatia. If someone wants to re-title (move) the article to List of Croatian heads of state, then that's another matter entirely. Alternatively, there could be two articles, one that lists all past Croatian heads of state, and one that lists only Presidents. Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment from a disgruntled former editor: We're talking about Croatia. I mean, Croatia. Why is everyone getting worked up about Croatia? INSANO! Robtransit archdurbar (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, can someone please block Robtransit archdurbar as a troll? Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• #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)

• Comment (non admin observation) This is the second section on this page that Timbouctou is involved with. The other is Privatization in Croatia where they got involved in a massive edit war. AlbinoFerret 15:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have fully protected the page for three days. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

WP:IDHT... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 ([50]). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Don't flatter yourself. I was simply curious to see whether you actually managed to convince a neutral person that your content argument has merit. The same neutral person who already agreed that your behavior in presenting said argument was in sufficient violation of policies that you should be sanctioned. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is this ([51]) 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)

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)

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)

Croatia in general is too wide and would be unnecessarily punitive. I previously proposed a topic ban on Croatian heads of state, but was ignored. Croatian politics seems like an appropriate compromise. I'd support that for Director because his behavior is the root cause of this mess; I'm not sure I support a broad topic ban for the latter two at this point because I haven't reviewed all the other evidence yet. I do support an 1RR for all three in the topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My behavior is not the root cause of this mess, the root cause is Timbouctou's (and your own) refusal to accept the rejection of your proposed changes by talkpage consensus. You've made that clear yourself in this very thread (by claiming opposition to you "isn't a legitimate position"). And since I still haven't really been told even what I've done - I will appeal any topic bans to ARBCOM as possible (and I think obvious) abuse of ARBMAC discretion. I dare say I've written extensively on that topic and should not be excluded from it unless actually necessary. An IBAN, on the other hand (as I said below), is something I'd probably do myself..

I will also repeat that topic bans seem only to be under consideration due to their proposal by a heavily involved and biased party - Joy, and that because they fit his agenda in terms of the content dispute. -- Director (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Will you PLEASE stop casting aspersions on me? There absolutely was no talk page consensus; your incessant flaming and pretending policy-based arguments against your POV don't exist doesn't count as consensus by any stretch of imagination. The only agenda I'm promoting at this point is stopping your senseless tirades, which is so obviously in the best interest of the English Wikipedia when pretty much everyone else has stopped paying attention to this discussion as it is so annoyingly repetitive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, you were the one proposing changes, and "there absolutely was no talk page consensus"... but hey.. maybe if you can ban some people - you might get that to change. Neat idea. Regardless of whether your "policy-based" arguments are such or not (and they're not) - they had no consensus. Moreover, the entire mess on this thread is entirely of your own making, so don't try to blame me somehow. It was your decision to pester the community repeatedly for assistance in pushing changes you prefer, and that is absolutely what this is about: you're a participant in a content dispute, pushing for a ban against a party you disagree with. There is no concrete evidence, there isn't even a coherent argument for OWN or anything of the sort, there's just this vague whiiiine about how you're personally frustrated and don't want to "deal" and all that.. "oh please make him go away", etc.

The next guy who steps up against your asinine idea to split that place apart will no doubt annoy you as well, and may find himself defending against your dishonest accusations. And why not - his position would be "illegitimate" and therefore disruptive. Right?

But I can see you're impatient to finally get your ban ("everyone has stopped paying attention!"), so I'll leave you to it. Oh and thanks for speaking against my getting banned for no reason from ALL Croatia topics, that's real generous of you. -- Director (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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 [52] - with good effect.. its just that it expired, unfortunately. -- Director (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been any more input from uninvolved observers here, but I still think the sanctions proposed earlier should go ahead. So, under WP:ARBMAC, I am imposing:

1. A full interaction ban between Director (talk · contribs) and Timbouctou (talk · contribs), of indefinite duration, under the same conditions as the earlier one in 2012 ("banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI reports about each other for 6 months except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban")
2. A 12-months topic ban for Timbouctou from all topics related to Croatia
3. A 6-months topic ban for Director on the narrower topic area of Croatian constitutional continuity and related issues of Croatian officeholders.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but this ratio would send the wrong message. In fact, thinking about it some more, I would say that that kind of a statement would be so illogical to me that I would find such a move to be resulting in a case of WP:DEPE, one much more serious than this particular incident alone. Here's why: in this topic, both of them are using all the wrong methods, and I have no qualms as far as putting an end to that. But at the same time, Timbouctou was acting wholly inappropriately in order to advocate a mainstream position, as opposed to Director who was acting wholly inappropriately in order to advocate a fringe position. Wielding a larger axe towards the less nutty party would have the practical chilling effect on all the other editors in this topic area.

Note that I recently got blocked for the first time in my life for having blocked Timbouctou among others in an overzealous manner. It would actually reflect better on me in light of that earlier case if I were to simply let Timbouctou take a bigger hit here. But that just would not be right, nor would it be in the interest of the project. I also find it indicative that in that earlier incident, I had found Timbouctou to be inappropriately reverting against others who were inappropriately advocating a Croatian right-wing nationalist position, and yet Director has portrayed him as one of those. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He's already violated his topic ban, I think. Within two hours of receiving and archiving the notification on his talkpage. I'd say your perception of nuttiness may be skewed. (am reporting this in accordance with the exception in the IBAN) -- Director (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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, [53], which have no legitimate purpose, and he's also made strange posts insinuating that editors who associate with me are likely to be blocked [54]. 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

You know what, after I made this comment[55] on Sue Rangell's Talk page in July of last year and then got called on it[56], I never in my wildest dreams would have imagined that it would come to fruition, but 4 months later it did[57]. 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)

You can huff and puff all you want, but it doesn't disguise the fact that you're hiding from the simple fact that you went out of your way to post a phont sockpuppetry charge without any reasonable cause. And you did this to harass an editor with whom you're engaged in a content dispute. Talk about spiteful and vindictive. . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My equally childish retort to your untenable accusation starts now: "No I didn't... times infinity" </retort> Sincerely, The --Not Big, not Bad, with far less Hullaballo Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• Support Topic Ban for Alansohn (non admin) I have struck my original comment because it was pointed out that Magnolia677's edit pre dates the "final warning" about the IBAN. This is the second time Alansohn has posted a questionable claim of breaking the IBAN. I would support a boomerang topic ban or block of up to a week. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • Struck since I didn't notice that the offending edit was made before the last ANI closed. I still think that the edit was pointy and terrible and maybe blockable: note Magnolia's stated intention to add the rest of NJ's governors to the same article.[58] I'd definitely support a block if that happens. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

*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)

• 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)
• Thanks for the ping, am keen on letting this community debate continue awhile so we get a clear consensus for action, if possible. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• In passing, the IBAN breach that kicked off this thread predates the thread above, and so cannot be held against Magnolia677 as a breach of the final warning. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

No, the last ANI was Alansohn's second pass. He opened the thread, but the (loose) consensus was that Alansohn was the responsible party, not Magnolia677. I know it's long and tedious, but you should read the thread again, especially the earlier parts.

In regard to this current one, yes M677 made the edit without an intervening edit, so it was indeed a technical violation of the IBan, but the edit itself was totally innocuous, as multiple editors commented above. The parties to an IBan have something more than an obligation to report every possible violation, they have the responsibility to reduce disruption to the community -- that's why the IBan is in place. Given his ownership issues regarding New Jersey articles, it was rather unlikely that it would happen, but Alansohn's highest responsibility was to just let the edit go by, without comment, and give M677 the benefit of the pass that he got when he first broke the IBan (and that, too, was a technical violation, very much on a par with M677's in this instance). To throw the book at M677 for the edit he made in this instance is pretty much killing a flea with a tommy gun. BMK (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

*Block Magnolia77 for blatant, immediate, and pointy violation of the IBAN, which seemed to be designed to entrap Alansohn into receiving a NJ topic ban along with him/her. Please let's not let the blatant gaming succeed. Quite obviously NJ is Alansohn's expertise; there's no reason for him to be punished for Magnolia's violation. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Lightly Boomerang Alansohn, Super-Mega-Ultra-Trout Magnolia. Alansohn is trying to nitpick the editor, and while yes the possibility is that Magnolia was gaming, I'd like to AGF here. Very easy for someone to not check the edit history and just go straight to the article. While irresponsible on Magnolia's part should that be the case, they weren't trying to poke and prod anyone if that is how it happened. Should it be revealed that Magnolia was intentionally gaming, immediate support of a block for Magnolia only and a trout for Alansohn for the ANI.cnbr¹⁵ 12:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic-Ban

• Support topic-ban as per Jayron32, as an alternative to repeated blocks. If they won't respect the TBAN, then they need blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose topic ban(s) at this time. BMK (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is getting ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for both sides. It's clear that nothing else will stop these two from constantly butting heads and wasting everyone's time. The iban has turned out to be useless, since neither editor is interested in abiding by it, and we already know at least one of them can break it with impunity. Reyk _YO! 08:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban(s) at this time. Both have plenty to add to the article, they just need to stop hounding each other like school children. cnbr¹⁵ 12:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose topic ban, at least not for Alansohn. Block Magnolia77 for blatant, immediate, and pointy violation of the IBAN, which seemed to be designed to entrap Alansohn into receiving a NJ topic ban along with him/her. Please let's not let the blatant gaming succeed. Quite obviously NJ is Alansohn's expertise; there's no reason for him to be punished for Magnolia's violation. If anyone needs a topic ban, in this case it's Magnolia. It also seems that this would eliminate the problem altogether, since NJ seems to be the place where they overlap. Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Softlavender, this section is about a possible topic ban. Your !vote to block M677 has already been cast in the general discussion section above this. Because of this, I've removed the bolding you put around "Block Magnolia77" (and it's "677") in the comments above, since the bolded text is generally seen to be an indication of a !vote, and you can't !vote on the same issue twice. You can certainly support or oppose a topic ban, and at the same time support or oppose a specific sanction for either editor, but you can't do either of those things more than once. BMK (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem; you didn't need to explain your action here; I understood it from the edit summary and that's fine and to be expected. No worries. Softlavender (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I only explained because I wasn't sure you would read the edit summary. Thanks. BMK (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Note: I'm striking my !votes based on Euryalus's recent revelation that the edit in question preceded his closing of the previous ANI thread. My opinion is that at this point both editors are acting in bad faith, both are editing/posting provocatively, and both are gaming. That said, since the edit in question preceded the points Euryalus made in the closing, my personal suggestion (for what it's worth) is that this thread be closed, and if in the future there is a violation of the IBAN, that it be reported to Euryalus, not here, and he will institute the block. Softlavender (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Because it could easily get lost in the shuffle, I'd like to repeat what Euryalus wrote above:

  In passing, the IBAN breach that kicked off this thread predates the thread above, and so cannot be held against Magnolia677 as a breach of the final warning.

  Every editor, of course, can determine for themselves how this information changes (or doesn't change) their previous !votes in this matter. I think Softlavender's response to strike all of their comments is perfectly understandable, and a resonable response. It is, however, not mine.
  Although the uninvolved editors here were (I assume) unaware that Magnolia677's edit preceded the "final warning" with which Euryalus closed the previous thread, I find it impossible to believe that Alansohn was unaware of it when he opened this thread. Because if this, I see no reason to change my reccomendations above: a short boomarang block for Alansohn (short because his last block was in 2009), and no topic bans for the two editors. Whether he's aware of it or not, the latter (no topic bans) is a gift to Alansohn, since New Jersey is almost entirely his area of practice, while Magnolia677 has other areas to work in, thus mutual topic bans would hurt Alansohn more than M677. Even so, I would not hesitate to support mutual topic bans for New Jersey if there is a next incident. BMK (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out BMK. AlbinoFerret 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I pretty much agree that bringing to ANI an edit made before the last ANI was closed was questionable. I agree that a short boomerang block of Alansohn for this would be in order, and a reminder that stricter measures will ensue in the future. As in all IBANs, the participants have to want it to work. Hopefully that is what we will see from them. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Factchecker at your service"

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

---

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)

• Strong support - Enough is enough. This editor has been warned many times before about personal attacks and general disruptive behavior, yet it continues.[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] - MrX 19:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Don't know that I'd describe it as "calling him out", but the editor's confusing choice of display name vs. their username was discussed with them just last month here. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict): While this user does seem to have had plenty of warnings for PA/disruptive behavior, I don't believe the signed name should weigh into this as A21sauce suggests since the actual signed name is "Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs)" which does meet the requirement of giving some indication of actual username with the "Factchecker_blah_blah_blah" part. Any block here should be for PA, not for username/sig and A21sauce should be admonished for attempting to invoke unnecessary additional drama here in this section IMHO. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Plenty of examples of PA, thanks Mr.--A21sauce (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Very confusing. Regarding the diffs that MrX posted above, I see some warnings made to Factchecker, but I don't see any instances of the bad conduct he is alleged to have done. Also, one of the cited postings includes a statement by Cwobeell to "Go fuck yourself." Exactly what is Factchecker supposed to have done? Can we see some evidence of that? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know what's so confusing. Click on the links to the warnings, then click on the links in the warnings that leads to the specific personal attacks. For example, "Rm. deliberate source misrepresentation and spin; track what source actually says, not what Cwobeel wants it to say". Also, he's been wantonly disruptive at an Arbcom case. Examples here: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop#Factchecker atyourservice (warned)- MrX 20:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support some sort of sanction The conduct of this editor--whatever he calls himself--at the Arbcom case has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is an activist editor with an agenda who is disruptive.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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)

Note: it appears that the OP is here continuing with another ANI thread that the OP started recently on the same subject.[66]. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it is worth noting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The OP's first diff above [67] shows the OP making an accusation of "yammering". So it seems the incivility was not unidirectional.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's only "stale" if Factchecker_atyourservice hasn't continued to do the same kind of thing quite often since then. Since that appears to actually be the case, then it's not "stale" at all, it's a data point in a pattern of behavior. BMK (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at the cited source? Have you looked at the correction at the end of it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment in response to User:Beyond_My_Ken, does anyone fail to grasp that opposing improper leftist-POV edits (among others) is not the same as supporting rightist-POV edits? Because I definitely don't do that -- nor do I fail to oppose those same edits. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Let me answer a question with a question: Do you grasp that your perception of what is an "improper leftist-POV edit" is almost totally based on your own political position? (In fact, there are no "leftists" in mainstream American politics, hasn;t been for many, many decades. Unless, of course, you're Fox News, the Washngton Times or the Teabaggers, in which case anything more liberal than Genghis Khan counts as a socialist.) The edits in question aren't undoing "improper" "leftist" edits, they're instituting conservative views that only look balanced to you because of where you stand.
  Actually, I'll answer my question for you - no, you don't see that, and you can't see that, because you are blinded by the fantasy of left-wing hit squads keeping Wikipedia safe for Marxist-Leninist-Maoism. It's actually very, very sad, but it will make for some interesting reading when the history of these times is written in the future. (But, then again, it'll be academics writing those histories, and I guess they're eve worse than politicians. Some of them are still even (*gasp*) socialists! Better go wash yourself, it can't be easy reading that.) BMK (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As above, this is non-responsive and unnecessarily hostile. Why are you even here? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• The signature is confusing, but I'm just a not very hip old man so I'm probably just behind the curve on style or whatever. Hum...MrX, one of your diffs is actually from from December and shows Cwobeel saying "go fuck yourself" to talk:Factchecker atyourservice. Another isn't even a diff of an edit made by the defendant.--MONGO 05:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your helpful observations. I will be happy to clarify why I think admin action is required by providing more detailed examples of Factchecker at your service's personal attacks as soon as I have a little more time.- MrX 10:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty cute to ask for more time when the basis for your accusations against me is that I didn't post enough evidence at the ArbCom case before evidence was closed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The difference being, of course, that he used that time to compile some evidence, while the only thing you ever did was to keep complaining that you didn't have enough time. Cute for you to keep harping on that? No... revealing. BMK (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

He went ahead and took additional time to present evidence because he wasn't forbidden from doing so, jesus are you not paying attention or do you toss at least one deliberate distortion into everything you say? Since I'm a human being in the world, everything I do takes time. And that INCLUDES responding to the volumes of your bitter sniping on completely unrelated subjects during the evidence phase, almost as if you hoped your filibustering would make it impractical for me to continue participating in that case. Anyway, I didn't have time, or rather I planned poorly and ran out of it, and your ongoing shrill ABFs are just dumb. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Watch your blood pressure, please. As has been explained to you before, Factchecker_atyourservice, there was plenty of time between the hatting of your "evidence", which was deemed unhelpful and not evidentiary by an Arb, and the closing of the evidence phase. You chose to use that time doing other things rather than gathering evidence, then you complained bitterly when the Arbs wouldn't give you more time, since you didn't even try to take advantage of the time available. That's life -- you make choices, you gotta live with them. Except ... apparently, for you, nothing is your' fault, eveything is the fault of somebody else -- me, the Arbs, the clerks, a cabal of lefist-editors. What is it they call a personality that is unable to take responsibility for their own actions? BMK (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, so long as we're having a completely unrestricted discussion about the character of other editors, what is your excuse for being viciously angry, hostile, and insulting when involved in innocuous content disputes, almost invariably resorting to shrill invective over silly things? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's slightly ironic for someone to berate others for going overboard yet using all-boldface type to do so. But maybe that's just me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you actually claiming that I've made personal attacks on the same level as BMK here, or do you just think typeface is the most substantive part of a given comment? Do please reply. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Um. I think Short Brigade Harvester is merely, correctly, pointing out the irony in your boldfaced comment on 'resorting to shrill invective over silly things'. --regentspark (comment) 02:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose , first there's nothing wrong with his signature, second, almost all of your diffs don't show any personal attacks, they show you warning Factchecker about personal attacks, the links within the warnings also don't lead to any personal attacks. There are at least two that I found that are personal attack (near the end) but they happened back in 2014, 2011, etc..... So oppose , and beware of smooth, throwable returning objects. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Using a different signature is not against policy or guidelines and is the reason I changed mine because that is what the consensus of editors was when another editor began using a signature that was not their username to sign his posts that was very close to my old username. We have a consensus on the name thing. Mr.X's links aside (I haven't looked at them) the original complaint is without merit and I can't see supporting a block.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence

May 3, 2015	"With all the hours upon hours that editors here spent compiling diffs against Collect, half of which don't show anything, claiming to be motivated by pure non-partisan Wiki-Concern, yet not a single person posted a single diff against Cwobeel's virtually identical but much more extensive conduct in that regard, just shows what a politically motivated witch-hunt this is."
May 3, 2015	"Learn to read plz kthxbye"
May 3, 2015	"Are you even trying to make sense? "
May 3, 2015	"Cwobeel behaves much worse, right in your face, and none of you says a word. In fact nobody even bats an eyelash when he stands up here at ArbCom, and says, completely without irony, that someone else has problems hearing that and gaming the system. Nope, it's all kosher so far as you're concerned. And why is that? Because he's on your team."
April 28, 2015	"Given your clearly expressed hostility to one of the article subjects and your stated assumption that he must be guilty, you probably shouldn't be editing that article at all. I request that you stop."
April 28, 2015	"since you made reference to an internal mental struggle you were having trying to comprehend this, perhaps the above will clear things up for you a teensy bit. Cheers! "
April 24, 2015	"Because it's soooooooooooo unreasonable to expect that you not beat on this article like a POV drum."
April 24, 2015	"This is a frankly ridiculous position which you can barely articulate in English in the first place because it doesn't make sense."
April 8, 2015	"I don't know, maybe he suspected that you were still on the prowl for an opportunity to hound him off WP."
April 6, 2015	"MastCell: at Joni Ernst you engaged in left-biased editing at a political article, misrepresenting sources in the process, lobbed uncalled-for personal attacks against at least one non-admin who merely disagreed with you on a question of fact."
January 9, 2015	"So you're content to deliberately mislead readers in a racially charged case, unless I initiate an admin action to stop you."
December 8, 2014	"Rm. deliberate source misrepresentation and spin; track what source actually says, not what Cwobeel wants it to say" (edit summary)
October 12, 2014	"You can spew hogwash all you want, but it won't make a non-existent "BLP violation" magically materialize where none actually exists. Or if one existed, you could say what it is. But there isn't one. So you can't say what it is. Again, such meaningless posturing has no effect on WP, and at this point your comments are an abuse of this talk page because all you're doing is saying "nuh uh"... over and over again."
October 12, 2014	"If there is an identifiable BLP or other violation, please identify it and we can talk about it, otherwise shut the hell up.If there is an identifiable BLP or other violation, please identify it and we can talk about it, otherwise shut the hell up."
October 12, 2014	"Saturday night, Cwobeel's got a partisan axe to grind and he's real surprised no one else wants to play. Shocked, shocked. This idiot doesn't understand WP policy, merely sees it as a tool for attacking conservatives. OH, NOTE ALSO SMART GUY, the article was LOCKED UNTIL LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO — in no small part due to your histrionics and anti-policy editing crusades."
October 12, 2014	"NOTE ALSO that there was no actual edit to discuss — since this was merely a childish partisan rant by a relentlessly axe-grinding editor who's just mad that his dumb AFD failed and now wants to argue vacuously over the result"
October 3, 2014	"Comment. Let's cut through the crap. Cwobeel wants this particular wording because he wants to portray Ernst as a nobody who was magically transformed into a politician by evil campaign money."
October 1, 2014	"Cwobeel constantly goes about violating policies that he already knows about, and he's violating content policies, not procedural policies."

Interweaved amongst these examples are many similar comments directed at various users. Anyone with the time or motivation may find FCAYS's contributions at the following pages to be quite illuminating: Talk:The Federalist (website), Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown, Talk:Joni_Ernst, and the various project and talk pages at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others.- MrX 19:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X, just looking at the item at the top of the list, I am puzzled. Isn't it correct that Cwobeel was (or is) an involved party in the ArbCom case that factchecker was discussing there? So there was nothing inherently wrong with mentioning Cwobeel, right? Could you please explain why exactly the following statement to ArbCom (that you quote in your first item above) is now blockable at ANI? "With all the hours upon hours that editors here spent compiling diffs against Collect, half of which don't show anything, claiming to be motivated by pure non-partisan Wiki-Concern, yet not a single person posted a single diff against Cwobeel's virtually identical but much more extensive conduct in that regard, just shows what a politically motivated witch-hunt this is." Are you saying that politically-motivated witch-hunts never happen at Wikipedia, and that is why we should now hunt down Factchecker and burn him at the stake, so to speak? I'll get to your subsequent diffs if you can explain that first one.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't claim that the first diff was a blockable offense (which is why I provided a non-exhaustive list from roughly the last seven months. FCAYS presented no evidence against Cwobeel, just aspersions. WP:NPA is quite clear that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. If you want to explore the topic of Cwobeel's conduct, start a new section and present diffs to support your assertions. As to the rest of your comment, I find your characterization of this discussion as a witch hunt to be especially unsavory, not to mention illogical.- MrX 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X, you are correct that policy says accusations about personal behavior lacking evidence are never acceptable, and serious accusations require serious evidence. However, in the first of your latest series of diffs, factchecker merely said that Cwobeel's conduct is "virtually identical but much more extensive" than Collect's behavior, which strikes me as rather inoffensive if one admires Collect's editing, as I think Cwobeel does. Anyway, there's a serious side-issue here: if a group of editors only compile and present evidence or purported evidence against one segment of Wikipedia (adversaries), while deliberately avoiding doing so for another segment of Wikipedia (allies), then that is a legitimate systemic problem worth pondering and discussing out in the open, especially if the adversaries do not counteract such tactics by mimicking them. One of your own diffs in this thread shows Cwobeel telling Factchecker to "go fuck yourself", so I'm sure you could manage a word of criticism about Cwobeel if you wanted to.[68] The rest of your diffs similarly lack context and apparently are designed to overlook provocation, which I find kind of unsavory.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is that this was in the context of a arbitration case, where anyone who wanted to, Factchecker_atyourservice included, could have presented evidence against Cwobeel, and not a single editor did so -- and yet Factchecker_atyourservice still felt free to cast aspersions against Cwobeel on the talk page, with no evidence to support his allegations. This appears to have been done on the theory that the best defense is a good offense, so that by accusing Cwobeel of behaving in a similar manner to Collect, Factchecker_atyourservice was, I suppose, hoping to undermine the charges against Collect – even though those charges were supported by evidence from multiple editors, and Factchecker_atyourservice's charges against Cwobeel were supported by nothing whatsoever. BMK (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I didn't have time to post evidence before the evidence closed, as clearly stated and explained numerous times. If you truly cared about the case you could have asked for an extension to be granted to me, but rather it seems you quite content shutting the door on people who would try to respond to these accusations, and who actually have a real life outside WP that imposes time constraints. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you keep repeating that particular Big Lie, hoping that the repetition will give it traction, but it ain't happenening. There was plenty of time between when your non-evidentiary statement was hatted and when the evidence phase closed for you to present evidence, you just didn't do it. BMK (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Anybody with a brain can figure out that "plenty of time" is a relative value judgment that can be made only in reference to time constraints upon the person being talked about. You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, rather you are just repeatedly (and bitterly) accusing me of lying about my RL schedule. Shut the hell up. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, nothing is ever your fault. It's my fault, it's the clerk's fault, it's the Arb's fault, it's the fault of "real life constraints". Well, if real life is what got in the way, and that's why you didn't post evidence, then it's not terribly realistic in your part to blame others for your not being able to post evidence, or for their not being any findings against Cwobeel, when there wasn't any evidence posted against him. But, there not being any evidence against Cwobeel, then no one should go around complaining that "Mommy, mommy, Collect did the same thing as Cwobeel, why isn't Cwobeel being sanctioned" Cwobeel isn't being sanctioned because no one presented evidence to support Cwobeel sanctioned -- but that didn't stop you from making unsupported allegations against him - for which, if life was fair, you shuld have been sanctioned immediately.

Of course, I fully believe that you dont see any of this, that you're totally blind to how what you're doing and saying looks like to the outside world. I really do think that you believe what you're saying, more's the pity. BMK (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice no warning templates on BMK's page. So, is the rule that consantly initiating personal attacks is acceptable, but when another editor responds to one, it's a violation? Or is it a simpler rule that leftist->rightist personal attacks are always overlooked?

Ken, if you cannot see that time is finite, that I have a real life, and that your nonsensical, malicious rantings were a big distraction from that case, I don't think there is any sense trying to speak English to you. Congratulations also on not seeing that the failure to post any evidence or complaints against Cwobeel is precisely the unmistakeable sign of "hear no evil, see no evil" bias that I'm talking about. As for your "contribution" to this project — you sit and snipe, you make vicious comments and get involved in vitriolic disputes over the most innocuous subjects such as use of pronouns, even when you're obviously in the wrong you keep shoveling dirt in the other person's face.

You are incessantly hostile, as seen in this very thread—as seen in the very post that I'm replying to, in fact. Hell, you've even called an admin "beneath contempt" on your own talk page, apparently for daring to say that you had acted improperly. "Beneath contempt" is about the worst PA I've ever heard on Wikipedia. You've treated so many people so poorly, you're the only person I've ever seen on Wikipedia who constantly finds it necessary to delete other people's comments from his own talk page, so that nobody else will see what people are saying about you.

Guaranteed, sir, that I will make a point of cataloguing the very endless stream of uncalled-for anger and invective that you dish out to anyone who points out something you've done wrong. You dump hostility on people and when they make a comparatively tepid response that is actually responsive to baseless accusations you've made, you whine about personal attacks. Grow the hell up. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The big aspersion being that Cwobeel is a lot like someone whom Factchecker admires?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the big aspersion being that Cwobeel, according to Factchecker_atyourservice's unsupported allegations, was doing the same kind of thing that Factchecker_atyourservice was concerned that Collect was going to be sanctioned for -- and, in fact, is on the verge of being sanctioned for even as we communicate with each other so delightfully. You can't evaluate the purpose of the actions of a POV warrior like Factchecker_atyourservice without looking at them in the context in which they occured -- but, you knew that, didn't you? This is all just circling the wagons, innit? BMK (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I discussed the first of Mr. X's latest series of diffs. I could proceed and consider the second too, but its just another instance of decontextualizing, as the remark was in response to a charge of "yammering". It's just too tedious to go through the rest of Mr. X's diffs one by one, especially since I am already dismissed as a wagon circler, or something. Do you have evidence of wagon circling, BMK, or is it just unsubstantiated, because my family hasn't circled the wagons since about 1850, and I am not quite that old. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm willing to bet that you've metaphorically circled the wagons once or twice in your day -- haven't we all? But I'll readily concede that my "evidence" for wagon-circling consists entirely of my behavioral observations of the... let us call them "The COLLECTion" ... of editors who share a similar political POV as Collect. Please be clear, I am not accusing the members of The Collection of behaving badly in general, I'm sure that most of you are true assets to the encyclopedia, and it indeed "takes all kinds", as long as we're all working towards the same goal of a truly balanced, factual encyclopedia. But, I'm afraid, that some of your cohort are somewhat less than dedicated to that proposition, and I would number Collect and Factchecker_atyourservice among them. The fact that The Collection may be circling the wagons is quite understandable, and reminds me a bit of FDR's remark about the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza: "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard". BMK (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So, in other words, other people should be blocked for talking about other editors in un-diff'd generalities at an ArbCom case specifically directed at long-term user conduct, but you're exempt from that requirement everywhere on WP because you're very special and on the right side of Wiki-history? And likewise for claiming a conspiracy or series of improperly coordinated actions, right? Nah, you go on repeating your completely unfounded accusations of wagon-circling motivation. You're special. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Classic: you can't pound the law, 'cause the evidence shows the Collect violated policy, you can't pound the evidence, because there's to m uch of it, from too many people, so now you're pounding the table, trying to distract from the issues by attacking the people involved -- the last refuge of the hopeless case. Sad. Quick, now, rev up the Big Lie again, how poor little old you didn't have time to post evidence because no one thought to knock on your door, roust you out of your bed and force you to do some research. (How much easier just to sling mud, ya know?)

In the classic words of My Cousin Vinny: "I'm done with dis guy!" BMK (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a puerile and unnecessarily hostile non-response to a very clear question. If you can't participate in a discussion without going ape on every single person you disagree with, you shouldn't be stalking ANI cases. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Goodness!! "Peurile", "hostile", "going ape", "stalking"? Aunt Martha certainly wouldn't approve of such language!!

No, my point was a fair one, and your response was highly appropriate, being yet another example of precisely what I was referring to: you've got no excuse for your behavior, so you lash out at others as a distraction -- "maybe if I make a big fuss about this non-existent problem, no one will notice that I actually have no defense". Don't think it's working, though, the only people coming to your side are the same old crew that anyone who's been paying attention would expect to show up. Only they neglected to bring anything concrete to exonerate you, just more empty rhetoric. BMK (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BMK, do you post anything other than insults? "the same old crew that anyone who's been paying attention would expect to show up" — those'r some real choice words, bro. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure no amount of wagon-circling by me could protect anyone at Wikipedia for long. Anyway, my comments above are sincere. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As I'm certain must be obvious to you, wagon-circling is a collective activity, not one undertaken by an independent individual, but each person serves their purpose, as you have here in attempting to take some of the heat off of Factchecker_atyourservice. Unfortunately, the circumstances made that somewhat difficult to do but it was an honorable try. BMK (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I barely started, but you dismissed it as wagon-circling so I stopped. If you'd like me to keep going, I would throw Monsieur X's last seven diffs in the bonfire, as they are from last year. That still leaves a bunch I haven't mentioned yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were going to bed? Couldn't sleep?

I'm sure I don't have to explain to you the difference between the passage of time and a calendar year. "Last year" was not so many months ago, and in any case, the constant cry in these reports is "Show us a pattern of behavior". But, apparently, according to your thinking, if a pattern of behavior is shown, the oldest events get thrown out because they're too old? Do diffs spoil, like fruit or something?

No, the truth of the matter is that a continuous pattern of behavior from 7 months ago right up to the present moment is exactly what is required to show that Factchecker_atyourservice is indeed a disruptive POV-pushing editor. Rather than "throwing Mr. X's diffs in the bonfire" (I didn't know he was French!), I would suggest that he compile even more, going further back, and filing in some of the holes, between, say, January and April. The more diffs of Factchecker_atyourservice's misbehavior the merrier, I say! BMK (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I prefer a few unequivocal diffs than a big boatload of ambiguous ones. The former are easier to analyze and discuss. I barely scratched the surface of discussing this boatload before you got sick and tired of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support, and I'm myself puzzled at Anythingyouwant's innocent puzzlement in the long dialogue just above ("The big aspersion being that Cwobeel is a lot like someone whom Factchecker admires [=Collect]?").[69] Anythingyouwant, are you saying that the arbitrator (Dougweller) who posted this "formal caution" on Factchecker's page specifically for Factchecker's's out-of-the-blue aspersions against Cwobeel, has misunderstood everything? That Doug failed to understand your syllogism that Factchecker admires Collect's editing (actually, you say Cwobeel admires Collect's editing, but I think that was just a mistake)[70] and Factchecker was comparing Cwobeel's editing to Collect's, so therefore Factchecker was most likely saying something nice or at least inoffensive about Cwobeel? Anyone who looks at the actual exchange in context (here it is, about the middle of the thread), Anythingyouwant, can recognize your argument above as contemptible wikilawyering, Bishonen | talk 18:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC).

"Contemptible wikilawyering" is it? You carefully omit to explain why Dougweller's warning was insufficient to address the matter. You carefully omit to mention that Dougweller's warning was mainly about a different comment by Factchecker entirely, you carefully omit to mention that the different comment was made by Factchecker after a section had been hatted, and you carefully omit to mention that I have said nothing whatsoever in defense or opposition to that different comment made by Factchecker. Contemptible wikilawyering my ass.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this section, but at this moment I don't even have time to read it all, much less respond. Is the name really that confusing? My sig contains an obvious reference to it, as well as three obvious links that obviously mouseover to my actual username; and I just don't use the old name as my sig anymore because I don't like it anymore (specifically, because it has an annoying tone to it, hence my mocking revision in the signature to "Factchecker_blah_blah_blah". Also, I've been signing posts this way for more like 5 years. I was going to change it but the FAQ for changing usernames suggested a different signature as an alternative. And nobody ever said anything about it until this recent Arbcom case about Collect.

• Comment. Some of these diffs aren't even worth responding to. For example the April 8th diff does not violate the letter or spirit of any WP policy or essay, it is not a personal attack by me and does not contain one, and the OP should be admonished for not taking the slightest effort to examine the surrounding context and see that.

If I respond to nonsense, that both elevates the stature of the nonsense and makes me look like I'm posting a desperate textwall defense. NOBODY wants to read through dozens of diffs and have to use mind-reading techniques to figure out what they're supposed to be evidence of. Can some of these diffs be struck, or others emphasized? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 10:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So why push your luck here after being explicily warned?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he was pinged into that section before it was hatted, by the time he got there it was hatted, so he left one comment. Yawn. If there's any common-sense exception to a hat, this would be it. I suppose if he had removed the hat, then left the comment, and then restored the hat there would be no problem?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure it would, since it was hatted by a clerk. You know that, doncha? BMK (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I really didn't. So if the hatter was a non-clerk then generally it's okay for you to un-hat for briefly responding to a ping in a section you haven't commented in before?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no one should be hatting discussions on Arb talk pages except Arbs and clerks, and once they're hatted, that's it. The clerks have their marching orders from the Committee to keep things under control. BMK (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I have asked for the clerk's opinion.[71]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you could be a defense attorney with your ability to ask a leading question. I've been attempting to deal with you here as someone honestly interested in exploring the issues, but it's become quite clear that you're nothing but an advocate for Collect in sheep's clothing, so as afar as I'm concerned, this discussion is over, see if you cna get someone else to bite. BMK (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You keep dragging Collect into this, accusing me above of being part of a "COLLECTion". This thread is about FactChecker, and I've never received any off-wiki communication from either of them. On-wiki, I rarely edit the articles they do, and I don't really think about them a whole hell of a lot. I've admired what I've seen of Collect at BLPN, and I left a couple comments on his behalf with ArbCom recently. There is no more a "COLLECTion" than there is the nefarious meaning that you alleged (above) in FactChecker's user name. Anyway, maybe we can start fresh with some AGF next time. I don't like the way Wikipedia allows the stamping out of editors who enforce NPOV when they come across left-wing bias. I get the message though: go away or face wikilawyering charges. So see ya later, I am going away.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Come on, stop with the naive act, it's intellectually dishonest, and you know it. And here's the thing about NPOV: it is what a consensus of editors says it is. And right now, the consensus of editors called ArbCom is telling Collect -- and, by implication, the rest of The COLLECTion -- what NPOV is not, and what it's not is using Wikipedia policies in one way for people whose politics you favor, and using it another way for people whose politics you abhor. BMK (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll just add one brief thing in response. I don't know Collect or FactChecker very well, I haven't followed their editing much, and I cannot rule out that they have misused Wikipedia. But if you really want to convince me about them, the way to do it is not by pointing to mounds of ambiguous or trivial diffs, but rather by pointing me to the worst one. The worst one always tells more than all the others put together. And I don't mean the worst one standing alone without its context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Subject of complaint respectfully requests that no action, other than closure with no sanction, be taken before 5PM GMT Saturday 8 May. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Factchecker_atyourservice, I hope that you realize that your contributions to this discussion are harming and discrediting you more than helping you case. I also hope that you realize that your "request" here isn't how things work, and dictating a time that this should be closed by is more likely to not work in your favor. It might very well be that an administrator will grant your request for it to be closed by the time you have indicated, but it will likely be at the cost of the hoped for outcome. Personally (if you are interested in the advice of someone who has been dragged here multiple times and blocked on a couple occasions), considering the current status of support v. oppose comments above, I'd strike your last comment here and not comment in this discussion any more than you have to (you probably don't have to unless a bunch of the opposes start flipping on you, and if that happens feel free to ask me for help on my talk page or pinging me to your talk page by copy/pasting my signature and signing your post for further advise) and just let it be forgotten and fall off the page. Good luck. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Tech13: While I agree with your observation that Factchecker_atyourservice is not doing himself any service with his comments in this thread, I think you've misread his last remark. I believe he was asking that no decision be reached before the time specified, unless it was to close the thread with no sanctions. I can only speculate that he will not be available until after that time, and was hoping that the thread wouldn't get closed while he wasn't around - but that, as I say, is supposition. BMK (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Entirely possible that I misread/understood that part, I'm not convinced that them making another comment to clarify will do them any good and <s>striking</s> is still probably the best thing for them to do. Then again, I suppose that is just my opinion, whatever that is(n't) worth. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions against factchecker, but recommend that the best way to argue against idiots is to not be an idiot.--MONGO 12:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Oppose"? Of course that pretty much goes without saying, doesn't it? BMK (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I refuse to be an idiot.--MONGO 13:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Never said you were. BTW, anyone in particular you were referring to, or just waxing philosophic? BMK (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• • But... But... But... That's where all the fun is... Come to The Dark Side, we haz cooookies... ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The main complaints against appear to be civility issues. Several of the responses against those that oppose have been COLLECTively un-civil. In general it appears the recent trend on WP is to try and get someone you don't like to say something uncivil and then get them blocked for being uncivil. Arzel (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  How exactly does one go about getting someone they don't like to say something uncivil? Your argument, which I assume can be summarized as "it's OK to make personal attacks if your were baited", is not memorialized in policy nor is it evident in most of the diffs that I presented. For example, FCAYS has (to the best of my recollection), never been particularly uncivil towards me. On the other hand, he has been extremely uncivil toward Cwobeel, whom I note has not participated in this thread to request sanctions. Believe it or not, some of us just want to participate in a project where the level of discourse is slightly above name calling and barroom brawling. Others seem intent on using verbal bullying to brutishly push their own POV, while at the same time accusing others of non-neutral editing, and left or right wing bias. I have seen editors chased away from articles before by loutishness. One of the reasons I stopped editing Shooting of Michael Brown was because of FCAYS's talk page edits.- MrX 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  Civility is largely in the eye of the beholder, much of what you put forth appears to be complaints of incivility. Ironically, with your statement above they were not even directed at you...so why do you even care? Regardless, the underlying guiding principles of WP are the 5 pillars, yet many seem to be far more interested in some abstract notion of civility, and even more so they appear to be more interested in the civility of those they disagree with. Just in this discussion, BMK has made numerous statements which far surpass the guidelines of civility that I know you have objected to in the past. If your statement is true, you will appropriately report these transgressions as well. If not, then my initial statement is correct, why do you care? Arzel (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  Why do I care? To quote myself "I consider Wikipedia to be among the most significant cultural expressions of our time" and as a significant contributor here, I have a vested interest in the fulfillment of the project's goals. Corrosive comments don't belong on article talk pages because it stifles collaboration. I'm more tolerant of such comments in the context of an ANI discussion or on a user talk page. I'm also not a crusader against all form and manner of incivility. If you feel that BMK's comments cross a line, do the homework and make your case. It's not my job.- MrX 17:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  MrX...you are correct. Some of us do want to participate in a project where the level of discourse is slightly above name calling and barroom brawling. So when I see Cwobeel making comments like Go fuck yourself to factchecker and you have defended Cwobeel numerous times yet come after factchecker who is not in alignement with your admitted POV, it raises my eyebrows about what your motivations are. Fair is fair so harping about others while defending like minded editors who behave as badly or worse makes for a weak argument in my book.--MONGO 17:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not defending Cwobeel's outburst, nor excusing it. I've defended Cwobeel on occasion and I've also criticized them: [72] [73]. The difference here is that, by my observation, Cwobeel doesn't frequently make these kinds of outbursts, nor do they commit the more insidious verbal assaults that FCAYS does. I may be wrong in my conclusions, and I may be blinded by my ultra amazing liberal bias, but that is how I see this. I'm open to being conviced otherwise that Cwobeel behaves "as badly or worse," but you, FCAYS, Arzel, Anythingyouwant, or Anyoneelseyouwant will have to do the grunt work of making your case by researching and compiling diffs, and making a cogent argument. Until then, your protests are merely empty bluster.- MrX 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just pinged on this, I was not aware of this discussion. I have tried to ignore the very numerous WP:BAIT by FCAYS, as that is the only way to deal with this highly strung user. FCAYS seems to enjoy WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:NOTHERE would apply. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: The GFYS, was in response to the same comment he made to me in a talk page. I regret having lowered myself to his level at that time. Since then, ignoring him has worked much better. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This NOTHERE suggestion you make, I'm hard pressed to see why he is less troublesome than you are, especially considering this and your multiple other blocks.--MONGO 18:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not proud of these blocks. But I have learned my lessons. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I spent some time looking though the diffs and formulating a response... only to find that MONGO had said it more succinctly than me. So, I will quote the estimable MONGO:

MrX...you are correct. Some of us do want to participate in a project where the level of discourse is slightly above name calling and barroom brawling. So when I see Cwobeel making comments like Go fuck yourself to factchecker and you have defended Cwobeel numerous times yet come after factchecker who is not in alignement with your admitted POV, it raises my eyebrows about what your motivations are.

I think that sums up this thread's problems neatly. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: No, it does not. I made that comments once, in response to the same comment FCAYS made to me, because I had enough of being harassed in talk page discussions. But with FCAYS, the PA and combativeness it is the recurring behavior. There is a massive difference, if you take some time to check our contribs lists. This is not a symmetrical issue whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't contend that this is symmetrical - I feel that the temptation to think in symmetrical terms makes it harder to resolve may NPOV problems, However, when the evidence of long-term pov pushing includes having to reach back to last October for a statement as appalling as "If there is an identifiable BLP or other violation, please identify it and we can talk about it, otherwise shut the hell up", then I think that says more about the accuser than the accused. bobrayner (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: That comment was made by FCAYS... [74] ... in response to a request from me to find a compromise... And that is just one example of many more. I don't want to use my time to dig through edit histories, as I much prefer to do the work, so I leave it at that. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Bob was quite aware that the comment was mine. I suggest you keep re-reading until you understand the point he was making. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Though I would be seriously annoyed if the barbs listed by Mr. X were directed against me, I certainly wouldn't ask that the editor making them be blocked. And I wouldn't even consider asking if they were directed at someone else (leave Hecuba to Hecuba). I kind of agree with Mongo here. Just because there are some editors being idiotic, it doesn't mean that we all have to join that particular club. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Throwing up a wall of text of diffs (that still do not amount to a block)...after the thread began getting opposing !votes was disappointing to say the least.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  What's disappointing is people who whine about too many diffs, don't bother to read them, and apparently believe their uninformed, drive-by opinions carry any weight.- MrX 01:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And that was doubly disappointing. My opinion carries as much weight as any other editor here, regardless of your personal attack. Your actions speak louder than your complaint. I would !vote support right now to block you for 24 to 48 hrs just as a boomerang.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment to admins: the OP's ANI complaint is only slightly less baseless than his last one, and bears troubling signs of similarly improper motivation. I think excessive and less-than-forthcoming use of admin sanction procedures amounts to harassment. I don't want to spend my Friday night or Saturday afternoon responding to allegations that seem malformed at best, or meritless and dishonestly presented at worst. I formally request a boomerang against OP for the filing itself. Additionally, BMK's participation in this thread has consisted almost exclusively of personal attacks. In his case, too, I formally request a boomerang.

I don't believe the bulk of complaints here are valid; please note that there is a large volume of them and it will would take a long time to respond with diffs. Thus I again repeat my request that — if the reviewing authorities find these accusations compelling — no action be taken before 5PM GMT on Saturday. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Malware link removal request

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• Oh, and note that any attempt at cleaning up the unreliable sources in the Download.com article - which I also intend to try and sort out with ones that are actually known as being reliable - is reverted with the "revert vandalism" tactic. Yep, User:Be..anyone fails WP:CIR clear as day. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

• WP:3RR joined the club: 1, 2, 3. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• ANI is not for content, it's for user conduct anyway. He may be a reliable source for some things, but there is 0 evidence that he is a reliable source for this particular topic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

So far you failed to identify even one "blatantly unreliable" reference in the four I've added, because you claimed that only one incident in 2011 was old and irrelevant. 19+21 uses on enwiki for 2 of the 4 sources with fresher incidents, one fresher interview with a ZDNet exert not disputed by you (but nevertheless removed by you), and the groovypost recipe matching my own observations, admittedly a site used only in seven enwiki articles. You also removed the technical term PUP several times, even after adding the good EMSISOFT reference using exactly this term. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• So you're going to pointlessly prolong this decision, even when no one has backed you? I've identified that the HTG source is unreliable (which means that, by extension, every single source that relies solely on that is also unreliable, regardless of host), and that you're basing your claims off of people's blogs and mailing lists. "groovypost recipe matching my own observations" - nice way of admitting your WP:OR. Wikia links are used as references on Wikipedia in some articles... doesn't make them reliable sources. Besides, the entire point of this ANI thread was that you were demanding the removal of a malware link. It has been incontrovertibly proven that Download.com/CNET is not a malware site, and there is a huge difference between PUP and malware. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Any policy you do understand? 3RR applies to individual articles, and at no point have I broken that. Making up statements like the above is ridiculous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

• How can I be "owning" a page I'd barely edited before yesterday? HTG isn't a reliable source for that kind of thing, and the comments within the article only prove it. There's a big difference between a PUP and malware, a very big difference. It's also complete bollocks to say that I'm "owning" a page by replacing unreliable sources (and, yes, pieces in usually reliable sources that draw solely from an unreliable source, without doing anything of their own, are therefore unreliable) with reliable ones, not to mention using more neutral wording. You have presented 0 evidence for Hanselman being an expert in malware, and the piece he did was so far from being neutral and balanced that it's untrue - and HTG were just as bad. Also, Download.com is not a "cesspool", but thanks for showing your true motivations - to slander the company no matter what. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• I'd be surprised if there wasn't one, to be honest. In fact, I'd expect there to be a few of them. That number sounds about right; too many people do things like that, due to either laziness, or not knowing any better. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• TLDR, but if it helps anyone, I've found an article in German at Heise Security about Superfish-y adware certificates referencing CERT. From the news article: "These applications will embed the dangerous root certificate in your system: <bullet list>."De728631 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting pieces, but sadly not directly relevant to the articles in question by the OP - if they're not in the Superfish article, they may be worth adding in. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Should note that the reporting user is still making bogus claims of vandalism, and edit-warring to keep content in place that is neither appropriate for that particular article (belongs in the main one), is not neutral (directly linking to a criticism section of an article for no good reason) and contains the dubious HTG source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Emsisoft blog? 1 2 - note that the prase "potentially unwanted program" which wiki links to Malware#Grayware -- Aronzak (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• Still edit-warring in content without a care about whether it is actually relevant or not. This user doesn't appear to understand any policy or guideline at all... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

• For what it's worth, I recognize my part in the edit war fully, and hold my hands up to it; I just don't like things being removed for poor reasons, and I really object to being called a vandal for no good reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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 this week, although the problem has persisted for years

Evidence of article space disruption from just one week

At Ganesha, which is a featured article: Added a copyvio image (that he had falsely uploaded on commons as own work, as he has done dozens of times) of an idol from Tamil Nadu with dubious and unsourced claim of it dating from 400CE, and then edit warred to keep it in: [75], [76], [77], while removing scholarly quotes that undermined the claim. For details of the issues with the edits see here. After the image file was deleted as copyvio, added more undue, poorly written and poorly sourced content about Ganesha in Tamil literature and Tamil Nadu. Issues with these edits detailed here Next, moved to adding irrelevant tags: [78], [79], [80] Most recently removed large chunks of well-written and sourced information related to Ganesha worship in states of India other than Tamil Nadu. At Chola dynasty: edit-warred to remove a sourced alternate spelling from the article [81], [82], [83], [84], [85] even after User:Sitush had started a talk-page discussion and presented several sources; Eshwar didn't participate in or respond to the discussion. At Pāṇini and Ramayana: added the exact same ungrammatical, and context-less, sentence with unclear sourcing at random places in each article, with both the sentence and the placement making no sense. When the addition was reverted by User:Cpt.a.haddock with edit-summary "Revert random statement also copy/pasted in other article(s) by the same user.", Eshwar simply added it back. Eshwar created seven cookie-cutter articles Tirunaraiyur Vinayaka Tiru irattai manimalai, Tirunaraiyur Vinayaka Tiru irattai manimalai, Aludaya Pillaiyar Tiruchabai viruttam, Aludaya Pillaiyar Tiruttogai, Aludaya Pillaiyar Tirukkalambakam, Aludaya Pillaiyar Tiruvulamalai, Aludaya Pillaiyar Mummanikovai based on one sentence in the cited source that says, "His poems include...", instead of simply listing those poems at the poet's page, and creating redirects. I wouldn't raise this as an issue, except that such POV pushing and cut-and-paste editing is typical of Eshwar's edits over the years with cookie-cutter context-less additions without regards to exiting content, eg [86], [87], [88], [89], ... Added large number of images (indiscriminately IMO) to Chennai, Chera dynasty, Pandyan dynasty etc. Refused to discuss issue. Simply reverted User:Thomas.W who removed the images from one page with an explanatory edit-summary "Removed image clutter (far too many images of temples, in a gallery with oversized pictures placed right in the middle of the text in the section)." Again not a big deal in itself, but in conjunction with all other edits... 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)
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)

• Topic ban for 3 months from Hinduism-related articles would be a better idea. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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.om^{Talk tome} 04:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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.om^{Talk tome} 06:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Even i used to talk with senior editor likeSitush while create an article ..click here.but he is saying points against me here :) .i know He is not polite with other users in his talk page.some time he uses angry and vulgar words.click here.i dont know whether the two users joining together and dominating others ?!if it is true then how the new editors may contribute in future?!Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And also i remember one thing that is user Abecedare left a warning message on my talk page once.in that he said "I don't usually leave templated warnings for experienced users, but in this case I don't think the message is getting across"click here. And now he is saying" Long term disruptive editing by User:Eshwar.om ".it makes to think how it is?!.he only said , discuss the issues on articles talk page.but he is not discussing in talk page click here.instead of talking in relevant talk page he is reporting me here .wont i feel surprise ?!.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 08:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• And Eshvar.om just keeps going, adding tons of images in galleries, in most cases just images of Hindu temples (sample edits from the last few days: [90] with the misleading edit summary "corrected image gallery" when he in fact added a new gallery, and [91] where he added a new gallery with images of Hindu temples, plus [92] where he removed all images of churches, in an article about a city with a sizeable Christian minority, and several famous churches), and often right in the middle of the text of a section, as if this was Photobucket or Flickr. And then edit-wars to keep the images in the articles if reverted, not getting the hint. A behaviour that is clearly disruptive. Thomas.W ^talk 11:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

We can now also add abusing warning templates to the long list of disruptive behaviour, for posting an immediate level-4 warning for vandalism (along with reverting the edits with the edit summary "vandalized by user Ajayy99,reverted back") on the talk page of a user who had most certainly not vandalised anything. Unless adding a couple of images of churches is now considered vandalism. So I suggest a long block, the longer the better, for Eshwar.om. Thomas.W ^talk 12:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Eshwar stopped for almost a day, and I thought the message may have finally got across and the ANI thread thus served its purpose. But alas. Have requested Drmies to take a look. Abecedare (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W please dont make a link with any religion.some places could have its own importants with its ethnicity.so it's unavoidable some times in some cases .and that was a not new gallary please see.click here .it was removed by user Wasifwasif .Might be his own interest belongs to one particular view click here .And you are saying i given warning to user ajay99.yes i given.user ajay 99 created wiki page for him in the past with out any importance [here] . and you tube vedio uploaded by him and link inserting in to chennai articles.here you can see 'Architecture sec Click here.also he never provide any Edit summary atleast once in his full Edit historyclick here.user Thomas supporting him.and i have one confusion that is user ajay 99 uploaded some files namely called chennai Thomas like that click here.is user Thomas.W and ajay99 are same?!Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 16:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say because of the garbled English, but I can assure you that Ajayy99 and myself are not the same person. And since your English obviously isn't good enough to make yourself understood (or read and understand warnings and messages you're being given, for that matter), I suggest you find a Wikipedia in your own language, and contribute there, instead of here. Thomas.W ^talk 17:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have notified Eshwar.om about the WP:AC/DS concerning Afghanistan, India, Pakistan subjects. Any more disruption can be reported at WP:ARE. Nothing is really going to happen here since these subjects are rather technical. As for any non-related discretionary sanctions issues, yes he has violated copyrights and only indef block is solution if he had been warned before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• What is technical about image-bombing, wild accusations against others etc? Or inability to communicate in a meaningful manner (or even at all, sometimes). You don't have to know anything about Hinduism or indeed India to recognise the disruptive nature of a lot of the issues that have been raised. OZ, you have to realise that AGF is not a suicide pact: you've been supporting quite a few (for want of a better word) duds in the Indic sphere this last couple of weeks and I've no idea why. We've got enough problems to deal with in this area without having to go round in circles with long-term competence issues. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Sitush: You are correct about everything that you've said. I had expected some quick action, and it has been already 2 days since this report was filed, and until now nothing has happened.

I can point to these warnings,[93][94][95] that's why I said that indef block is the only solution. POV pushing, personal attacks, are coming along with serial copyright violations, nothing can be more obvious than that.

And after all this, he is still involved in WP:GAMING, check [96][97], he claims that he has reviewer and rollback right, although his user rights log is empty. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Which is why I saw it as just plain vanilla disruptive editing, in sharp contrast to the religious/caste/language/ethnical POV-pushing I often deal with, and didn't feel it merited a DS warning. Thomas.W ^talk 23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• And the disruption continues, with creation of Swami Vivekananda and Tamils article based solely on a quote pulled from primary source. The evidence in my original post whows that this is not an isolated example that can be easily handled through AFDs etc. Any admins care to weigh in? Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• And at Chera dynasty and Valmiki. We really need an uninvolved admin here, please. - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have left a warning on Eshwar.om's talk page and will monitor the situation.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

Btw any objections to my nominating the articles on [[Nambiyandar Nambi's poems mentioned in my original evidence for merger, and Swami Vivekananda and Tamils for deletion? I had not done so so far to avoid sparking off new edit-wars, or charges of piling on. Of course, if somebody else takes up either clean-up task, that would be even better (I'll wait at least a couple of days before proceeding, in any case). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Philg88. - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Has Eashwar.om been informed of the discretionary sanctions in place on India articles?--regentspark (comment) 10:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Apparently yes, though only a few days ago, after the opening of this thread [98]. But given the fact that his incompetent/disruptive editing has clearly continued without any change after that notice, and the history of prior blocks, I'm pretty confident we can go ahead with whatever sanction we consider proper, be it with the formal label of DS or without. I can't see what would be improper about a simple non-DS indef block (compare the similar case of User:Pyraechmes just the other day; similar display of non-cooperation and incompetence, just in a different geographic topic area.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  You're probably right. There doesn't seem much point in allowing this disruption to continue and will save a ton of pain down the road. Support indef block. --regentspark (comment) 11:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  Support. As FPaS and RegentsPark suggest, there is no sign that they are learning even now. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and blocked for "long-term uncooperative editing and lack of editing and language skills". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Trappist the monk and Monkbot

1. Old discussion about Monkbot altering citation style in medical articles (including Featured articles) from November 2013
2. Old discussion about Monkbot altering the citation style on Venezuela articles from November 2014
3. Current discussion about Monkbot editing citations at Trappist the Monk talk page

In spite of unresolved concerns, Trappist the monk continues to operate MonkBot in ways that interfere with editing. The current issue is not unlike past issues: the bot is introducing convoluted parameters that affect ease of editing ("overengineered" and "unreadable in general" according to KateWishing) and Trappist the Monk has a communication style that is difficult.

Monkbot resumed running even though the concerns I raised were not addressed. In its current iteration, as one simple example shows, it:

• introduced the unnecessary "over-engineered" parameters at a medical article, that
• clearly uses the Diberri/Boghog format favored in medical articles because it limits template clutter, as I have tried to explain to Trappist the Monk.

The notion that Trappist the Monk can push through his individual preferences, via a bot, that then other editors have to spend hours reverting is problematic. The recurring pattern is even more problematic. The bot has introduced this parameter, which takes chunks of characters to simply say et al, in thousands of articles already. This is reminiscent of past discussions of bots and editors altering citation style and other formatting without consensus, and I am concerned that Trappist continued to run this bot even while discussion was unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The link to the "over-engineered" diff above shows the following citation style for reference #28 before Monkbot's edit and after Monkbot's edit:

• before: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH et al. (1993). "Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Hypermobility Type". PMID 20301456
• after: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH et al. (1993). "Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Hypermobility Type". PMID 20301456

What is the objection? I see no difference. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The objection is that Trappist and his Monkbot have a style/personal preference that ignores ease of editing. As you notice in this one simple example, the difference resulting from the chunked up template parameters is insignificant to our readers, so why do editors trying to write content have to work around convoluted parameters that take overengineering to simply say, et al? The bigger concern, of course, is that Monkbot continues forcing his personal style into templates even after concerns are raised. There is no reason for such convoluted syntax to be replacing et al, which chunks up articles in edit mode-- and many editors have told that to Trappist in multiple discussions about his template choices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Trappist received approval to add the keyword to the display-authors parameter at WT:CS1#How to use "et al"? (I happened to participate in that discussion but only from a "not quite the right name" perspective), silent consensus for the actual template amendments regarding this actual change at WT:CS1#Update to the live CS1 module weekend of 18–19 April 2015 (which is broadcasted to multiple different locations in effort to reach a broader audience) and approval to run Monkbot in this fashion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 7. To suggest they are his "personal preference" or that he was ever uncommunicative with the interested community when he had consensus for all three actions stretches my good faith and I'd say is probably an ad hominem argument.

Maybe there's some room to improve which pages and who gets an advertisement of the changes being made to an arbitrary citation system, but I'm not sure you're here looking for better ways to get the information to more users. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Izno. So, I shall watchlist the Bot approvals page now, since discussion on the CS1 pages is invariably unnecessarily obtuse to people who don't speak that language.

On your concern about bad faith, well, once something goes out to a broader audience and local consensus is trumped and discussion ensues (It did. I shouldn't have to watch bot pages.), it is a behavioral issue for the bot operator to relaunch the bot before the issue is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• My understanding of the situation is as follows. Trappist is splitting "et al" into a separate parameter, so that it doesn't get shoved with the author's name in the metadata. For example, whereas previously the metadata output might've been { ... "author3": "Ardinger HH et al." ... }, it now is { ... "author3": "Ardinger HH", "other_authors_omitted": true ... } (this is all hypothetical; I've no idea what the actual output is). The latter is semantically correct. Though splitting out "et al" in post-processing is a possibility, it is also confusing that it should be part of the |last= parameter - or any other numbered author parameter. The fact that you've made a habit out of this does not make it right, or intuitive, or easy for newcomers, as it's been falsely asserted elsewhere. Perhaps Trappist should attempt to explain the inner workings of CS1 and its toolset to other editors in a plainer language. Perhaps a better name could be found for this parameter. Your claim that he has changed the citation style, in contravention to CITEVAR, appears to be incorrect; as has been demonstrated above, the text is unaffected. Finally, it appears to be true that there is a general lack of consensus for this change as concerns medical articles, so it might be best to hold off applying it to any more until an understanding can be reached. I do not see an immediate need to revert any of the bot's edits. Alakzi (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Past discussions were about CITEVAR; in this discussion, it looks like you are confusing WP:CITEVAR (how a citation renders to our readers) with unnecessary template clutter (how a citation is seen when an editor has to work around all of that unnecessary clutter). Please spare me from any more discussions of the inner workings of CS1, and respect the inner workings of editors trying to write content. Bots should not be used to force preferences on content writers, and should stop running when issues are raised. (Meaning, this is not a CITEVAR issue-- it's a behavioral issue.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  I agree that the bot should stop for the time being, but you're gonna need to find a common ground. You have a point; Trappist has a point. Will you not try to compromise? Alakzi (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  The style of many medical articles is to place all authors in a single parameter, such as authors = Landes AM, Sperry SD, Strauss ME, et al.. The "ideal" style for metadata purposes would be last1 = Landes | first1 = AM | last2 = Sperry | first2 = SD | last3 = Strauss | first3 = ME | display-authors = etal. The former is obviously more intuitive and less confusing to everyone except bots. KateWishing (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Yep, and even if Trappist didn't favor adding even worse and longer convoluted names to replace five letters (which he did in this case), all those parameters create a mess to edit around in densely cited medical articles, and chunks up article size, too. Perhaps those bot operators who are so concerned about "metadata" can write a bot to get it. My concern is what processes we have in place that allow bot operators to go around ... chunking up and over-engineering templates in articles without consensus. I think they probably talk amongst themselves off in some technical space, but when their product hits "the real world", and editors complain, they should stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  OK, that's sensible; the diff you linked to in the OP had |last=Wenstrup et al.. I presume this is - in fact - not compatible with the medical article style - and it shouldn't be expected that it should be parsed correctly by {{Cite journal}}, either. I see that {{Vcite2 journal}} exists for the purpose of parsing the comma-delimited authors list, so why isn't the bot replacing Cite transclusions with Vcite2? Was any of this discussed? Alakzi (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Is there any particular reason why you are here speaking on Trappist's behalf, while he is not? I think he knows what discussions have been had. If the communication issues from the way he writes are part of the impasse, we should get to the bottom of that, because I can't follow most of what he writes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  How is it that I'm speaking on Trappist's behalf? What if he knows? I'm asking as a member of the community, for the benefit of the community. I'd appreciate it if you stopped treating me like an enemy, or worse. Alakzi (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  You are "speaking on Trappist's behalf" because, in spite of this being a behavioral issue, you are asking for "compromise" when Trappist himself hasn't even bothered to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Horologium, for fixing that; [99] I have always wondered why we have a sysop with a red-linked username, and I may have even inquired about that once, since that problem was likely to happen. Considering that the 'crats granted Trappist sysop rights after a marginal RFA specifically for template purposes, it is disappointing to see these kinds of issues recurring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw this at WT:MED also, and while it'd be a good idea to hold off the bot till things get figured out, I have to admit I'm lost on this one. Cleaning up bad metadata sounds like a good idea. The underlying problem that the current suite of cite templates puts a giant glob of wikisnot in the edit window is IMO insignificantly improved by truncating the author list. (Recognizing that I haven't been around for prior discussions on this, I'd argue that it's worse to lop off the last authors in this context.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, imagine the number of citations in a Featured medical article like schizophrenia (166 citations, mostly journals) or Alzheimer's disease (283 citations, mostly journals), and the template clutter and article size that result if we don't use the Diberri preference of listing all authors when there are five or less, and truncating to three when there are six or more. (I know I don't have to tell you after your cleanup of Enzyme :) The discussion of the concerns of those who favor metadata issues over content writing (remember the infobox wars) has been had many times, in many places, but we have a behavioral issue here because template/sysop rights were granted by the crats to an editor who doesn't seem to respect the needs of content writers. As the links above show, I've discussed with him several times over the years, and in this case, he simply resumed running the bot.

And again, for those bot operators so concerned about metadata, the Diberri/Boghog format (as explained many times) always links to the PMID (PubMed identifier), and any metadata anyone wants can be had by using that PMID to access PubMed-- freely and forever. We needn't have well cited articles chunked up to an enormous size and with long load times because they are clunked up with templates to parse out 15 author names on a journal source, when et al suffices for those that have six or more authors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I should've replied on one of the other threads instead of in the drama pit on AN/I, since my interest is in the data and I haven't been paying attention to the behavior angle. It seems that the bot is stopped, so probably this should continue elsewhere. Ideally clean metadata is a useful thing for content editors to have available, though at present it doesn't seem to be used very effectively. (This template-clutter problem is why I liked {{cite pmid}}, but that's another thing. As a total side note, improvements in the wikEd 'simple' view with collapsed references would make the author-list-bloat much less of an issue.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis an issue with the Cite PMID template (which may have surfaced during your absence) is that it frequently returns errors-- often enough that we started watching for them at FAC, and insisting that they be replaced by full cite journal templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Samples to illustrate what the whole discussion is about:

Style preferred in medical articles for at least the ten years I've been editing:

• author=Borchelt DR, Thinakaran G, Eckman CB et al |title=Familial Alzheimer's disease-linked presenilin 1 variants elevate Abeta1-42/1-40 ratio in vitro and in vivo |journal=Neuron |volume=17 |issue=5 |pages=1005–13 |year=1996 |pmid=8938131

Same source, in style of Monkbot change discussed in this thread-- no reason to add a separate template parameter to separate the et al, because that has no effect on ability to get metadata on all authors):

• author=Borchelt DR, Thinakaran G, Eckman CB |display-authors=etal |title=Familial Alzheimer's disease-linked presenilin 1 variants elevate Abeta1-42/1-40 ratio in vitro and in vivo |journal=Neuron |volume=17 |issue=5 |pages=1005–13 |year=1996 |pmid=8938131

Same source, in style preferred by metadata advocates:

• |last1= Borchelt |first1= DR |last2= Thinakaran |first2= G |last3= Eckman |first3= CB |last4= Lee |first4= MK |last5= Davenport |first5= F |last6= Ratovitsky |first6= T |last7= Prada |first7= CM |last8= Kim |first8= G |last9= Seekins |first9= S |last10= Yager |first10= D |last11= Slunt |first11= HH |last12= Wang |first12= R |last13= Seeger |first13= M |last14= Levey |first14= AI |last15= Gandy |first15= SE |last16= Copeland |first16= NG |last17= Jenkins |first17= NA |last18= Price |first18= DL |last19= Younkin |first19= SG |last20= Sisodia |first 20= SS |title=Familial Alzheimer's disease-linked presenilin 1 variants elevate Abeta1-42/1-40 ratio in vitro and in vivo |journal=Neuron |volume=17 |issue=5 |pages=1005–13 |year=1996 |pmid=8938131

I have really had to edit around pages full of citations like this, where the citation is literally many times larger than the text it is citing. If metadata advocates really must have every single author, a bot can get it at PMID 8938131, so can bots please stop messing with long-established citation methods? (That there exist faulty citations with other errors in articles, as raised above by Alakzi, is a red herring.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You can respond to me directly. A misinterpretation is not a "red herring". I've suggested a way forward and an alternative. It is now up to you to approach this issue constructively. Alakzi (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect regards your second bullet. It corrupts the metadata that Wikipedia provides to include "et al" as an "explicit" author (as has prior been explained to you above), because "et al" isn't an author but instead an abbreviation humans use to signify that we really just don't care about the other unlisted authors. No one is claiming you can't use |author= for actual authors. Your third bullet simply appears to be hyperbolic concern for the future of your citations (as no-one has proposed to deprecate, nor do I think anyone will, the use of |authors=). --Izno (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the third option is not "hyperbolic concern for the future of [my] citations"; it is what currently happens in many articles. As to the issue of "corrupt metadata", again, we can revisit the infobox arb case, but a balance must be found between the concerns of editors who write articles, and those who want to generate metadata. As I've already explained, you don't have metadata on all 20 authors there anyway, and it can be had by visiting PubMed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If this user wishes to have their bot alter the citation style of articles that are primarily medical they need consensus at WT:MED. Until that time they should not be making these changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a WP:LOCALCON problem waiting to happen. WT:MED does not own articles; to suggest as you have done certainly makes that an implication. If there should be a discussion (which I won't dispute whether there should or shouldn't be one), that is not the location to have it (per WP:CANVASS if not WP:LOCALCON). --Izno (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Izno. Yes a discussion needs to happen, but no not a WT:MED per localconsensus. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The LOCALCON problem is happening on obscure technical pages that most editors who actually build articles don't follow (partly because of some of the jargon-filled discussions there). Once the LOCALCON hits the "real world" where content is written, and there are problems, than pls pay attention to them.

Further, you both seem to be misstating what discussions may or may not be happening at WT:MED (a discussion about maintaining consistent citations in Featured articles is not the same as this discussion [100]). Right here-- and also linked at the top of this thread-- you can see that the discusion has been had in the past with Trappist:

• Old discussion about Monkbot altering citation style in medical articles (including Featured articles) from November 2013 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of categories due to ethnic nationalism on the Rosie Malek-Yonan page

As of recently there's a disupute on the page about Rosie Malek-Yonan who is of Assyrian descent but was born and raised in Iran (northwestern Iran to be precise, around Urmia), and is therefore an Iranian of Assyrian descent, with Iranian being her nationality and Assyrian her ethnicity. There is no such thing as a nation called Assyria, and while this disruptive concept on Wikipedia is pretty common namely the spreading of ethnic nationalism at the expense of the articles quality is relatively common (often seen with ethnicities such as Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, the latter two being stateless while the former has an extensive diaspora in the Middle East) and even though it gets corrected by people whenever possible, now and then there are those though people who keep persisting on this ethnic nationalism.

Assyrians are a stateless people with an indigenous and native homeland split between Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. They are native to the soil of all these nations. The definition of Iranian (according Merriam Webster,[101] but also several other dictionaries) means that you're either 1) A native or inhabitant of Iran (which Rosie Malek-Yonan UNQUESTIONABLY is, or 2) referring to the branch of Iranian languages.

Every citizen or native person of Iran, whether Iranian Armenians, Iranian Georgians, Iranian Assyrians, Iranian Azerbaijanis, are Iranian (native/citizen of Iran) by their nationality, always have an Iranian passport, but are respectively Armenian, Georgian, Assyrian, or Azerbaijani by ethnicity. All of these mentioned ethnicities have categories like this [102], [103], [104] on their pages.

And now we get to the point where this particulair disruptive user has the main role as why I had to make a section here. On the 26th of April, user 3Bluepenguins removed all the correct categories saying she's Assyrian not Iranian despite Assyrians have no state and Iranian is a nationality, and she was born and raised in Iran. When I reverted that back, several hours later a new user (might be a sockpuppet of 3Bluepenguins) hopped in, stating that she is the actual person the article is about (Rosie Malek Yonan). I subsequently made a section [105] on user [User:RMY]'s talk page explaining why this rationale she says holds absolutely no ground, as he/she is constantly removing all categories ([106]) that designate her nationality being Iranian and tries to stick to this nonsensical internet ethnic nationalism. She however keeps saying that she is Assyrian and not Iranian (still doesnt get the whole point) and removed the categories once again. [107]

I think I showed enough willingness and good faith in order to explain why he/she is wrong but I dont believe there is any point in continuing an irrational conversational on the respective users talk page. Those removed categories are the correct categories, and need to be reinstated. Ethnic nationalism at the expense of Wikipedia's quality and integrity shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia and I hope there are moderators here that can assist in solving this issue. Excuse me for the somewhat long text and while I believe it shouldnt be something that ANI should be usually necessary for, I didn't see any other way as how to solve this rather fast. Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am Rosie Malek-Yonan the person this article is about. I know my identity better than anyone else. I am an Assyrian and that is not up for debate or change. I am not Iranian. Nothing about me is Iranian. It is not up to Wikipedia and its editors to make that decision or distinction about me. I have notified Wikipedia in the past and this vandalism of my identity has got to stop. I am not going to get into a long winded debate about this issue. I have stated the same on the talk page of the article and last week emailed Wikipedia directly about this. No Wikipedia editor has a right to change my identity from Assyrian to what they think may be appropriate. RMY (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet "you" were born in Iran, yet "you" were raised up in Iran, yet "you" have had an Iranian passport, yet "your" family stems from a line of Assyrians living in Iran for centuries, yet Assyrians are amongst the native ethnicities in Iran, and yet Iranian is nothing else than a nationality. If "you" (I'm writing "you" over and over as you keep saying the person the article is about is actually you) can prove us than there is a country named Assyria or that "you" were born with an Assyrian passport, I see absolutely no reason as to why even respond on these irrational ethno-nationalistic words you've been repeating over and over, in order to prove something that does not exist and is not conform the rules here. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RMY, I can see how this can be delicate. Living somewhere with a large separatist movement will do that. That is why there are separate nationality and ethnicity category trees. Nationality is a purely legal concept (what country controlls the place you come from, what is your passport). In that sense, a separatist Quebecer is still Canadian (much to his annoyance). Ethnicity is where identity plays a role. Your ethnicity is Assyrian, as is reflected in the article. Please understand that no one is suggesting that you consider yourself ethnically Iranian, but only that you come from what is currently Iran. The categories are there to help readers find the articles, that is all. Happy Squirrel(Please let me know how to improve!) 19:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

“Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a state.” [Wikipedia, Nationality] I do not have any legal relationship with Iran.

“Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state.” [Wikipedia, Nationality] Iran has no jurisdiction over my person and does not afford me the protection of its laws.

“Nationality is also the status that allows a nation to grant rights to the subject and to impose obligations upon the subject.” [Wikipedia, Nationality] Iran cannot grant rights to me nor impose obligations upon me.

Nationality does not equal birthplace. If it did, then how do some people have dual nationality? Were they born in two places?

“Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘Everyone has the right to a nationality,’” and ‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.’” [Wikipedia, Nationality]

“Nationality is required for full citizenship” [Wikipedia, Nationality] I am not a citizen of Iran. As a citizen of USA, I am, by this definition, a national of the USA.

“Nationality is sometimes used simply as an alternate word for ethnicity or national origin, just as some people assume that citizenship and nationality are identical… In some countries, the cognate word for nationality in local language may be understood as a synonym of ethnicity, or as an identifier of cultural and family-based self-determination, rather than on relations with a state or current government. For example, some Kurds say that they have Kurdish nationality, even though there is no Kurdish sovereign state at this time in history.” [Wikipedia, Nationality] If a stateless Kurd can be said to have Kurdish nationality, then, too, is an Assyrian, both Assyrian in ethnicity and nationality.

Wikipedia gives further examples by listing people from the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, as having Russian and Serbo-Croation as both their nationality and ethnicity. Wikipedia goes on to say that ethnicity was usually determined by the person's native language, and sometimes through religion or cultural factors, such as clothing. [Wikipedia, Nationality] My language is Assyrian, as is my culture. My religion is not Moslem, the religion of Iranians.

The same description and explanation is given by Wikipedia as to nationalities of China referring to ethnic and cultural groups in China.

Further, “Spanish law recognises the autonomous communities of Andalusia, Aragon, Balearic Islands, Canary Islands, Catalonia, Valencia, Galicia and the Basque Country as ‘nationalities.’” [Wikipedia, Nationality]

“National identity is a person’s subjective sense of belonging to one state or to one nation. A person may be a national of a state, in the sense of having a formal legal relationship with it, without subjectively or emotionally feeling a part of that state. Conversely, a person may feel that he belongs to one state without having any legal relationship to it. For example, children who were brought to the U.S. illegally when quite young and grow up there in ignorance of their immigration status often have a national identity of feeling American, despite legally being nationals of a different country.” [Wikipedia, Nationality]

We conclude from reading the above, cites from Wikipedia, that either Wikipedia must change all its definitions and explanations of nationality, or it is a foregone conclusion that I am Assyrian, culturally, ethnically, and nationality-wise. I reiterate that only I can say what is my nationality. This is not up for debate. RMY (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me like the article should say "Place of birth: Iran", "Ethnicity: Assyrian" and "Nationality: American". Thomas.W ^talk 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RMY says, in effect, that the subject of the article is not an Iranian citizen or national. @LouisAragon: do you have WP:RS that say otherwise? You seem have drawn a conclusion that because she was born in Iran and her family come from Iran that she legally holds Iranian nationality. That would be WP:OR unless there is a reliable source that confirms it to be the case. She could have once held Iranian nationality and now renounced it, in which case she is not an Iranian national. I'm tempted to quote the Duke of Wellington when "accused" of being Irish: being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse. RMY is right, it's a specific legal status (unlike ethnicity, for which we follow the subject's self-declaration) and can't be inferred merely from the subject's biography. @RMY: we can't tell if you are who you say you are (although there are mechanisms for verifying that). The way Wikipedia works is we simply replicate what's said in reliable sources, which are defined here. It's mainly a question of what those reliable sources report as being the subject's nationality. It does seem likely, subject to finding confirmation in a reliable source, that her natiinality should be stated as US. Generally, however, this is a straightforward content dispute and shouldn'rt be on this page. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa, I think I never stated that she still is or is not an Iranian citizen. If I somehow did by mistake well then that was not my intention. Regardless of the fact that she was born and raised in Iran to a native ethnic community there, she nowadays resides in North America. However, the reason why I made this ANI is because RMY doesnt want to agree that those categories should be listed namely Iranian expatriates to the United States, American people of Iranian-Assyrian descent, and two other ones. He/she is constantly removing them by the nonsensical rationale that she is assyrian and not iranian My question is now once again, from what other country did she migrate then to the US, so that we can agree that those categories shouldn't be added? This is basically disagreeing on the fact that she migrated from Iran to the US while being an Iranian citizen, born and raised. No matter whether she teleported there, walked all the way to there, or flew to there, she still originally moved from he native country of birth and that's why those categories need to be added. This is honestly nothing more than spreading of irrational ethnic-nationalism as we see very often on the internet. Please give me, if you dont agree with that those two categories I mentioned some lines above should be added, solid reasons as why to so we can agree with that.

User:RMY, you have no solid grounds to stand on. You are stating that there is nothing Iranian about me Then how in our dear Gods name did you happen to be born in Iran? How did you manage to grow up there in Iran in a native community which in your case happened to be Assyrian, without an Iranian passport? You say your natioanlity is Assyrian Then where on the world map can we find this country? Can you show me an Assyrian passport? I would be really happy to see that as I like Assyrian people and history. However, with what reality we know, this is time wasting at its best and I think there are enough other Wiki moderators and editors who have enough first-hand experience with internet ethnic nationalism on here, which in most cases is nothing more than to prove something that does not exist, or giving some non-existing fluff to a stateless ethnicity to make them look more distinct and real.

PS: Moderators, you're allowing more of this stuff by RMY? While this ANI is going on; [108] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas W. seems to have come up with a sensible compromise. LouisAragon, please don't run off into these text heavy posts. It comes across as quite aggressive, which obviously isn't your intention (AGF and all). Blackmane (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, excuse me if it looked like that, as it indeed definetely isnt my intention. Its just that we're all spending too much time on something that doesnt need that much time and effort. I agree with Tomas W.'s rationale as well, which is basically what I meant from the start. It just has to be expressed in the categories again as well on the article which RMY has removed. That's all. [109] Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, an RFC could be raised on the article talk page with Thomas W.'s recommendation as the starting point? Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What surprised me looking at this page is seeing that she was categorized as "American" which makes Iranian nationality irrelevant. But I could find no statement that she has actually become an American citizen, just that she has worked in America. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blackmane, if you really think that is something that might be needed, then I guess its something we could do. I just dont get why we need to comply to a rationale that holds absolutely no ground. She was born and raised in Iran (Tehran) and left the country some decades later, for the US. I dont see why then, when knowing all this and while its confirmed in the article, categories such as Category:People of Tehran, Category:American people of Iranian-Assyrian descent, Category:Iranian emigrants to the United States, etc. are blatantly removed by RMY....Even if she dropped her Iranian nationality, there's no reason as why to remove these categories, given that there is no Assyrian state nor nationality. @Liz, and indeed that as well on top of that. [[- LouisAragon (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

According to her 2006 Congressional Testimony on Capitol Hill she states under oath: "I am an Assyrian. I am an American citizen." I think this should put an end to this debate. If this declaration is good enough for the United States Congress, then it should suffice for Wikipedia. Here's the link to the transcript. Her testimony begins on page 117: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa28430.000/hfa28430_0f.htm There's also a video of the proceedings and a documentary film. @LouisAragon, you seem very vested in the "Iranian" aspect and are making a lot of assumptions about her. You don't know if she was raised in Iran or how long she lived there. She could have left right after birth. And interestingly, neither of her Assyrian parents were born in Iran! Zayya (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not making "alot" of assumptions about her. I'm only mentioning that there are categories being removed without any reason, simply for the fact that some people cant deal with facts. We can't allow any type of false ethnic nationalism that does not exist no matter how much sympathy we or others have for certain aspects of it. We are ought to state that what is true and most importantly, confirmable. If an Assyrian states her/his nationality is Assyrian, this is simply false, because there is no such state as Assyria.

This is the official website of Rosie Malek-Yonan: http://www.rosiemalek-yonan.com/biography-rosiem.html Everything stated so far is backed up by it. It states she studied in Iran, and she was even nominated to participate in the 1980's Iranian Olympic Ice Skating team, by the Queen Farah Pahlavi herself, which eventually never happened due to the Revolution that commenced in 1979-1980. Thus, it confirms that she was brought up in Iran. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What does her being brought up in Iran got to do with it? If she's an American citizen, as she says above, and sees that as her nationality (as opposed to her ethnicity, which is Assyrian), it isn't up to us to decide that she's Iranian, and state that in the article. Or the categories, for that matter. There are lots of articles on en-WP where the nationality of an individual is given as being a country other than the country they were born in, and no policy that says that the nationality should always be the country of birth, so just drop it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W And what reasoning do you have for the removal of Category:People from Tehran? Also becaus she simply identifies as American?... and Category:Iranian emigrants to the United States? and Category:American people of Iranian-Assyrian descent? We have plenty of people listed in those categories. RMY removed those as well but I cant see your rationale covering the deletion of these ones too. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion we shouldn't have any categories like "People from" this or that city, province/state or country, or at least require self-identification as being from and feeling they have a connection to a certain place, before putting a label on anyone. Thomas.W ^talk 21:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I'm in agreement with you on this. Zayya (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Assuming good faith that RMY is indeed the subject of the article, then WP:BLP applies (which it always had anyway) and since the subject of the article has raised the concern then even if it is more bureaucratic, we should seek to allay their concerns. Thoma W. has again made an excellent point. Blackmane (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I concur, if she really doesn't want to have any mention of her nation of origin/birth in the categories and identifies as something else, then I guess we should be fine with that as well, for whatever reason she holds. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ssolbergj, constant edit warring and pushing of own work

The behavior of Ssolbergj across multiple articles is problematic for several reasons. The user often inserts their own work in a heavy handed way, caring little for discussions and consensuses. A rather blatant example concerns a proposed new coat of arms for Macedonia. To start with, the user has made up the coat of arms themselves(!) StanProg has showed here [110] that what Ssolbergj has done is to take the Belgian coat of arms, recolor it, and then present it as the new coat of arms for Macedonia. That is already problematic. Equally bad, the user edit wars heavily and against consensus to keep inserting their creation [111], [112], [113], [114] even though the user is alone for their version and always opposed by more than one user, making it clear there is no consensus. The user even went as far as moving Historical coat of arms of Macedonia (an article that had existed for 6 years and to which many articles linked) to Proposed coat of arms of Macedonia [115] just to be able to push their home-made Belgian-Macedonian coat of arms there as well, and then again edit warring against consensus [116], [117]. If any more evidence were needed that this user is here just to push their own work, a look at the user's actions at other Wikipedia's is revealing. Not content with inserting their own work here, Ssolbergj has pasted it across Wikipedia in dozens of languages, never bothering to see if it fit and even pasting the whole section with the text in only English at Macedonian Wikipedia [118], [119], [120], at Danish Wikipedia [121], at Spanish Wikipedia [122], at Swedish Wikipedia [123], at Norwegian Wikipedia [124], [125], at Dutch Wikipedia [126], [127], at Turkish Wikipedia [128], [129], at French Wikipedia [130], [131], and at German Wikipedia [132]. In all of these cases, the user ignored the language used and just pasted in their own work with a description in English, clearly showing their intention. To finish, I've only come across the user concerning Macedonia, but a look at their talk page indicates that the same disruptive behavior is repeated in other areas as well [133]. This user is not here for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not being silly. Please read this discussion, where I've replied. This is the subject of the matter. -Ssolbergj (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the subject of the matter is your behavior. You are constantly edit warring against consensuses and pushing your own work even when aware it's not accurate (as well as copy-pasting your own work into dozens of Wikipedia in English, but that's outside the scope of English ANI)-Jeppiz (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, it seems as though this may warrant a topic ban. Ssolbergj, you were clearly told to discuss changes with fellow editors before making more changes to templates. I see no excuse for the continual (apparent) POV pushing to go unpunished. JZCL 15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz When you reverted me you accused me of OR. If you read my reply you could potentially realise that is not the case. When it comes to the template of Airbus Group, I have engaged in discussion on how to best organised it here. -Ssolbergj (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've made a request at WP:RPP for Historical coat of arms of Macedonia to be move protected. JZCL 16:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus for or against that title, and I do not see why it would be necessary to move protect it. It is not particularly controversial. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Like JZ, I would also support a topic ban on Ssolbergj for anything concerning coats of arms. The user's behavior clearly indicates not being here for the right reasons.Jeppiz (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is a ludicrous notion. IMO I am quite a responsible editor and contributor. Your absence from the discussion on the topic in question is telling. If anyone were to deserve a topic ban in heraldry it's you, who seem not be interested in learning what function a blazon has (i.e. the topic in question). - Ssolbergj (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'm actively involved in the discussion (and started the discussion) at the talk page of Republic of Macedonia. And I'm not the one who has inserted my own work in countless articles against consensus, moved articles at will, and been spamming loads of Wikipedias in other languages pasting in your own work and text in English.Jeppiz (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Cotterell

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article has been editing it by copying content from Cotterell's website. See User_talk:Paul_Barlow#Maurice_Cotterell_wikipedia_entry and User talk:159.134.158.2. The article in the form preferred by the editor states as fact that Cotterell has "found a way of calculating the duration of long-term magnetic reversals on the Sun" and that by "using this knowledge he was able to break the codes of ancient sun-worshipping civilizations", thus deciphering spiritual and scientific content in the artifacts left by Mayans, Egyptians etc etc. This raises so many issues of WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE I would be grateful for input from editors with relevant knowledge and administrators who can deal with issues of copyright for the web-content and other matters by communicating with this editor, whether or not he is in fact Cotterell. Paul B (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the article is almost entirely innocent of reliable sourcing. And the editor who says he is Cotterell now says he wishes the article on himself to be deleted (see my Talk page). Admin help in securing his assertion of identity is requested. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Those are some unattractive books. I put the article up at AfD; I have no ideas on or opinions about verifying identity. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec)The article is now on AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Cotterell). -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Simon and Schuster at one point be a reputable publisher...? Bizarre. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

GoUNC

User:Gouncbeatduke ("GoUNC" for short) has again removed reliable sources and content while claiming nonexistent BLP violation.[134]GoUNC was cautioned just yesterday at their user talk by User:Drmies about this, but disagreed with Drmies.[135] The consensus at BLPN was that the material is BLP compliant,[136] but GoUNC blanks it anyway. I got involved because of the BLPN thread. Drmies suggested yesterday that editors at this BLP consider escalating to ANI if the behavior continues,[137] it has, and we are. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the Gounc's behavior is not acceptable. I have rolled back the two recent edits since I find them severely disruptive, and the BLP claims to be unfounded. I'll leave the possibly blocking to someone else: I'm only on my second cup of coffee for the day. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, the overall tone of the article is that of a smear campaign against Walt, and I think the gratuitous insults of Sotloff and Hitchens should be removed, per the discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Stephen_Walt . However, if there is now consensus that the insults should remain, I will not revert them. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the quotes from Satloff and Hitchens were already truncated yesterday? Even if they had not been, I don't see a BLP violation, but there definitely is unanimity there isn't a BLP violation now (aside from your opinion).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The overall tone of the article is still that of a smear campaign against Walt. The quotes from Satloff and Hitchens just make a non-NPOV article more imbalanced. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You would have had more success proposing additional counterbalancing material instead of repeatedly blanking reliably-sourced stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

They're sounding a bit like a broken record. Sour grapes, possibly, because of Duke's supremacy in the NCAA tournament this year. Note that on their talk page they resorted to the old "YOUDONTLIKEIT". Bleh. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• It is not just on BLP articles, see [138] and [139]. The first was a removal of sourced content while a discussion was on-going at the talk page, the second was in response to a reversion of his edit. I'm not sure what the proper response is, but GoUNC is, it appears, being disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 14:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The insulting remarks have been removed, so I don't see BLP violations now, but the Satloff comment in particular, needs counterbalancing material for context, because it doesn't address anything said by Walt in the WP article or the FP article, so that needs to be illuminated for the reader.

Gouncbeatduke should drop the stick and expand the article by adding counterbalancing material. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried adding a counterbalance for the Hitchens quote. I would appreciate any feedback you have on it.Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's better, that's for sure. Hitchens' comment was also somewhat diversionary, but not as much as Satloff's, which still needs context and balancing. Anyway, this is Talk page discussion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that Gouncbeatduke may have been better off presenting more of the case in regards to allegations against Dennis Ross as found in this article by the citation mentioned politico contributor Laura Rozen. I generally applaud efforts to try to balance these articles. GregKaye 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal Threat

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

---

Clear legal threat here. They are accusing Wikipedia of deliberately providing false information, and the phrase "I will have you charged for information falsification and attempting to destroy a fruitful environment" is a clear legal threat. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, it looks like trolling to me - the IP claims to be teaching students, yet makes elementary grammatical mistakes. Probably best ignored. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Using an IP locator, it also seems there isn't a school near their location, which would support the troll theory. I felt obliged to post it here though. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

@Orangemike: was it intentional that you blocked this IP indefinitely? I was under the impression that indef blocks for IP's were frowned upon, and it seems oddly harsh for one edit (as trollish as it was). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Large number of potentially incorrect edits by User:Moka Mo

The problem has been described at the Teahouse questions forum by Aloha27 as follows:

"There currently is a stub article [General Service Area] which is wikilinked to by every town, village and community in Nova Scotia, Canada. One editor in particular has taken it upon his/her self to change over 1600 articles to use this obscure stub as the definition for each and every community in this Province rather than the usual wikilinks (town, village, community etc.) used by the rest of Wikipedia. Seeing as how NS is apparently the only region in the world that uses this definition and the definition could be eliminated at any time by the stroke of a pen by the NS Government, I would wonder if the project would be better served if we simply deleted this article under WP:N as a Google search using the phrase gives few (if any) reliable sources?"

This made me look at the contributions record of Moka Mo to confirm a large number of edits have been made, many of which add this link.

I checked their talk page to see a notice at User_talk:Moka_Mo#May_2015 by Cmr08 requesting that they enter into discussion.

The reason I am bringing this here is because admins have tools to perform any necessary mass roll backs of edits by an editor that are proven to be incorrect. I am making no judgement on the correctness or otherwise of the edits. This is to alert wiser heads than mine to a potential problem. I do not see this as a content dispute, more as something that will require some poor admin to pick up the baton and undo a large swathe of changes. I am about to notify the editor in question on their talk page. I will also notify the other editors I have mentioned in order that they may make a decision about participating in this discussion. For clarity, I am uninvolved in and have no interest in the articles concerned. I doubt I have ever edited in that arena. Fiddle Faddle 10:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the stub article above, and don't really care if it's used or not, or even if it's removed. The concern I had was that a large number of Nova Scotia articles were being changed to say they are regions and not communities but the editor making the changes was providing no reason for the change. After editor made these changes a second time, I left the talk page message hoping that the editor would prevent this from getting out of hand by explaining why the change was being made. By providing no explaination, I felt the editor was insisting on making the changes regardless of what other editors were saying. Had only the stub article been removed, I wouldn't have even bothered, it was labeling the communities as regions with no proof that bothered me. I didn't think asking an editor to explain changes would lead here, but I am more than willing to retract the statement if it would prevent this from going any further. Cmr08 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

To clear up some confusion above, Moka Mo doesn't appear to be the editor adding the link to the stub article as was stated in the notice above. A check of history shows that 19960401 is the editor who added the link to a large number of articles. Moka Mo had only made a couple of edits total to Nova Scotia articles until a few days ago. That being said, I still have no opinion on the stub article, but thought the info should be clarified. The only additions of the article by Moka Mo appear to be a couple of articles where he/she re-added it after removing it in an earlier edit. Cmr08 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies to Moka Mo whose opinion here is valuable in any case. I Must have picked up the sole edits where this was the case. I shall notify 19960401 on their talk page of this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 06:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not hard to make mistakes, especially with a lot of confusing edits going back and forth. I only picked up on it when I went back a second time to re-read this. At first I actually thought this was over the message I left him on talk page, I now see it has nothing really to do with it. Cmr08 (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Request confirmation of WP:ANI statement by TParis

Administrator TParis, closing a WP:ANI incident last year related to calling a BLP subject a "denier" or "skeptic", said:

Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:01, 3 January 2014

TParis has retired so we cannot turn to him for confirmation or retraction. The issue has resurfaced for another BLP subject, Anthony Watts (blogger). TParis's instructions have been questioned, for example on the talk page. The majority of recent editors of the article are upholding a quote of "denial" in the lead (for example here referring to Watts's blog), and some editors are insisting on keeping sentences containing "skeptic*" in the body (for example here). Currently we know of more "skeptic" than "denier" sources but that could change. I am asking for a statement now equal to "TParis was right" and the statement was meant to apply to BLPs where future skeptic-versus-denier fights arise. I will put a note that I have asked for confirmation, on the article's talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

Watts is a very prominent source of climate denial propaganda, he is associated with the engine of climate denial, the Heartland Institute. There is a great deal of motivated reasoning on that talk page, all of which boils down to people trying to neuter the fact that climate denialism is bullshit and Watts' blog is probably the most visited source of climate denialist talking points.

For the avoidance of doubt: TParis was right. This is not remotely controversial as a statement of policy. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

He's a skeptic. "Denial" is a smear term (calculated to bring up equivalence to Holocaust-denial). It is disheartening to see pretenses to neutrality so cavalierly thrown over the side. Pax 19:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, he's not a skeptic, any more than the Australian Vaccine Skeptics Network are skeptics. He is not skeptical about material that supports his agenda, and he is engaged in a peudoscientific attempt to prove a pre-defined conclusion. At best this is peudoskepticism, but in fact his activities are part of the cottage industry of climate change denialism.

Meryl Dorey is not a vaccine skeptic, she is a vaccine denier. Vincent Reynouard is not a holocaust skeptic, he is a holocaust denier. Anthony Watts is not a climate change skeptic, he is a climate change denier. The fact that sources historically permitted the self-applied label "skeptic" does not change this.

As Christoff noted: "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change." Guy (Help!) 08:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Whether he is retired or not, TParis should have been notified about this thread, so I have done so. As it turns out, he has been around a bit since his retirement. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• TParis might not be around any more (alas), but WP:V and WP:NPOV haven't much changed in the meantime. It seems tendentious to pretend that this article's wording was the result of one admin's whim rather than core wikipedia policy. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Watt's is a classic climate change denier, i.e. http://grist.org/article/2011-03-30-wattsupwiththat-attack-on-berkeley-temperature-findings-was/ More on the topic see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial prokaryotes (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• This looks like a content dispute. It would be better resolved at WP:BLPN. ANI is not the place to hold a vote on whether someone is skeptic or denier. If someone is editing disruptively or hurling personal attacks, then it would become a matter for ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, though TParis is disillusioned with Wikipedia at the moment, the editor is still paying attention. I had a nice chat with TP on their talk page just a couple of days ago. Friendly words might help motivate them to return. Just a hint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• This thread is not about the content dispute. It is about whether TParis was right to say that such a dispute should be settled by counting the sources, and TParis said it on WP:ANI. It was brought up on WP:BLPN long ago and went nowhere. Actually I believe edit war is happening (a sign is that the article's revision history for the last month has "rv" or "Revert*" or "Undid" in 68 edit summaries), but maybe some editors will be pacified if it's stated firmly whether the majority of sources matters. I'm reading in: reliable sources that wouldn't violate wp:blp. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As you mention, it went "nowhere" at BLP/N, because consensus is against you, and only activist editors support the BLP claim. You forgot to mention the there was (still open) a related thread at the FRINGE noticeboard as well, and that the attempts to appeal to WP:WTW has not worked, and has resulted in a move to rewrite the Guideline.

That would seem to raise the question of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, because the opinion an admin stated in a previous close is not a legal precedent, for starters, so maybe this is also a bit of [[WP:WL|lawyering], too.

Accordingly, if anything, a BOOMERANG would be in order here, but it bears mentioning that the fact that some editors think you are flirting with AE has already been raised, on your talk page as well, I believe.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to settle a content dispute, which should be done by going through dispute resolution. It's one thing for someone to be blatantly violating BLP, but in this case it's a difference of opinion between calling him "skeptic" and "denier." I would vote "denier," as that is clear from the sources. But administrators don't run one-person tribunals adjudicating such disputes, so it doesn't matter if the admin in question is here or not. They are not super-users with superior powers of judgment. Sometimes quite the opposite is the case. Coretheapple (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

request block DYK-related preventative right now

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

---

Could an admin please block editor Nikkimaria, who has been attacking the article linked from the great leading DYK on the main page, Soldier at a Game of Chess. Allegations of copyvio, plagiarism, everything else appear to be entirely false. Editor mis-applied Duplication Detection tool. Editor intent on marring the article with unnecessary tags. One technical violation is that they used Twinkle to revert, which used to be taken as a serious problem, if that helps. This started when I removed, with support on Talk page already, the OR tag put at top of article.

I don't have time for this, really. See the Talk page, Talk:Soldier at a Game of Chess and see the edit history in the article. --doncram 17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have provided evidence at the talk page that the copyright issue is not "nonsense". As for the tagging, I had initially added only a single, article-level tag; however, Doncram and others insisted that each section/issue should be tagged individually instead, despite my objection that given the extent of the issues a whole-article tag would be more appropriate. I realize that the number of tags being added looks like tag-bombing - that's not what I would prefer, but I'm trying to indicate what and where the issues are, per the request on talk. I've also asked that the article be removed from the main page given the copyright concern, but that hasn't yet been actioned, so it would be very helpful if someone could do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Tag-bombing applies, yes. Also wp:POINTY removal of an entire section "Related works" because YOU don't believe they are related. I have undone some of this editor's edits, but have been reverted. Call it edit warring perhaps. I spent a long time today explaining at Talk page, etc. I don't have more time. I request that an admin now block Nikkimaria and ask questions later, after this article is not getting hits from prominent DYK-link on main page. That would be a PREVENTATIVE block. --doncram 17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You were reverted by another editor who agreed that my concerns were valid ... and "block first and ask questions later" is never a good approach to a problem.

This article should not be on the main page right now: it includes verbatim copying from this source, very extensive close paraphrasing from this source, and other issues. That's why there are close-paraphrasing tags on the article, as explained at talk. And again, the only reason perceived tag-bombing is taking place is because you insisted that the single tag I initially added was too marring and that I should instead individually tag sections. I would be happy to replace most of the individual tags with the article-level version, but I don't want to get into an edit-war with you on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec, and not responding to last entry) Okay only some of the edits are entirely nonsense, like where the editor detected multiple 2-word phrases used in both of two similar articles. I am sure there are some valid concerns in Nikkimania's edits that should be addressed, but with reasonable time, through reasonable process. It is not necessary to attack it for hours. This one editor wants a citation, so removes a whole section. Or inserts two tags into the lede. Again I don't have time for this. Can't. --doncram 18:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been "attack[ing] it for hours"; it just takes significantly more time to tag issues individually, particularly when there are many of them, then to just add a single whole-article tag. Finding the copyright issue added more time to that - since one of the sources being copied wasn't cited in the article, this requires more extensive searching beyond the existing sources. The other issues you mention have already been explained at the talk page, where this dispute belongs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No block is warranted here; the editor raises perfectly valid concerns on the talk page. HiDrNick! 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Will some responsible admin please get this off of the mainpage now? Here we are, five years after the infamous DYK blowup, and we still have DYK putting copyvio, plagiarism, cut-and-paste, non-reliable sources ... you name it on any given day ... on the mainpage. (And, if not for Nikkimaria being one of the very few who pay attention, we'd see even more of this.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has now been removed from the main page (thank you Harrias!) and discussion is proceeding on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't take the credit for removing it, that was The Rambling Man, I just tidied up the errors page afterwards! Harrias ^talk 20:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake - thanks TRM. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

S'ok. Us "worst admins around" occasionally mistakenly do something right, even sitting in my car on my phone waiting for my world class dinner to be prepared. It's just statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria is trying to address real problems. Instead of denying that problems exist and then starting an AN/I thread, doncram should consider facing up to, or perhaps even fixing these problems. Seeking a preventative block in order to stop people putting tags on a front-page article is missing the point - very much so. Our need for policy-compliant articles trumps the need to remove embarrassing warning tags. bobrayner (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  Oooh, watch out User:doncram, someone might try and pull out a cubist boomerang. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No block Even though it appears as if the issue could have been communicated better, blocking for the editor action is way over the top. prokaryotes (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Xtremedood: Editor assuming he gets to vote in his own AfD nomination

Could someone take a look at this? (The editor twice reverted my strike-through.) Pax 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I say let it go. You've noted the duplicate !vote implied by the nomination, and the duplication isn't adding any weight to the argument. The closing admin will be smart enough to consider this. Ivanvector (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There are actually instances where the nominator has no opinion, and is nominating for other reasons, for instance at the request of an IP, or for procedural reasons. It's also quite normal for the nominator to !vote delete, only to mark it "as nominator". I think the agate type discussion under Xtremedood's delete !vote is sufficient to let the closer know that XD is the nom, so I don't think there's anything to do here, except perhaps to remind XD to mark their delete votes with "as nominator" in any AfD they start in the future. BMK (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(Point of clarification: The nom labeled the subject a "hoax" in the second sentence of the rationale, so his position is unambiguously delete from the get-go.)

As I've seen it dozens of times (and it happened to me when I was a wee pup making my first AfDs), my assumption is that it's perfectly OK for other editors to add strike-through to double-votes (i.e., it's not "vandalism"). If that's actually not the case, please advise. Pax 21:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to politely explain the single-!vote convention and suggest that the editor strike the duplicate !vote themselves. The guideline specifically uses striking another user's comment as an example of unacceptable behaviour, but I've rarely seen it be an issue. If the editor is abrasive about it, you can stick a {{duplicate vote}} template after their comment. Ivanvector (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone should explain to Xtremedood what does and doesn't constitute vandalism, and then should warn him about canvassing. Also, that entire AfD is so poorly structured that it is an assault on the eyeballs. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't intended to mention him by name, but since it has occurred twice now, I'll change the section title and go ahead and notify him. Pax 21:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You should have notified him in the first place, seeing as how this discussion is about him. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Seems pretty normal to me. Let it go. The nominator is allowed a vote, it's just usually assumed that the nomination is a vote in favor of Delete and most nominators imply in the wording of their nomination what their stance is. So he was unaware his nom would be counted that way and added a vote below the nom. This is hardly a big enough problem to bring to ANI. You've made your point in the comments, the closer will see it and take it into account. This should not be a big thing. Adding strikethrough to a double vote (imo) is fine, but it's not something you should go to war over. ― Padenton|✉   22:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My only complaint is that the user in question does not exactly know what WP:VANDALISM is. Striking-through a comment is not vandalism. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 22:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There is also the fact that he canvassed some of his friends [140] [141] [142] [143], with three of them !voting delete in the AfD. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Раціональне анархіст: might want to look into this. WP:CANVASSING :/ very flawed editing. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Template:Cue He does get to !vote. I've posted AfDs which I opposed before (per edit request). It's up to the closer to pay attention to those things. Don't forget, it's not the number of !votes, it's the comments and arguments made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Posting is one thing but voting is usually seen as WP:POINTY. Unless you withdraw the AfD pretty much everyone should know you as the nominator want the article deleted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me try rewording it. I've started AfD discussions in the past per an edit request that I've !voted to keep, so to say everyone should know you as the nominator want the article deleted is unfair and inaccurate. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but it's a fair mistake to make, and we WP:AGF, so we side with the presumption that Xtremedood didn't know his nom would be considered as a delete vote already. Canvassing is a second sign of an inexperienced editor. Just warn the canvasser, mark the canvassed users, and put a canvassing note at the top of the discussion. Problem solved. No reason for ANI. ― Padenton|✉   00:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right to assume good faith on the first part but seeing the editor involved had already been warned against canvassing [144] on April 28th if he/she is still doing it then its a problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

On a separate note, this editor has been engaged in a series of heated edit wars and disputes with multiple other users since March, and has actually been reported at least twice, and very recently, for his unconstructive behaviour and lack of clear objectivity; it is frankly not at all unlikely he will continue likewise in the future. I am strongly considering nominating him for review elsewhere on this and other grounds. Gorgevito (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems with User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86

User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86 have been causing problems pertaining to the article False accusation of rape. I began making edits to the article on April 26. I continued making edits until May 2; i.e. I made edits for one week. Afterward, User:Roscelese undid all the edits that I had made.[145] Her stated reason is as follows.[146]

EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved.

I twice requested that Roscelese supply evidence to support her accusation.[147][148] Here is one of those requests.

An efficient way to deal with this is to specify an edit I made that violated WP:OR and an edit that violated WP:VERIFY. Please specify the edits via direct links.  EllieTea (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese refused to specify any such edit. Another editor, User:Padenton, has also repeatedly requested that Roscelese specify the edits I had made that are problematic. Again, Roscelese declined to do so.

Additionally, Roscelese has accused me of being a Single-purpose account.[149] A review of my contributions shows otherwise. I joined Wikipedia in 2009. Until this year, I did not edit any articles related to rape. Most of my edits dealt with songs, movies, and actors.

I did not, though, edit often. This year, I became more involved with Wikipedia. I created my first, and so far only, article: Leila Araghian (an architect). Again, that is not related to rape.

The subject of Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is directly related to rape accusations, and I had seen the subject discussed in the media. In February, I looked the subject up on Wikipedia, and after reading the WP article, made an edit to the article, to include a short quote.[150]. Afterwards, I made three other very minor edits: adding some wikilinks, correcting grammar, etc.[151],[152], [153]

Two months later, I became interested in the topic, and so in mid April, I began making related edits to WP. I made several edits to Campus rape, beginning on April 19. A week later, I began making edits to False rape accusations. I also made a few more edits to Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight); none of those edits changed any of the words in the text though: rather, they dealt with other issues, e.g. spelling, a reference, etc.

From the above, it is plain that Roscelese’s allegation that I am an SPA is false.

Before discussing my edits further, some background about the article is perhaps useful. A central question being debated on the subject is this: how common are false accusations of rape? There seem to be two main schools of thought. One school, often associated with activists, argues that the rate is about 2%. Another school, often supported by police, argues that the rate is far higher, e.g. 20–40%. There are also people who argue that we do not have adequate data to conclude much.

Both Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 have repeated claimed that I am trying to bias the article against the activist school. To assess those claims, the edits that I made on the last two days during the week of my editing (May 1–2) are reviewed below.

• May 2, 11:58, Edit Summary: improve reference formatting

This edit made no changes to any words, just formatted a reference better.

• May 2, 11:51, Edit Summary: Give another quote about the meaning of "unfounded"

This edit pertains to the FBI’s classification of some rape accusations as “unfounded”. The edit consisted of inserting one new paragraph. The paragraph explained that the rate of known false reports is much less than the rate of “unfounded” reports—yet some people have mistakenly used “unfounded” as a synonym for “false”. The paragraph is copied below (reference omitted).

Eugene Kanin (whose work is discussed below) remarks similarly: "unfounded rape is not usually the equivalent of false allegation, in spite of widespread usage to that effect … unfounded rape can and does mean many things, with false allegation being only one of them, and sometimes the least of them".

Thus, my edit provided support for the activist side of the debate.

• May 1, 20:07, Edit Summary: correct authorship

The name of one author was missing from a source; the edit fixed that.

• May 1, 14:52, Edit Summary: Undid revision 660248778 by EllieTea (talk) correction

  May 1, 13:59, Edit Summary: Undid revision 660247157 by Sonicyouth86 (talk) I have explained twice with link; you are violating policy

These two edits pertain to the inclusion of a reference. The reference is an opinion piece at theguardian.com#Comment_is_free, which is an opinion site within The Guardian newspaper. Before discussing this more, some history is relevant.

On April 27, I made an edit to Mattress Performance.[154] The edit did not change any words, but removed a reference. The reference was to an article in theguardian.com#Comment_is_free, which is all opinion pieces: for that reason, I believed that the reference violated WP:RS.

I was nervous about making the edit, because I am not an expert on WP policies. So, I also created a new section on the talk page to explain my edit in detail: Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)#Citing opinion pieces. The edit was never reverted, and there were no comments made on the new section. Thus, I had been right about removing the reference. I felt good about that.

Two days later, on April 29, I noticed that the article False accusation of rape also included a reference to an opinion piece in theguardian.com#Comment_is_free. I therefore removed the reference, just as I had done with Mattress Performance. The Edit Summary said that the reference “violates WP:RS#Statements of opinion”.[155]

Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit. I re-reverted that; my Edit Summary said that the reference “violates WP policy for facts”.[156] On May 1, Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit again. I re-reverted that, at 13:59 (as linked above). I was aware that what we were doing might be construed as edit warring; I believed, however, that I was enforcing WP policy. I also created a new section on the article Talk page to discuss things.[157]

In the new section on the Talk page, Sonicyouth86 pointed out that the opinion piece was only being cited as a source for a statement by the author of the piece. I had foolishly not noticed that. I then restored the reference in the article (at 14:52, as linked above), and left a note about this on the Talk page.[158]

Everybody makes dumb mistakes sometimes. Sonicyouth86, though, had interpreted things in a different way, making the following claim on the Talk page: “I assume that EllieTea believes [that the reference should be removed] because the source contradicts his personal stated POV that In fact, only a small percentage of rape accusations is known to be true”.[159] The quote from me is from a discussion that we were having about a study that was done in Australia. In the study, 15% of the rape accusations led to formal charges of rape against an assailant: thus, only about 15% of the accusations are known to be true. (Only 2% of the accusations are known to be false, though; the remaining 83% did not have their veracity determined.) By quoting me out of context, Sonicyouth86 makes it appear as though I hold a POV that I do not hold (and in fact think is ridiculous; my real POV is that a study that only evaluates 17% of the accusations is of little value). Sonicyouth86 further accuses me of editing in bad faith.

The POV accusation that Sonicyouth86 had against me was also made earlier, on April 29.[160] Then, s/he added this: “It's a good thing that you expressed your POV so openly just in case anyone should doubt why you need to refrain from editing this article and others like it”. I responded by politely explaining the above issue with 15% (i.e. only 17% of the accusations in the study had their veracity determined).[161],[162]

None of my explanations had any observable effect. Indeed, on May 4, Sonicyouth86 told me this: “You have repeatedly stated your opinion that only a small portion of rape accusations are true but you need to read WP:NPOV and edit accordingly. Or better yet, you edit in some other topic area for a change.”[163]

• May 1, 10:35, Edit Summary: correct Turvey reference

There was an error in the way a reference was specified; the edit fixed that.

• May 1, 08:59, Edit Summary: add Philadelphia experience

This edit added a new paragraph to the article. The paragraph presented evidence that the police seriously over-report the number of false accusations. The paragraph is as follows (reference omitted).

In the year 2000, the Philadelphia Police Department reviewed about 2000 rape reports that had been classified as "noncrime" during 1995, 1996, and 1997. The review determined that there were actually only about 600 rape reports that were false or did not amount to crimes. The remainder of the rape reports included 705 true rapes, 532 other sex crimes, and 131 nonsexual offenses. The Police Department then agreed that henceforth women's groups would be permitted to review case files.

The edit obviously provides strong support for the activist side of the debate and against the police.

To summarize the foregoing, I made edits for seven days, with the edits for the last two of those days synopsized above. None of the edits during the last two days were against the activist side, and two edits were for the activist side, one strongly so. During those days, both User:Roscelese and User:Sonicyouth86 were active on the article and/or Talk page. Yet afterwards they claimed that I was pushing an anti-activist POV, and reverted all the edits that I had made during the prior seven days.

During the first five days, I made edits that supported both sides of the debate. Even then, though, the edits were reliably sourced and, I believe, fair. As an example of an edit that supports the anti-activist side, consider the Australian study cited above. Prior to my editing, the WP article described the study as follows (omitting the reference).

A study of 812 rape accusations made to police in Victoria Australia between 2000 and 2003 found that 2.1% were ultimately classified by police as false, with the complainants then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report.

Most people reading that would assume that all but 2.1% of the accusations were not false—as such, the description was highly misleading. After my editing, the WP article describe the study as follows.

A study of 850 rape accusations made to police in Victoria, Australia, between 2000 and 2003 found that 2.1% were ultimately classified by police as false, with the complainants then charged or threatened with charges for filing a false police report. Another 15% of the accusations led to formal charges of rape against an assailant; the remainder of the accusations were withdrawn (15.1%) or concluded with no further police action or were still be investigated at the time of the study.

The new version is obviously more informative, and no longer misleading. It does indeed have weaker support for the activist side of the debate, but only because it is no longer misleading. Nonetheless, Sonicyouth86 reverted my edit [164] and on the Talk page claimed that my edit was an attempt to impose a “serious POV” in the article.[165]

During the week that I was editing, I made two significant mistakes. One mistake was described above, about the removal of a reference to an opinion piece. The other was in quoting a statistic from an FBI report.

The FBI report states that 8% of rape accusations were classified as “unfounded”. The report further states that 52% of accusations were “cleared”. In editing the WP article, I assumed that “cleared” meant “final status has been determined”.[166] In fact, it means something else. (For example, if the FBI receives 108 accusations, 8 of which are classified as unfounded and 52 of which lead to criminal charges, then (roughly) that implies a cleared rate of 52%—the 8 are ignored.)

After I made the edit, Roscelese asked me to confirm the definition of “cleared”. I then googled the FBI web site, realized that I had made a mistake, and made a correction.[167]

Before asking me to confirm the definition of “cleared”, though, Roscelese suggested that I had made up the cleared rate.[168],[169] I then quoted the relevant paragraph from the FBI report, which states “Over half of all forcible rapes (52 percent) and aggravated assaults (58 percent) were cleared”.[170] Roscelese then apparently realized that the 52% figure was indeed real (and subsequently asked me to confirm the definition).

After Roscelese reverted all the edits that I had made, another editor, whom I do not know, became involved, User:Padenton. Padenton re-reverted the article to my last version, citing WP:REVERT. Then another editor, whom I also do not know, reverted what Padenton had done.[171] I then again reverted to my last version; here is the Edit Summary: “there is no consensus to do this, and no supporting evidence yet; discuss further on Talk”.[172] My edit was undone by Sonicyouth86.[173]

Padenton then left several comments on the Talk page, addressed to Roscelese and Sonicyouth86. Some extracts from those comments are below.

… the lack of civility and edit warring behavior the two of you have shown rather than these good faith edits and attempts to discuss

@Sonicyouth86: Then you need to provide information on what specific changes you have issue with, and engage in civil discussion over the changes so we can finish this.

I see many attempts of EllieTea's to discuss his/her changes on the talk page, and I see your refusal to discuss.

I believe that the article is much improved as a result of my edits. As far as I can tell, every difference between the last version that I edited and the version to which Roscelese/Sonicyouth86 reverted is an improvement. Neither Roscelese nor Sonicyouth86 have given any counterexamples.

I ask the Administrators to restore the article to the last version that I edited. I ask further that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 be sanctioned.

EllieTea (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Robert. I'm actually very interested in this subject but I could barely make a dent in that wall of text, EllieTea. This is like evidence presented in an arbitration case not a simple request for administrator attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Most of my statement is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Roscelese. The key point is that Roscelese and Sonicyouth86 reverted a week and a half worth of edits (70 edits) refusing to explain the reverts and refusing to allow EllieTea to discuss. They were dismissive and uncivil to his/her multiple attempts to discuss, often ignoring them. When asked to explain the mass-revert, they refused to provide any additional information than the already addressed concerns throughout the rest of the talk page. As Roscelese is under arbcom restrictions requiring that she explain any content reversions on the talk page, and prohibited from making rollback-reverts without explanation, her actions in this should be handled at the arbitration enforcement request, unless there are other claims against her actions. ― Padenton|✉   22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the summation, Padenton. It sounds like some of this incident is being handled at AE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible boomerang for EllieTea

• EllieTea (talk · contribs) is an SPA whose editing is limited to the subject of (campus) rape and false rape accusations. Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic. ET promotes the POV that "only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true". Their edits demonstrate a clear bias which corresponds with their stated bias. ET's contributions to the False accusation of rape have been particularly disruptive and in violations of our content policies. Some examples.

• With their first edit to the page, ET adds a self-published rant that compares Jim Crowe lynchings and “contemporary rape hysteria.”

• Removes a reliable source that says that false rape accusations are relatively rare.

• Reverts without consensus.

• Removes a reliable source (statement by Keir Starmer on recent CPS research) which states that false rape accusations are rare.

• Reverts again without consensus.

• Reverts again without consensus.

• Misrepresents FBI statistics, incorrectly claiming that 8% of 52% (15%) of accusation are false, when in fact the source says 8% out of 100% in a larger sample size.

• Reverts without consensus.

• Misrepresents sources by claiming that police classified 9 % (216 of 2284) as false reports, when in fact the police classified 8% as false reports (216 of 2643) (There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent p. 47)

• Restores misrepresentation without consensus.

• Adds link to an obscure court decision (ruling: women in jeans cannot be raped).

• Adds information about retractions and withdrawals, conflating them with false allegations and implying that there’s no distinction between false accusations and accusations that were not prosecuted to withdrawn.

• Reverts without consensus.

ET has received several notifications. They are aware that the page is subject to the men's rights article probation (false rape reports are the ultimate men's rights activist issue). Furthermore, they were told that their edits might fall within the scope of the ("any gender-related dispute or controversy") part of the GamerGate discretionary sanctions Unfortunately, the user did not adjust their behavior.

ET demonstrates a lack of understanding and/or care for statistics and WP:NOR as in the case when they came up their own FBI figures (8% of reports are false & 52% of reports result in arrest != 8% out of 52% are false). Furthermore, they show an inability or unwillingness to edit collaboratively and follow the BRD cycle. They edit to promote their stated (fringe) POV. This makes them very unsuited to edit in their chosen topic area (everything about rape). In general, ET is not here to build an encyclopaedia. --SonicY (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sonic, I've taken the liberty of adding a subheading. This section is difficult to read. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

Two administrators have explained that the description I gave is too long for ANI. Additionally, Sonicyouth86 has made a fairly long reply, for which my rejoinder will also be long. Hence, I suspect that this issue should now be submitted to ArbCom. If that is not okay, please let me know.
EllieTea (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It is doubtful that ArbCom will take the case without prior efforts at resolving it within the community. This (AN/I) is one method, Dispute Resolution is another. BMK (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this case is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Roscelese. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I intended to start an ANI discussion or request AE concerning EllieTea's editing. When I logged in today to do that, I saw this thread and Padenton's AE request against Roscelese. I am 100% convinced that EllieTea violated the terms of the men's rights article probation and probably also the terms of the "any gender-related dispute or controversy" provision of the GamerGate ArbCom decision. Just as a heads up, I'll probably request arbitration enforcement concerning EllieTea's editing unless their behavior is examined here or in the AE request against Roscelese. --SonicY (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps

This discussion REALLY needs closure, there are lots of articles that have broken citation templates untill this issue is settled. The discussion is that the smallcaps parameter was removed from citation templates based on the argument that the policy doesnt supposedly allow small caps in citations - the counter argument is that WP:CITEVAR allows all citation styles, requiring an explicit exception for citation templates. The discussion has been stagnant for months and I have listed it at requested closures with no luck. Surely there must be an admin with sufficient courage to close the discussion, so we and the templates can get on with our lives? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears this RFC is already listed on WP:ANRFC. This page deals more with behaviour issues and may not be a good place to ask for a close. AlbinoFerret 00:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(unclose) Yes, I listed it there more than a month ago, and no one has responded. That is why, per WP:IAR I am posting here to get some admin attention.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, the last conversation I saw about this at AN revealed the reluctance of many admins to close RfCs on MOS issues because of the divisive atmosphere in that part of the project. Basically, it's a lose-lose proposition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but it nonetheless has to be done.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

IBAN-violation reported on AN but receiving no attention

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

---

Did I format this incorrectly or something? Should I have posted it here instead of AN? The reversion of my edits my someone with whom I am supposed to be in an IBAN has been going on for days, and I don't know what to do about it.

Could someone please tell me what I'm missing?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI is probably a more appropriate location for this incident. JZCL 07:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I copied the thread to this page here. The Administrators' Incidents page is for general notifications, updates etc. whereas this page is for more specific incidents (like yours). JZCL 07:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Continuing abuse of revision delete by User:Kww

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. 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. There is no possible harm associated with the IP address I edited from.

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.[174]

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 and serious factual errors at SN 2003fg for two particularly egregious though very far from unusual examples.

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 186.9.132.118 (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Two things:

1. You didn't notify Kww of this discussion (I took care of it, however).
2. I'm always skeptical when a supposedly brand new user opens a thread at ANI about someone else's behavior—wait a minute, you said "reverting [your] edits", but you only have two edits to your name under this IP. What other account(s) are you using? (I think we're in Australia again...) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that you are a long term abuser who is evading a block. ANYTHING that is done to prevent you from further abusing the system, degrading the encyclopedia, or interfering with the project is warranted. There is nothing to see here, except someone who is banned from the project and is continuing to interfere with Wikipedia. Go away. Scr★pIron^IV 04:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am no such thing. Even if I were, Kww is violating policy. If that kind of policy violation is OK, then it needs to be reflected in the policy description. 186.9.132.118 (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have undone the removal of this post. I am skeptical of a policy justification for removing threads from ANI that are not clear vandalism, which this is not. It would be nice if 186.9.132.118 (talk) provided some diffs or links to these REVDELs. But as I recall, there is no policy saying users can not edit while logged out, nor has any evidence been provided that the poster's account is blocked. ― Padenton|✉   05:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

But the sockpuppetry is obvious. The link the IP provided on raising this before, the IP address is different at " 186.9.133.182". -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't provide diffs for edits that have been deleted. But you can see which articles Kww has attacked here. As far as I can see, all of the revision deletes in that list are relevant to this post, and all contravene policy. I already gave the particular examples of Alex Lowe and SN 2003fg which you can look into if you like. Until someone deals with these policy violations, I'll keep on pointing them out when they occur. 186.9.132.118 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have done all I can without running afoul of the dread 3RR - hopefullly an admin is awake and available to deal wih this. Scr★pIron^IV 05:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

IBAN violation by Catflap08

NOTE that this thread was copied from AN as this seems to be the more appropriate place. JZCL 07:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and I were made subject to an IBAN a few weeks ago. Last week, Catflap08 showed up suddenly in a discussion I had initiated, and commented on some of my edits; I reported this, but it was borderline and there was no result.

A few weeks before the ban, I had removed some references from the Kokuchūkai article that didn't back up the statements that were sourced to them, and I also (a little before the IBAN) removed an inappropriate primary source and the claim that was referenced to it.[175][176] Catflap08 the other day manually reverted these edits. If suddenly showing up and commenting on an edit I made (he did that again too, BTW) is not a violation, then surely reverting my edits is? He also admitted both then and now on the talk page that the refs he re-added are unrelated to the article content, so please don't respond by saying that even though it does violate the IBAN it's a harmless improvement to the article.

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs) reverted the edits as an IBAN violation that was also in violation of NOR and V, Catflap08 re-reverted, while copy-pasting text that I had previously removed and attaching a source I added to the article that (1) he clearly hasn't read and (2) doesn't back up the claim.

Could someone please tell him that he is not allowed revert my edits under the terms of the IBAN?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He also stated on the talk page before the IBAN that he was aware of my edits and was opposed to them, meaning he waited until the IBAN was in place to revert me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He has since copy-pasted the article (Including signed comments by me) into his userspace and started drafting further additions and subtractions to make the page look more like it did before I edited it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap is continuing to devote his on-wiki activity exclusively to undoing my work on the Kokuchukai article, including large chunks of text either not relevant to the subject or not directly supported by the sources. He has also altered a sourced statement to say something that the source doesn't say, apparently solely in order to fan the flames (the point is one he argued with me for months, ultimately leading to the IBAN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

So, if you add or removed anything, ever, to the article, at any time, you think its a violation of the IBAN to have it undone? Even weeks or months later? AlbinoFerret 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He expressed opposition to my edits, waited until an IBAN was in place so that I couldn't effectively defend them, knowingly reverted these edits, and continued to do so even after told to stop. How is this remotely appropriate? Am I allowed go around reverting his edits as well? or is there a time limit, and I'm allowed go around reverting his edits as long as they were made more than a month ago? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that an admin needs to clarify about the time. You might also seek clarification from the admin that enacted the IBAN. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

When the violation took place I went straight to the enacting admin, and was told he didn't want to deal with it, so I should go to AN -- I got no response whatsoever on AN, so the thread was moved here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:IBAN states "if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to ... undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)". It makes no mention of time frames. So AFAICS Catflap08's reverts are indeed in violation of the IBAN. I'd welcome more input by other uninvolved administrators. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I had always understood it to refer to reverting edits made after the institution of the IBan. If not, then on any article whatsoever, each party would have to research to find out if the other party had ever edited there, then read all of the edits they made to see what material changed, then find out if any intervening changes to the material were made by any other editors, and only then, once all those hurdles had been cleared, could the first party alter the material. I think that's extremely unreasonable, and much too broad a reading of the intent of the IBan. BMK (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@BMK: It's pretty hard to revert a particular user's edits without knowing who that user is. You are referring to accidental good-faith new edits to the article, not reversions. The problem here is that I made specific edits to the article before the IBAN (not long before, mind you) and now Catflap is directly reverting those edits. And it's all academic, since Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine, and continued reverting after being told that his edits were reverts of mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement " Catflap directly stated that he knew which edits were mine" and the diff do not match. There is no admitting that he know what edits are yours, the diff says they dont want to discuss your edits or statements because they are problematic. That is not the same, its a generalized statement. I also agree with BMK that researching every edit in the past is unreasonable, even new edits after a week to a month depending on how active the article is. After say 50 to 100 edits or so unless you have one hell of a memory its going to take a lot of research.AlbinoFerret 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

He stated that he had looked at the edits and considered them problematic -- how on earth could have done this without also knowing the edits were mine? He even called them "Hijiri`s ... edits"! Also, given that in the last sixteen months the only two users who have substantially edited the article are Catflap08 and myself, and the fact that the conflict on that article (and over whether the Miyazawa Kenji article should call him a nationalist) was a major reason contributing to the original call for an IBAN, your "50 to 100 edits or so" comment is pretty irrelevant. Also, how do you explain his joining in a discussion I started, a discussion of an edit I made? And the fact that he mostly stopped editing while the last AN thread on his IBAN violations was open, waited until it was archived without result, and when he came back he immediately started reverting me again? It's inconceivable that all of these were just good-faith mistakes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:唐戈

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

User 唐戈 has been indiscriminately reverting edits by Sammy1339 and now me, including removing AfD notices, blanking AfD discussions, and re-adding excessive OR and unencyclopaedic material that had been correctly removed. Not straightforward vandalism but clearly disruptive. I don't know if it's a sock or just someone on a crusade against another editor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He has violated 3RR on Fibonacci hyperbolic functions...I stopped counting after 5 reverts today. The only reason that I haven't blocked him is that he hasn't been warned regarding edit-warring or 3RR. It would be better to have the dialog here so that the editor can be clued into what they are doing wrong. If they persist without responding to concerns then a block is likely.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This user's pattern of behaviour as reported, the Chinese username, the fact that he/she has only made one significant attempt to post a fair amount of prose text in the talk or Wikipedia namespaces (here), and the user's extensive contribution history over more than ten years on Chinese Wikipedia, all indicate to me that this user may be a good-faith newbie with a limited command of English. I'm not entirely sure what the normal course of action in cases like this is, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a alt/sock of Gisling:

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

Two reasons. First the edits initially seem to be restoring edits and content added by Gisling. But more conclusively looking at global contribs and finding that zh-wiki is the most likely home wiki then zh:User:Gisling is just a redirect to zh:User:唐戈. See also commons:User:Gisling. Alt rather than deliberate sock though as it looks like the account Gisling was created before SUL, while 唐戈 only started editing after SUL implementation. I.e. the change of name/account use was prompted by account unification.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I second the sock observation. I observed this at WT:WPM based on the duck test. In and of itself, this is not exactly disruptive, but the editor's other behavior and aggressive edit-warring to include rather questionable content is disruptive. I'm not sure it is actionable at the moment, but the editor in question has left a mess of awful animation galleries that someone is going to have to clean up (see thread at WT:WPM for a partial listing). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was prepared to accept that 唐戈 and Gisling were not deliberate socks of each other based on one then the other editing after a gap, as if there was some interruption, perhaps related to the implementation of SUL which caused some editors to change names on some servers. But now the accounts are editing on the same day, seemingly defending the same articles, with if not the same then similarly unconstructive approaches to defending their edits (the reverting noted above, supporting the articles and questioning other editors' qualifications at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics). Even without the above links clearly relating them this now clearly passes the duck test for misusing multiple accounts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Gisling blocked for 72 hours and indeffed his sock account.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I disagree with this. He never edited any discussion page under more than one name, and there's no indication he was attempting to conceal his identity. As pointed out above, he has been editing Chinese Wikipedia under the Chinese name for ten years. I think the failure to disclose the alt was an honest mistake. Moreover, he never received a sockpuppetry warning. As for his disruptive behavior, it's good reason for a topic ban on advanced math articles, but he has also made many good contributions to articles on other subjects, especially Chinese math history. I recommend unblocking both accounts. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this history. Who created that article? ...and who used an illegitimate sock on the same article today?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and three accounts that were created just after my blocks were User:Zhangyingmath, User:杨风 and User:摘星阁. I'm not sure if they are connected but they may need to be monitored.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's only a 72h block; they can return to editing in three days, or less if they can persuade an admin that the block is no longer needed – though neither account was very active before the problem edits on 9 May, so an enforced break will not especially interrupt their editing.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. On a closely related note I would like to solicit opinions, while people are here, on how to handle the numerous articles by Gisling of the type that are being edit-warred over. On his talk page several editors have raised concerns about these articles. In some cases, such as at Eckhaus equation, an editor went over the article, corrected it, and produced something respectable. In other cases, such as at Fujita-Storm equation, the concerns were not addressed. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogoyavlenski-Konoplechenko equation asking to delete an article (and probably some related articles) on the flimsy grounds of WP:TNT in cases where I can't determine if even the subject of the article is accurately described (as it was not at Eckhaus equation, or Fifth order KdV equation - even the definitions of these equations were erroneous.) On the other hand I very much do not want to see Gisling blocked, as he has made many high-quality contributions to articles about the history of Chinese mathematics and science. If there is a sockpuppet violation, I think it is probably unintentional. I would, however, like him to stop editing advanced math articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really an admin issue. Probably the best venue would be the mathematics project, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: Thank you. I started a discussion there instead. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLEABUSE by USER:AHLM13

See User talk:AHLM13#So what's with the reverts? for most recent details, as well as very recent problems with reverts blamed on his WP:BROTHER. In summary, AHLM13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a user with:

• A long history of complaints filed on WP:ANI: [177]
• A block log that includes being blocked for misuse of Twinkle [178]
• Two immediate instances of Twinkle abuse, [179] & [180], yet both of which are actually edit warring on AHLM13's part, per [181] & [182], so are particularly egregious misuse of Twinkle. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the user doesn't fully understand what vandalism is but this edit is not Twinkle abuse because they didn't use Twinkle to do it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding the one edit, but not the other. Both edits are edit warring to restore the editor's preferred versions, labelled as vandalism reversion when they are not, and seem to be a reversion to behaviors for which he was previously blocked, and, as I understand it, most recently he blamed on his brother to get unblocked. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any possibility to just T-ban from using twinkle? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not per my understanding. Even if it was possible, as Berean Hunter pointed out, the 2nd instance I noted wasn't Twinkle, but was WP:EW and WP:NOTVAND - the latter could be considered WP:CIR, but not the former. More fundamentally, however, is the demonstration of continued behavioral issues for which the user has previously been warned, blocked, and warned & blocked again. Add to those the concerns raised by @CosmicEmperor: at my talk page and elsewhere (there was a prior ANI, too). Perhaps a topic ban from those areas where the editor's behavior is most egregious would be the best solution. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

One time I was blocked because I used twinkle to revert Ip's edits. But now I am not doing any kind of vandalim. I do not know about what User:JoeSperrazza is talking about. I just clicked "restore this version",but I do not know why it is written "TW".-- AHLM13 talk 16:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Despite clear warning by myself and @Jpgordon: [183], you are continuing to edit war [184] on Imam, restoring error to the article in the process. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit in that article is correct and certainly there is no error. Therefore not just me, even you are continuing the edit war. I think we need to discuss on the talk page. I actually corrected many mistakes in the article, but you reverted all of my edits.-- AHLM13 talk 16:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@AHLM13:, you have Twinkle activated. Saying I don't know why TW is written is a poor excuse. Second of all, yes, you are abusing twinkle rights. It's that the fact you think the user's edits are vandalism. Please take a look at WP:VANDALISM. I will request protection if edit warring continues, by anyone. Elaborate with your reverts with accurate reasons, because JoeSperrazza's edits are not vandalism. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Callmemirela, I did not notice they forget to write FILE. But there the imam is not leading, he is just in front of everyone.-- AHLM13 talk 16:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your assertion "My edit in that article is correct and certainly there is no error", this revert [[185]] again introduced, for example, this red error text: "thumb|280px|left|An Imam presiding over prayer, North Africa.". I leave it to someone else to revert or correct. Sheesh. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Separate from the Twinkle issue; on the underlying content issue, does anyone object to anything about the edit by AHLM13, other than that it broke a file link? Fixed before someone reverted it a again... Because if that is the only thing that is a problem, this seems like much ado about something that would have been an easy and uncontroversial fix. Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• The editor's habit of misidentifying edits not liked as being vandalism is one concern. His dissembling here about WP:TW is another. His edit against talk page consensus is yet another concern. Regarding the one edit you fixed (thanks), beats me, I don't edit that page routinely, I noticed, gave an explanation in the edit summary and moved on. This editor seems, from the many ANI filings and his own postings, to have competency and/or other behavioral issues that need to be addressed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have request page protection which was granted by an admin. The full protection for edit warring/content dispute will expire in 3 days. I want this issue resolved first before we dive into a long list of reverts. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

These are the reasons why I feel AHLM13 requires a topic ban on Pakistan, Bangladesh related topic, including those topics related to religious conflicts and Biographies of people related to religion:

• using abusive language "jahil ka bachcha"

• nonsensical comment with hatred

• using "Munafic" in edit history

• reverting user's own talk page unblock request

• calling me names after i pointed out his canvassing

• calling a user double agent

• speculating country of origin

• threatening another user

• Anti-Bangladeshi sentiment

• ethnic comment on a sockpuppet

C E (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:CosmicEmperor copied and pasted things the he wrote in someone else' talk page. He is bringing back old problems, which were already solved. As everyone can see, I apologised to all of these previous users. However, COSMICEMPEROR, insulted me and other users a lot of time. He offended Pakistanis for several times. -- AHLM13 talk 16:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

SPA pushing creationist POV

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

---

User:Epetre is an SPA pushing a creationist POV at Talk:Abiogenesis and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I am thinking that a warning would be enough at this point. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a very direct warning, but if any of this continues after the warning a topic ban is in order. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: You will have to prove what makes you claim that I have a "creationist" POV. In the Talk:Abiogenesis I asked to have a neutral point of view (that is why I opened a NPOV, I never asked to state in the article that Abiogenesis is false and a creationist view is true. Epetre (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since creationism is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists, the next step would appear to be Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: User Epetre's campaign is focused in introducing the creationist propaganda technique known as "Teach the Controversy", that pretends that there is a scientific controversy where there is none. Epetre is a WP:Single-purpose account engaged in a chronic and disruptive campaign. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Epetre:, creationism is a fringe branch of pseudoscience, not science, and it does not have any place in a scientific article on Abiogenesis, Evolutionary biology, or similar articles. You are making arguments that have no basis in fact, but have typically been made by those seeking to promote Intelligent design rather than science. You won't be able to insert pseudoscience into scientific articles without very strong, reliable, scientific sources. The ones you've presented so far do not meet that standard. GregJackP Boomer! 19:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It seems Epetre misunderstands neutrality. Neutrality means giving all versions when there are several competing version with equal support. It means giving both version if one is the majority view and one the minority, but clearly identifying which is the majority view. However, it also means not including pseudoscience and presenting a false conflict where there is none (see WP:UNDUE). Creationism is very much a pseudoscience that is undue; a clear warning may be enough for now, but a topic ban should be put in place rather quickly if this continues.Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@GregJackP: It is not relevant what the creationism is, since I didn't manifest it in my requirements. I suggest you to check the things before accusing someone. It is about the fact that a theory is presented with no evidence as a fact and only that is pseudo-science. the real science is about evidence. Epetre (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: The neutrality is expressed very well in the relevan Wikipedia article and there is no need to re-interpret it:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

My complaint fits exactly the rules above, abiogensis is presented as a fact, with no evidence for that and with no consideration for the scientific views claiming the contrary. Neutral point of view is to present what you have, namely a theory, not a fact just because you believe that, not presenting anything to support your belief.Epetre (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There are no scientific views stating that creationism is a serious alternative to abiogenesis. That is the problem here. Religious views are not scientific views. And religious "evidence" is not scientific evidence. A religious view does not require equal representation to a scientific view in an article about science.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious attempt to push creationist POV is obvious. Epetre's use of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center as a source[186] tells us everything we need to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Epetre, in constantly referring to whether abiogenesis is presented as a fact or as a theory, misunderstands scientific terminology in a way that is typical of creationist discourse. To refer to a scientific concept as a theory does not mean that it is not considered a fact. "Theory" is not an antonym for fact. "Theory" is not the same as "hypothesis" and does not mean a conjecture. A theory is a systematic explanation of observations, and may have an extremely high degree of certainty. For instance, scientists refer to Newton's theory of universal gravitation, for which there is a very high level of confirmation, with the minor discrepancies from the theory explained by general relativity. Epetre's arguments show that he or she doesn't understand how scientists refer to knowledge. However, I will suggest that ANI is not the venue in which to discuss disruptive editing, because Arbitration Enforcement is more effective. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry, I don't see any logic in your accusations. I understand from you that even if there is no evidence, the abiogenesis MUST be considered a fact and presented as such and any person that doesn't see that nonexistent evidence is a creationist. It makes a lot of sense.Epetre (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't what I said. It isn't worth my trying to explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for Epetre for Abiogensus, Evolution, Evolutionary Biology, and similar subjects, broadly defined. Editor is WP:!HERE as far as those topics go, based on their use of the creationist IDAEC site as a reference.

• Support as proposer. GregJackP Boomer! 20:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban Initially I thought a warning would suffice, but Epetre's activity in this discussion shows beyond any doubt that they are not hear to build an enclyclopedia, does not WP:HEAR and ignore all basic Wikipedia policies.Jeppiz (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't better to kill those that notice a lack of neutrality? Is this an attitude of the 21th century????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Epetre (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. The attitude is based on Leviticus 24:16, although adapted somewhat for Wikipedia. GregJackP Boomer! 20:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support Clearly here to push a POV and I would suggest a permanent block if the disruption continues. WCM_email 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If I was you, I would honestly be ashamed. This sounds like a comunist/stalinist trial.... You would have been so succesful 80 years agoEpetre (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Please stop your martyr complex, Epetre, it still is not changing anyone's mind into slavishly agreeing with you. There is, in fact a profound difference between "silencing opposing voices" and "punishing someone who repeatedly makes an arse of his/her/itself while refusing to abide or understand house rules."

• Support Clear POV-pusher. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban User:Epetre clearly does not understand what neutral point of view is in Wikipedia, and continues making an arrogant nuisance of himself in the process.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Since we are not allowed to show by demonstration how Stalin would have done it, a topic ban will have to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on this tendentious editor for creationist religious POV pushing in an article about a scientific topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of this disruptive single-purpose user pushing his POV and that of creationism. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I was going to be neutral for procedural reasons, because I would prefer an Arbitration Enforcement topic ban, but Epetre is making the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Clearly here with an agenda to push.Charles (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, it can't come soon enough. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Yes, I *entirely* agree - WP:SPA is POV-pushing imo as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked, Disagree with topic ban. I've blocked Epetre indefinitely for soapboxing, trolling this board,[187][188] and not being here to create an encyclopedia. We waste too much time on characters like this IMO. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen Not sure they were trying to troll this board or doing anything other than POV-pushing. It's entirely possible they believe they have scientific consensus on their side (particularly if educated in the Deep South), and the diffs don't suggest to me trolling, rather complete disbelief. I'm not sure we can WP:ABF here. Just because their first edits are biased doesn't mean we should permanently block them, surely a topic ban would be sufficient? Banak (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. But I've invited them to appeal the block in the usual way, and if another admin thinks they should be unblocked, it's fine by me. Meanwhile, I guess there's consensus for a topic ban. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC).

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

Farshad Fotouhi

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

---

Resolved

Sockpuppets of Detroit Joseph frequently attack this article and another sock is doing it again. Can some admin block the newest sock, please? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've put the protection back to full. DJ's sockfarm are basically the only accounts interested in the article, so we're not really losing much, and anyone with a good-faith edit to make can always ask on the talkpage. Incidentally, I've just noticed that the last sock is actually a Wayne State University IP. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Quick filter, please?

Hey, some charmer is creating quick-fire accounts of the form AntiCalton, AntiCalton2, AntiCalton3, etc, of course for the purpose of hounding User:Calton. A filter, please? Bishonen | talk 23:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC).

And "AntiCaltons1–3" have been blocked by various Admins, including yourself! (Now, why someone would do this to hound an editor that hasn't participated on en Wiki in weeks... for this, I have no explanation...) --IJBall (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of our puppetmasters have long memories, and little or no ability to self-censor. The behavior of some borders on the classic definition of sociopathy. BMK (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:213.114.203.95

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

---

User:213.114.203.95 has been personally attacking me after I reverted them for WP:UNSOURCED content or unproperly sourced content at List of Jessie episodes. This was the original edit. They were later reverted. They again added the content here. I reverted them. They again added the content. I reverted them. After that, they started sending me personal attacks and partially vandalizing my talk page:

• Random no.
• Told me to go to hell.
• Said I was owned.
• Accusing me of destroying Wikipedia. (later blanked)

I have warned them about their editing: Personal attack and vandalism (later blanked). P.S.: It is possible the IP is a sock from User:Kendoalkaedasincorporate (now blocked for 3RR). They also added the same content which can be seen here. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 00:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the page and blocked the IP two weeks for evasion and doubled the master's block to 48 hours.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Links: Kendoalkaedasincorporate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 213.114.203.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am now reopening the case. I am now asking for a rangeblock (perhaps by @Berean Hunter:?). The user is back with User:213.114.200.19 with an edit I reverted at Peyton List (actress, born 1998). Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi'd the article and blocked the IP...no rangeblock yet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I checked and found that based on blacklisting info, that range has open proxies and tor nodes so hard rangeblocking 213.114.200.0/22 for 6 months.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

A Hoaxer

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

---

Popmelica (talk · contribs) is inserting hoaxes into Greenland and Nuuk and when warned graduated to vandalizng my userpage.[189] They are not here to build an encyclopedia it seems.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Banhammered. Max Semenik (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Rape jihad article still needs attention

Despite the recent block of one participant, Rape jihad is still seeing a moderate amount of edit warring. I would suggest temporary full protection, possibly with a revert to a version from before the edit war, to encourage the editors there to work things out on the talk page rather than through reverting each other. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I also started a discussion at the WP:AN about the article. AusLondonder (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose protection (the article has been fully protected twice in just the last month, to little effect). Support implementing the "Relisted Proposal" and the "Amendment to the Relisted Proposal" at the "FreeatlastChitchat yet again" ANI.

(And I'm highly tempted to recommend adding AusLondonder to that list for having the gall to keep carrying water for the small group of censor-minded vandals in that article only two days off his latest block for disruptive editing.) Pax 06:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system

User:Phill24th has been engaged in page ownership issues in regards to the 2015 Kumanovo shootings. He has attacked editors who have made good faith edits on the page by giving them warnings in an attempt to scare them away, most notably here User talk:120.62.25.25 in regards to [[190]].XavierGreen (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)