Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mauna22 (talk | contribs) at 17:20, 13 October 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Raising this here since it's ongoing: shifting IP addresses (apparently socks of User:Palkanetoijala) are making strong legal threats on the Tube Challenge and Subway Challenge articles and talk pages, claiming to be acting on behalf of a challenge world-record holder who wants his name removed from Wikipedia.

    They're not being very clear, but so far as I can tell from this talk page, the user wants Wikipedia to include an unspecified (and presumably unsourced) "actual fastest time" for the London record, and believes that holding a sourced world record is some kind of useful bargaining chip because they mistakenly think that Wikipedia does not have the "rights" to mention a person's name without their permission. They seem to be saying that if Wikipedia won't include the unsourced record, then the record holder won't let Wikipedia include the sourced one either, and they've been making capslock "25 days to comply" legal threats as a result.

    Since this claims to be coming from a named individual and this IP talk page says "stop this hello contact me by email" and gives an email address, is there someone who could talk to them directly? --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've dropped them an email through OTRS. Mdann52 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous report on this case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Legal threat by IP. —Farix (t | c) 11:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As an addendum, I would also suggest semi-protecting the talk page because the only posts from IPs for the last few days have been to repeat the legal threat. —Farix (t | c) 15:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually already been semi-protected for this reason, since yesterday. --McGeddon (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the IP for making legal threats. Since this person changes IPs often I made it a short block. HighInBC 01:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just an FYI, the repeatedly blocked editor has returned with a new IP to edit Tube Challenge. I'll leave it up to others to determine whether to revert the edit or block the editor or reprotect the article. Deli nk (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Article was protected via a request at WP:RFPP. --NeilN talk to me 13:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Did your email get any response, User:Mdann52? IP addresses are still making legal threats and talking about a "war" against Wikipedia on the Tube challenge talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @McGeddon: As I did this through OTRS, I'm not going to go into too much detail, but I've stopped corresponding due to further legal threats being made in the email discussion. Mdann52 (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdann52: The question is, is it really Andi James or someone pretending to be him. The writing style doesn't appear to be someone who is an adult or have a very good command of the English language. —Farix (t | c) 11:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A Tube Challenge forum thread has a user with the same name as the sockmaster making the same threats against Wikipedia in the same tone of voice, with nobody calling him out as an impostor. But it makes no difference if it's an upset world record holder trying to overrule Wikipedia's sourcing policy by making legal threats, or a troll trying to goad Wikipedia into overreacting and blanking Andi's official record - there's been no good reason given for blanking a sourced world record. --McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly think it is a troll, especially with the consent shift between first and third person when referring to Andi James. —Farix (t | c) 18:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued legal threats made at User talk:94.2.166.80. clpo13(talk) 21:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If he continues making legal threats, start blocking him absent talk page. He's not interested in getting unblocked; he's trying to intimidate us into adding in unsourced biographical material.
    As an aside, he's trying to put it on Wikipedia because he feels Guinness is screwing him out of the record because evidence requirements weren't met (this assumes the user on the forum is the same person as is making legal threats here). I'm not sure what his motives are for trying to force it onto Wikipedia aside from recognition (and I don't think that's his actual goal); but in essence he is attempting to use Wikipedia in a dispute with Guinness. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be some type of legal threat at Talk:Tube Challenge placed by 194.176.105.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in this edit. I'll leave it up to the admins here to determine how to handle it. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also the #Legal threats on Tube/Subway Challenge section above. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 12:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Winkelvi

    The editing environment at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident and the associated talk page is bad, and everyone there (myself included) needs to to work better at focusing on article content rather than attacks. Even in that context, though, I feel that User:Winkelvi has repeatedly crossed the line, and their disruption is making any sort of improvement in the tone impossible. Yesterday got into a bit of a row with them and figured a little time would do us both well, but today their replies to posts as carefully worded as I know how have continued to be attacks. I think per their comment here that Winkelvi is misinterpreting discussion on a contentious topic with BLP concerns as obstinance, but that doesn't really help me see a path forward. Help de-escalating the situation would be appreciated.

    Examples of edits I find inappropriate:

    Attempts to resolve the issue on the user's talk page [2], [3]. Notified here.

    Thanks,

    VQuakr (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That Reddit discussion is toxic and really has no place being linked on the talk page. Talk pages are for improving the article, and pointing out how people in an anti-Wikipedia subreddit feel about the article doesn't help one bit. clpo13(talk) 23:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So, VQuakr, are you reporting yourself? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In the sense that my edits are going to be scrutinized due to my posting here, sure. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the article talk page, VQuakr clearly had consensus on their side. Winkelvi's edits were opposed because they served to obfuscate the central events/facts in the teen-clock-arrest episode through euphemism and poor wording. Winkelvi also attempted to introduce the weasel word "claim" into the lead, in a way that cast suspicion on the teenager Ahmed Mohamed. I have no idea if any of this requires an admin response, but VQuakr's behavior appears correct at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Having looked over Winkelvi's talk page, there was a request earlier today[6] from Checkingfax for further information about why Checkingfax might had received a warning from Winkelvi (the warning is presumably [7]—reverted immediately by [8] by Calidum. I'll concur that the language appears to be polite on this occasion, but the assertion of "Looks pretty clear to me." instead of explanation, or even WP:DIFFS is concerning. Furthermore, I observe that the prompting to Winkelvi to perhaps engage got silently removed[9]. If this "radio silence" (/apparent unwillingness to engage in follow-ups) is widespread in so-many of these [attempted] interactions with Winkelvi this could be perhaps the source of some of the difficulties, leading to the tension and subsequent temptation for in-WP:CIVILility. —Sladen (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC) …And, I see we now have WP:ANI#User:Checkingfax reported by User:Winkelvi over at ANI.[reply]

    User:Strivingsoul disruptive editing and soapboxing

    Strivingsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for battleground editing after a report by Kudzu1,[12] and later reported again by Ian.thomson.[13] Already at that time there was understanding that the user is WP:NOTHERE, as the user has since effectively admitted to by stating that they "never shy away from defending what is justified according to our religion".[14] The user constantly enters edit wars and off-topic discussions to promote Irano-Islamist views in article space and talk space.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]--Anders Feder (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, I already admit my fault at getting caught in a few edit wars early during my past activities on Wiki. And I have done my best ever since to stick to the three-edit revert rule and settle the disputes in the talk pages as my knowledge of Wiki policies grew.
    However, what prompted this user to make this complaint in particular is not really my past performance. What we have here is a clear case of diametrically opposed philosophical/political persuasions. Andres Feder apparently comes from a very strong atheist persuasion which has already prompted him to attack and ridicule beliefs of muslim contributors several times, which has indeed caused offense in the past for some users and has apparently led to WP:CIVILITY warning for him in a past ANI.
    But beyond his continued violation of WP:CIVILITY, I can also identify the very same ideological prejudices behind his repeated allegations aimed at discrediting Iranian sources such as PressTV even in subjects where having Iranian official POVs are crucial for maintaining WP:NPOV. I have already dedicated my time a few times countering his arguments such as here and here, arguing for various ideological, political and financial biases of Western sources that he uses to suppress Iranian POVs reported by the official media outlets of the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the pretext that "Iranian media are controlled by the theocracy". So here's the real controversy that has led to his complaint against me. But he apparently wants to condition the users here against me by deflecting attention from the root cause of the difference. He wants to frame a random statement of mine where I said "I never shy away from defending what is justified according to our religion" to imply that I want to push my personal opinions into Wikipedia content. But that's not whatsoever the case and you can clearly see that if you examine the context of that statement. There, I was not whatsoever making that statement in violation of Wikipedia policies. That was basically a statement of my personal belief that came at the end of a discussion about the legal foundations of the Islamic Republic of Iran with a fellow Iranian! It was never made and never meant as statement standing against any Wikipedia policy. In keeping with Wiki policies, I had already explained in length by citing information and sources to counter his repeated allegations of bias against Iranian sources based on Orientalist charges of dictatorship against a very distinct form of theocratic-democratic political system that has emerged out of Shia political philosophy. Admins can already see my record on Islam/Shia/Iran-related topics to appreciate my contributions which has the effect of improving WP:BIAS against Iran/Shia/Islamic topics some of which remain highly underrepresented not just in Wikipedia but in the greater world as well. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Strivingsoul, you go beyond simply advocating inclusion of the Iranian or Shia points of view to vigorous denouncing of those who oppose you. We can include accurate summaries of any point of view regardless of how unreliable, in a general sense, a source may be. You are correct that you are entitled to indefinitely advocate for an Islamist point of view with respect to any Wikipedia policy or content, but you cannot be disruptive in doing so. You need to totally reexamine the way you are conducting yourself. Better behavior on your part will not solve the behavior problems of others or resolve content issues, but is a minimum requirement for continuing to edit effectively. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But in opposing I put forward evidences and cite information for legitimate reasons. Please note that the primary counterpart of this controversy has always been Anders Feder alone. He continues to bring up the same POVs that are controversial and he tries to render his claims as a factual, objective ground to remove Iranian POVs from nearly whatever Iran-related topics I participate in. I don't know why he is so adamantly opposed to Iran. I even suspect his strong prejudice might be rooted in his sympathy for the state of Israel that is Iran's adversary. I can't find other explanation for a user who repeatedly desecrates my religion and attacks my country based on his personal persuasions. I'm not saying he should not disagree as he has every right to, but to fixate on repeated allegations regardless of repeater counter arguments is what bothers me and is truly disrupting. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "I even suspect his strong prejudice might be rooted in his sympathy for the state of Israel" Jew-baiting, who should have thunk? I have no particular sympathy for Israel or anyone else, and readily act against Zionist POV-editors such as this one too. The reliability of your Iranian sources have been debated extensively here, including by yourself.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    His discussion of issues is also inappropriate, and he may be handling Iranian sources improperly. He is not wrong, as he strongly points out, and has good sources for, when he claims Iranian media is both controlled by the state and propagandistic. You don't have to be a Zionist to get that. The question is how to handle inclusion of the point of view without incorporating "facts" from an unreliable source. This is not easy. Denial of the unreliability of Iranian media is not a viable tactic; there are even claims, by Iranian leaders, that strong expressions of opinion by other Iranian leaders are not to be taken at face value. Nevertheless, assertions of opinion in Iranian media may be included as valid expressions of the point of view of the state. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by saying that Iranian media are "controlled"? All media in the world are controlled but I don't see BBC for example being undermined for being funded and controlled by the UK government! And whether this or that media is "propagandistic" is quite subjective and depends on one's political stance! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that the state determines the content. The content of the BBC is determined by the British state which requires, other than with respect to certain sensitive issues, that the content of the BBC be reliable. That is not the case in Iran. Such a determination does not depend on one's political stance but on knowledge of the international media. If you chose to edit using Iranian sources (or Russian or Chinese, or American, for that matter) you need to have some sense of what is simply factual, possibly factual, or just plain made up. We do use highly questionable sources, for example, the rate of growth of the Chinese economy, as reported by the Chinese government. Likewise, some Iranian material can be used, but not all. Determining what is appropriate is a matter of editorial judgement. It should not all be excluded, nor should tendentious assertions be accepted as reliable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly the same can be said about Iran. "The content of the PressTV (for argument's sake) is determined by the Iranian state which requires, other than with respect to certain sensitive issues, that the content of the PressTV be reliable. That is not the case in Britain...." but it seems that somehow Western governments are inherently superior to Iran even if they are lead by hereditary monarchs whereas Iran is lead by a modest religious scholar who is appointed and monitored by an elected body of legal experts. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not! Iran could choose to have a free reliable media. There is an overwhelming international consensus that much of the controversial information in Iranian media cannot be trusted and is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia other than as the opinion of the Iranian state. Feel free to advocate for its inclusion, but please don't be disruptive about doing so. That includes ascribing motives such as Zionism to other editors, beating on them, or repeatedly making edits against the general consensus. Please try to find the best Iranian, Islamist, or Shia sources and consistently use them. I'm not that familiar with Farsi media, but I know there are excellent, mediocre, and poor sources in English. Consistently advance the best. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strivingsoul, Great Britain is led by its Prime Minister and a democratically elected assembly, as is the Netherlands, etc. , with hereditary monarchs playing a ceremonial role but with no real power. And the BBC's content is not controlled by the state - it's also funded by a license fee, not the government. Doug Weller (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But still the Monarch apparently appoints BBC's Board of Trustees in Council. The licensing is also mandatory for citizens. And there's been all sorts of criticisms of biased reporting against the corporation. The most notorious bias undoubtedly effects BBC Mid-Eastern coverage which has been the target of UK imperialist policies and its alliance with the state of Israel which has been been a source of plight for muslims for more than 6 decades. But we don't see anyone seriously questioning BBC's reliability at least on Mid-Eastern/Muslim developments. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While the Queen makes the appointments, she has no choice in the matter : "BBC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister. When new Trustees are needed the posts are publicly advertised. Trustees are chosen on merit and the process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments." (from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/trustees/appointment.html). The British constitutional monarch is titular head of state, but not head of government except for ceremonial purposes. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Anders Feder, I have done what I can in the way of jawboning. As noted above, you too, need to do much better. Keep in mind that all states, and points of view, have their media voice, and that all media is in some sense biased, if only in what they choose to report. It is the controversial tendentious assertions of factual content that seek to advance sectarian objectives that need to excluded, not every fact published. Consider the objectives of the Iranian state while making editorial decisions. For example, they would like to embarrass Saudi Arabia over the Hajj, so they might assert questionable facts with respect to the recent tragedy. Obviously, if the behavior you complain of continues indefinitely User:Strivingsoul must eventually be blocked, or even banned, but please don't make him feel that nothing in Iranian media is acceptable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What about his demeaning statements against the muslim beliefs?! Does he really have to attack our beliefs for working in Wikipedia?! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, that past RfC never refuted my rebuttal of argument from control. As I also argued there and again here, if control is the problem then all media outlets are somehow controlled either by governments or corporations. There has been indeed scholarly critique of the hazards of corporate consolidation of mass media which can affect their objectivity and/or reliability. Please have a look at Corporate media. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I go by the closing comment on the RfC linked above.[22] If anyone opens a new RfC on that, I am happy to follow the outcome.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is sound, but you are twisting the knife. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What source have I opposed that I should not have opposed?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    None that I know of but don't be so nasty. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, User:Strivingsoul, David Duke, and anything connected with him is a subject you should avoid. It is a hot button issue due to his notoriety; a stick in the eye does not make friends. This sort of behavior can easily form the basis of a topic ban as can any anti-Semitic editing, especially using Iranian sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your good-faith advise. But I am afraid I have to defer! First off, I perfectly knew that David Duke is notorious for his past association with the White Supremacist KKK back in 1970s. But what I also know in addition is that over the last 3 decades Duke has apparently developed a very distinct career which can be described as only a White nationalist. Studying his career over the last decade I never saw him harboring any racist sentiments against Africans or advocating anti-Semitism. The reason I'm saying this and I dare to say this is that I personally read his book Jewish Supremacism and therefore I could directly learn about his character and positions from that book. And having read his book I could outright tell that a number of allegations about his views as expressed in the book are totally unfounded. And interestingly those allegations mainly come from such notorious sources as the ADL which has a long history of attacking and defaming even critiques of Zionist genocidal policies and have been exposed for spying on American activists who speak for Palestinian rights! David Duke similarly over the last three decades has been speaking out against Zionist atrocities against Palestinians and for that reason, it is not hard to tell why there is so many vicious libels heaped against him by the ADL and/or other pro-Israeli sources. I know you may find these hard to believe but please before rushing to judgment at least have a look at these two videos where he is given opportunity to speak for himself. In this interview he doesn't whatsoever sound like a White supremacist bigot. He openly rejects any form of racism but also believes that there's a dominant anti-Christian/anti-White prejudice in US media. In his Youtube channel as in this one he deeply sympathizes with the tragic suffering of Palestinians at the hand of Zionist state and is trying to raise awareness. These are some of the alternative sources that paint a much more charitable picture of this person and these alternative perspective supports my claim of bias as per WP:NPOV in the review of the book. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no practical difference between "White Nationalism" and "White Supremacism". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, an IP editor from the UK made the exact same distinction in this edit.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That it is possible in an abstract way does not determine the issue, the attitudes of those organized under the banner do, and anti-Semitism is the touchstone, a non sequitur with respect to any genuine advocacy of European welfare. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not listening: you have your wet tongue on a 440 Volt line and you are standing in water. Given this post I would not oppose a permanent topic ban from editing any subject related to Jews or Israel. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean he has not been a White supremacist. But from studying his recent interviews, articles and books over the last decade that are available, it is clear that he no longer advocates white supremacy which is defined as a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially rule non-whites according to White supremacy. In the interview I linked he openly condemns slavery and all forms of racism. So please before threatening to ban me for simply pointing out some facts, consider examining the sources that I have suggested. Have I made any unfounded claim or have caused any offense?! And what I suggest in this regard is admitting the bias by ADL in misrepresenting the content of the book, as well as, including Duke's recent positions as per WP:NPOV. And for that I can produce direct quotes from his book that disproves some of the negative allegations against what the book says. I understand these facts may contradict some of the assumptions about this apparently sensitive topic considering the alliance most Western governments have with the state of Israel and as a result a much more positive attitude towards Israel, but in Wikipedia we have to be neutral as you all know. If you have lived in the Middle East or if you were a muslim, you would see that sentiments are very different towards Zionism and Israel in this part of the world for obvious reasons. So don't just take your own perceptions as granted and universal. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made many an unfounded claim, not the least of which is Duke isn't racist just because he claims he isn't racist. He just happens to think European (non-Jew) whites are genetically superior to every other people on the planet (including your own) and that the U.S. and Europe should be white only. Visit his website where you can see how he laments that Europe is being "invaded" by Muslims. Or how European whites are more intelligent than all other races. That's racism. As of late he's just turned his racism towards Jews because it sells more of his crappy conspiracy books. Duke is a crank and a laughing stock and the fact that you in any way take him seriously shows you have a very bad grasp of which sources would be considered reliable on Wikipedia. Capeo (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He claims that every people have a right to preserve their heritage. And that multi-culturalism leads to ethnic tension and conflict and destruction of distinct cultural traits of each people. We may not agree with him but he's making a compelling case for his view, and this is unfair to rush to frame it as racism simply because he is against massive aggressive immigration into Europe and America. He also cites Jewish sources which show how multi-culturalism was promoted by Jewish organizations in order to weaken the Christian culture of America. On a related topic, here is one of the Jewish sources he directly quotes that you can see for yourself. The Jewish author admits and brags about their role in the notorious porn-industry and its dark anti-Christian goals: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. (This is really interesting for me, since this is a pattern I have myself witnessed in another case. Israeli Prime Minister Netanhayu had also advocated regime change in Iran back in 2002 through cultural and moral subversion -- by advocating beaming hedonist and degenerate Hollywood productions by a gay Jewish director into Iran in order to corrupt Iranian youths until they revolt against their Islamic government). Just as evident in this example, his book primarily draws from Jewish sources to present his thesis. Most of the book content are NOT his opinions but just quotes after quotes! He is not also claiming there's a crazy conspiracy theory but that Jews have an enormous influence over US media and politics and therefore deeply influence the US culture and politics. And again he backs up his claim by providing testimony from Jews themselves. Here is one of the testimonies he quotes from a Jewish author: I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood. So we can probably suggest that this guy talking about "total control of Hollywood by Jews" is a self-hating anti-Semitic Jew!!
    And I'll also be happy if you show me a Duke's recent statement that says Whites are superior to non-whites. There could've been such statements coming from him during his youth where he held more radical views, but I've not seen any statement along that vein in those of his works or articles over the last two decades that I have studied. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Fred, anyone who doesn't see antisemitism in Duke's writing and views should not be anywhere near articles on the subject. Capeo (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am simply proposing is balancing the article and admitting the blatant bias of relying primarily on Jewish/Zionist organizations. You did not address any of my evidences and arguments here but only rush to advocate restriction for no legitimate reason. This is not honest. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You supplied no evidence, just typical antisemitic conspiracy theories. Comparing Iranian state run media to western free press is beyond ridiculous. Yes, certain outlets tend towards certain political leanings but they all have one thing in common: they freely criticize or report on criticisms of their governments and state establishments and report on everything and anything newsworthy no matter how it makes their home country look. Daily. With no fear of repercussion from the government. As opposed to say, IRNA, which sets out guidelines that must be followed by their "journalists" that allow for no criticism of the state or Islam. Please. Next time a Western country throws a journalist in jail for "propaganda against the establishment" let me know. Until then, you have no point and should stay far away from away from articles on the subject. Capeo (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Western media control is much more subtle and systematic in nature and it is because of the corporate control of the media that is interconnected with others in the rich corporate ruling class. See Corporate media for this scholarly thesis. So the real influential people in the West are not politicians but the super-rich corporations who fund electoral campaigns and lobby for corporate gain and dictate government policies through "non-profit" foundations, promote their commercials for profit etc. Western sources especially in countries like USA, UK, Canada are also notorious for preventing the public from knowing about many dark facts of their foreign policy, e.g. imperialist catastrophic wars against nations driven by corporate grid disguised under "humanitarian intervention" or "democracy promotion" or decade after decade of unconditional financial and diplomatic support for the Zionist regime despite its long hideous human rights record and several acts of massacre committed against muslims. So you can't have a correct assessment of "freedom" in the press if you are not familiar with Political economy critical analysis of the corporate media or have not followed alternative media reporting of the crucial issues that are systematically censored or highly under-represented or misrepresented by a small number of Corporate media conglomerates that control 90% of the media outlets. But contrary in Iran, big money is not dictating news and public opinions but Islamic principles of a muslim nation. In Iranian state media, presidential candidates all enjoy a free and equal time to present their platform without needing to spend tremendous sums on campaigning, but in the West big corporations can practically decide the outcome of the elections depending on which candidates they choose to financially support. In the West big money rules and defines freedom but in Iran it is the Islamic virtues of its committed leaders. And if there are some fringe journalists who were sentenced for their treason or offending the Islamic beliefs of the majority that doesn't say anything to support the idea of lack of press freedom in Iran. Iran has a constitution that overwhelming majority of Iranians voted for in a public referendum. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't know why I'm responding, this will be my last, but I can't help myself. I'm aware of all the deficiencies inherent to corporate media and corporate influence on politics. Do you know why? Because these issues are constantly reported on by a vast array of media outlets and politicians in the U.S. You think you're exposing some dark secret yet these discussions and criticisms are at the forefront of debate in the U.S. precisely because we have a free press and the ability to criticize whatever we we wish. This: "And if there are some fringe journalists who were sentenced for their treason or offending the Islamic beliefs of the majority that doesn't say anything to support the idea of lack of press freedom in Iran," displays a stunning disconnect in regards to what a free press and freedom of speech are. Capeo (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Community ban

    Proposing an indefinite community ban from Wikipedia or a topic ban on anything related to Judaism, broadly construed, per Wikipedia:Competence is required and based on the discussion above, especially the claim regarding David Duke that "Studying his career over the last decade I never saw him harboring any racist sentiments against Africans or advocating anti-Semitism." Gamaliel (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And what's so terrible about that claim to deserve a topic ban?! Please cite evidence to counter my claim. I can still cite many more evidences to back up my claim. Others have presented virtually non! And what a fair way of conducting an ANI discussion indeed! Rushing to topic ban regardless of any substantial evidences exchanged! I'm not here to cause trouble but work according to WP:NPOV and to minimize WP:BIAS. Is that what warrants such an aggressive measure against me?! I recommend allowing this discussion to proceed further in the mainspace talk pages. It is too early to judge! Strivingsoul (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also tag an experienced muslim Wikipedian that I have worked with on Islam/Iran-related topics for arbitration. Some participants in this page seem to be more or less biased against me and the topic, and ignore my explanations. @Sa.vakilian:. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I come here due to Strivingsoul's request and do not want to participate in ideological or religious discussions. @Gamaliel:, As I know, we should judge about the users based on their activities not their ideas. Let's check whether Strivingsoul or Andres Feder have violated the wikipedia policies and guidelines or not. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What does it matter that he is Muslim? The issue being discussed is your behavior, not your religion. Being Muslim isn't a justification for being disruptive.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anders Feder! You are the one who instigated this whole mess to begin with! You've lumped together so many different issues in your first post that can not be properly addressed here with discernment. The last time I was also banned was also for a similar reason. An administrator rushed to take an unfinished talk-page dispute to ANI while I was still defending my case.
    And the reason I brought up religion because as I explained earlier this dispute started out of we coming from diametrically opposed philosophical/political persuasions. You were strongly biased against Iran and Islamic topics hence I needed to counter some of your allegations with alternative information. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying Sa.vakilian is in possesion of some "alternative information" that will vindicate views such as: "[Jews] are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion"?--Anders Feder (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No! But probably compared to you who are driven with your anti-Muslim prejudices, he has the integrity to recognize that I was basically quoting a Jewish journal quoting Jewish porn-producers saying exactly that: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority. They are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why were you quoting it? What were you trying to show?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't unnecessarily drag this any further! You can just scroll up some paragraphs or use Ctrl+F to locate where I quoted it and in which context and purpose. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose is clear, and Gamaliel's proposal was made in response to it.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are interested in evidence for my alternative view here is one from Duke's official website: "In truth, as racism is defined, if you believe in mutual respect of all peoples, and you oppose the oppression of a people by another people, you are not racist, but actually anti-racist. The truth is that any race can practice racism, not only white people.". Strivingsoul (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you're so concerned about quotes being used out of context, just pointing out that you omitted The truth is that the real ultra-racists are those who control the media. The Zio Media demonizes whites and incites hatred in blacks toward whites and self-hatred in many whites toward themselves. They do this so they can divide and conquer and control us all. They especially hate whites and seek to demonize whites because they see the 60 percent of the white population as their biggest competitors for power, so they want to weaken and demoralize white people, and create a coalition against white people while they are the true masters of media, finance and government. from that quote. ‑ iridescent 08:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban "The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and their cultural context are lacking." No ethnic group or nation should be subjected to editing this tone deaf. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite familiar with basic policies and workings of Wikipedia. But the problem is this discussion has become too loaded with various disputes. If it was not for Anders Feder extreme opinions and his taking so many different issues to ANI, I would have been proceeding in relevant talk pages to discuss and settle the disputes with other involved Wikipedians. And I can see you yourself admitted that Anders Feder's behavior was crucial for instigating this whole unnecessary controversies. Let's us just discuss and settle the disputes in relevant talk pages. I understand this thread has already become very exhausting and hard to judge so many disagreements. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    People can have a look at my recent useful contributions to Houthis to get an idea of my good understanding of Wikipedia policies. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Death to America, death to Israel, damnation to the Jews." is not ambiguous. See your edit here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't cover up the full facts! Why do you need to cite out of context and ignore alternative POVs already covered in that page which reject the literal interpretation of that slogan?! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is you who doesn't understand what anti-Semitism is! Please stop pushing for your accusations and have a look at Criticism of the Israeli government#Objections to characterizing criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism! Considering our unresolved dispute here, you are by no means an impartial arbitrator! Anders Feder has only canvassed biased users against me to corner me by completely ignoring any of the extensive explanations I have offered so far, and repeating baseless accusations! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll find that most users on this site are similarly "biased" against antisemitism or any other sort of bigotry. There is a huge difference between criticizing the policies of the Israeli government (something Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, does fairly often) and pretending that a known neo-Nazi is somehow not a bigot. If you can't tell the difference, you don't belong here. That dispute was resolved, and everyone found that you were wrong. The only thing that was left unresolved was that we failed to block you as a troll for pretending that a man who headed an organization dedicated to violence against blacks and Jews is somehow a spokesperson for tolerance. When you said that you never saw any evidence of racism on his part, you were lying either to us (as a troll) or to yourself (as a bigot). Either behavior does not belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true! Did you honestly read my explanations for example when I said: I did not mean he has not been a White supremacist. But from studying his recent interviews, articles and books over the last decade that are available, it is clear that he no longer advocates white supremacy. Furthermore, I linked evidences that he openly rejects racism in his statements over the last two decades. My argument is that the charge of racism is true only for the period that he was involved with KKK in 1970s. But at least for the last two decades he does no longer harbor racism against any group. And I have already provided sufficient evidences to back this up if only you care to study them! The problem is this dispute should've been resolved in the book's talk page and not dragged here. This whole controversy started from a disagreement on reliability of Iranian sources. Completely irrelevant to the accusations you posed here. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not like your efforts to bog down constructive editing in rants regarding how mainstream sources are controlled by the Rothschild family, the British queen, etc. are any more helpful to the project than your defense of the views of David Duke.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't twist, generalize, falsify, lie! Have some shame! Produce evidence, context and link for anything you attribute to me next time! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef. WP:NPOV doesn't mean being obliged to give every racist crackpot theorist equal airtime to mainstream views, and given the responses in this thread, this editor is never going to understand that. ‑ iridescent 08:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef. per above. — Ched :  ?  08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's just halt this mess for a second, Users here drop in and are simply provoked by the gross appearance of the charges against me and ignore my extensive explanations. But this whole accusatory mess against me started when Aders Feder dragged a dispute over reliability of Iranian sources to ANI and lumped it together with many other unresolved issues in the past such as the dispute over neutrality of David Duke book' analysis to condition the users against me. I should make it clear that I do not advocate anti-Semitism but it is vital to allow legitimate criticism of Israeli government or Jewish pornographers from a Christian point of view such as that of David Duke to be properly represented in the articles as per WP:NPOV, and we can resolve and decide this in the relevant talk pages as I had once attempted here: Talk:Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question. This has really become an unnecessary loaded fuss and unfair accusation game against me over so many unresolved issues. Let's us just proceed to settle them in the long run. I apologize for my part for indirectly having contributed to this controversy but like I said I was not the one who started this but Anders Feder! Strivingsoul (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No one are "ignoring your extensive explanations". They read your extensive explanations and conclude that they amount to nothing.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This is not "ignoring your extensive explanations". Your "extensive explanations" are predicated on the assumption that the ultra-marginal views of David Duke are mainstream enough that NPOV mandates they be discussed. For anyone unfamiliar with David Duke, just reading his official homepage should speak for itself. ‑ iridescent 08:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What if those "ultra marginal" views such as ones expressed in his book are exhaustively backed up by +600 scholarly references?! I think WP:BIAS warrants fair representation of his views especially when they are properly backed up. His views are also not ultra-marginal and not even quite marginal! There are many left-wing, right-wing and even Jewish critiques who concur with many of his points in regards with Zionism. Example: Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, Robert Faurisson, Norman Finkelstein and Neturei Karta. There are also many Christian Conservatives and Palocoservatives who might not be as outspoken or well-known as him but still share his views on emigration and/or defending Christian values against liberal/Jewish cultural war. Examples E. Michael Jones, Neal Gabler, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and more. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Christian" is not identical to "Right-wing," and many of the authors you list as "Christian" derive their political philosophy from this Jewish atheist instead of the Beatitudes. Most right-wing Christians in America are extremely pro-Israel. Quit trying to play the "you're protecting Christians" card, because you're only going to annoy Christians (and probably atheists and agnostics as well). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef, or ban (although that seems unnecessary), or topic ban (although that would probably just move the advocacy elsewhere). Supporting Duke is one type of problem, but making the statement quoted above indicates a much deeper issue because editors have to be sufficiently competent to understand basics, particularly when engaging in these areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban (first preference) or topic ban (second choice). Among the things Wikipedia does not need, unashamed apologists for white supremacism and antisemitism must surely rank near the top. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Whatever has the greater consensus. Although topic ban should really be attempted first. Reason: RE David Duke, sheesh. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I was waiting till I saw their responses to me from last night before I proposed a siteban myself. Now that I see them this morning. Just... wow. David Duke and the word "scholarly" in the same sentence? There is nothing good that's going to come from Strivingsoul's continued presence here. Capeo (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You just like pretty much everyone else in this page, have no idea about Duke beyond than ADL/Zionist propaganda or his past KKK association back in 1970s! You don't even know the guy has a Phd in history! You have not read his scholarly book that contains 600+ references! So you just jump in the bandwagon to spew out "Ban ban ban ban!" You seem so biased and misinformed about this man that you apparently even can't believe your eyes when looking at several pieces of evidences that I have offered in my lengthy discussions! ### for everyone else supporting "ban ban ban ban"! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're really not helping your case with your continued insinuations about Zionist propaganda. In any case, people with advanced degrees and published books can still be bigots. One only needs to look at David Duke's website to realize that while he's shied away from the overt bigotry of his KKK days, he still harbors a lot of the same feelings towards Jews. clpo13(talk) 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    David Duke got his "Ph.D" from a Ukrainian diploma mill know for its for virulent anti-antisemitism. They handed it to them because he supports their views. He's not a scholar and his book's supposed scholarly references are quote-mined bullshit taken out of context. He's never published in any journals, never cited by actual scholars and is a complete joke. Not to mention he went to jail for bilking his followers. Your "evidence" is, again, quote mined bullshit that in no way examines the context of the quotes and tries to paint said quotes as speaking for an entire people. It's disingenuous trickery used by people with no argument. Can we just ban this person at this point? Anyone seriously arguing that Duke meets reliability criteria or is a scholarly source lacks the competence to edit here. They're here to push their POV and that's it. Capeo (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Known for its virulent anti-Semitism" Yes! Dare to criticize Zionist genocidal policies or point out things like atheist Jewish pornographers' self-declared agenda of weakening Christianity by moral subversion, or US unconditional support for Israel's occupational apartheid, and then be branded as "anti-Semite" by ADL's Stalinist thought policing, to the point of even making the absurd claim of Self-hating Jew for decent Jews who point out the same injustices by their fellow tribesmen! And my evidences prove that there are perfectly legitimate grounds in David Duke's or (others', for that matter,) criticism of extremist, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian elements with Jewish background, unless you're advocating the view that once someone happens to come from a Jewish background, he or she somehow miraculously becomes infallible and should not be criticized for anything wrong! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (community ban) While I agree with most of the above discussions about lack of competence regarding the David Duke and related issues, there is not enough evidence of Policy violations. Therefor, I think "topic ban" is enough to punish him and community ban is not justifiable. I wonder how the above comments are made in support of the proposal without trying to show how the editor has violated policies and which policies have been violated.​ The discussion, despite being full of hot comments, is not what an ANI discussion should be.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for some little sense! But about "lack of competence" what's that?! And the only policy that seems I have grossly, badly, awfully violated is ADL's political correctness!! But I didn't know that's part of Wikipedia policies, you know! Nobody even told me that! But maybe you can guide me to the relevant Wiki help page! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIR is enough. There need not be specific policy violations cited for the community to decide that an editor is a net negative to the project due to soapboxing, POV-pushing and overall lack of a clue. Capeo (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Net negative indeed! I had planned to work on multiple Iran/Shia/Islam-related topics and help other Farsi-speaking editors with English language! But apparently the net negative is really worth it for God forbid disagreeing with ADL or Zionist political narrative! It's you know such an irredeemable crime against humanity! Strivingsoul (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on anything relating to Jews or Judaism. His continued assertions that David Duke's reputation is merely the result of the "ADL or Zionist political narrative" indicate an unwillingness to be neutral when it comes to this topic. With regards to policy violations elsewhere, I'm not convinced this editor is enough of a problem to justify a complete community ban. clpo13(talk) 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Merely a result of..." when did I say that?! I already admit that Duke deserves criticism for his past association with KKK! But that's not justification to brand him as anti-Semite for criticizing the grotesque crimes of the Zionist state, or the influence of Zionist lobby on US foreign policy, or atheist Jewish pornographers that have vowed to subvert Christian culture in American by promoting moral degeneracy! And it is interesting you talk about neutrality but support ADL's biased review of his book to be cited as fact! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ad it is interesting you talk about neutrality but support ADL's biased review of his book to be cited as facts! Please show me where I did or said anything of the sort. clpo13(talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STOPDIGGING. Support topic ban at least, as per Onel5969. GABHello! 01:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The most laughable part about that, which shows how incapable this editor Strivingsoul is at parsing sources in an unbiased manner, is that they are using this quote mine: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority. They are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion to justify the statement. The quote is from an essay exploring historical and current Jewish participation in the US porn industry. The essay, as should be clearly obvious through "by this argument", puts forth multiple arguments to explain said involvement but of course this editor settles only on the one that supports his Zionist-conspiracy-to-ruin-everything theory. Capeo (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The most laughable part is that you are quoting selectively to obscure what that article definitely suggests. So here's a veritable testimony: Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said, ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Still more laughable (or maybe sad) part is your implication that even if some of these people were not promoting porn with that explicit purpose, that would somehow discount the heinous nature of their occupation and its inevitable harmful impact on the society. Strivingsoul (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strivingsoul, since you're accusing me of discounting something that is immaterial to the point I'm going to respond to you though I said I wouldn't earlier. Again, your comprehension of the essay is lacking. "Pornography thus becomes", makes clear this is a presentation of yet another view, among many presented, that MAY contribute to the understanding of the historical participation of Jews in pornography. You seem not to comprehend that the essay makes no definitive statements and draws no conclusions but only points out what may be contributing factors. You are the one making definitive statements based on the authors hypotheticals and a quote from a Jewish porn producer and trying to paint all Jews with that broad brush as part of a conspiracy to destroy society. I note from your response below you've now moved your target from "Atheist Jews" to "Atheist/Liberal Jews". Well, though you've tried to paint me in a bad light, this Atheist/Liberal non-Jew isn't going to share his personal views about pornography with you as it has nothing to do with your inability to put a source in its proper context. Capeo (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm NOT and never been "painting all Jews as part of a conspiracy to destroy society" for that's just an unwarranted, unfair generalization! I already have much praise for many decent Jews who have spoken out against the criminality of the Zionist state or the vehement Zionist propaganda and cultural war against muslims and Christians. I have named some of these commendable Jewish personalities earlier above. Furthermore, it is useful for you to know that I personally come from a country where anti-Semitism is banned by state religious law and is home to the second largest Jewish community in the region. Jews have been living in Iran peacefully ever since the Islamic Revolution in Iran except for a very short-lived wave of emigration to Israel before Iranian revolutionary leaders had still the chance to publicly declare their acceptance and recognition of the Iranian Jewish minority. See: Persian Jews#Islamic Republic (1979–present). Strivingsoul (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, just for the record, could you modify your comments to make it a bit clearer who "this editor" is? I'd hate for anyone to mistakenly think you were talking about me. EEng (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, EEng. I corrected the above to make clear I was referring to Strivingsoul. Capeo (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I realized that eventually, but for a minute I was trying to figure out how to reach through the internet and smack you a good one. Thanks for clarifying. EEng (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. No problem. It was rather clumsy wording on my part. Capeo (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban Just keeps digging. Irondome (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban. I see nothing to suggest Strivingsoul has any interest in following Wikipedia's principles, either in his contributions history or this very ANI thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban Racism is against Civility, without civility, Wikipedia would be a battleground of war and rage. As evidenced by his behaviour, I can tell that he wages frequent edit wars and does frequent personal attacks with anyone he opposes, especially Jews. I reckon that a topic ban would not stop this carnage, as one day, he could abuse us as well. A site ban should be more appropriate for him. Support per above. DSCrowned(talk) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Racism is of course abhorrently uncivil! But even more uncivil is to vilify someone as racist for pointing out things like, the widely recognized racism of the Zionist state, or its hideous oppressive policies or promotion of grotesque moral depravity by Atheist/liberal Jews, or, as also basically relevant to our work in Wikipedia, questioning reliability of a Jewish/Zionist partisan thought police organization such as ADL for presenting a book that criticizes that very partisan organization and its shameful practices! Sounds like racism indeed! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an admin close this? There is a very clear consensus for a topic ban at the very least. GABHello! 20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is in dire need of a close. I personally see a clear consensus for a siteban but obviously that's up to the closing admin to judge. I would note that, in my view, a topic ban would be woefully insufficient. From all Strivingsoul's responses it would seem they'd need to be TBed from anything related to Judaism and Israel for sure but they also seem to use pointed descriptions of Jews in a context that implies they have an issue beyond just Jews. You'll note descriptions like "gay Jew", "atheist Jew", and "atheist/liberal Jew" where the description is completely unnecessary unless the intent is to vilify homosexuals, atheists and liberals as well. Capeo (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with a topic ban "related to Judaism and Israel" is that since, as everyone knows, Jews control everything anyway, that's the same a complete ban on all topics, so let's save time and just go with that. EEng (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) ;)[reply]
    Ironically, when you actually read the source used for advocating beaming hedonist and degenerate Hollywood productions by a gay Jewish director into Iran in order to corrupt Iranian youths, the hedonist and degenerate Hollywood production in question turns out to be that hotbed of depravity, Beverley Hills 90210. ‑ iridescent 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair I'd be ready to revolt if I were forced to watch "Beverly Hills 90210" ;) In fact if it were actually "hedonistic and degenerate" it might have been an interesting show. In all seriousness though, I don't think Strivingsoul's connecting "hedonistic and degenerate" to the producer being gay was unintentional. Capeo (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what qualifies as hedonism or degenerate in your mind, but to me as a human being and a muslim, a TV-series that features "Lying, cheating, stealing, seduction, betrayal, jealousy, greed, murder ... [by] wonderfully wicked people" produced by an "openly gay Jews" is pretty much evil incarnate, and is yet another confirmation for the Atheist-Jewish moral war against Muslims and Christians! Practicing Muslims and Christians (as well as practicing Jews for that matter) would also find it totally inappropriate for their families to watch a TV-series that portrays youth getting involved in things like alcoholism, pregnancy and AIDS. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sooooooo.... can we close this now? We're at the point where the idiocy of Melrose Place is pretty much evil incarnate, and is yet another confirmation for the Atheist-Jewish moral war against Muslims and Christians! Capeo (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume someone must come from a very terrible upbringing and a very dangerous worldview to question the evilness of "Lying, cheating, stealing, seduction, betrayal, jealousy, greed, murder ...". I think that also makes it clear why admins don't heed your relentless agitations, for attitudes of this sort have no place in making decisions in Wikipedia! Strivingsoul (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we've moved onto personal attacks. I guess I've had a terrible upbringing because I'm able to separate a trite 90's melodrama from reality. Oh, and having the basic faith in humanity that they can do the same. Capeo (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a fun thread, but we really should close. GABHello! 22:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I don't know of a way to facilitate that though. An admin made the proposal and at least one has voted so there's definitely some admin eyes on this thread. Capeo (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know but maybe that's because they don't see how it is fair and correct to ban a judicious Muslim user that defends his position by citing information and evidences against a majority that just advocate ban based on their preconceived biases. Maybe admins see how this is clearly a case of someone being the most hard hit by Wikipedia systematic bias. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: I tried to read this rather long thread and also paid attention to the comments by participants. To me, some of them think we have a voting process here and almost few of them could say according to which policy and diff they thought he should be banned and why they are supporting a proposal which is based on an "essay" having "no official status." However I do admit his committing in edit warring for example here where I warned both sides (Shazaami was enclosed to be a sock-puppet). Please note that, accepting or denying Anti-semetism (or any other things such as Flat Earth) by editors is up to them and we can't punish them for having a particular belief, unless they try to push their wp:pov. Also, consider that "editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing," and POV-Pushing "generally does not apply to talk page discussions." Mhhossein (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My two cents Since there has been so many votes for "site ban" my vote wouldn't count either way, as such, I'm offering my two cents. I'm the one who figured out and got Shazaami blocked as sockpuppet[25] I must say Mhhossein is a great editor, as he has plenty of barnstars on his userpage. That said, Mhhossein and Strivingsoul have very similar userpage (except no barnstars on Strivingsoul's user page yet). Yet Strivingsoul's userpage was nominated for deletion. Mhhossein and Strivingsoul have very similar beliefs, editing pattern and often supports each other during conflicts. That said, why is Strivingsoul always being targeted negatively? Mhhossein is getting praised, as evidenced by the barnstars on his userpage--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm being targeted for Anders Feder's continued unnecessary agitations against me as you can see in this case as well. He tries to frame Muslim editors by appealing to the cultural and political biases of mainstream Wikipedians. He had also tried the same thing against Mhhossein in the past but miserably failed to the point of getting WP:BOOMERANG. I also hope he fails this time too. And I wish he is willing to drop or at least moderate his extreme biases against us who are making positive contributions to Wikipedia on one of the most underrepresented civilizational areas. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Disinformation is indeed an "underrepresented civilizational area" and that is just how it should remain.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can see, the only real similarities between the two users is that they are Muslim, edit in areas concerning middle eastern politics, and possibly share some broadly similar political views. Those are not the reasons why people are suggesting that Strivingsoul be blocked. While I've only made a cursory glance through Mhhossein's contributions, even if he does things I would not recommend, he seems to understand that one does not misquote figures neo-Nazi conspiracy fantasies as if they are facts. Editors are welcome to believe whatever they want outside the site -- but attempting to change article content based on those beliefs (especially ones as delusional as David Duke's) is unacceptable per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. StrivingSoul still does not understand that that is a problem.
    Also, the barnstars themselves are not protection, but the actions Mhhossein took to earn his barnstars does protect him somewhat. His contributions appear to be overall positive and useful. StrivingSoul has been problematic from the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    David Duke is controversial but unless and until we have conducted an objective study of his works and articles we can't dismiss what he says as "conspiracy fantasies" and just opt for the ADL's position on him and his works -- which by no means is a neutral party. And I don't know where I misquoted Duke? To the contrary it seems that Duke's views are heavily misquoted and even falsified by ADL in order to keep up the image of a persisting anti-Semitic bigot, and deflect from many reasonable points and viewpoints that he espouses. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2015 (UT
    Strivingsoul, you need to completely drop David Duke as a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. If you do not, you will indeed likely receive a block (probably an indefinite one) for disruptive editing and/or incompetence. I've been willing to give you a lot of rope on this thread, but if you don't learn from your mistakes and drop these WP:FRINGE-pushing behaviors, you will be blocked. It's just that simple. People are tired of arguing with you. I'm sure you believe you are right, but that doesn't matter. You need to abide by Wikipedia policies and consensus. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I am very grateful for your fair judgement. I understand that this controversy has grown so tiresome, and this apparently because of the very controversial character and career of Duke. Anyways, I thought I could back up my case with reference to WP:NPOV. But if there's no way David Duke can be relied on for anything (even his own opinions!) then I willingly drop this whole case because, then, as you also say, there would be no gain in dragging this any longer other than just more tension. And I'm already sorry for this unintended consequence. Thanks. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Mhhossein doesn't have the same fixation on Jews Strivingsoul (and a certain other wikipedia editor[26]) has. Brustopher (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a fixation on Jews. I'm just discussing a controversial topic that happens to be related to Jews. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)C)[reply]
    • Oppose. The above-espoused views on David Duke are at least partly wrong and moderately offensive but mostly just foolhardy. One can be an anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. I have not seen clear evidence of antisemitism; the opinion on Duke alone can't vouch for that. The discussion here got off-track quickly, partly because of StrivingSoul, no doubt (though Anders Feder is good at it too). It should have been a discussion about the edits cited in the very first paragraph of this thread but no one is talking about that. From those diffs one can make the case for a ban on Iran-related topics. The talk page discussion on Jewish Supremacism isn't all that disruptive; if we can't handle that on a talk page with a number of decent editors than it's looking bad for all of us. And their editing on Houthis, when they removed "antisemitims" as one of the group's ideologies, wasn't wrong: it's in the article again, with this as the only source, but a careful reading of that article proves this wrong: "Houthi supporters and leaders stress that their ire is directed toward the governments of America and Israel...rather than Americans or Jews as individuals....Anecdotally, at least, this would seem to prove true.

      So no, I cannot support such a topic ban, let alone a site ban. I understand y'all are having problems with this editor, but if they're a troll, not feeding them is helpful. Removing/hatting talk page forum posts is helpful. If they're edit warring, report them for it--they've been blocked for it before. Nothing that normal procedure can't fix. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "though Anders Feder is good at it too" What are you even talking about? Almost all of the few comments I've made are two sentences or less long, and most are replies to comments Strivingsoul or others directed at me. You are the user who closed my report regarding Mhhossein too - I am not surprised you would be so indilligent in processing this one also. As for your wishing others well putting up with Strivingsoul, why don't you do yourself? I sure as heck won't, but then again I guess that is your goal?--Anders Feder (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have a problem with the close of that discussion, feel free to put it up for review. My close is here, and comments addressed to you by Ravenswing, Kingsindian, and Brustopher make for helpful reading--particularly Ravenswing final comment, made a month before I closed the thread, itself a clear indication that no action was to be taken. I'm not processing anything here, just giving my opinion, and I clearly won't close it. Note that it's just me and a few others who are going against the tide, but I don't mind disagreeing with them--and I'm not disagreeing because you have something to do with this. If the community decides to ban this editor, so be it. My opinion of you is formed in part by what happened in the Mhhossein thread but again, that has no bearing on this case. (Note that, for instance, I quick-failed one of their GA nominations: I try to be an equal-opportunity offender.) As for me dealing with their disruption, well, I had to look at a bunch of their stuff plowing through the diffs, and I'm not happy with their behavior, as I indicated above; if I were more active in that area I might take action, or I might have taken action already--but it kind of begs the question (one I cannot answer) of what means of dispute resolution were sought earlier. I mean, WP:AN3 is just around the corner, and previous offenders are not typically regarded kindly there. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When one thinks the Jews control the media and speculates that pornography is a Jewish plot to weaken Christianity, then his anti-Semitism isn't really in question regardless of his beliefs on Israel or its government. Someone who defends an obvious anti-Semite by playing the "you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic" is treading in dangerous waters as well. Bobby Tables (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I think there is strong consensus for a site ban based on your comment. It boggles the mind and begs credulity that at least one admin thinks otherwise. While good people can disagree, this seems more of a case of bias, insensitivity, and disregard for the facts. If there isn't a site ban, we are only going to be back here in a few weeks. The facts show that most editors are indefinitely blocked for far less (see the recent block of User:MusicAngels for only one recent example). I think we are dealing with a small segment of the community that are unable to clearly recognize racism, disruption, and deliberate trolling when it stares them in the face. Clearly, adminship and the responsibility it requires isn't for everyone, so we need to hear from other voices who have a better reality-based view of the situation. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not wanting to ban someone doesn't mean one defends them, Bobby Tables, and I suppose the reference to Malik Shabazz's evenhandedness went right over your head. Viriditas, your vitriol is well known and it really doesn't bother me, though I do wonder in hindsight why I stuck my neck out for you long ago. That you are calling me not good people, but rather biased, insensitive, and whatnot, that's par for the course. Go ahead and call me an antisemite too. No, adminship is not for everyone, but perhaps if you're admin material you can try communicating via Bradspeak and clarify whose comment you're talking about, and if it was me you wanted site-banned. But you have enough !votes to get the site ban you so dearly want, so why badger the poor schmuck who disagrees with you? Drmies (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I miss Malik <sniff>. EEng (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobby Tables: "When one thinks the Jews control the media and speculates that pornography is a Jewish plot to weaken Christianity," Seriously, if you can so shamelessly pretend that those are what "I think" and deliberately ignore that those are acknowledged, reported facts that I have basically just referenced and quoted, then that casts serious doubt about your integrity and credibility in having any opinion in this ANI. Strivingsoul (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank you @Drmies: for your courage to point out the obvious fact that I'm being unfairly framed here for no real offense. The fact is, if some people are not willing to judge objectively and neutrally, there's no way they can be persuaded otherwise. Despite my persistent patience and restraint here in assuming good faith and supporting my case with facts and references, I continue to be attacked by allegations of anti-Semitism which is obviously unfounded. And when they charge me with being disruptive, they are mostly unaware that the disputes I've been involved with have been mostly with one or two editors who hold very extreme views and have a history of attacking me personally in talk page discussions with the inevitable result of repeated controversies. One can have a look at Talk:Houthis#Disruptive editing/reverts by an "Israeli Jew SunniWarrior" to see what kind of users I have to deal with in areas of my interest in Wikipedia. And this is now ironic that a "ban support" has just come from a Pro-Israeli partisan POV-pusher (masquerading as "SunniWarrior") that I have been dealing with fortitude in that talk page. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I think this is a massive pile-on bandwagon and witch hunt based solely on knee-jerk reactions to the name David Duke and the idea that someone has read his book and found some of it compelling or credible. This is not a reason to site-ban someone. Everything here is totally out of process. The user has not even remotely reached WP:BMB, and we should not even be considering that. As Drmies has said, everything here can totally be resolved via appropriate process. Extreme measures are not needed. The user needs to be given the opportunity to prove he can edit competently, collaboratively, and within policy. If he can't, then there are policies and sanctions in place to handle that. At this moment, this reaction is way over the top, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you Softlavender. You know, let me say (not so much to you as to the supporters) that I don't think that Strivingsould is not disruptive. And they're shooting themselves royally in all their feet simultaneously by turning every little think into some enormous discussion of political positions, as if everything is just about content and the opponents' POVs. I just don't think we need to go to this extreme measure. This is another one of those occasions where I sorely miss the presence of Malik Shabazz. I don't really know what Malik would say and I don't presume I can speak for him, of course, but one thing I learned from him is to be very careful with jumping from "anti-Israel" or "anti-Zionism" to "antisemitism", and I found that confirmed at least to some extent in the source cited for the Houthis case, linked above. To put it another way, I fear that if Strivingsoul continues to act they way they do, they will run into an indefinite block followed by a half dozen lengthy and bitterly argumentative unblock requests followed by the removal of talk page access. But for now I prefer to hope that this very discussion (are you listening, Strivingsoul?) will help them reconsider their style of editing, and that it will encourage them to keep more of their opinions to themselves. In yet other words, I think ROPE applies here, and that an indef block, if it happens, will clearly be their own doing. Thank you all, and all the best to those who are dealing with Strivingsoul's disruptive behavior. One way or another there will be an end to it, but I'd rather it be done differently than via a site ban. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the Zionist, crypto-Jewish, "SunniWarrior". Strivingsoul (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both editors blocked--the one indefinitely for being here only to disrupt, the other for 72 hours for personal attacks. If anyone feels the need to remove Strivingsoul's insult (the one after "Zionist"), go ahead. Or you can choose to let it stand, because if you support the (topic or site) ban, it sure helps your case. Hard to find a clearer case of someone shooting themselves in the foot. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Like Drmies, I'm not yet convinced that a community siteban is warranted. I do think that Strivingsoul is being disruptive, and there are few surer ways of cementing a reputation as a POV-pushing jerk than to rebut everything everyone posts with "But you're just not understanding that the Zionists are ***RACISTS!!!!*** nonsense. However: it is not a prima facie violation of Wikipedia policy to be anti-Zionist or even antisemitic; it is just one to push a POV along those lines in defiance of NPOV, and it sure as frigging hell NOT a ban-worthy offense to hold a view about David Duke that you find disagreeable. Has that level been breached here to the point of warranting a site ban? I don't see it ... yet. For another, I'm bothered that this is the second time in a month that Anders Feder -- a POV warrior in his own right -- has sought sanctions against someone who disagrees with him politically. I don't know about you, but I don't care for ANI being used as Anders Feder's catspaw against editors he dislikes. Ravenswing 08:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for being fair and objective, especially for appreciating that this is yet another unnecessary fuss resulting from Anders Feder's agitation and framing. But when you so confidently declare my characterization of Zionism as racism as "nonsense" you seem to be unaware of the fact that this is a popular view that has been even once adopted by a UN Resolution! Please also have a look at Israel and the apartheid analogy. So you see my friend, most of what I have been saying in this thread or elsewhere are backed up by facts and evidences, yet I don't see why there's so much hostility against me other than for a general bias that seems to be common with many Western Wikipedians on Mid-Eastern subjects and views. Don't you think this is a case of Systematic bias against me as per WP:BIAS?! Strivingsoul (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The determination that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", contained in the resolution, was revoked in 1991 with UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86. So you could just as well say, "the UN refuted the notion that Zionism 'is a form of racism and racial discrimination.'" GABHello! 20:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strivingsoul, it's comments like those that will get you banned, indirectly (as in this thread, since I think a lot of what underlies the support for the ban is irritation with your tendentious commentary) or directly, from some admin who has seen enough of it. Perhaps Anders Feder is agitating and framing, but you should be the last one to comment on it. What the UN has to say on something is of no relevance here. If there's BIAS here, and maybe there is, your combative edits and entrenched position are doing little to overcome it. Most importantly, constantly turning everything in some interminable political discussion may feel good when you're 16 and debating with your parents, but here--well, it may still feel good, but you'll find your audience turn rather to an admin asking for a block per FORUM or something like that. And if you keep this up, should it be me blocking you for persistent disruption? Because that is quickly becoming a valid block rationale. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're asking me what I truly think, Strivingsoul, I said a bit of it above. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a discussion forum, and ANI isn't remotely a venue (nor, as to that, is anywhere on Wikipedia) for you to wage war over your political beliefs. I oppose a community ban because it's a knee-jerk, disproportionate reaction to the situation, and that as far as I've found there aren't any Wikipedia policies requiring the permaban of people who don't think that David Duke sits at the right hand of Anti-Christ, but I freely confess I'm not going to lie awake in anguish if the Supports win this one. Your best move right now is to sit down, shut up, and accept that you've already said everything you wanted to say, ten times over, without continuing to comment on everything every editor posts. You'll ignore my advice, I expect, as you'll ignore Drmies', and if you possess a soupçon of self-examination, that you're getting this from two editors who oppose banning you should be the Mother of All Wake-Up Calls. Ravenswing 07:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kwamikagami

    Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass moving pages and then editing the resulting redirect page to block non-admins from moving those pages back. See here [27] for example, where he moved a page away from the common name despite two previous failed move requests (1 and 2). Given this user's history, which includes a block this March for similar undiscussed and disruptive page moves [28] (see also the archived thread) and being desysopped for move warring, I would hope the community would take some sort of corrective action. Calidum 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I edited the pages because they had the wrong tag on them. Wasn't aware of the previous move requests, but that's just for one page. The others go into tedious detail about how the name of the article is incorrect. And the Japanese one is mistranslated. Easier just to use the correct name to begin with, and note the others. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wasn't aware of the previous move requests". Odd, considering you participated in the last one in 2011. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I doubt anyone remembers every move discussion they've participated in for the last four years. That being said, Kwami needs to be more careful with regards to consensus of page moves particularly in light of the warning in March. I can't recommend a ban based on one recent example though so unless there are multiple recent problems of controversial moves, I couldn't support much more than a whaling and a reminder that we don't have deadlines. Wugapodes (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • He moved several other pages as well, which can be seen in his contributions. I only gave that one example because it's a topic I feel editors would be more familiar with and because the two previous move requests. While he may not remember participating in a past discussion at that page, WP:RM#TR says not to move any page as "uncontroversial" if there were any past discussions about the name, which to me means an editor should make sure there were no such discussions. If Kwami were a new user with no baggage, I'd be less concerned about his actions. He's not, however, and that's why I took this issue here. Calidum 01:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking through them I didn't see any that were, on their face, as controversial as the example you listed, ie, none seemed to have old move requests. None are clearly outside policy—just imprudent, but an admonition of "be more prudent" doesn't seem satisfactory, particularly in light of the March discussion. I see a ban as too much, but a warning as too little, so I will continue to refrain from a course of action until there's further discussion. Wugapodes (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion Kwami, would you consider a self-imposed restriction not to move pages at least for a while? Less drama all around. Darx9url (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I can do that, though I move redirects as an easy way to cover variant spellings, and I know there are people who would insist those should count as page moves. The main problem comes from the hundreds of moves I make that no-one has any problem with. I've seen discussion take three months even when no-one objects to a move. That's the main reason I just move the article -- if someone objects it can always be moved back and we save months of tedium. — kwami (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the concern is variant spellings and alternate names, I would recommend just creating the redirects as a new page. Otherwise there's too much potential for conflict and drama. And I'd also recommend double checking the article's talk page for any page move, in line with WP:BEFORE (which is about AFD, but is good guidance for any major article change, such as title changes). Saves everyone possible headaches. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I should check TALK. That's good advice. But as for creating a new page for every redirect, languages will sometimes have a dozen common alt names and spellings, and creating a dozen new pages for each of a dozen new language articles is a time-consuming pain in the ass. Much more efficient to create one and then move it to the others. And since there's no talk page, there's no worry about BEFORE. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really poor form to move a page without need. It creates all sorts of potential double redirect issues (are you manually fixing them, or letting a bot do the work?) and it's actually more of a pain in the ass (in my view) to do that instead of just copying and pasting the same #REDIRECT [[target page]] code over as many times as needed. Moving pages takes a lot more resources and should be avoided. I just don't see how that's a beneficial method for accomplishing your goals. oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it highly problematic that Kwamikagami considers discussion with other editors to be "tedium", that he thinks that he should be able to decide by himself that a title is "incorrect", and that he thinks that recommendations to do things carefully are a "time consuming pain in the ass". These statements imply that this editor thinks that he is superior to the broader Wikipedia community, and ought to be exempt from its input, and from consensus. If other editors think that I have misread the meaning of these comments, please let me know. I will reconsider. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find it tedious to have substantive discussions. But it is tedious to spend three months discussing a page move when everyone agrees it should be moved. Why should uncontroversial edits get mired in red tape? If you love bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, good for you, but don't push it on the rest of us. And again, if I move a page and people don't like it, we can move it back. Why shouldn't BOLD apply to page moves? — kwami (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Page-move ban

    Propose a page-move ban on Kwamikagami. Even after blocks and a desysopping for pagemoving, he doesn't get it and insists on having his own way. His extensive block log is making him look more and more WP:NOTHERE disruptive. I think he needs a ban on page moves, violation of which should result in a block. If he wants to prove that he is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, he can edit constructively (and collaboratively) rather than moving pages. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC): edited Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Let's look at my "extensive" block log. During the past two years I was blocked once in error; I was blocked once to catch my attention to something or other, not actually to be blocked; and just recently I was blocked for a spurious rational that everyone commenting opposed, and where the blocking admin didn't respond to people's objections. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, his explanation for editing the redirect doesnt fly with me. Its obviously a blocking attempt to prevent a reversion. Were Kwami a less experienced user this might have been reasonable. Kwami however knows exactly what they are doing when they move pages. Thats why they have been sanctioned for it previously.Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, I've had my share of disagreements with Kwami, but anything that is based on WP:NOTHERE in relation to his contributions is not something that one should get behind. —SpacemanSpiff 13:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal is based on his continuously disruptive page moves (the complaint of the filer and others), which have already warranted a desysop and a block. There needs to be some further action taken; it seems a page-move ban would be a workable solution. He can always file a WP:RM if he desires a move. Softlavender (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. In addition to the problems mentioned above, there is also this episode of move warring described at Talk:Tagalog_language#Move_wars, where Kwami twice moved a page in spite of a move request to the contrary just days before. Quite frankly, he cannot be trusted with the ability to move pages. Calidum 18:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Softlavender, you are misrepresenting the situation. I was not desysopped for pagemoving. I was desysopped, or at least deserved to be desysopped, in the words of one admin, because I did not take a complaint seriously. The issue at hand was a move request (by someone else, on a page I had not edited) that resulted in a consensus to move. The RfM was closed as 'move', and the closing admin moved the page. One person disliked it and reverted. People complained, and as the consensus was clearly for 'move' with the reverter alone in opposition, I moved the page back. But in doing so I violated a technicality: I was only able to restore the page to its consensus location because I was an admin, though I didn't know that at the time. (There's no warning that a move you are about to make can only be made because you're an admin.) Thus I was technically guilty of wheel-warring -- though, I should add, the page was still at the consensus location where I moved it a year later and probably is still there today. The person who reverted the consensus move complained. I responded, but then didn't keep the discussion under watch because I thought it was too trivial to be an actionable issue. After all, a single move, one that the community and a RfM agreed on, is hardly a disruptive action. When I expressed shock a couple months later at being desysopped over a complaint that I had forgotten about, the admin said that I deserved to be desysopped because I hadn't taken it seriously. I find that ludicrous, but regardless, my enforcing a closed consensus as an admin is hardly comparable to moving a bunch of pages that 99% of the time no-one objects to. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - A complete ban on page moves is too much. Although I too think it is better to just create a new page and copy/paste the redirect code, page moving is just his technique for redirecting alternate names. If you don't agree with it then have a policy or guideline written. Otherwise this would just hinder a productive editor. And as Kwamikagami has said above, "if [he] move[s] a page and people don't like it, we can move it back." ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it makes it much harder for regular users to move the page back after he edits the resulting redirect, as was the case here. Calidum 20:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not just ask an admin to help, or go to ANI? Since it's reversing a BOLD move, there's no need to go through RfM. Simply revert and if I really feel it should be moved, I can start the RfM. If I move a hundred pages and one is objected to and reverted, then we've saved a *huge* amount of time compared to debating a hundred RfM's.
    Question, since this is new since I was an admin: Aren't the tags on redirects supposed to indicate why the page exists? Alt capitalization, alt spelling, alt name, common misspelling, rd with page history to be preserved, rd that is a potential page split -- isn't it considered appropriate to use the appropriate tag? Because fixing the tag is what people seem to be most upset about. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I've had several encountets with kwami, sometimes agreed and occasionally disagreed, but always found him polite and willing to discuss. I hace a hard time taking the 'not here' accusation seriously. Jeppiz (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    New location for Cause of death vandal?

    The Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal usually operates from Leeds or Keighley in the UK, but two recent IPs from nearby Sale in the UK seem to be doing the same sort of stuff. Is it our old friend, or a new editor?

    The Cause of death vandal was known to change infobox templates from specific ones such as musical artist to the most general one so that he could add missing parameters such as cause of death, spouse, etc. The new IP has done exactly that here and here with comedian infoboxes. Both of these Sale-based IPs are interested in UK politician bios, for instance they both touched the same biography, the second time changing the birth date away from that which is seen widely in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BEANS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.58.121 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how WP:BEANS applies here... Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another IP just showed up doing the same stuff so I'm moving forward under the assumption that the 178.1xx IPs are the long-term vandal. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LilDennie Wikipedia (talk - contribs)

    Despite any warning and a block in September, after this report, this user continues to contribute in write-only, creating non notable pages deleted more times. Wuchoo Know was created 3 times in 4 days (please note: with no meaningful content), and few days after, he/she created Wuchoo Know (Nicki Minaj song), deleted in semptember and created again yesterday (see AFD page). Other creations include U Got What I Need, the nonsense Template:PIOTL, Black Friday: Kimmie Blanco Reloaded, Kimmie Blanco Reloaded. Other edits, few days ago, includes lots of rollbacked contribs (ex.: [29], [30], [31], [32] etc), and other. So, with more than 20 warning notices, 2 blocks (user is now blocked for a week), all ignored, he/she continues in write-only and, also after the 5th creation of "Wuchoo Know", it looks like clear vandalism, IMHO. I request an indef ban per WP:NOTHERE and persistent vandalism. Regards.--Dэя-Бøяg 03:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would support an indef given the user's edit history. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also support and indefinite ban, the user removed the AfD notice from Wuchoo Know (Nicki Minaj song) a total of six times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6) without even contributing to the discussion, even though they were appropriately warned each time. This, along with their hoax articles Black Friday: Kimmie Blanco Reloaded, Kimmie Blanco Reloaded shows that their not here to improve the site at all. Azealia911 talk 13:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! I didn't notice that there were also hoaxes. So, the intent looks like clear. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, indeed, just an unimaginative re-title of her rival Nicki Minaj's album Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded, probably inspired as a continuation of her parodying of Pink Friday in the form of Black Friday Azealia911 talk 11:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim Davis

    We have a recent RfC which I closed as providing clear support for one article on the ongoing Kentucky same-sex marriage brouhaha. We currently have:

    It's not clear if the lawsuit is covered by the RfC, I would argue that it is since it is all one event. There's a move debate underway at the Kim Davis article, aimed at settling the question of whether the merged article should be presented as a biography or as an article on the event. I am persuaded that the event is the right answer, as is Jimbo according to comments on his talk page, but there is a lot of passion here for keeping it as a bio, for whatever reason.

    I think some additional admin eyes are needed, to guide the process. A history merge of the three (or at least the first two) might be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A history merge would be highly inappropriate and confusing because there haven't been any cut-and-paste moves involved here. Graham87 14:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Respectfully, although I'm sure the admin corps appreciates the notification, I don't think there's any good that can come of having parallel discussions here and on the talk page. This is purely a content dispute, and not worth ANI's time at this point (we might get there, but not yet). May I suggest this thread be closed? I considered closing it myself but I'm involved to the extent that non-administrators can be. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a "parallel discussion", it's exactly what it says it is: a call for more eyes. Tempers are frayed at the talk page, with a lot of people who don't like the RfC closure, trying to end-run round it. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thinking of the inevitable revert war when consensus is finally enacted at whatever result it comes to. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but we can't do anything about that now, and the proper venue is thataway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. I just want an end to this sordid little affair. We have three articles including a faux-biography all covering the same bit of bigotry. Only one of them is compliant with policy, as far as I can tell, and people have become way too invested in it. As expected, since it involves the unholy trinity of politics, religion and sexuality. Graham is right, though, it was a silly idea of mine. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy, we appreciate that you were sincerely only trying to help. Our objection to your behavior is very simple: Unfortunately, you complicated a situation that for weeks we have actively been trying to simplify. You advanced a pet idea of your own that was out of scope to the one had been discussing. Almost no one was talking about the article Miller v. Davis. Yet you introduced it and promoted it as a possible and important viable option, totally without any consensus. Adding an additional option like that, where it did not exist as an option before, was how you complicated the situation. You see, when we !voted recently to have only one article, we meant: One article: Kim Davis (county clerk) (a heavily researched and heavily contributed-to article), or two articles: 1:Kim Davis (county clerk) and 2:Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy (an article that had simply been copied directly from the Kim Davis article that then became neglected as the Kim Davis article grew, before it was deleted/merged/made no longer applicable this week). There was no third option. The issue you tried to help us with is settling the question of whether the heavily researched Kim Davis article should be presented as a biography or as an event. On this, you and I agree: I, too, am persuaded that an event article is the right answer. (Note: The other main involved editor, MrX, disagrees for some reason.) That is why I proposed the move from the biography article Kim Davis (county clerk) to an event article Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Then you came along and ruined everything, really, by trying to distract everyone from the open move discussion and to focus instead on a poll that you created that had the additional option. You shouldn't have done that. Miller v. Davis is an important article of course, but it has a different goal than the Kim Davis article (its goal is to present the story of the now-infamous court case; the goal of the Kim Davis article is either to present the story of her biography or to present the story of the controversy event). You should have facilitated what MrX and I, the involved editors, were trying to accomplish. I hope I explained this in a neutral and clear way. What do you have to say for yourself? Prhartcom (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That phrase "what do you have to say for yourself" - I used to use that to my children when they were teenagers.
    The consensus is for one article. That means, at the very least, a merger of the faux-biography and the article on the Kentucky same-sex marriage silliness. There's a third article, Miller v. Davis, that is vastly better than either. If you think that was not included in the scope of "RfC: Two articles or one? (Or three?)" then I venture to suggest you are wrong, but it is a question over which reasonable people may disagree. Reasonable people are, alas, in short supply with respect to this particular set of articles, hence of course the problem.
    Step 1: decide on the correct title for the one article (per my discussion at the bottom). Step 2: Decide whether Miller v. Davis is part of the grand merger.
    But first, Step 0: stop assuming that everybody who does not see things your way is evil, or that this is the single most pressing issue in the history of Wikipedia ever. I wanted to discuss this here not my talk page because it is complex and admin intervention is IMO long overdue. I checked my reading of the situation with Jimbo, since I know from long experience that biographies are something where he has a clear view and can see through the smoke to the real core issues - in short, I trust him (and I think he trusts me, from the exchanges we've had).
    This is, make no mistake, a WP:BLP issue. There are many strong feelings in play. There are people with a visceral hatred for gay marriage, who consider Davis to be a martyr comparable to Rosa Parks. Others think she is a bigot and a hypocrite. Some have a deep religious conviction that homosexuality in any form is sinful. Others have an equally deep conviction that gay marriage is a human rights issue. Some of us know a former WMF employee and much beloved Wikipedian who is gay, married and a priest. We recognise that it's messy. We want to be fair to all concerned, even if it means being fair to a bigot. And that's what I have to say for myself. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "we appreciate that you were sincerely only trying to help. Our objection to your behavior..." Precisely who is "we"? I hope you're not referring to everyone at the talk page or who have been editing the article, because it would be wrong of you to speak for everyone and/or to assume everyone there is on your side/against Guy. If that's not to whom you are referring, I further hope you are not saying anything that would indicate there is an editing cabal happening there (even though, from what I can see and have experienced at the political/controversy/religion/sexual orientation-related articles lately, that appears to be the case). A clarification on "we" would be helpful, {U|Prhartcom}}. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In your retort above, you simply restated your position. I know your position; I had stated it to you, so that you would know that I know it. You didn't state my position or acknowledge anything that I said. This is teenager behavior (the way my own teenagers used to behave with me and other adults).
    You may have missed the part about how much you and I agree on some important, key things.
    I wonder if you would please close the move discussion soon for us? Prhartcom (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The choices have always excluded Miller v. Davis. It has never been part of the discussions regarding titles, deletions, merges, etc.. The discussions and RfCs have always been about Kim Davis (county clerk) and the improperly-created copy/paste Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy. The last is now a redirect, since the unique content was extremely minimal and already mentioned in the Kim Davis article. It should no longer be part of the discussion.

    This leaves us with the issue of what to do with the Kim Davis article, since the Miller v. Davis article is a perfectly good standalone article, which is already covered in the Kim Davis article, per WP:SPINOFF, with a hatnote "main" link.

    The current RfC discussion is now complicated by an improper and confusing "competing options" proposition from Guy. That's why we're here at AN/I. It totally fucks up everything by opening the door to straw man arguments. Close that door by only discussing the title change.

    The remaining issue is this: We just need a change of title so it actually describes the content, while preserving the history. This has always been, and must remain, the central article, but with a better title. Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy fits the bill perfectly. A move would solve ALL the problems.

    Only those unfamiliar with the history of the three articlers, all the RSes used, the multiple RfCs, and the two AfDs would dispute that. Unfortunately, many !voters in the AfDs and RfCs are driveby commenters ("outsiders") who are ignorant of those things, yet their !votes muddy the waters. Outsiders should become informed before !voting. Guy fits that description, hence the odd "merge" closure and "competing options" thread.

    Right now the Kim Davis (county clerk) title describes a pure biography, and there is a huge consensus that she doesn't deserve it. (That consensus has been a red thread through all the RfCs, but "outsiders" don't understand that, yet they comment.) This controversy is her only claim to fame. The article's current scope and content are properly weighted to emphasize the controversy, including her central role, which all RS confirm. The new title must reflect that. There is comparatively little purely biographical information, as there should be. Can we just settle this all by moving it to the proper title? Please? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You're misrepresenting the situation. The reason that the content no longer resembles a pure biography because a couple of editors have inserted WP:COATRACK material such as political reactions and "Opposition by other court clerks". Those same editors favor a title (and scope) change. Also, contrary to your claim that there is "a huge consensus that she doesn't deserve it", there is in fact no consensus at this point to change the title or scope of the article from Kim Davis (county clerk) to anything else. In fact, I expect that a closing admin who has actually read our guidelines and policies will see that the arguments refuting BLP1E far outweigh the other arguments.- MrX 19:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ???? You've got it backwards. I'm not proposing changing the scope or content, only changing the title to accurately describe the content. There is a huge consensus that she is not notable enough for a pure biography, but the title is for a pure biography. The move will fix that issue. The few sentences do not constitute a coatrack, and the reactions are perfectly proper content. It's never been a pure biography. The AfDs approved the article twice as a biography with weight on the controversy. That has always been the actual scope and content, but the title doesn't reflect that fact. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BullRangifer is absolutely correct. Prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, it was the two of you who pushed so strongly to insert content into the article so that it no longer resembles a biography. In any case, BullRangifer, your claim "There is a huge consensus that she is not notable enough for a pure biography" is patently false. I expect better of you.- MrX 19:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I doubt that you could make a case that either of us are responsible for all the content from RS which mention Kim Davis in connection with her objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. (There are very few which don't, and they all predate the controversy.) Maybe a minority of it, as would be expected, but there are hundreds of editors who added such content.
    Are you forgetting that you created the article, with this content: "Kim Davis is a Rowan County, Kentucky clerk noted for defying the US Supreme Court ruling requiring that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell v. Hodges case.", supported by two refs, and a YouTube video? It immediately becomes apparent that you knew what made her notable ("noted for defying"). You need to get your story straight, because you keep changing sides. You are the one who started the article as a controversy, not a biography, so don't accuse others of doing the same things which you did. Now you want to keep it as a biography. That makes no sense. Both AfDs made it plain that a pure biography would not have survived, and they approved the article with the current content and scope, a biography with main weight on the controversy.
    After her notability for those actions was apparent because events kept rolling in that direction, and the beginnings of the article were in place, there were some editors who sought to go back in history to find RS of a purely biographical character, and then add that content to the existing article. (It was with this edit that the very first personal (biographical) content was added.) To some degree that's okay, but that does not erase the reason she is notable. An attempt to then remove the parts documenting that reason and leave a pure biography were unsuccessful, since, as someone only notable for the controversy, what would be left would not survive an AfD. The content documenting why the person became notable must remain in the article. In cases where a controversy has a spillover effect involving many others, a WP:SPINOFF article can be justified, but the content related to the original person still remains in their article. Some of it can be copied and used elsewhere, but not removed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree again with BullRangifer, who speaks very clearly and who provides some irrefutable proof that that it was always inevitable that the Kim Davis article is about a one single event. I mean, if it were about more than one event, why aren't the other events mentioned in the article lead, which introduce the reader to only one thing? MrX, there is no reason to express disappointment with either of us, just as no one expresses disappointment in you. And I'm very sorry to contradict, but it is fairly true that "there is a huge consensus that she is not notable enough for a pure biography", especially when I learn that Jimbo Wales himself even agrees with this, and other respectable people respond to him with their agreement. This consensus isn't necessarily in the formal discussions, though; which have been an exercise in frustration as people often can't seem to focus on the question being asked, and not everyone who knows the right answer has !voted. So, I won't yet say that that it is inevitable that the Kim Davis article will become renamed as an event article. This is a tough one. The article is really both. Prhartcom (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it really is both! Unfortunately, the current title is inadequate because it doesn't include the controversy. We just need a change of title (by moving to the redirect) so it actually describes the content, while preserving the history. Nothing else need be done! Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy fits the bill perfectly. A move would solve ALL the problems and everyone gets their wish: (1) those who want a biography will find some biographical content, and (2) those who want an event article will find a whole lot of content documenting that. Can we just settle this all by moving it to the proper title, the one which accurately describes the actual content? Please? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More or less agree with Bull above. The article about the legal case is a standalone article about the case in and of itself, and almost certainly is as notable on its own as the rest of our law case articles are. And, considering it is true that almost all the content at this point relating to Davis herself relates in some way to the existing controversy, and the little that isn't found in articles about the controversy that deserves mention can be fitted in fairly easily to an article by that name, there is no really good current reason not to redirect it. This, however, is acknowledging that as circumstances change, including book deals, TV appearances, and god knows what all else in the future, the redirect from the biography page, if there is to be one, can be turned back into a standalone article covering the additional information available at that time. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay, John Carter is someone else who is talks sense! John, you may want to stop by #User JzG: ADMINACCT and INVOLVED and give your voice below, as that case is about an administrator who pretended to organize the situation for us poor editors but whose motivation was actually to force the discussion into his pet idea that had never been discussed: combine the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis. Yes, really. And John is also is correct when he says we don't know now, but perhaps Kim Davis will write a book or otherwise become notable for more than one event, at which point in time we certainly do have a second, biography article. John, thanks for your support; please keep an eye on the Talk:Kim_Davis (county clerk)#Requested move 6 October 2015 discussion. Prhartcom (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of 1RR on Levant by Debresser

    Here Debresser reverted my edit, re-instating a claim not supported by sources. Here the user removed the {{cn}} tag I placed on the unsupported claim. The two reverts happened within 40 minutes, on an article that clearly falls under WP:ARBPIA.

    I pinged the user on the talk page and explained the problem with the content they restored, but got no response so far. “WarKosign” 10:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hate to say it, but I agree with you, both edits inserted a fact with no sources that's in contention , at the very least between you and DeBresser, and on the first edit, he's basically saying it's common knowledge. Not a great move. KoshVorlon 16:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the Sabbath, so Dovid won't be able to reply until tomorrow evening, even if WarKoSign's complaint is correct.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not addressing the matter of the real dispute itself, but might this not be better discussed at WP:AE,considering the existing sanctions? John Carter (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Carter: WP:ARBPIA sanctions can be applied by "any uninvolved administrator", and I figured I can find a few of these here. WP:AE form is quite tedious to fill, the process there is quite slow and I do not know the user enough to decide that an AE case is needed. I just want someone to give Debresser an authoritative reminder that WP:RS and WP:1RR should not be ignored. “WarKosign” 19:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @WarKosign:, I agree with you, and, actually, have, in past, made comments here on much the same basis. When I did so, I was told that it would be best to take the comments to AE by some of the administrators involved. And, if you look at some of the threads above, it can reasonably be argued that this requests on this page can take longer than requests at AE. I've tended to find that to be the case myself. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Nishidani for pointing out that I couldn't come here any earlier because of the Shabbat.

    As to the issue itself: because these were two different edits by WarKoSign, it didn't trigger my attention to 1RR. Also, I thought this was simply one of the many politically motivated edits in the ARBPIA area, so I reverted it as such. We have such editors, mostly IPs, the whole time, and they are nothing more than political vandals.

    In any case: 1. if the Palestinian territories are in the Levant, then so is the State of Palestine, and visa versa, since they are in the same geographical location, far and by. 2. Since all countries that surround either of them are in the Levant, so are they, and no source is needed. I mean, if that logic can not be disputed.

    However, I now understand the issue under dispute is whether it should be "territories" or "state of". The addition of {{Cn}} didn't explain what the issue was. This template takes a |reason= parameter, which was unused. In any case, I still think this was a pointy edit, and don't think there is any chance that a discussion will come to any conclusion other than reinstate the previous version.

    I would self-revert my last edit,to avoid the impression that I take 1RR lightly, but WarKoSign already made a new edit. I recommend WarKoSign to open a discussion about this issue on the talkpage, since I think his edit is in violation of NPOV. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming bad faith on my part is not an excuse to violate policies. My edits were not by an IP editor nor can they be considered obvious vandalism (even if you disagree).
    Both your arguments (1,2 above) are again relying on the unsupported claim that State of Palestine is in the Palestinian Territories. There is no doubt that Palestinian Territories are in the Levant, but as of this moment State of Palestine has no physical location, it is a de-jure entity without defined borders that claims the Palestinian Territories. It is very likely that it will be there one day, but wikipedia is not the place for speculations. I provided the source for SoP *not* having defined location on the talk page, please prove me wrong there.
    You are still able to re-instate the {{cn}} tags (or better yet, provide a source that supports the statement I claim invalid). Failing to do so you are still "enjoying" the results of your violation of WP:1RR.
    I did open a discussion on the talk page, one where you did not respond until after I opened this discussion on ANI. So far I provided a source to back up my claims, you did not. “WarKosign” 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And after the Shabbat ended, I joint the discussion.
    After your edit, I also edited the article. The result of your edit was that there is no point to undo my old edit any more, since we both made more recent edits.
    Even if the borders of the State of Palestine are not clear, the above arguments prove irrefutably that in any case the area of the State of Palestine is in the Levant. Your source does not dispute that, just as it doesn't claim other absurd things, like that it would be in the Americas. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Any mention of State of Palestine or Israel on any article, especially in relation to the territory disputed between the two, certainly falls under WP:ARBPIA: "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted". “WarKosign” 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring over an NPOV tag at Vani Hari

    Someone want to do something about this? The problem seems to be about whether there are sufficient academic sources which specifically discount the claims of the subject to establish that they are counted as fringe or worse by the academic community, particularly as this is a BLP, or whether some of her claims are perhaps so far out that they don't receive specific contradiction because they are perhaps just that far out. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is Ronz, who has appeared out of nowhere and waded in with his usual absolute faith in his own correctness. If we counted tag-whining in the same way as blanking, he'd already be at 3RR.
    This is a tricky article for NPOV, let alone its past off-wiki canvassing. However the current "issue" is a total non-event. Hari is quoted as, for once, stating a simple and uncontroversial fact - although using it to excuse a previous statement, judged as ignorant. This statement is neither fringe, nor challenged as to whether she actually made it (although you may choose whether to believe it as an excuse or not). There is no need for the tag, and no burning dramah to toast the marshmallows over. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several problems, of which Ronz' exuberant editing is only one. I think he will be more cautious following a note I left him. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User JzG: ADMINACCT and INVOLVED

    I am seeking input from other editors regarding recent actions by JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Guy).

    A large volume of mostly congenial discussion has taken place at two articles Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy about whether content should be deleted, split, merged, moved, and trimmed. In the past five weeks, there have been at least three RfCs, two move requests and three AfDs for these two articles, resulting in various outcomes. The biggest challenge has been to try to keep the discussions focused so that consensus can be clearly weighed.

    I'm bringing this to ANI, not to discuss the content, which will resolve of its own accord. My concern is about JzG's conduct as an admin, his use of admin authority in a content dispute, and his refusal to respond to questions about his conduct and involvement.

    The following events occurred
    1. October 6, 11:10 - JzG closes an RfC [33]
    2. October 6, 23:10 - JzG votes in a move discussion [34]
    3. October 9, 10:37 - JzG closes an AfD for the spinoff article (Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy)[35]
    4. October 9, 10:47 - JzG posts a non-neutral message soliciting "cool headed admins" to get involved [36]
    5. October 9, 14:18 - JzG opens a poll in which users are asked to select from one of four options to move the Kim Davis biography to. Note, he opened this discussion while the requested move discussion is still running, in an apparent effort to sidestep an developing consensus.[37]

    JzG has alternated between his editor role and his admin roles with respect to this content, which raises conflict of interest concerns as summarized in WP:INVOLVED. There was also concern about JzG opening what amounts to an overlapping move request during an ongoing (formal) move request. Both myself and Prhartcom raised these concerns on JzG's tall page [38] [39]. JzG's response was to delete our requests [40] without a response (which violates WP:ADMINACCT). To his credit, JzG did comment on the article talk page here, here, and here, however, it did not address his WP:INVOLVED status.

    After seeing that JzG had deleted my first request from his talk page, I tried to engage him again [41] to discuss my concerns about his conduct, only to have the request deleted three minutes later [42]. His comment on my talk page also left me cold.[43]

    I have other concerns about JzG's conduct in other topic areas, but those are out of scope for this discussion.

    Comments are appreciated. Thank you.- MrX 23:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ETA: Forum shopping and apparent conspiring to circumvent consensus: [44]- MrX 23:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments Stop. The. Drama. MrX has concerns about JzG's conduct, I've had concerns about Mr.X's POV and agenda-pushing conduct at the article and article talk page in question as well as other hot-button issue articles to which he seems to gravitate. Personally, I think JzG (like other editors such as myself) are simply tired of X's penchant for drama, RfC's, opposing viewpoints at the talk page and in deletion discussions, POV pushing, and tendentious editing/discussion style. My suggestion is a boomerang at the most and a trout at the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • On that accord, the multiple polls/processes = the drama, and there's several people at fault for that (one maybe more than the rest, but I'm not going to name a name). The idea that there's just one person with an agenda just doesn't square with the history on what I now call a Shenanigans Page. Rampant POV pushing has come from several editors. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allow me to suggest that any complaints about MrX or anyone else be addressed separately, so as not to distract from the matter at hand. I won't violate AGF and call this a deliberate smokescreen, but it has the same effect as one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems that even before this admin came along, we have had one poll/process piled on top of another, often repetitive and it had already just about worked my last nerve. Then this admin comes along, and per Mr. X's description, has brought in a virtual dump truck of salt to pour on an open gaping wound. This talk page has become Wikipedia's Shenanigans Page, and someone with a big mop needs to go in there and wipe it all out. All of it. Back to Square One. And this admin needs to be told to excuse himself from this and related articles. There's a power trip or something else I can't explain going on, and if I've just violated WP:AGF, I will advise the concentrated sucking of a lemon. I am unable to put my concern in kinder words. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not seeing an issue with any of those diffs. The last diff that is complained about actually seems like the best way to consolidate the RfM to a solid title as opposed to the mess above it. Capeo (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic? Fyddlestix (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pseudo-RFC? It's part of the same discussion. It started nothing new. It looks like an attempt to get an actual hard count on the suggestions above to finally settle on a title rather than have endless pontificating. Capeo (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Altogether, as Fyddlestix states, this is shenanigans, albeit the admin's actions were abuses on top of existing abuses. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Capeo, it may look like that if just glancing at it but, just to let you know: Guy complicated the situation by introducing an article out-of-scope to the discussion that he said we had to consider; the article (Miller v. Davis) that had almost never been mentioned in the discussions and had nothing to do with the formal RM. His attempt to take the process in a new direction was unhelpful to all the work MrX and I had spent focusing the attention of the other editors on the issue at hand: Moving Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Scroll up to the other ANI issue on this page titled "Kim Davis" for my comment to Guy, and read his response, in which he disrespectfully ignores every single point I make; instead of refuting them he simply restates his position. How could an admin behave this way? It doesn't seem possible. Prhartcom (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: At this point, Kim Davis is notable on her own (including her life, background, and personal life) and her article cannot be disappeared without an AfD. Just a reminder, folks. We don't disappear articles without AfDs or at the least WP:MERGE proposals, but I'm quite sure if the Kim Davis article were to disappear someone would come along and recreate it, and be well within their rights to. The controversy and litigation can be a separate article if needed. Anyway, that's how I see it. RfCs do not determine these things. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the RFC on the page from last month, the community consensus is that we have 1 article. Davis has done nothing personally since then not related to the controversy and so still at this point, any article about Davis will be a WP:PSEUDO-biography of a controversy masquerading as something about a person. Claims that there MUST BE YET ANOTHER AFD are completely baseless.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kim Davis article was AfDed twice already in the past 40 days (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination)) and both of the extensive debates resulted SNOW Keep (and a clear decision against merging into the litigation/controversy article[s]). We cannot override that, personal opinions and non-binding RfCs notwithstanding, without a third AfD. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Back in the day (ahem), two snow keep's in a row would have been regarded as a sacrosanct "final decision", and this is part of why I've been essentially calling shenanigans. We have two hard decisions to keep as you describe, but some editors refuse to stop re-opening this question via various crafty techniques. Then an admin comes along and essentially puts his thumb down on a position in opposition to the double-snow-keep. This. is. maddening. And should alarm anyone who cares deeply about the Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no matter who does what, the AfDs can't be overridden without a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show me the policy that states an AfD can't be overridden by an RfC? Particularly for a merge. Because an RfC is going to get a lot more editors involved than an AfD in most cases. I'm not saying you're wrong but you keep tossing out these rules as though they're some policy that could trump consensus. I ask because merges are done all the time without either an AfD or RfC. Capeo (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Capeo, from what I've been seeing these days, for years actually, RfCs usually don't get that much traction, not unless they are about big events (or other big matters) or heavily advertised (for example, via the WP:Village pump). AfDs usually get more attention. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would note that this incident discussion is not about discussing what to do with this particular article. That discussion doesn't belong here. This is about a process that has turned into a clusterfudge of shenanigans. It's not just about this admin. That was just the cherry on top. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is in fact just about this admin, per the heading. We seem to have some disagreement as to how to expand the scope of this thread to a point where no consensus is humanly possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then, in terms of Fyddlestix's question up above: "You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic?" -- Yes, I do think that's a major problem, and a major mess, especially when both recent AfD consensuses were extremely clear not to delete or merge or even rename the Kim Davis article. So yeah, I think we have a problem and Guy should step away from the article. One or more admins should step in an ensure the Kim Davis article remains intact, and then sort out the two(?) litigation/controversy articles so they get merged into each other, without interfering with the Kim Davis article. And no, I don't think admins should summarily delete (archive) civil and good-faith questions on their talk pages (multiple questions in this case) -- they should definitely respond to them and be open to feedback and discussion. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC was extremely clear that there should only be one article. The AFD was extremely clear that the content merited an article. The AfD close was extremely clear that a discussion on where to keep the content was merited. And it is extremely clear that there are a number of editors going to ludicrous extremes to attempt to keep the extremely clear decisions from being implemented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see a problem in the diffs under "following events" in the OP. What admin action by JzG am I supposed to be seeing? The discussion JzG closed (first diff) is just another argument between those who are familiar with standard procedure and those who like the liberty of writing a BLP regardless of WP:BLP1E. It looks like the "Cool headed admins needed" post by JzG has morphed to #Kim Davis above, but cool-headed admins really are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      John, the Kim Davis article has gone through two AfDs in the past 40 days, and both have closed after lengthy !voting as SNOW Keep and a clear consensus to avoid deleting, merging, or renaming the article. The only way to override that now would be to have a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      What exactly are "cool-headed admins" needed for? Bypassing a consensus? Implementing Jimbo's version of a biography? Quelling an uprising? With the exception of one editor who was topic banned, the discussions have been quite collaborative considering the subject. I'm surprised that you don't see a problem with an admin closing discussions and voting in closely related discussions on the same article. When is it ever acceptable for admins to simply delete requests to explain their actions? Hell, I give IPs, trolls, and spammers better treatment than that. - MrX 03:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Two replies but no mention of the points I made—no admin action has been identified. This report is based on "conduct as an admin" with a claim of an ADMINACCT problem, yet it appears no admin action has occurred—has a page been deleted? protected? an editor blocked? The ADMINACCT issue is apparently the reversion of two posts at a user's talk page: being disruptive and Your Kim Davis disruption. Hint: if you want to talk about an article, use the article talk page, and if you want to talk to an editor, don't frame it in terms of them being disruptive. Wikipedia is open to anyone, so you can do these things if you want, but don't use ANI to whine about your unfounded complaints being archived. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      See where Softlavender sums it up above: "You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic?" ... "especially when both recent AfD consensuses were extremely clear not to delete or merge or even rename the Kim Davis article". Wikipedia is open to everyone, but we also have expectations for how processes work. What we have now is shenanigans that were made a lot worse by this admin. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You still haven't explained your vacuous comment ""cool-headed admins" really are needed". Closing RfCs and AfDs are admin actions. Hint: actions that occur under the color of admin authority are admin actions. JzG failed to abide by policy which states in plain English "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." - MrX 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Johnuniq, you asked what exactly is the admin action we are objecting to. To answer your question: Inappropriate arbiter behavior. Guy pretended to help us as an arbiter but instead of facilitating us, he attempted to take us in a completely different direction. He had a personal motivation to try out a pet idea of his: to combine the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis article. This was an idea that came out of his own head; it was not currently being discussed. That's not what administrators acting as arbiters do. This was no arbiter. Arbiters don't ignore the current formal question, come up with a different scheme, and try to get everyone to follow it instead of the formal question. Yet this is what Guy did. I still can't believe an administrator did this. When I asked him about it, he deleted my question. When I asked him again, bringing up a series of points to him, his response, instead of refuting or accepting each point, was to ignore everything I said and just repeat his scheme to me (see the #Kim Davis section above). His actions are nonconstructive and unhelpful to all the work many of us have spent focusing the attention of the other editors on the issue at hand: Moving Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to have made a single edit at User talk:JzG, namely this comment which has the heading "Your Kim Davis disruption". Was that "When I asked him about it"? Do you often get useful replies after posting a message like that? Re WP:ADMINACCT: My suggestion for the OP would be to read what it says—it starts with "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools" (my underline). I still don't see any use of admin tools in regard to this issue—closing an AfD with "Procedural close as merge" did not use admin tools. I will try to not post in this section again because I've said enough—if we engage in back-and-forth it is very unlikely that any new voices will be heard. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq, fair point about my note on his talk page. I do have a single question for you, as I do actually need to know at this point: We all know administrators use admin tools. I think administrators are also depended upon to act as arbiters in a discussion. Just because this particular administrator behavior did not involve the use of admin tools, does that mean his behavior is excusable? Prhartcom (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that by now yo have made your position entirely clear. I closed an RfC, and you don't like the outcome. You also don't like the fact that I am trying to draw to a close the filibustering of implementation of that consensus. At this point it might be a good idea for you to stop digging. I don't think you're doing yourself any favours here. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, as I suspected, you haven't actually read the complaint I laid out for you. For the last time, I agreed with your closure of the RfC, and I agree with your opinion that the Kim Davis article should be an event, not a biography. For the last time, my complaint was the following behavior: You attempted to take the discussion in a direction that almost no one was discussing (combining the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis article) and then you voted on your own idea, revealing that you did this for your own personal reasons instead of facilitate our discussion. You were supposed to be acting as an arbiter. Now do you understand? Prhartcom (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not find Fyddlestix's above summary of the situation to be remotely accurate and I don't think the complaint here has any merit. I will explain why. WP:INVOLVED prohibits the use of administrator privileges to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Closing an RfC is not an admin action and per WP:RFC any uninvolved editor can do it. Closing an AfD is usually an admin action, but this was strictly a procedural close that directly resulted from the RfC he closed. A procedural AfD close is not an admin action, nor is it controversial. It's a technical decision rooted in procedure, not any reading of consensus. So, his AfD close was an extension of his RfC close, and both were the result of him acting as an uninvolved editor, and he did not use his administrative tools in any way. Thus the WP:INVOLVED complaint is invalid. Secondly, is the notion that it was somehow inappropriate for him to close the RfC as he was not "uninvolved". This argument has no leg to stand on. First, he was not involved at the time of closing the RfC, and has not attempted to act as an uninvolved editor or uninvolved administrator since involving himself in actual discussion. Second, there were two clearly distinct issues here: He closed an RfC that was trying to determine whether to have one or two articles. He involved himself, after the fact, in a different discussion to determine where exactly the single article should be located at. This is not prohibited in any way. Perhaps starting a poll while a move discussion was ongoing was not the most helpful thing he could have done, but rather than attempt to resolve this concern civilly and in good faith, I see accusations of disruptive editing, bias, administrative abuse, flaunting of consensus, causing damage, and "Forum shopping and apparent conspiring to circumvent consensus"—for asking Jimmy Wales for his opinion. In my opinion, this all constitutes a series of unfounded and egregious personal attacks, if not outright harassment. The most likely response that is warranted here, if anything, is a swift WP:BOOMERANG. Swarm ♠ 06:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, you saved me saying exactly that. The reason I asked Jimmy should be obvious: I first got to know Jimmy when I was being attacked for trying to fix a biography that was under attack from off-wiki activists, before I was an admin and before WP:BLP even existed. I'm pretty sure I understand WP:BLP, but in edge cases I will often consult Jimmy, not as "Mr Wikipedia" but as someone whose judgement on biographical issues I trust more than anyone else's. It's pretty clear that some people don't like the consensus to have one article. By my reading there are two groups who oppose that, one which wishes to attack Davis as a small-minded bigot, and one which believes her to be the Rosa Parks de nos jours. My advice to both is: walk away and leave it to people who care a lot less about it. Turning the whole thing into a battleground is not making them look good.
    I started the title discussion because the RM can't come to a conclusion. It's being held in isolation from the fact of existence of two other articles. There's a consensus to merge to one title, the next step is to decide which title, IMO, and "leave it here" vs. "move it to some other title" does not help with the two other articles; all it does is string the agony out for another few months while people argue at those talk pages, giving them a further opportunity to filibuster the merge.
    Anyone who has a better idea of how to fix this mess is more than welcome to pitch in, as I said at the time on this board. There are some editors active on this topic who I think could perhaps do with being forcibly separated from it for a while. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You created the mess by opening an overlapping RM discussion. A couple of editors tried to tell you that you were creating a mess, but we you not only ignored them, you deleted their requests! Another admin can close the RM in a couple of days. If there is no consensus, then propose another RM if you like. But stop closing RfCs and AfDs, and stop posting non-neutral requests for admins to get involved in content disputes. You're obviously involved and have expressed a desired outcome. Know your role.- MrX 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: Your baseless accusations of egregious personal attacks and harassment, and trite appeal to WP:BOOMERANG are repugnant. You analysis of this situation is flawed. WP:INVOLVED doesn't exclusively pertain to admin tool use, nor did I even mention admin tools. WP:INVOLVED does say "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." The five diffs that I listed show an admin closing an RfC; immediately voting in a move request; closing an AfD; seeking involvement from "cool headed admins" (WP:CANVASSING); and finally, disruptively creating a move request, because the current one was not going his way. In that chronological order. As a user with a non-trivial amount of editing experience and basic observational skills, I find this conduct to fall short of what the community expects of admins. How would this behavior fare in an RfA?
    You didn't even bother to address the fact the JzG refused to answer requests to explain his actions, and merely deleted the questions from his talk page. Not only does is show a disregard for WP:EQ, but it plainly violates WP:ADMINACCT. JzG added more chaos to a dispute that was moving toward resolution and he seems to have done it with a specific content outcome in mind. It's great that Jimbo Wales agrees with him, but what makes his opinion any more relevant that that of Stevietheman, Prhartcom, Fyddlestix, Softlavender? Here's the last biography that Jimbo created six years ago.- MrX 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone, this is a very simple situation; allow me to restate it: The issue is inappropriate administrator/arbiter behavior (nothing to do with administrator tools). It is fine that Guy began acting as an arbiter for us, to help us organize a complicated discussion. It is even fine that he closed discussions for us; we appreciate the help of an uninvolved administrator. I happen to agree with Guy's view that the article should be an event instead of a biography. What isn't fine is when the uninvolved administrator then attempts to take the discussion in a completely different direction, one that had almost never been discussed. He said we need to combine two articles: Kim Davis and Miller v. Davis. This was not the current discussion. Guy complicated the current discussion by introducing a pet scheme of his. What kind of administrator complicates a discussion instead of trying to help simplify it? MrX and I have had hard enough time getting the current editors focused on the formal questions; we don't need an authority figure to sweep away the formal question and try to replace it with one of his own, and certainly not for the administrator's own selfish reasons. Now does everyone understand why MrX and I complained about Guy? Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the uninvolved people here have told you that the issue is not inappropriate administrator behaviour, and there is no such concept on Wikipedia as "inappropriate arbitor behaviour", your statement is founded on a fundamental error. In fact, as far as I can tell, the real issue is that you don't like the consensus to have a single article and want to re-litigate that debate. That's why you're one of the people I think needs to be forcibly separated from these articles, because I think you have become too emotionally invested in a specific outcome. My suggestion to you is to walk away. It is pretty clear to me by now that, in as much as there is a problem here demanding administrator attention, the problem is you and MrX behaving like angry mastodons. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I created the formal RfC question to have a single article because I knew we needed a single article. This shows how little you understand me or the fact that we agree on so much otherwise. It looks like you will never admit that you were the one who introduced a complication for your own selfish purposes: the Miller v. Davis article. Prhartcom (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What "selfish purpose" is this supposed to be? Good grief. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since several uninvolved people here and on the article talk page have pointed out that your conduct was inappropriate on several levels it may be a good idea to actually listen. You might note that Prhartcom and I hold opposing views on how the article should be titled and seem to be far less emotional involved than yourself who went shopping to Jimbo and ANI as soon as it was clear that your choice of outcomes was unlikely. Showing a scintilla of respect for people that you disagree with would also help. - MrX 12:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate disagreeing with you, Guy, as I noticed we agree on a lot. MrX is right; I wish you would listen and acknowledge instead of just defend and deflect. To answer your question, whatever purpose you had in mind when you introduced that new idea that wasn't being discussed that you had a personal stake in. Anyway, I know you were only trying to help. As a show of good faith, we still need an administrator to close that remaining RM discussion over at the Kim Davis talk page; if you are interested? Or wait a few more days and then close it? Or ask another administrator to close it? Whatever you think. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prhartcom: It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away from the dead horse. You have a content dispute that has improperly been raised to the level of ANI through an incorrect attempt to expand INVOLVED way beyond the scope. Being an "arbiter" in a dispute is not an admin action unless you are claiming only admins can act as neutral arbiters and that would be silly.

    The only thing I can find to criticize {u|JzG}} for is simply blanking the request to explain things on his talk page. A simple "INVOLVED does not apply here because..." would hopefully have nipped this in the bud. That was his error and I hope he will remember a brief response early on can save pages of drama later. Your error is continuing this thread after several un-involved editors have said that they see nothing wrong. Time to move on. JbhTalk 13:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely agree. As anyone should be able to see, I have extended an olive branch above. I honestly have a question, though: Don't administrators occasionally help decide difficult discussions? Prhartcom (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they do but they do that as editors. Admins are, by definition, experienced and trusted editors but there are likely hundreds of experienced and trusted editors who are not admins who I would trust as arbiters in a sticky content dispute before I would trust some admins. Being a neutral arbiter is not part of the admin "package" and INVOLVED only applies to those actions which can only be performed by admins whether due to technical ability, like blocking or page protection, or by policy, like making decisions at WP:AE. JbhTalk 14:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank-you for explaining that. I myself often act as an uninvolved arbiter to help others resolve their disputes and I have always wondered if I was out of line for doing so, as I was assuming (incorrectly, you are saying) that the job is normally done by administrators. This explains why Guy said he was there in the capacity of an editor. When he closed discussions for us, ruling/deciphering the consensus, we looked to him as someone who could help us organize some of the chaos that naturally comes from a contentious subject. Then we were disappointed when he actually made the chaos worse; injecting a pet idea of his that wasn't being discussed, almost succeeding in taking the focus away from the formal RM question. I hope this helps explain why we were disappointed in what we felt was "inappropriate" administrator behavior. So, do you think he should not have closed a couple of discussions for us, as he was only there as an editor? Prhartcom (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a judgement call on his part and, as a non-admin, not one I feel comfortable second guessing, particularly without spending more time than I want to to look into the surrounding discussions. JbhTalk 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the items at the top of this section fall in the category of admin abuse. But maybe JzG needs to be clearer when he's acting an admin and not. It may not be a bad idea for admins to have two IDs, one for admin actions and one as non-admins, to head off this kind of situation. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I didn't open this ANI but I misunderstood Guy's role; I thought he was there to help us get organized after he closed two discussions then came to the third one and asked us for a "show of hands" for a new idea, etc. but I see now that he was acting on the same level as any one of us. He had told us he was there as an editor, but I forgot that when he began behaving as someone with authority. I hope you agree he wasn't really acting like the editor he claimed to be; that's why I asked you that last question. Prhartcom (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reluctant to opine as I haven't seen the edits you discuss. Mr.X's list was not disturbing. I'm a non-admin, by the way, and proudly so. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tenebrae

    Starting at the Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Italicization of websites in citations discussion and continuing at the subsequent Help talk:Citation Style 1#Request for Comments: Italics or Non-Italics in "website" field there is a continuing issue with User:Tenebrae, who has difficulty understanding what other editors try to explain, and whose obduracy on several points amounts to a failure to WP:HEAR. (Examples listed below.)

    Tenebrae's continual misunderstanding has also led him to misrepresentation of my statements and views, ad hominem attacks, and imputation of bad motives, all of this being a continuing pattern of uncivility that disrupts productive discussion.

    Examples, with diffs and timestamps

    From earlier discussion:

    • 20:26, 10 Sep: More persistence, sliding into incivility: "Try and WP:HEAR this ...", followed by "Now stop making false accusations."
    • 23:23, 10 Sep: "Don't you dare accuse me of uncivil behavior, when you were the first to say that anyone who took a different position from yours must, of course, have "faulty" reasoning. And you compound your incivility by falsely claiming I was deliberately misunderstanding in order to obfuscate."

    From RfC:

    • 01:30, 10 Sep (after I said his "opposition is faulty"): "No. Just because you disagree with me does not make my position faulty. I am not misunderstanding anything". Also: "... you want a field that italicizes it in footnotes. That's ridiculous."
    • 15:10, 15 Sep: "You were deliberately misrepresenting my stance ... in a false attempt at making me appear contradictory."
    • 22:57, 21 Sep (after I said "your objections are getting tiresome, even tendentious"): "... stop with the name-calling. The only thing tendentious is your suggesting that Rotten Tomatoes is not a website. That's just remarkable."
    • 02:43, 22 Sep: "Your double-talk ...", and "your bringing in irrelevant, extraneous points to create a smokescreen because you like the field to be italicized is just remarkable."
    • 23:20, 23 Sep: "... your baiting me with insults", "the garbled, verbose, unclear nature of your writing", "your deliberate dissembling", "stop your smoke-screening", and "Your ridiculous argument".
    • 22:36, 23 Sep (following my attempt to explain a point to him: ... don't you dare make up false claims and accusations, and dissemble like that."
    • 03:43, 30 Sep: "Only someone who knows he has no valid argument is going to start insulting another person, since that's a form of misdirection, and you've been smokescreening for most of this discussion. You're clearly so angry that rather than read thoroughly and think straight, you evidently only skim what I've been writing here."

    Misrepresentations by Tenebrae:

    • 23:23, 10 Sep: "... you were the first to say that anyone who took a different position from yours ..."; "claiming I was deliberately misunderstanding in order to obfuscate". [23:48, 11 Sep]
    • 01:30, 10 Sep: "You are claiming that corporations and government agencies suddenly transmogrify by magic into publications." ("Transmogrification" first introduced by Tenebrae at 19:43, 29 Aug where he imputes it as a premise. SMcCandlish commented that "[n]o one made any such argument of "transmogrification".) [22:47, 10 Sep]

    I have repeatedly asked Tenebrae to refrain from and/or apologize for misrepresenting my statements and views (22:47, 10 Sep, 22:11, 24 Sep, 02:47, 30 Sep), which he has ignored, or dismissed as "smokescreening" (02:43, 22 Sep, 23:20, 23 Sep, 03:43, 30 Sep, 18:53, 7 Oct). As he refuses to voluntarily refrain from misrepresentations and general incivility I request that User:Tenebrae be topic banned from Help talk:Citation Style 1 for 30 days, a period comparable to the duration of his intransigence. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm reading the discussion on Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Italicization_of_websites_in_citations. Fascinating material; never heard that many words from Trappist the monk since their RfA. and what I'm reading--but I'm only in early September--confirms quite the opposite: every chance you get you seem to play the man (Tenebrae), not the ball (italics). If I were Tenebrae, I would have been really pissed by 01:13, 10 September 2015. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean holy shit.com, even at the RfC your very first comment is about Tenebrae's supposed misunderstanding. With italics. And bold. And those fancy green italics so loved by ANI regulars. Now, I wish that Tenebrae hadn't responded to your persistent goading, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you started it. Hell, you even use highlighted italics in the most patronizing manner. Yuk. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my initial comment at the RfC I briefly and neutrally noted what I believed to be the basis of his and my different positions, namely, that he misunderstood something. I am a bit surprised that you take objection at such an attempt to clarify and focus, or even the use of italics to emphasize which terms I used. I can't speak for whether "ANI regulars" love "those fancy green italics", but hopefully you have no objection to the common use of the {{Talk quote}} parameter to distinguish words not one's own. As to the use of the yellow highlighting: I am all for any aid to understanding. If Tenebrae had any objection to that then he was free to raise it with me. But in fact my first use of highlighting at the RfC was for the benefit of different editor, who raised no objection. Nor has Tenebrae ever objected, until you suggested it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the other editors here understanding what I've endured with this editor, whose default tone appears to be patronizing and insulting — see exactly such comments to an editor here. Contrary to J. Jonson's assertion above, I understand other editors and they seem to understand me. But with J. Johnson there's clearly something happening beneath the surface, since he will say something I agree with, and then I'll say that I agree with it, and then he suddenly disagrees with it. I gives an example here.
    As other editors seem to find, whether they agree or disagree, my suggestion was simple and I believed non-controversial:
    1. In the template "cite web", a field's name is "website=". It automatically italicizes whatever is put there.
    2. Yet some websites, such as the aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and the Grand Comics Database, by consensus are not italicized,
    3. Logically, editors will places websites in a field called, well, "website=".
    4. And by doing so, this forces italics on non-italicized websites.
    I suggested one thing in the RfC, plus a compromise: Make "website=" non-italicizing, so that editors can easily italicized website that need it; or, a compromise, keep the field italic but just call it something less confusing than "website=". But the obviously angry J. Johnston would even brook the very idea of compromise, instead making off-topic points in green text, yellow highlighters and other distracting gimmicks. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As you seem to consider my attempts at clarification to be "distracting gimmicks" I will not longer trouble to do so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you do — since no other editor here seems to agree with your attacking characterization of me, and indeed finds you to be the one at fault — perhaps you should withdraw this pack of inaccuracies and falsehoods before it may WP:BOOMERANG on you. As other editors note, I haven't misunderstood the situation, and your falsely claiming I have in order for you to back an untenable position is really kind of an irresponsible thing for you to have done. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a frequent contributor to Help talk:Citation Style 1, where we try to keep, and are usually successful at keeping, discussions civil, on-topic, and focused on improving Citation Style 1 templates. The discussions linked above went completely off the rails, to the point where each one became primarily two editors sniping at and talking past each other rather than trying to contribute to the discussion in a constructive way. If you follow the flow of both talk page sections, you will see that each one starts out being a discussion about issues, but by the end, all of the constructive contributors have retreated to the sidelines to let two remaining editors argue. Neither editor comes off looking good at all. I encourage both editors to take a break and work on other stuff for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I also keep a watch on H:CS1 and have to agree with Jonesey's summary. I also might suggest that the entirety of the back-and-forth on the talk page be collapsed given the toxicity, and a trout for both of the contributors. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing restriction on J Johnson to prevent him using highlighted italics on talk pages? That really is annoying. Otherwise people need to go away and have a cup of tea before smacking themselves in the face for arguing about italics. Italics. FFS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I know that a lot of highlighting can be annoying, but hadn't reckoned it as hanging offense. I had hoped that more emphasis (judiciously applied) might possibly focus attention and reduce ambiguity. (I was obviously wrong there.) As to other approaches please note that I asked twice for comments from other editors, but no one responded. If anyone wants a third chance at advising me please explain how I should respond to Tenebrae's "pack of inaccuracies and falsehoods" and innuendos. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolly salad

    A contributor to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolly salad has moved the page being discussed to what he believes is a better target. Wikipedia rules state that you should not move a page during a deletion discussion. I believe he did so in good faith, and has also tried to improve the article in question, but I would like an admin to take a look and see if the article should be moved back for the remainder of the discussion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you sure about that rule? WP:AFDEQ merely says that a move can confuse the discussion and some other undesirable things, and that there is no prohibition against a move during an AfD. I think the theory of allowing a move is that the article should be presented in the best possible light in order to determine whether it is still worth deleting. In this case, the answer is yes, it should be deleted, as it's just a joke neologism. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FC CSKA Sofia players

    Would somebody have a look at FC CSKA Sofia players that has been moved from Category:PFC CSKA Sofia players, please? Pinging page mover Darkanor. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 07:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's because the page has been moved (to FC CSKA Sofia), the club appears to have changed their name, see e.g. official Facebook page which uses 'FC'. GiantSnowman 08:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, GiantSnowman, but you edited my post. The cat was moved to mainspace, please have a look again. Several other moves have been performed as well. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry - I have moved back into category space. GiantSnowman 08:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'm sure Darkanor meant well, but as a result of multiple moves we now have (a) empty categories: Category:PFC CSKA Sofia players, Category:CSKA Sofia players, and Category:Players, and (b) articles named "PFC" rather than "FC" e.g. PFC CSKA Sofia in European football and 2015–16 PFC CSKA Sofia season. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkanor, why was PFC CSKA Sofia first moved to FC CSKA Sofia (edit summary:The name of the club is changed from PFC CSKA Sofia to FC CSKA Sofia), but then moved back again? -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sam Sailor: - right I have merged the histories into the current category Category:FC CSKA Sofia players - however if the club has not changed its name and should be at 'PFC' rather than 'FC' then the category will need moving back to Category:PFC CSKA Sofia players.
    @Darkanor: if you continue to basically dick around moving pages here, there and everywhere then you will be blocked for disruption, understood? GiantSnowman 08:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Holy Islamic State of the Germanic Nation

    Thread retitled from "Question re username and userpage".

    Could I ask for comments on the username Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (t c) in regards to WP:ISU and WP:IU, please?

    Their user page could also need some comments; the two flags are supposedly homemade - rather odd to me is the combination of the Christian flag cross and both Muslin and Jewish symbols. The Star of David on a Rainbow flag is ... hmmm ... perplexing. I have asked for their comment re userpage, but they removed it in this diff with the edit summary "remove bullshit".

    I notice that in the article Islam in Scandinavia they created, File:Viking towns of Scandinavia.jpg has been used with the caption "Muslims towns of Scandinavia". The article so far has seen some sourcing challenges giving inflated numbers for Muslim population that don't match those seen in Islam by country. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is also edit warring against a bot (reported here) and I'm struggling to get them to understand the concept of verifiability and the importance of reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) @Sam Sailor: personally I don't think it violates WP:ISU as it's probably not shared. I definitely think it could be classed as inappropriate given the articles they've been editing and Cordless Larry's comment above. samtar (msg) 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for the note. it is not a name of an organisation i know about Wikipedia:Username policy i just made it up. the name basically is to show my Contributions willing to Wikipedia. which is about Semitic-Germanic cultural heritage, Jewish, Islamic, Bangladeshi....etc. that explain the Star of David on a Germanic flag--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation - given what you've said, would it be fair to assume you meet many of the single purpose account criteria? You may wish to read the advice given to SPA accounts here. A good piece of advice there would be "If you create a single-purpose account, do not pick a username related to the topic you are editing. Adopting such a username might lead some editors to assume you harbor a conflict of interest, causing unnecessary drama." Thanks samtar (msg) 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i do have some interest in the Semitic culture Jewish, Islamic, Bangladeshi....etc but i also do have interest in other topics, so it is just a name based on the famous (Holy state of the Germanic Nation) which itself is an inappropriate name given they relate them self's (the Germanic) to an unrelated culture! i know it is funny but in the Wikipedia article it is included.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation: The word "interest" in the above context does not mean interest as in things you like. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    i know.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    are you sure your name is not an WP:IU?--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation: Initially I was able to create my account on the English Wikipedia but not French and German because the username violated the username blacklist on those Wikipedias. However, the blacklist has been deprecated. I'm sure quite a few experienced users have seen my username and don't appear to have any problems with it. Also, it doesn't suggest any affiliation with Wikipedia or the WMF. We are all "Wikipedians". That's the term for someone who edits Wikipedia, and does not suggest official affiliation (especially with the words "The Average" added preceding the word "Wikipedian"). The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    whether or not that username is inherently problematic, the user name combined with that user's edits are a pretty solid sign that they are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation was blocked by Bbb23 last night for breaking the 3RR at Islam in Scandinavia, and then a few hours later an IP started making the same reverts, with edit summaries such as "hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh very funny jokes hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i had a nice laught" and "nigga plz". The article is now protected. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation has now created Judaism in Scandinavia and is displaying exactly the same behaviour there by reverting my removal of unsourced population estimates, addition of maintenance templates and removal of an irrelevant map. Pinging Sam Sailor, Bbb23, The Average Wikipedian and TheRedPenOfDoom. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and has now taken to trolling my user talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    oh really not here to build an encyclopedia, than why i created three 3 articles in less than 3 days?--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Arabic name for "Holy Islamic State of the Germanic Nation" is الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية. That is written on the userpage User:Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation and was displayed in both the flags the user uploaded to Commons, now deleted at File:الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية.jpg and File:מדינה אסלאמית קדושה של האומה הגרמנית.jpg. I bounced this off of an Iraqi friend of mine (mainstream Shia Turkman), who said the name could, as indicated by the user above, be a play on the Arabic name for the Holy Roman Empire (الإمبراطورية الرومانية المقدسة), but that it also gives associations to

    1. Greater Germanic Reich of the German Nation, and
    2. Islamic State (الدولة الإسلامية‎ المقدسة, "Holy/Sacred Islamic State"),

    and that it in any case leaves the impression of someone who, allow a direct quote, "could be either a radical with an agenda that serves Islam no good, or could be someone trolling to give Islam a bad reputation."

    The user has added the acronym ISGN to their talk page. It is possibly a coincidental spoofing of Islamic Society of Greater Nassau, but nevertheless further implies shared use, WP:ISU, and their use of File:الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية.jpg in article space as quote "Muslims Swedish adherents symbol" (Diff of Islam in Sweden and Diff of Islam in Sweden) suggests a breach of WP:GROUPNAME.

    Personally I have a hard time seeing why this username would not be considered disruptive and/or misleading, cf. WP:IU. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor concerned has been blocked for a second time after I reported them for edit warring, but shows no sign of acknowledgement that they are in the wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    face:b00c block collateral

    ip addresses with FACE:B00C in their range are used by internet.org app service and not "geologically localized" in that a person in south asia can get allocated an address for sometime which will be later cycled to any person in EU or NA. admins blocking entire ranges because of vandals using this app is causing too much collateral damage by putting innocents in the block range. please look deeply into this, request to all admins. OP considers it very emergency issue and if possible, involving arbcom in this should be done, OP thinksMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no IPv6 range containing the string mentioned in the current list of rangeblocks. What is the exact text of the block message you're seeing? ‑ iridescent 16:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent:OP notice when not logged in.OP paste ip now before logging in.
    2A03:2880:3010:7FF5:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) OP will try post moreMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    2A03:2880:3010:BFFA:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) another. OP using internet.org app, notice all ip has FACE:B00C, all blocked. some vandal on range appear to be from continents outside of OP's currentMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the information provided, I found that the first address is blocked with this rangeblock (2a03:2880:3010:7ff0::/60) by JamesBWatson. The second address is covered under this rangeblock (2a03:2880::/32) by DMacks, related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo. This second block is most likely covering the FACE:B00C addresses. In my opinion, that block is much too broad, covering almost 80 octillion addresses. clpo13(talk) 18:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    clpo13, no, it's not. The OP has been trying to get this good rangeblock lifted for some time. User_talk:NeilN#FACE:B00C_collateral_victim. --NeilN talk to me 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, well there's some needed context. I knew this seemed familiar, too. Thanks. clpo13(talk) 20:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Clpo13 and Iridescent:clpo understand point correct, 80 octillion address is proof of the amounted collateral, OP not understand why admins fail to understand issueMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 2a03:2880:3010:7ff6:face:b00c:0:1 OP post another nowMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Read WP:NOP. Don't want to be blocked? Stop using a proxy. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OP not use proxy, OP use internet.org app, free wikipedia, why not admins understand that all user of app get same string ip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) OP request other admins look in this issue, very important, affect all user of internet.org. OP mention MainetteD @GiantSnowman, MainetteD, and Blackmane:OP forgot sign, OP rementionMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not entirely sure why I've been pinged, but in any case having read through the SPI page, the persistent disruption and vandalism by that sockmaster is extensive. An open proxy which has access to 80 octillion IP addresses cannot be ignored. The FACE:BOOC IP's used by the internet.org app make sense given that it's a FaceBook initiative. Blackmane (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OP mention admins because OP believe in good faith, not all user of internet.org vandal, few vandals using app can be blocked on account basis, rangeblock stop all who want do anon edit using internet.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OP should read NOP: "Although Wikipedia encourages anyone in the world to contribute, open proxies are often used abusively. MediaWiki, the wiki software that powers Wikipedia, depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, especially by anonymous users. Open proxies allow malicious users to change IP addresses rapidly, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by administrators." --NeilN talk to me 15:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    possible personal attack detected

    after noticing OP edit reverted by knowledgebattle, OP reverted that revert and also posting a message on person's talk page. person removed message from talk then post message on OP talk page in tone that feel attacking/threat. OP maybe paranoid, but feel need to post on adminboard, request oversight.

    proof in contrib log, history log, talk page of OP and mentioned person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 October 2015‎

    Who is OP? Can you provide a link to what you are talking about? HighInBC 16:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Mahfuzur is talking about himself in third person here, and this is the revert history being brought to discuss at this august forum and this, the removal of the talk page post. —SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that may be the case, but try as I might I could not find any personal attack. HighInBC 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighInBC:, yea, that's because there was no personal attack. I'm guessing that @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: is embarrassed, and is trying to get his way here. On the page, Avijit Roy, Mahfuzur went and removed a reference to The Independent right here, and changed the other reference up. I reverted his edit, especially because he removed the reference to The Independent, the news article about Avijit's death. It's still a working link, and it mentions his book. He responded by giving me a cute "warning", using ALL CAPS as if to yell at me. I removed the "warning", and responded for him to keep his warnings to himself here, then explained to him why his edit was undone. He went back and undid the "warning" removal from my own talk page, and @GiantSnowman: undid his re-add of the warning to my talk page.
    As you can see here, he keeps going through and trying to change up the references, and people keep undoing it. He's now also got @MarnetteD: telling him to cut it out with the history revisions.
    To clarify, no, I didn't personally attack him. Yes, I told him to keep his warnings to himself. He apparently doesn't know how to convey a message simply and respectfully. Nor does he seem to understand how to justify the reasons for his reference removals. So... we're here. Knowledge Battle 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) (Completely missed that the conversation continued on below, sorry.) Knowledge Battle 02:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    moved from below as OP, article discussed and issue are the same. Blackmane (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OP notice misformatted writeup and misplaced ref in Avijit Roy so tries to use cite book refstyle, change works to bibliography and remove misplaced ref. OP gets own edit reverted, accused of disruption and threatened with block. OP post to admin talkpage and then to noticeboard cause OP fear abuse, maybe OP paranoid. OP want all to have good faithMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What you did was incorrect. The Works section of the article refers to the publications by the article subject. What you were trying to do was convert it into a Bibliography, which is generally considered a list of references. You should not be doing this. Also, when you made the edit you removed the reference for the book on the next line, hence the revert by two editors to restore the source. You should not have edit warred with them over it and should have gone to the talk page to discuss it. You are lucky Giant Snowman did not block you for edit warring. Also, I have notified Giant Snowman and Knowledgebattle of this thread. Blackmane (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Blackmane:check talk page of them, check time of my posted message. removed ref is NOT a ref of the mentioned book. think "are false refs preferred or no ref"?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting valid references from an article = no no, simple as. You removed (three times!) references including this which does verify what it is meant to verify i.e. that Avijit Roy "wrote several books including his last works Obisshahser Dorshon (The Philosophy of Disbelief) and Biswasher Virus (The Virus of Faith)." Your edits have no justification, and as Blackmane says you are lucky you have not been blocked yet. GiantSnowman 16:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: The ref pointed to an article, where if you read to the bottom, indicates that Avijit Roy is the author of the book in the Works section. The point of the ref was to show this. There is nothing wrong in using this as a source. Blackmane (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also up above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#possible personal attack detected. —SpacemanSpiff 16:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @GiantSnowman and Spaceman:manual readding of ref do better instead of revert, OP think, OP find location posted as haka instead of dhaka and use of cite web instead of cite book syntax more "eye hurting".Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to move this thread up, but got EC'd. Blackmane (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that, with their last post, M-r-s is referring to the fact that there is a big red "cite error" message at the bottom of the references at the moment. Any help in fixing it by those involved will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed the ref error, something that was not affected at all by the content that Mahfuzur rahman shourov deleted! GiantSnowman 16:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I try fixing only bibliography, had misspellings.cite link 72 is better placed elsewhere, now i put link back and my correction together.Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now been reverted again - please can an uninvolved admin block Mahfuzur rahman shourov? BOOMERANG etc. GiantSnowman 16:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Thanks GiantSnowman. Sadly it looks like M-r-s is going to edit war over this. I agree that a curved stick may be needed. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I not remove ref this time, why I get threat now?my new revert has all 72 ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) OP think MarnetteD should have look well into OP latest edit, OP kept all 72 refsMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again you changed the "Works" section into a "bibliography". Please reread Blackmane's post above as to why you should not do that. Also be aware that WP:COMPETENCE is required in editing. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally your edit did not do anything new or different from your previous ones. It only "undid" GiantSnowman's previous one. That is not the way to go with this. MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OP want know why book published by chomsky, hawking, dickens etc are tagged under bibliography but not avijitMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-naming the section from 'works' to 'bibliography' is not a problem - what is a concern is a) your removal of valid references and b) your edit warring. GiantSnowman 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OP use small phone, hard typing editing, so revert then small edit to make as admins want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC) @MarnetteD:I not remove ref, I keep works as works this time so what clue to get you speak of?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are having trouble editing while using a phone such that each time you save an edit it causes the removal of the source, you should not be editing until you reach a PC. Mobile editing often has glitches that cause unintended edits to occur. As it stands, your phone editing is causing disruption because each time you save your edit, which is still wrong by the way, it removes the source for the next entry in the Works section. Until you get to a terminal, I suggest you stop editing before an administrator blocks you for edit warring and disruption, potentially unintended disruption and edit warring but it is still disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely missed the fact that the conversation was continuing on here. Knowledge Battle 02:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    it was a new thread but I combined the two so there wouldn't be 2 simultaneous discussions.Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OP understand problem and correct mistake fifth time but admin revert again, why?i not remove ref now,i keep works as works, what go wrong now?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: Why don't you leave it alone? How about that?
    First of all, you keep changing the Ref to be "Cite book". This website isn't the full book. That's an excerpt. If you look at the web URL, it says "Articles". /Articles/avijit/shomokamita1.htm
    Also, you keep removing the Location. Avijit was from Ḍhaka, located here.
    I'm not sure what your motive for editing this page is, but if you're going to edit, do it correctly. I will try to incorporate your edits. Knowledge Battle 22:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: Okay, check the Avijit Roy Works references now. I've gone through and tried to incorporate your edits into the references, and cleaned them up. Is that what you were trying to do? Knowledge Battle 23:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 80.111.220.238 (repeated reverts at Gender equality)

    {{cot| Ip Special:Contributions/80.111.220.238 has twice removed a significant amount of text, which is sourced, from the article Gender equality. This is text from several sections, dealing with different issues. The ip offered no valid explanation - the first edit summary was: "reverted - possible vandalism" and the second summary was "p:badpov. reverting to orginal version. can an admin help please ?". The ip, as can be seen, asked for admin intervention. The text removed was very diverse, addressing different topics. The ip referred to neutrality/pov, but some of the text removed was simply describing international policies adopted on the issue of gender equality: the ip removed the phrase: "In 1978, the Council of Europe passed the Resolution (78) 37 on equality of spouses in civil law.[105]" . The reverts also removed a citation (the one for the phrase "For example, in Australia, until 1983 a husband had to authorise the application by a married woman for a passport" [1]) - obviously leaving a phrase without citation is unconstructive. If the ip has a problem with specific paragraphs, then they must bring it to talk page, explain what the objections are, and seek consensus; not just cut down huge chucks of sourced text. I brought this issue here because the ip seems to have a non-cooperative, hostile attitude; and I sense a future long edit war; and also because the ip asked for admin intervention in the edit summary. I left a message on the ip's talk page too. I think some intervention is needed here to prevent escalation.2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:47FB (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/20060614171552/http://www.passports.gov.au/Web/passport_history.aspx


    The IP 80.111.220.238 continues to revert without offering any explanation. I think there is a need of intervention.2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B738 (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. When I looked at that article, it came so close to melting my face off that I thought I might be looking at the Ark of the Covenant. Some assistance cleaning it up would be nice. I will note that there's been absolutely no additional discussion and that OP does seem to have a bit of an ownership issue, at least from what I can see. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be silly. That only happens in movies. In real life you'd be struck by lightning. EEng (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure

    I am a paid editor creating and posting pages on a behalf of a hotel chain. My paid editing status wasn't properly disclosed which was pointed out to me (and which I would have gladly fixed, but that's not the issue here). I made a paid edit to Plaza Hotel which is a page that Beyond My Ken is clearly passionate about. He reverted that paid edit and then reverted the paid edits for all 30+ hotel pages that I had previously done. I've attempted to engage with him on his talk page User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken (Hotels) as to his objections to my paid editing and it's very clear that he won't engage with me on the merits of my work. I feel that Beyond My Ken isn't open to my contributions because of my Paid Editor Status and if you look at my total contributions to the community, I'm making large numbers of non-paid edits for topics that I'm passionate about. I have posted over 30 Paid Page Edits for the hotel chain and only one other Wikipedian total has objected to me in any manner before Beyond My Ken did...and as a new paid editor who did not quite do attribution properly, that's testimony to the validity of my pages for the Wikipedia Community which comply with Wikipedia's style and content guidelines. I would like to repost the pages with the proper paid attribution and I want Beyond My Ken to leave them alone. With Plaza Hotel, I will gladly work with him to see any concerns over my work are addressed (and I repeat my preference to engage him instead of going through these sorts of processes).

    While there are 30+ pages that Beyond My Ken reverted, the two most recent were Peace_Hotel and Swissôtel_The_Stamford so those are the ones I would like to put at issue here. Blueberry Hill (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia guidelines for those with financial conflicts of interest state that "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles" (emphasis is in the original). To reduce the chance of future misunderstandings, it would help to familiarize yourself with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blueberry Hill It is a good idea is to check the links you create. Beyond My Ken does not go to BMK's page nor does it ping him. Next since this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hotel Paid Edits w.2F Disclosure was declined this new thread smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not forum shopping; the editor was told to bring it to ANI first [45]; see also User talk:Blueberry Hill discussion about not starting with arbcom. NE Ent 20:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes my mistake and I have struck the comment. OTOH you should not be altering your posts on BMK's talk page as you did here. Place a new notice rather than altering an old one is the proper way to handle things. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed some of Blueberry Hill's edits and concur that most, but perhaps not all of them should be reverted. Here are some of the problems: First, Wikipedia is not a directory. Adding a plethora of restaurant listings and amenities falls afoul of that rule. Use summary style, and describe amenities and restaurants with as concisely as possible. Second, the wording on many of the edits was indeed highly promotional. While some wordings are commonly used for travel brochures, they are simply too charged or too trite for an encyclopedia: for example, on Banff Springs Hotel, phrasings like "beautiful wilderness", "spectacular settings", "luxury dining experience", "authentic" – that goes too far. Even in some cases that avoid using promotional wordings, the intent is still clearly to persuade the reader, which is the goal of an advertisement, rather than to inform the reader, which should be the purpose of an encyclopedia. Example, on Hotel Macdonald : "Travelers who miss their own dogs while away from home can take the hotel's dog along for walks and companionship." Yes, that might be true and might be greatly comforting, but it is still trying to persuade that the canine will make the hotel a more comforting experience. That kind of slant of slant just isn't permissible.
    So, moving forward. Paid editors can play a valuable role for Wikipedia. Articles become outdated, and mere updates of room counts or ownership is perfectly acceptable. But paid editors who persist in trying to give articles a promotional slant will run into stiff resistance. Blueberry Hill, I would suggest you read some neutral, non-promotional examples of hotel articles before moving forward: Renaissance Blackstone Hotel would be a good start. If possible, it's easier to write neutrally about the history of a hotel rather than its amenities. Altamel (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some excerpts from Blueberry Hill's latest contribution [46]:

    The 5-star hotel offers 1,261 luxurious rooms and suites, 15 restaurants and bars, access to the Raffles City Convention Centre, and one of Asia's largest Spas. ... Swissôtel The Stamford offers 15 food and beverage outlets including the Equinox Complex, which offer a wide range of cuisines, and settings from casual to elegant. ... JAAN, Level 70 – Serving a distinctive menu of artisanal French cuisine by Chef de Cuisine Kirk Westaway. JAAN was Ranked No. 11 on Asia's 50 Best Restaurants list 2015, and Ranked No. 74 on the S. Pellegrino World's 50 Best Restaurants List 2015 ... [list of 14 other restaurants] ... One of Asia's largest spas, the Willow Stream Spa, featuring relaxation lounges, pools, whirlpools, steam and sauna rooms. The spa offers 35 treatment rooms total, including three couples suites with private Jacuzzi and aromatherapy steam rooms.

    This is not WP:NPOV writing, this is not encyclopedic writing, this is not even good writing, this is the writing of a PR flack, solely promotional in tone and purpose. Since Blueberry Hill appears to be incapable of writing in a way that is appropriate to Wikipedia, I stand by my request that he only request edits on hotel article talk pages, and not edit directly any hotel article. We could, of course, go through every one of his edits to clean up after him, to convert the above into something resenbling:

    The hotel offers 1,260 rooms and suites and many bars and restaurant, as well as access to the Raffles City Convention Center. It has a complete spa, which includes lounges, pools, whirlspools and steam, sauna and treatment rooms.

    but it's not our job to be Blueberry Hill's personal copyeditors, it's his job (literally) to write in a manner acceptable to us. BMK (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the (collective) feedback and this is very helpful. What I'm trying to accomplish and what I ask for is the opportunity to give you pages that are acceptable to this collective group (and any others who might be interested in these topics). I'm comfortable I can do this (and by being public with this issue, I know you're paying attention to me). Would you collectively look upon my future work on these page based purely upon their merits and not based upon something that you previously objected to and not based upon the fact that I'm being a paid editor (and FYI, I've never done PR in my life).? Blueberry Hill (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This noticeboard is useful for some things, but hashing out the wording of edits across multiple articles is not one of them. The accepted procedure is to use the relevant article's talk page and request edits (there's even a handy template). Again, I strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing and follow the procedures described there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not looking to hash out wording here...I'm just looking to be judged fairly and objectively if I attempt to incorporate your feedback. Blueberry Hill (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All of your edits have been judged on their merits, or lack thereof. BMK (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The wisest option is to propose what you wish to include in the article on the talk page and let other editors dissect the text and distill out anything that might violate WP:PROMO or WP:NPOV. You should definitely include any sources that such text would come from. Blackmane (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistance for Blueberry Hill

    Blueberry Hill, in the interests of moving things along, you are welcome to an offer of help from me—not indefinitely, but to get you in the right direction. When you have placed your proposed text on the relevant article talk page, you are welcome to ping me using {{ping|Sladen}} and we can go over and WP:NPOV what you've done. If you would like help and are willing to learn, then we'll probably have a solution. —Sladen (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) And if an understanding of WP:NPOV doesn't come naturally, BMK et al will probably revert you again, and you'll end up back here again.[reply]

    A good way to start is this: (1) Write your copy offline. (2) Delete all the adjectives. (3) Post the result on the article talk page as your proposed text. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent suggestion. BMK (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to that suggestion. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Trimmed Swissôtel The Stamford down to the facts and awards with reliable sources. It no longer reads like a brochure. Trimmed Peace Hotel similarly. There remains a "happy talk" problem. At least three people have died falling from the Swissôtel The Stamford since 2013.[47] Somehow the paid editor didn't mention that, even though that's what you find if you look for independent reliable sources. This is the other side of the COI editing problem - omitting the bad news. John Nagle (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lipsquid edit warring just short of WP:3RR with very personal application of WP:RS principles

    This editor insisted that a paragraph in the lead section of Flat Earth about the myth of the flat Earth had to be removed because the source cited came from an advocacy group, so he removed it once, twice and then a third time. Then they stopped short of a fourth edit, possibly knowing from past incidents that people aren't meant to edit war.

    The content problem with their edits was that the article has a whole section about the topic the paragraph he removed discusses, and there is even a separate article about it, both containing many more sources than the single one given in the lead that they considered too biased (let's keep in mind that the lead section doesn't really need references for things profusely cited in the article body).

    The reason I am still concerned about the editor's attitude and am reporting it here even though the dispute may (or may not) have settled down is that in the talk page discussion, they insisted about being entitled to edit out content with valid references, just because the references were quoted from URLs belonging to advocacy groups - even though they accepted the very same references when quoted from elsewhere (same text from the same public speech at the very same advocacy group, just, quoted from veritas-ucsb.org instead of asa3.org).

    Let me stress again that the paragraph in question really doesn't need references because it's part of the lead section (with good reason) and there is a profusion of references in the relevant section and separate article. At this point I really want to know whether I am to be disagreed with about this view. If not, then I think it's important that Lipsquid understand their edits are not in the encyclopedia's best interest as there seem to have been several potentially similar verging-on-edit-wars incidents.

    LjL (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S.: I note this older edit where the editor proclaims in the edit summary that "You can't delete sourced material and those statements" (which isn't correcct, of course, but that's not the point), yet he had no problem deleting multiply-sourced material this time just because of technical reasons, i.e. (I quote) "is not my job to fix the sources of the logically challenged". I find it hard to assume good faith with these plain contradictions. LjL (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yawn.... Lipsquid (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is all you have to say? Usually people reported on AN/I actually defend themselves from claims made in a report against them. clpo13(talk) 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Defend myself from what? "edit warring just short of WP:3RR"? I wouldn't think I need to defend myself for not breaking a rule. Another editor fixed the source, I thanked them and have not made an edit since. What I am defending against? Lipsquid (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have just said that. clpo13(talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3RR is just a bright-line rule, as it states itself. You have engaged in an edit war, and I'm absolutely concerned with your continuing attitude about it. The other editor didn't "fix the source", he left the source unchanged, and merely gave a different URL to the same source (same text by the same author). You, on the other hand, had removed the whole paragraph three times because you didn't like that particular website. That is concerning. LjL (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A bright-line rule I did not cross. It seems you don't know what bright-line means? Are there any more accusations you would like to make for rules I did not break? Lipsquid (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would simply like to point out that edit warring is prohibited (I quote: "[...] if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited"), whether or not you cross the WP:3RR threshold, something you certainly knew. Also, thank you for promptly removing your strange accusation that I was "whining". LjL (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would not say it was strange. I am sure Admins have something better to do than have people file requests for assistance against people who haven't broken any rules, without first making any dispute resolution attempts themselves. That seems like whining to me. Maybe I should file an ANI against you because I find your indiscriminate use of ANI's when you can't define a rule that was broken troubling and maybe you should be sanctioned.. Lipsquid (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another bogus ANI filing by LjL today. Lipsquid (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to point out. While 3rr is a bright line which if you cross usually results in a block, there is nothing to stop admins from assessing that edit warring is occurring and blocking the involved parties. Blocks have been levied on editors even when only 2 reverts have been performed. Blackmane (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This problem is a non-problem. LjL opens ANIs against anything he doesn't like without making any attempt at resolution, as evidenced in my case and as evidenced here which is completely out of the spirit of Wikipedia. I broke no rules and he likes to make controversy where this is none. He dug up all kinds of other nonsense about things that happened in the past and all were related to one user, Signedzzz, which I am sure administrators are unfortunately all too aware of who Signedzzz is and how he operates. How about a warning to LjL for opening frivolous ANIs without making an attempt at what the rest of us consider normal resolution methods? Lipsquid (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have applied normal resolution methods in the form of an extensive talk page discussion where you didn't seem to indicate understanding that your style of editing was inappropriate, but in fact re-asserted it was "perfect". LjL (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are so great with dispute resolution that is why all your childish ANI requests get closed. Lipsquid (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring User:Joy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Enclava&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&action=history - Edit warring and removing articles without debate to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joy. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't even remotely show some edit war. First off, the samples given are on two seperate articles. Two, there appeared to be consensus. No edit war is taking place, maybe User:Vyacheslav is upset because the reverts were of his edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [48]-[49] and [50]-[51] Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As the big bar at the top of the page says, you must notify users of an ANI thread. I have done so for you. Also, you may want to beware the WP:BOOMERANG Blackmane (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I made an actual effort in reaching out to this user on their user talk page right after undoing their blatant revert, but all I got in return was a slap in the face: an assumption of bad faith through an instant report to the noticeboard.
    In other news, I invite everyone else interested in this topic to help build a more general consensus in the RfC at Talk:Liberland. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unacceptable warning by Bbb23

    Topic starter is done with the complaint. Topic hi-jackers are free to start their own complaints.--Atlan (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yeah I know most will find this minor, but it made me so furious I had to walk around the block to calm down. So I thought it best to flesh it out here so I understand what the heck happened. Here is the warning given. My point of view is we were dealing with a new disruptive editor. Not a content dispute. I say we because I was not the first to revert this guy, nor was this the only place he was disruptive. First we have a discussion started on the subject. There are 4 of us but I think you'll note that against my better judgement I am the only one who really compromised their stance just so we could get some cohesion. While discussing, editor Tennisvine started changing other articles to the way he wanted it. That's not the way wiki works and he was reverted here by Wolbo with an explanation. This brought it to my attention and he started reverting it again, along with a new article Helen Wills. You'll note that Wolbo also reverted this editor at the Helen Wills page because there is no consensus yet at the Tennis Project about how we will handle it. I even started a topic at the Helen Wills talk page telling this new editor that what added was fine but that he can't remove other editor's work in the process. I even did his work for him and added back in his references with disrupting the original table. But that wasn't good enough and he went right back to his way even though we were still discussing things at tennis Project. Both I and Wolbo reverted him again, Wolbo being the last one to do a revert of his bracketed names while under discussion.

    You know I try and handle a lot of vandalism at tennis related articles and I try and give new editors lots of reasons and warnings before bringing it to administrator's attention. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This time it didn't. But I wasn't mad... he's a new editor learning the ropes. What got me mad was the warning by Bbb23. My complaint against Bbb23 is that he didn't take this whole thing into context before giving me a warning. This is a disruptive new editor that has been told multiple times by multiple editors that what he is doing is wrong. And I get a warning! By the way since the warning this editor has changed Helen Wills again... so it's going to continue from one article to the next. It's not like I wanted the guy blocked either... he's learning and just needs to be told by an administrator that what he's doing is wrong. But I am still royally PO'd at the open warning by administrator Bbb23. I think it was uncalled for and should be removed at once given the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Fyunck was edit warring on List of French Open women's singles champions. Here are some values to ponder:
    {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}: 6,858,918
    {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}: 113,400
    {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}: 855
    and there are 132.63157894737 users per administrator. What this means, in practice, is one should never expect an administrator to take things into "context." You should expect to resolve content issues without administrators if at all possible and certainly without edit warring; if there are multiple editors who agree with you then one of them should revert someone going against consensus. If you must, as a last resort, involve administrators they will, as a rule, do the right thing if you frame it properly for them; use short sentences, small words, and prefer diffs over rhetoric. NE Ent 20:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)    [reply]

    And there were multiple editors reverting him (on multiple articles). I don't understand this at all. I'd like to hear from several administrators in telling me exactly what they would have done differently because this is the type of thing that drives long-term editors away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The interesting thing here is that Fyunck(click) is actually the one being disruptive - by ignoring guidline MOS:BIO Section 2.1.1 Maiden names and changing females players names to their married names for events prior to their marriage, because he feels that it's just easier that way, and ignoring the fact that it's actually historically inaccurate, providing misinformation to the reader and going against guidelines. As much as I may feel I'm right in this matter, I must concede the fact that I broke rules here and received a warning because of it. I am now aware of the edit-warring/revert rule and won't let it happen again. Fyunck(click) likes to say at every opportunity how experienced he is and how new I am - so I guess that means he was fully aware of the rules he violated, and chose to do so anyway. I have no problem with the ruling by Bbb23. As for solving this dispute through an outside party - that would be greatly welcomed. For my side of things , here is what I wrote at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring:
    The fact that I am new to Wikipedia has no bearing on this matter, and it's this cavalier attitude that User:Fyunck(click) has shown here, that has led to this dispute. I started the conversation at Tennis Project Guidelines to try and resolve an issue I had found. When a female player has played under her maiden name (prior to being married) and then , once married, plays under her married name, how do we as editors help the reader connect the dots between these two names (I made clear I was talking about instances - charts, tables, tournament edition pages, etc. - outside of the players bio article)? I cited examples ( I will use the example of Sylvia Lance here as I did there) and began the discussion proposing that for players that had achieved success under their maiden name - Sylvia Lance -, if they married and changed to using only their married name - Sylvia Harper - we could list them in this format - First name (maiden name) married name - so it would be Sylvia (Lance) Harper. This way it would indicate to the reader that Sylvia Lance also played as Sylvia Harper. This format for a married woman's name is not without precedent and is used here MOS:BIO Section 2.1.1 Maiden names - Specifically this line - An alternative form, Lucy (Payne) Washington, is also widely accepted. I fully realize this section is addressing Biographies, but feel that it still shows there is precedence for this format. Unfortunately, my proposal was mostly ignored and the conversation devolved into a discussion about just applying a commonly used name to all instances where a player's name appears. For example Sylvia Lance would be changed to Sylvia Harper for events that occurred prior to her marriage. Even as a "newbie" as User:Fyunck(click) so disdainfully refers to me, I knew that listing a woman by her married name for events that occurred before she was married was historically inaccurate and only doing the reader a disservice by providing misinformation. Another editor that was participating in the discussion pointed out that " we should use the name of the player as she was known at the time; anything else would be anachronistic." citing MOS:BIO 2.1.2 Changed names - specifically the line "If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of the mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention." I tried to bring the conversation back around to - How do we solves this problem of connecting these players maiden names and married names while still following the aforementioned guidelines? But, User:Fyunck(click) kept insisting that we use a commonly used name and apply it in all instances even if it's historically inaccurate. The conversation kept getting dragged in this circle and was clearly getting nowhere. I gave up and went back to doing a variety of edits that included fixing instances where incorrect names were listed in tables Helen Wills(maiden name) listed as Helen Wills Moody(married name) in events prior to her marriage, Kitty McKane(maiden name) listed as Kitty Godfree(married name) in events prior to her marriage. I did not attempt use the format for names I had been suggesting in the Project Guidelines discussion since no consensus had been formed on that topic. User:Fyunck(click) began reverting my edits even though I was continually pointing to MOS:BIO 2.1.2 Changed names as evidence that using the historically correct name is preferred - and that brought us to here. I'm really not sure what else to do when another editor is ignoring these guidelines and just aggressively reverting edits because they think it's "easier" even if inaccurate. I particularly didn't like being threatened by User talk:Fyunck(click). This was posted on his talk page in response to the edit warning I was required to put there - Boy this one is truly laughable... beware of a boomerang on this one. It's a threat like this combined with the cavalier attitude - "We have tried to explain to this newbie how things work at wikipedia" that make me think - Do I really want to spend my time helping here if this is how it's going to be? I simply want to volunteer my time and contribute to making these pages easy to use by making them consistent , clear, and most importantly, accurate. What I don't want, is to be bullied by editors who seem to think they can stake out some pages as their own little fiefdom. Thank You. Tennisvine (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't read that; it's way too long; please WP:BECONCISE. I'm afraid it's certainly not interesting -- it's a run of the mill dispute. SPlease just return to the appropriate article / project pages and keep talking until you all agree, or see WP:Dispute Resolution, which should not include anything with "administrator" in the title. NE Ent 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Fyunck(click) did not notify me on my talk page that he had begun a discussion here involving me, even though it's quite clear that it's required. I extended him that courtesy when I posted to the edit warring page and would have appreciated the same in return. Tennisvine (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, How's this - Fyunck(click) keeps ignoring the guideline MOS:BIO Section 2.1.1 Maiden names and replacing women's maiden names with their married names for events prior to the marriage. Here are examples: # [52], # [53], # [54]. I had tried to discuss this with him here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines but after a long back and forth and even a second editor also pointing him to that guideline, the conversation just kept going in circles. Thank You Tennisvine (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As, NE Ent says, this is a matter for dispute resolution among editors who work on tennis-related articles. I'd return to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Maiden names, determine what the consensus among editors is and go with that as a guideline. I'm sorry that you found the discussion going in circles, Tennisvine, but WP:ANI is for conduct disputes, not ones over content differences. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Fyunck, but I don't see how a warning for edit warring by one of the admins who live on AN3 is unacceptable. Edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Context may be difficult to judge sometimes, and admins particularly on AN3 have a hell of a time figuring it out: it's not a fun job and filing a report is a bitch if context matters, but that's what it is. Many of us have been warned at some time or other, it's not something to get all ANI about. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      But @Liz: and @Drmies:. ANI wasn't my first choice... I asked Bbb23 where I should dispute his warning and he said right here. I've been warned before and taken it in stride. This one I can't fathom what else I could do and so could likely do it again unknowingly. I think you might be missing the point of this An/i. How do you handle the situation? We are at the Maiden names discussion. While discussing, an editor in the discussion changes an article to his way of thinking. An editor changes it back saying it's being discussed. He changes it again and different editor changes it back saying it's being discussed. He changes it back again AND moves on to a second article and changes it to his way. This second article also gets changed back by two different editors saying it's being discussed. Do you just sit there quietly while more and more articles are changed, all while under discussion? If you were one of the ones who reverted it back to pre-discussion values, how would you feel about being blocked for it? Something seems broken here to me. I certainly thought about reporting him to an admin earlier but he was new. Was I being too nice? That's what this Ani is about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I don't believe it was justified to give Fyunck(click) a warning over this and a distinction could and should have been made between the context of his reverts and the edits made by Tennisvine but I do agree with Drmies that in the end it's not that big a deal. Just shrug it off and move on.--Wolbo (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fyunck, I looked a bit more. I still agree that a warning for both is acceptable. I also agree that if anyone is editing "more" against consensus it's your opponent. But I saw only one revert by someone else in that Open article, and none in the Wills article--had there been more, by other editors, your case would have been much stronger. I suppose that's unfortunate for you and I know how it feels; I've been there before. But the general point, about reverting while discussion is going on, there's no easy answer there; it goes to the heart of the BRD cycle which is notoriously fraught with difficulty, since the B is by definition an edit against previous consensus, whether that's an explicit consensus or not. This is always going to be difficult. As a sidenote, I also think that Tennisvine sounds very combative. For a new editor, they also seem to have jumped in at the deep end, showing great technical skill, so I wouldn't be too worried about being too patient with them. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies, did not realize Bbb23 had referred the editors here [55]. NE Ent 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I wasn't going to comment here because I figured anything I might say would only upset Fyunck(click) more than they already are. However, first, I referred only one editor here, not more than one, and I did so because Fyunck(click) asked how they could "contest" my warning. To review an administrator's sanction, even if it's relatively minor, this is normally the place to go. As can be seen by Fyunck(click)'s original post here, they wanted the warning removed. Obviously, that isn't going to happen unless I retract it or there is a consensus that the warning was outside of my discretion. Second, good old Drmies. Yup, Tennisvine is more combative. That was obvious from just AN3 alone and the screed they posted there (and then copied here), but it was also obvious from the discussions elsewhere. Nor, just as you (Drmies) said, did I think they were new or that Fyunck(click) should treat them any differently from any other user. See: I did take into account context. However, none of that justified the edit-warring. It was disruptive to the article, which was my main concern when I issued the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!. This makes no sense. You can't appeal a warning, especially the warning "if you edit war you may be blocked." It's not an "admin sanction," even a nobody can issue a edit warring warning and it can't be meaningfully retracted or overturned; nothing anyone does here would be binding on all 855 administrators. Furthermore the idea that one editor in a kerfuffle can be referred to ANI without them mentioning and dragging in other editors is clearly not supported by the nine hundred and one archive pages of ANI; the warning was fine; inappropriately referring a distraught editor to WP:CESSPIT is a bush league move. NE Ent 01:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely false. If an administrator at an administrative noticeboard issues a warning that if an editor reverts an article they will be blocked, that is a sanction. It is not the same as a warning from an non-admin because they can only back up their threat by seeking administrative action, whereas I can block. There are times in other forums where I issue warnings as an ordinary editor, but not at AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The warning is absolutely acceptable. You could equally have been blocked for 48 hours with talk page access removed, before you even had a chance to edit the 3RR board and defend yourself - especially if you currently possess a clean block log. zzz (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm guessing a sarcastic remark from a disgruntled employee here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Good guess. I was just the first administrator to block this user who has since been blocked three more times for edit-warring. As an aside, their talk page access was never revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      So you are doubling down on blocking someone without giving them a chance to defend themselves. (Talk page access was revoked, by the way. Inexplicably. And, the block rationale "per WP:GS/SCW" was invalid anyhow since I hadn't been given sanctions notification.) zzz (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      You linked to your own block log in your first post here. I did not revoke your Talk page access; nor did the other administrators after me. What are you looking at? "account creation blocked"? Is that what you think that phrase means? If so, it doesn't. Anyway, I'm done here. You had no business even posting in this thread. You just wanted to dredge up a grudge at the expense of Fyunck(click), who, at least, is sincere.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, just keep on slagging me off. Nice. And I just imagined my talk page being blocked. Right - of course. zzz (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      (non-involved editor) @Signedzzz: Can we please stop with the torches and pitchforks? I'm looking at your block log right now and do not see the words "cannot edit own talk page" anywhere. Amaury (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Your guess is as good as mine. I emailed ARBCOM at the time about the block, since my TP access was revoked. (They replied a few weeks later and informed me that they don't deal with small blocks, which I didn't know at the time). The reason I emailed ARBCOM was because the block notice told me to, if I wanted to appeal the block. zzz (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is the diff: "Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2014" zzz (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @Signedzzz: Bbb23 just used the wrong block template. He did not actually revoke talk page access, as your block log shows. But it is understandable at least that you thought it was.--Atlan (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Amaury, my theory has been, Bbb23 knew perfectly well that it was a terrible block, so he wanted to shut me up in advance. Obviously, that impression has just now been reinforced by his behaviour here, casting aspersions about my honesty, and denying the block he had issued, etc. zzz (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      If you have a grievance against Bbb23, address it separately; you are off topic in this thread. We don't get to parachute into an ANI thread and hijack it simply because we have a beef with one of the parties to the thread. If you have already tried legitimate ways to address your grievance and failed, drop the fucking stick. You're being disruptive here. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Here is [the 3RR "discussion". It is a diff of a single revert, followed by a few completely unsubstantiated (no diffs) and extremely offensive personal attacks, on the strength of which Bbb23 saw fit to block me, without allowing me to reply. An editor with any dignity, I suppose, would have retired at that point. Anyhow, this has been very illuminating. zzz (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      One more thing, User:Mandruss, what the fuck does "If you have already tried legitimate ways to address your grievance and failed, drop the fucking stick" mean? What "legitimate ways", for instance? WP:ANI? zzz (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm afraid I'm not well versed in how to address grievances with admins, so I can't be of any help there. I'm 100% sure of three things: (1) such recourses exist, (2) dropping in on an unrelated ANI thread ain't one of them, and (3) it's critical to use the system the way it's designed to be used. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      It really seems to me that you're absolutely wrong there. Past conduct of any party in any ANI thread is perfectly valid (per WP:BOOMERANG etc etc). So this would be exactly the correct place to raise this matter. Which is purely academic, because I have raised it. zzz (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      No, BOOMERANG applies to the person bringing the complaint, in this case Fyunck(click). It has nothing to do with what you're doing. As far as I can tell, your grievance has nothing to do with the complaint being discussed here, aside from Bbb23's involvement in both. Are we to allow anyone who happens to see this to resurrect any past unrelated grievance against Bbb23 or Fyunck(click) in this thread? If so, how can we be expected to reach a resolution of the original complaint? It just can't work. That's why we have to keep unrelated things separate. This is intuitively obvious to me, but if you still can't see it, I really have no more to contribute here and I wish you a good day. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      As you said, you're not well-versed, and no, I don't see what you're suggesting I'm doing wrong. I know I'm glad I hung around long enough to prove that I'm not a liar, as User:Bbb23 was trying to insinuate a little while ago, in this thread. zzz (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, User:Mandruss, the idea that I'm interrupting the very important business of someone whining about a "warning" is ludicrous. zzz (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, I'm not stupid in what to expect here, but I've seen the strangest things get removed that happened a year before. It usually depends on how many will fight for you and there I'm probably in the billabong. But I've let things slide in the past when I probably should have stood up for myself, and to see not only a warning but "I was tempted to block both" written down has me angry and at a loss as to why it was even remotely considered. I still feel it was and still is ongoing disruption on the part of the other editor and I was right to try and keep it at the talk page discussion. Some above wrote they didn't see the changes/reverts made at Helen Wills. Wolbo reverted the first bit here and then it was changed to it present unauthorized form here. Don't fault Bbb23 for sending me here, if he hadn't responded it would have been here anyway. I just didn't know if he wanted to discuss it on his page or somewhere other than Ani. Where to go on these things is elusive to me. But bringing it here was my doing, no one else's. I knew, that things might even get worse for me here... in 10 years of editing I've seen strange things. But when I have no idea now what to do with situations such as this... do I send it to admins at the drop of a pin (with that 94/1 ratio I was told of at the beginning of this), do I keep trying to explain protocol to seemingly new editors, do I let articles go to hell and say it's not my problem,... this is what I sit here thinking about now. I know I'm not an administrator, but I do often try to make your jobs easier... so this one hurt. No question about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    But it's looking quite plain that nothing will be done, so go ahead and close this out. At least I have it on record here that I don't understand the situation in the slightest. Thanks to any who tried to see my side of things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Intention of OP was to get an answer in preparation of a real-world meet up, which now has been reached. — Sebastian 22:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Background: In my role as a wikipedian I've been asked to participate in Wikipedia:GLAM/National_Digital_Forum, a real-world meet up and discussion. During the preparation for that one of the other participants produced this paper as evidence that spamming links into wikipedia is acceptable providing that the links are to archival holdings, even if the editor spamming the links is an employee of the archive. I have a day job in an area not dissimilar to User:Mszajewski, I invite feedback on my COIs or linkspamming issues in my own editing.

    User:Mszajewski appears to be an employee of the Ball State University archives and almost all their edits appear to involve adding links from wikipedia to their employers' website. When their employer updated their website they don't appear to have updated the spammed links that broke. I've not reviewed every edit but the only unrelated edits I can find are the creation of Northwestern University Archives which appears to be a previous employer. I've found no evidence a conflict of interest declaration. Evidence of the promotional intent (as opposed to building the encyclopaedia based on sources the editor has at hand) can be found: In this position, he develops and promotes digital collections, manages digitization projects, and oversees [...] / [T]his case study will discuss the use of Wikipedia to promote access to and advance visibility of individual digitized archival assets. My understanding is that this stands in contradiction to both Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure (this last is too recent to cover the edits in question). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Although the links may technically be "spam", they are not commercial, and provide a useful pointer to the reader. I would say that WP:IAR applies here. The links should stay, and no action should be taken against Mszajewski. BMK (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm true, but it depends. I'm no expert (ha!) but in the case of [John_Stafford_Smith]], for instance, one may well ask what the link adds to the four that are already there. We should have the best link for the available information if there are duplicates; I do not know which of these has more better information. So in principle I agree with both sides, and think that this is a matter best left for individual article discussion. If, on the other hand, stuff gets out of hand, then maybe action should be taken. I have, I think, hit rollback on such edits--I remember now, it was some soccer database website thingy, where it clearly got out of hand, with hundreds of adds to a low-quality place supplying information that duplicated that of more established sites. So one question is whether the Ball State site is a mirror of something, or whether they actually bring something new to the table, from their own archive for instance. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In generally archival holdings are unique (as opposed to library holdings which are not). For example, many archives hold letters from famous / notable people (letters are widely distributed because they're famous for their author but their recipient determines their fate), thus many archives have a unique letter by Thomas Jefferson, but the Thomas Jefferson doesn't list any of them at all. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, you're both right. So an examination of the archive by someone who knows the subject should reveal whether the content is helpful and all that. If the archive is minimal (following Stuart's example) the link should be removed; in addition, if they're blind additions of every "minimal" thing in an archive's holding it's certainly spamming. I dislike extensive EL sections more than most editors, but if they contribute to knowledge then I'm at peace with them. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, for heaven's sake. A note on the guy's talk page (BTW, he hasn't edited in almost two years anyway) saying, "Hey, if you want to resume this kind of thing let's talk first about selecting 'high-value links'" would have made much more sense than opening a thread here. Really, this is an incident? EEng (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Amusing sidelights include the linked paper reporting increases of "1,121.84%" and "610.31%" in this or that traffic measure. Personally I'm far more concerned about the statistical incompetence than the so-called spamming.[reply]
    The quick answer to your dilemma is that the statement "spamming links into wikipedia is acceptable providing that the links are to archival holdings" is incorrect. The correct test is "spamming links into wikipedia is acceptable providing that the links aren't actually spam, and sometimes it's unclear whether a particular link really counts as high-value, but we don't make a fuss about good-faith editors who might be overzealous in adding links to an obviously valuable archive, even if it's part of a somewhat ill-conceived but essentially harmless small-scale experiment re increasing the visibility of that archive". EEng (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, something like that; thanks EEng. Stuart, I should have read your italicized paragraph more closely. I'm looking at that paper right now. It has a lot of words and some pictures and I suppose it counts toward tenure. And what you call "spamming" they call "linking assets"; I admire their word choice. An expanded version of the paper could address community reception of linking assets in digital library holdings to Wikipedia articles. I have no opinion on your editing, or your linking assets. I do think that the paper, and your thread here, indicate that Wikipedia can serve many purposes, not all of them legitimate. I have no reason yet to think that in this case they're not legitimate, but I do wish that at some point last year someone had asked them what they were doing (or they had taken the initiative); they could have made a cogent argument for adding the links. Without such discussion, it is easy to suspect linkspamming. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Three-dimensional topological phase diagram of who does what
    If we don't watch it we'll be dragging Wikipedians in residence here soon. Of course, given this three-dimensional topological phase diagram of who does what, it's no wonder there's confusion now and then. EEng (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was interesting. It confirmed what we could have guessed, but it's good to see that published. We should do a follow-up, to study how many additional archive links we got after the publication of that article; let's not tell librarians like DGG and LadyofShalott. Anyway, to get back to your original question, this editor really should have declared their COI somewhere--they clearly do have a COI and it behooves them to acknowledge that. The section "Why the Hague Sheet Music Collection?" gives something of an argument for inclusion, but for our purposes I'd expect more--if the individual links are ever questioned. Stuart, I don't know if this is the kind of response you were looking for, but even if it wasn't I thank you for bringing this to our attention. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll have a more elaborate comment tomorrow, but , briefly, The rule is the same as all other links: ELs to key resources that guide the reader to important information are justified This includes an EL for a notable person the te university archives that holds the major part of his collections. (or for a famous person, to significant parts.) This does not include links to scattered items. One link from an article on a famous book to the location of the manuscript is justifed. Links from an article on a famous book to all special collections having signed copies are not (there is one exception: a list of libraries holding copies of the Gutenberg Bible. Links from a sheet music collection from the bios of all performers and composers who wrote or performed an item in the collection are not. A single link from the article on an individual composition to where the manuscript is located is justified. Thereis no special exemption for archives. I shall examine every link added by that project. I'll consult as needed, and report the results. I'll try to do as much of this a possibletomorrow;.

    Even when the links are justified, large scale adding of links without prior discussion is not a good idea. People have been blocked for doing this. Again, it's nota psecial rule--large scale additions of anything are unwise without prior discussion. Being bold is not the same think as being reckless. Leaving oneself open ato accusations of COI is not a wise way to work here--it can lead to the remove of otherwise good material, which would have ben kept if added slowly and properly. And as always, no one admin or editor or anyone vcan give permission--only the consensus of the community gives permission, and consensus can change. The community has historically been very unhappy when ththey think the 1encycopedia is being systematically abused.

    It was unimaginambly imperceptive to write the article saying it was done to raise the visibility of the collection. That is not a good motive for doing anythijng. We do not do PR for even the most worth objects. The only reason for adding anything here is to add information of use to the readers (or, in some cases, the editors). If , a a side matter, adding good material here improves the visibility of the editor, or their organization ther'snothing wrong with that. But using it as the purpose is unwelcome. Even if it's in the back of someones mind, it should say there. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Unimaginably imperceptive"? Oh, please. You're a librarian‍—‌surely you can imagine an inexperienced editor who, unfamiliar with WP:EL, mistakes EL sections as appropriate for a kind of external bibliography. Not everyone's been around the block a million times like we hoary old hands. EEng (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, if you prefer, "it showed a lack of understanding of WP to write " ... As a librarian, I would hope for a better understandingat least iwthing our profession. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "lack of understanding" really is better, and it transforms this from an "incident" into just someone who just misunderstood (and I find that very, very few people -- including librarians -- who don't edit WP regularly have more than the barest idea of how it works). So we're back to the note on the guy's talk page, "Hey, if you want to resume this kind of thing let's talk first about selecting 'high-value links'", and that's it. I'm glad you're reviewing what's been done to date, and let's close this now. EEng (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks by JMWt on Talk:Honey Bucket

    LjL, go and stand in the corner. JMWt, go and stand in the other corner (away from the honey bucket please, it's beginning to smell). And I do not want to hear who started it, if you can't explain what the problem is with the article without name calling, then don't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For making a comment about an highlighted potential WP:COI (involving government funding of an organization some editors who might have canvassed on its forum seem to belong to), I was called "ignorant" and then, after requesting not to be called such terms, I was immediately called the same again.

    Please, request that this editor stop name-calling in this way.

    LjL (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    LjL made a claim about another user which was false and ignorant. JMWt (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Dr. Blofeld

    Let's wrap this up once and for all, shall we? Further discussion here really isn't constructive. If you're going to continue belaboring the point, do it on your talk pagesBlackmane (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    comment removed NE Ent 21:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Dealt with by Ritchie333 and "matter closed", in his words. Time to move on, drop the stick and be constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Admin endorsed close. (although I don't think is should be needed) Let's move on User:Ched[reply]

    Could an admin please remove the personal attacks [56] that User:Dr Blofeld made towards me on another user's talk page? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Caden cool 16:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had a word privately with Blofeld - matter closed, I hope. I will say that this edit from you wasn't very nice either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A private word off wiki? Well sorry but that is not good. BTW are you saying his personal attack towards Light show was ok with you? I realize Blo is your friend so I can see how you would ignore his bad behavior. However its unacceptable since you are an admin. Caden cool 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an in joke based on what Cassianto said to Caden previously about Caden's love of porn. I know Cassianto has a lot on his plate right now so I thought it might cheer him up a bit. If you don't want negative comments Caden don't turn up and cause disruption with making comments like this in which you're aggressively looking for a fight. I tried to diminish the situation with this but you reverted it back. Stay well clear of commenting on things and sticking your nose in and I'll not make any jokes about your poor taste in films and exercise, deal?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No its not a joke, its a personal attack and a filthy disgusting one at that. As for the Frank Sinatra page, you attacked User:Light show and all I did was share my thoughts on the infobox issue. Caden cool 16:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So says the person who professes to "enjoy pornography". You're the monger for the seedy stuff, not me. Light show is banned from Kubrick, Sellers, and uploading images on here or at least was. His vendetta carries over to Charlie Chaplin and others since the Sellers days. He turned up on Sinatra, surprise surprise and yes, nobody cares what he thinks as people know his intentions. That you turned up to endorse somebody as lowly as that says it all. Stay the hell away from commenting and I'll reserve the Caden jokes for a rainy day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but the only seedy stuff here is your behavior. Your behavior Blofeld is disgusting. BTW coming to my my talk page to call me a twat was not very nice. Caden cool 17:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    caden, Don't be disruptive and re-open the thread. Blofeld has amended his comment to remove reference to you "frantically jerking off to smutty videos", so it is no longer there. Time to move on. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the most absurd chain of events I have ever seen happen at ANI, and typifies everything wrong with Wikiepdia. An editor is having vulgar sexual insults unrepentantly thrown at them, and this is somehow an ok thing. Shame on you all. Brustopher (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The comment (singular) was removed some time ago, so perhaps a brief check on the situation before peanut throwing may have been a better course? - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He replaced his explicit comment with innuendo implying the exact same thing, big whoop.[57] Meanwhile there seems to be no admission or understanding that what he's done is actually wrong.Brustopher (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The replacement comment could be read in numerous different ways, only one of which is "the exact same thing". Altering to remove the comment is normally seen as an acknowledgement that it was inappropriate in the first place. – SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Could somebody please revert schrocat? He's trying to close my report that is not yet resolved. I need a neutral admin to look at all the personal attacks thrown at me here on ANi by blofeld. Furthermore his attack on me has not been changed at all on cassiatos page. Its still a vulgar attack on me. Caden cool 17:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would oppose such. It is resolved, it is just that you apparently personally don't like the resolution. What I think you need is to read WP:THICK. You have made comments regarding yourself which others have made into jokes. Tough. Live with it. I have been the subject of numerous jokes myself, at least in part because of the really bad movie by my name. And you seem to miss the fact that it wasn't an attack, but rather a joke in a part of a comment which is also a form of compliment to the other user in question. I believe that this refusal to acknowledge the closing of this thread may well qualify as WP:TE, and I suggest that both Brustopher and you let it die, before the disruption and tendentiousness here draws attention itself. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First off I never made any comments regarding to myself or porn. This report has not been properly dealt with at all. And furthermore none of it is joking. Blofeld has been making those type of personal attacks towards me for a long time. So please get your facts correct before coming here. Caden cool 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Caden, John Carter is telling you Blofeld was kidding, and you really have no choice but to accept that jokes about an editor masturbating are totally fine: ([58]). I'll bet Ched agrees, and he's a real stickler for personal attacks. RO(talk) 18:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, RO, that is what you are saying. I am saying edit warring is unacceptable. Please cease this attempt of yours to indicate that others who are demonstrably aware of a situation are only capable of the same opinions that you are, who, apparently, have commented here and elsewhere on an unknowing and rather prejudicial jump to conclusions regarding the matter in question. Such willful stupidity and vindictiveness after the fact is more than a little creepy. I had indicated my comments were about the edit-warring, and at no point did I say it was necessarily appropriate, and I don't think any rational person driven by anything but personal vindictiveness would think otherwise. As noted on the recent discussion at your user talk page, you apparently jumped to unfounded assumptions about the matter, particularly regarding the motivations of others, based on no apparent examination of the discussion, and have apparently only posted here in some sort of rather childish attempt at vindictiveness. I regret to say that doesn't actually surprise me much. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So, edit warring is beyond the pale, but allowing an editor's friends to shut down a valid An/I thread is perfectly acceptable. "And you want to be my latex salesman"! RO(talk) 19:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the only thing that is really not perfectly acceptable, frankly, at least to me, is your own comments, which seem to regularly assume the worst possible faith on the part of anyone who ever disagrees with you. This, frankly, is something I think I have seen before in you, and that honestly doesn't surprise me. You do realize, by the way, that your repeating of the comments here probably does more to draw attention to the complained about matter than anything else, don't you? That being the case, it would probably be reasonable to see that you are doing more, by your conduct, including your rather judgmental and incorrect opinions about the motivations of others, to draw attention to a comment which has subsequently been changed, and, in that sense, perhaps doing more to draw further attention to a modified remark than pretty much anyone else, right? John Carter (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are helping by telling Caden to get a sense of humor about the masturbating comment. IS that right? RO(talk) 19:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but I am telling you that your obnoxious edit summary to the last comment above, and your frankly juvenile comments, including the last one above, are just short of having you taken to ANI for your own conduct. This sort of childish conduct that you have been displaying here is in and of itself unacceptable, and it honestly seems to me that the only reason you are posting here is because, as I indicated above, you were caught in an act of ignorance and are engaging in frankly silly vindictiveness because you can't reasonably deal with it. Your conduct in this thread is in no way acceptable, and, if it should continue, I believe I would be completely justified in starting another thread regarding your conduct here below. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. How about a simple question about policy. You warned Caden for edit warring, but SchroCat reverted them twice: ([59]); ([60]) , but you didn't similarly warn them. Why not? RO(talk) 19:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is unacceptable to remove other people's comments from a talk page. I replaced my comments which Caden kept removing; he was lucky not to have had action taken against him for his continued removal. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they were trying to revert your questionable closure, not necessarily remove your comments, which I agree is inappropriate. But you are too close to Blofeld to be closing valid An/I threads. RO(talk) 19:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There was nothing inappropriate about the close. There is something rather inappropriate about your continual use of the STICK here. Time to drop it and move away. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't neutral enough to close threads about Blofeld, especially this one, which you tried to squelch before anybody even saw it. RO(talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And it of course is clearly your primary interest to draw as much attention to it as possible. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've done the best in terms of blowing this up, John, so please, keep telling us that we need to do something else all the while writing more words about this incident than anyone else. You are clearly here to snuff out the report. Any intelligent person can see that. I think it was disgusting that Blofeld tried to intimidate a user with sexual innuendo, but it's even more concerning that he is still defending his tactics as though anyone who crosses him is fair game to anything he deems necessary: ([61]). RO(talk) 21:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I contacted Blofeld privately because I predicted if I said "caden has a point - could you fix it?" publicly on here, we would get a big ANI thread full of name calling and dramah, though that appears to have happened in any case. For the record, it's not really acceptable to call someone a twat, and equally it's not really acceptable for somebody to say "I don't give a rat's ass what you think" either. Now, if we're all done here, maybe we could get back to writing an encyclopedia? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • For the record, everything is great in my private life. I just wanted to dispel that myth before it starts gaining any kind of momentum. It's bullshit threads like this that makes me all the more pleased I'm no longer part of this website, unfortunatley. CassiantoTalk 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to hear it Cassianto. I hope you have a great break and come back rested and ready to write! RO(talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one has claimed that the comments were acceptable, so there is nothing to get so wound up about. The comment was removed a few hours ago, and the thread will only generate more heat than anything constructive. Time for everyone to get back to writing the encyclopaedia. – SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What could be more obscene than professing on your user page to love watching hardcore pornography? Just how many women are treated like sex objects in that industry? His user page is littered with claims of his own sexual habits and features a picture of File:Deauxma-Mutter_Erde_fec.jpg (who is apparently well known for being a MILF according to the image caption). That's filth. If it wasn't he'd not get a ribbing and such comments. Anybody who hosts such content on their user page yet can't stand the "filth" of a light hearted related joke is not to be taken seriously. Get down off your high horse Jb. I'd equally argue that such content on his user page is never appropriate period. Take down the smutty signs and tell him to not turn up unfounded on article talk pages with aggressive posts and he won't get a ribbing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell Blofeld? That image IS NOT on my page and I know nothing about MILF. My page is not littered with sexual habits. You are a disgusting filthy liar. Caden cool 21:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not disputing that the image is not on your page, but I do find that it is included at least at this point in the list of pages that link to it as per here. I admit however that I do not see the image myself, and am somewhat surprised about that. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't be uncivil and call other liars. The image is on your user page: it's the image on the "this user enjoys pornography" user box. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is NOT ON MY PAGE. He is a misleading liar and so are you Schrocat. Caden cool 21:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your second gratuitous attack on me. I have told you where the image is on your page, and yet you STILL want to call me a liar. When you finally read my comment above where I've told you where it is, I won't bother holding my breath for an apology. I will repeat, for the hard of understanding: THE IMAGE IS ON YOUR USERPAGE IN THE PORNOGRAPHY USERBOX. I hope that gets through to you. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Schrocat the personal attack is still on Cass's page and was not removed. It was modified but still is a unacceptable personal attack against me. I want it gone. I do not deserve this! Caden cool 19:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not read as an attack at all. If it does, you are mis-reading it entirely. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Give me a break schrocat, you damn well know it's a dirty filthy rotten attack on me. Caden cool 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Read again. That's not an attack on you, let alone "a dirty filthy rotten" one. That's beyond even a thin skin, it's reading in something that isn't even there. – SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely the best thing to do here is compromise and ask Dr Blofeld if they would consider removing the message altogether? I'm sure no one wants all this drama. samtar (msg) 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The compromise was Dr Blofeld removing the personal attack. As no such attack now exists, it's something of a moot point. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (e-c) Pretty much agree with both of you, although I also agree with Cassianto that dramah-mongering threads like this are a good reason for others to leave. I suppose I would add that possibly mindless repetition of the comments for no very good reason is probably no better, and deserving of the same response. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another editor (JbHunley) above said it best: "That kind of crap needs to be REVDELED at the very least, it casts obscene aspersions on an editor in a public forum." Yes it does cast obscene aspersions on ME in a PUBLIC FORUM and Dr Blofeld should of been blocked for that alone. And this thread should never have been snuffed by his friends either. Caden cool 20:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absolutely true, but good luck finding an admin with enough courage to do the right thing. Ritchie tried to fast track this as a personal favor (for which he is becoming well known), and SchroCat is way too friendly with Blofeld to be closing reports here on him. It's corruption at it's sleaziest. RO(talk) 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PMSL! Thanks for the laugh you two. That's the overblown nonsense I've seen round here in a long time. I'm off to do something more useful, like watch paint dry or wash my hair... – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Schrocat, you are by far one of the most irritating and rude editors I have ever seen. Your attitude and behavior towards the abuse I got from Blofeld on this thread are a disgrace to the project. Caden cool 20:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the personal attack. Coming from you I will take that as a compliment from any decent editor. Toodle-oo. - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone hat this?

    Just asking, but I don't think that ongoing discussion, and thus drawing attention to this here, in the most public of places, does anyone any real good. Certainly the repetition of the claims doesn't help. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    John, you totally and utterly disqualified and embarrassed yourself when you told Caden to get a sense of humor about Blofeld's disgusting reference to masturbation: ([62]). Maybe it's you who needs to drop the stick and walk away from this thread. RO(talk) 20:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop the stick RO and be constructive doing some editing: this is a pointless exercise that will achieve nothing. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone is wielding a stick here it's you, SchroCat, and those clichés are transparent attempts to key-word someone into oblivion. I have as much a right to comment here as you do. RO(talk) 20:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What a rather bizzare thing to claim. I wield no stick here, and I am not talking in clichés (I'm sure the irony of the transparent clichés is lost on you). This matter is closed. Its closure was validated by an admin and several others agree with it. I'm not sure what your goal is, but I'm fairly sure your recent spat with Blofeld has something to do with it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Questionable phrase has been altered & above discussion is supposed to be closed. Best ya'll move on. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    People are just editing through the hat. Like, a lot. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    what part of the big purple box do people not get? The purple box means the threads closed! Drop the stick and move on!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Userbox

    It's worth pointing out that the userbox in question is User:Phunting/Userboxes/Pornography, and the image currently being displayed is not the one that was being displayed when Caden added the userbox to his page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs we're all fed up with this thread respect the orange archive box and let it go.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 22:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying an incorrect claim of fact against Caden should be allowed to stand? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Materialscientist, abuse of administrative power

    Here's the background: I have been using AutoWikiBrowser to convert external links to the Internet Archive (mostly Wayback Machine) and Google services (Google Books, YouTube, etc.) from HTTP to HTTPS. I did this for a while, until User:Materialscientist revoked my AWB editing rights without giving me much of an explanation. Some other users then brought to my attention that this may violate AWB rule #4 which says edits with AWB must not be "insignificant or inconsequential." And because we could not agree on whether HTTP→HTTPS was significant enough, we agreed on inquiring the community. This was done last month in this RfC on VPR, where I specifically asked whether (a) these edits are a good idea, and (b) they are significant enough for a solitary edit. The outcome was almost unanimously in favor of doing these changes. So finally User:Graeme Bartlett reinstated me as an AWB editor.

    So far so good. Over the weekend I started doing those changes on a large number of articles, but yesterday Materialscientist removed my name from the AWB CheckPage again. Upon me asking for the reason, he claims the consensus in the RfC is invalid because it supposedly didn't address the question of significance. I replied that the RfC asked that specifically and Wikipedians supported, but now he does not reply anymore.

    I know this a harsh choice of words, but for someone who has been editing Wikipedia for over 11 years now I think I am allowed to call this an abuse of power by an administrator. That's why I want to report this incident here. --bender235 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, IMO, yes, it is a harsh choice of words. I think it's totally OTT to claim that this is a case of abuse of power, its not in Materialscientist's character. There are nicer ways of going about resolving issues such as these, starting with a more colegial approach to dialogue on talk pages and being a bit more patient for a response. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung, what does OTT mean? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it means "over the top". Like the way Mel Ott used to hit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me that MS reverted their edits, and your name appears on the checkpage. Widr (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, after reading through the RfC I've reverted my removal, and forgot to reply on my talk (sorry, got carried away by some vandal). This thread is based on misunderstanding. Materialscientist (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if so, then it seems this issue is finally resolved. --bender235 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung: this issue has been going for months, and it became clear to me that User:Materialscientist does not reply when asked on his talk page, my talk page, or being pinged to reply in a general audience discussion on the topic on AWB talk or WP:VPR. That's why ANI became my last resort. --bender235 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, Materialscientist is a good admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see an abuse of power here. I enabled AWB for Bender235, then some edits proved controversial, there was a complaint and Bender235 did not stop with AWB, so Materialscientist removed AWB access. Bender235 held a RFC to see if the change was wanted by the community. He requested AWB back again. After he convinced me that he understood what his problem was with AWB I gave it back, but then Materialscientist removed the access and then later restored it, asking for a consensus to be reached first. Anyway I took this to mean that a community consensus is needed as to whether Bender235 should have the AWB permission or not. We don't get a lot of discussion at the Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and Materialscientist did not comment there, so perhaps here others can have a say here as to whether or not Bender235 should have AWB access. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I certainly would comment if someone pinged me (I don't watch that page). Surely other comments are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graeme Bartlett: really? You think there needs to be community consensus for me to have AWB rights? You must be kidding. --bender235 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RfAWB? Anyway, as I read it, Bender now has a green light (and I support these changes for whatever that's worth). Time to move on maybe. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If, on occasion, we make edits that gets reverted, we can move on. Would not the same apply for editors who get these enhanced bulk-editing privileges? Sometimes they might be pulled back a bit, and so go back to more conventional editing? In my experience, Materialscientist has been pretty sensible. I also know that he has complained to Bender about some of his mass substitutions, so this is not coming out of the "blue". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The RfC was held in the most public venue possible.
    • The RfC ran for 20 days, more than enough time.
    • The RfC consensus was clear.
    • The RfC was framed with a specific and concise proposition. The result is not the slightest bit ambiguous, the community supports these mass changes.
    Everything was done right, which is somewhat rare in an RfC. Why on earth would anyone challenge this RfC?? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Isambard: Complaining is not the same as explaining. A complaint is only sufficient when it is common knowledge that a behavior is wrong, which was clearly not the case here. — Sebastian 23:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If there is indeed agreement that Bender has a green light, then we can close this. Maybe we can choose to see Materialscientist's statement that they're not watching this page as a tacit agreement. In conclusion, it may be useful to point out that several mistakes have been made here:

    User:DrKiernan - Failure to respect RM closure and advice

    Although I a loath to bring this to ANI I will not enter into an edit war with User:DrKiernan over this. The article Foreign Affairs was subject to an RM [63] initiated by User:In ictu oculi on 3 Sept. That RM was closed by User:Cuchullain on Oct 1 as No Consensus. User DrKiernan supported the move. On Oct 2, DrKiernan initiated another RM. I closed that RM on Oct 10 as not moved because there was no consensus to do so. DrKiernan initiated a WP:Move review [64]. On Oct 12, DrKiernan unsuccessfully attempted to close the MR after three editors had endorsed my close. [65]. On Oct 12 DrKiernan initiated a new RM [66] in direct contravention to my advice in the previous RM that editors wait six months before initiating another RM. Another editor in the Oct 12 RM suggested a speedy close. I closed the RM with the following comment "Closed per not so subtle suggestion in previous RM - Article is moved protected for 6 months" [67] and subsequently move protected the article for 6 months. I notified DrKiernan on his talk page of my close [68]. Within 3 minutes of my close DrKiernan reverted my close as if it had never occurred showing zero respect for the Admin decision. I have notified editors mentioned here on their talk pages. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made no edits to this article.[69] There's nothing wrong in opening a discussion on a talk page, or bringing new evidence to that talk page to inform the discussion. Move-protection is over-kill; the page has only been moved twice in the last ten years and never by me. DrKiernan (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Am uninvolved. I closed the RM, as process appeared to have taken place already. Agree with you on the lack of need for move-protection and have reverted to autoconfirmed. -- Samir 18:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Samir. Mike is right: 3 move requests and a move review in less than two weeks is extreme; we're just not going to come to a consensus that quickly. Revert warring on talk pages is still revert warring; DrKiernan needs to step back and chill, stat. As for the merits of the RMs, wait six months and we'll revisit then, there's no particular rush.--Cúchullain t/c 18:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have boldly reclosed the MR with a procedural close which is the common result of a move review in cases like this where the initiator withdraws or another RM or similar discussion is started elsewhere. PaleAqua (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has mentioned that Kiernan is an admin and that therefore Move Protect would have been ineffective anyway. It seems clear (to me at least) from the above discussion and my read of the various RM discussions that Mike Cline was acting appropriately, the discussions were assessed correctly by Cúchullain, Samir, and Mike Cline. It looks therefore that the MR discussion is heading for endorsement and that Kiernan acting contrary to the closures is abusing the level of responsible behaviour and/or judgement vested in him at his RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Rationalobserver

    Thread has since been re-closed by a neutral party. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is no way that I can imagine that this reopening of a closed thread is considered acceptable. The individual explicitly not only refuses to assume good faith, but actively asserts bad faith as being the grounds for reopening the thread, as that editor clearly indicates with the edit summary here. I believe that this action, in accord with the rather grossly unacceptable nature of several of their comments in that thread, are grounds for separate discussion, and am proposing it here. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If it should be closed, it should be closed by a neutral and uninvolved person, not Blofeld's buddies. RO(talk) 21:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No the purple box is final, respect the purple archive box! And drop the stick--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)−[reply]
    I think a lot of editors have acted a bit rashly and emotively over this issue, hence my revert to try to stop the discussion firing up again (apologies Rationalobserver). I don't agree anything should come off these actions, other than maybe having it reviewed by a new, uninvolved admin, and then dropped. Continuing the discussion (or opening AN/Is such as this) is only making the problem worse I think. samtar (msg) 21:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • NE Ent has closed the thread. I was about to do the same and got an edit conflict, so that aspect is over. Rationalobserver should be mindful of not keeping minor disputes going past their sell-by date. Sarah (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that it's been closed by a neutral party I have no issues with the closure. I will say that everybody, including Blofeld, was still commenting on it, so it was not really closed anyway. RO(talk) 22:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible tag teaming

    I would like some advice as to whether the following counts as tag teaming, and if so how I can establish whether the behaviour is acceptable or not. On five occasions during discussions with User:No More Mr Nice Guy, the same uninvolved editor User:Bad Dryer has entered out of nowhere to revert my revert.

    (1) Diffs at Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine: [70]

    • 22:21, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (13,089 bytes) (+47) . . (It is quite obviously not a simple reproduction , no matter what the text says, as it contains details (such as the 1949 armistice lines) not available to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
    • 21:57, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (13,042 bytes) (-47) . . (Undid revision by No More Mr Nice Guy. The text says "Reproduced" not "Published". The map was actually "published" in the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
    • 18:07, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (13,089 bytes) (+47) . . (attribute)

    (2) Diffs at Template:Palestinian_territory_development: [71]

    • 22:11, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (2,094 bytes) (-554) . . (it has been discussed before, but I don't see consensus for you version.)
    • 21:46, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (2,648 bytes) (+554) . . (Undid revision 664591161 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) this has been discussed before. you need consensus for this)
    • 17:52, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (2,094 bytes) (-554) . . (removing this map for multiple issues including NPOV and RS, see talk shortly)

    (3) Diffs at United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine: [72]

    • 22:23, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (96,759 bytes) (+47) . . (It is quite obviously not a simple reproduction , no matter what the text says, as it contains details (such as the 1949 armistice lines) not available to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
    • 21:56, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (96,712 bytes) (-47) . . (Undid revision by No More Mr Nice Guy. The text says "Reproduced" not "Published". The map was actually "published" in the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
    • 07:38, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (96,759 bytes) (+47) . . (/* United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) */ attribute)

    (4) Diffs at British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument): [73]

    • 22:50, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (80,739 bytes) (+71) . . (/* Transjordan */ attribution is (possibly) needed, but this text hews closer to the source, and is more detailed and accurate.)
    • 21:09, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (80,668 bytes) (-97) . . (attributing to Feith, tracking his view more closely, and removing Bentwich statement taken out of context)
    • 00:37, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (80,765 bytes) (-4) . . (/* Background and negotiations */ per source. how the source's "there was never any question" changed to "to many observers it seemed" is anyone's guess.)

    (5) Diffs at One_Million_Plan: [74]

    • 22:56, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (29,828 bytes) (-574) . . (per WP:BRD - wait for consensus before adding this material again)
    • 22:27, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (30,402 bytes) (+574) . . (Undid revision 685444238 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) I have read your talk comment. This is impeccably sourced. Your comment is both WP:OR and wrong. See talk shortly.)
    • 22:11, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (29,828 bytes) (-574) . . (rv. see talk page shortly)

    I am sure there is a good reason, but in my five years editing here I have never seen such coordination.

    Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They all stuck - they were all reverts of edits you had made that were later agreed on talk to be wholly or partially inappropriate. (5) is ongoing. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'll be damned. You snuck the map past me with a misleading edit summary that made me assume you were putting another map in there per the talk page discussion. Good one. I'll be sure not to fall for that again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Try looking closer. It is a different map, from an impeccable source, but with the same data, so your well-poisoning was averted. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So your edit didn't stick after all. You had to change the article per my concerns, not per your revert. Glad we got that cleared up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. But this tangent might never end if one of us doesn't stop. I hereby allow you the WP:LASTWORD. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And incidentally, User:Bad Dryer was the editor who caused User:Malik Shabazz to retire. (Bad Dryer was for a while blocked as a Nocal100-sock, but then unblocked.) Draw your own conclusions, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There must be some secret cabal. Maybe we can close this and assist them with a cover up.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    She was not implying a cabal, she was reminding Malik's friends there's unfinished business here. See below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd Editing

    This is a strange bit of editing. User:Jandown and User:Desklin appear to be the same person. This history of Jandown shows them going through and deleting archived comments of other editors. Likely one of the comments is related to this user. Desklin also changed the name on some of Jandown's edits to be Desklin. Perhaps someone that is more used to handling SPI cases can take a look. Arzel (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The two talk pages have been notified, here and here. Arzel (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SPI is thataway. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And ANI is here. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strange indeed. I reverted a few edits where Jandown had messed with an archive. Desklin has been adding questions to an archive that were asked at a refdesk and removed here, by Baseball Bugs. Perhaps BB can shed some light on this matter. Yes, Arzel, odd, and worth another look, though not (just) necessarily from an SPI perspective--but it's a bit late here. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Major issue with Justlettersandnumbers and BLP Benjamin Genocchio

    I need help please.

    Benjamin Genocchio hired me, as an independent Wikipedia editor, to update his article. His article has been under attack by numerous editors and was in need of a substantial overhaul. I have no prior relationship with Genocchio and have no CIO here. I am just doing my job which is to improve Wikipedia following the guidelines of maintaining a NPOV annotating throughout with high quality references.

    User Justlettersandnumbers reverted my edits. Justlettersandnumbers has been negatively editing the Benjamin Genocchio BLP since 19 September 2013. Justlettersandnumbers is also editing Genocchio’s wife’s (Melissa Chiu) BLP article without adding to the quality of the article. Justlettersandnumbers edits current and former employers of Genocchio, including Louise Blouin Media's page, Louise Blouin's personal page, and artnet. Almost all of the edits to these pages are reverts and deletions. Justlettersandnumbers adds back in controversial statements that other editors have removed.

    Justlettersandnumbers was the user responsible for tagging user Bgenoochio for CIO. It seems the Wikipedia editors involved in Genocchio’s article have employed a real lack of consideration thus far. Genocchio was editing his own page after potentially libelous statements were being made as a part of the BLP. He admitted to not understanding the guidelines and said he would no longer edit his own page. It is clear from his own user name that he was a newbie who did not yet understand the CIO policy. Genocchio made requests for other editors to research and improve upon his page and that was not done.

    I am asking for the assistance of administrators in this matter. It is a difficult situation for subjects of BLPs when their articles are under attack. I took on this project in order to help improve Genocchio’s article as someone who understands the guidelines and standards in place, better than a newbie, that are to be honored at all times while editing Wikipedia.

    Please review my edits to Benjamin Genocchio’s article and access them as worthy improvements or not based on their own merit. Please look into user Justlettersandnumbers and stop an editor who appears to be abusing their powers as a Wikipedia insider in this situation. Many thanks to you all for your time and efforts here! Penelope1114 (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Paid editing is a COI. You'll be interested in reading [75].-Serialjoepsycho-(talk) 05:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at the articles talk page and not seeing where you attempted to discuss any issues on this articles talk page. I also don't see where you attempted to talk with them. What I do see is they opened a WP:COIN up against you. I see that coin case was opened before this. It seems like this was opened in retaliation to that COIN. I also see [76] you tried to forumshop this elsewhere until you found it was the wrong location. This is waste of the communities time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Penelope114: As a paid editor, our Terms of Use has strict requirements for disclosure, which I do not see that you have followed. Please read that page and follow the instructions there. When you have done that, perhaps your complaint can be addressed. In the meantime, do not edit the article directly, follow the instructions at WP:COI and make suggestions at the article's talk page. BMK (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What BMK said. I've already started a discussion of this user's edits at COIN, as noted above, and this should probably continue there. Other articles affected include Tad Martin (entrepreneur), Heidi Messer, Stephen Messer (entrepreneur), Seth M. Siegel and Vringo. The user has declared a paid connection to some, but not all, of those. There's a fundamental contradiction in "Benjamin Genocchio hired me, as an independent Wikipedia editor" that this user would do well to understand. He/she should probably also be warned not to violate copyrights.
    The Benjamin Genocchio page has been on my watchlist since I attempted to remove some of the 900 or so links to artinfo.com ref-spammed by editor JPLei, apparently a Blouin employee (reported here). Looking at the history, I seem to have made several attempts to make it read like an encyclopaedia entry. Louise Blouin and Louise Blouin Media (created by JPLei) are on my watchlist for the same reason. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Block needed on IP

    There is a rather odd IP 2602:306:25a5:89d9:c538:472e:67ac:992b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is randomly adding "October 2015" and Category:Halloween songs for a series of articles. When reverted he edit wars the text back in. This user has previously been warned about this, and did the same thing under 2602:306:25A5:89D9:8168:1DCE:9F97:F00A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): he was reported here by Binksternet and blocked by Philg88. Any chance something a little more concrete could happen to this pest? – SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Now he's switched to 2602:306:25A5:8489:54FB:5149:4982:80DD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Range block might do it, but I don't know enough about IPv6 to know how much damage that would do. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict):Both blocked for a month - I can't trace IPv6 addresses but a range block may be a better option here.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    2602:306:25a5:8000::/52 rangeblocked for one month. Might have to keep an eye out as these types of edits have been going on for months. --NeilN talk to me 10:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cebr1979 and soap articles

    Cebr1979 (talk · contribs) has made a large number of requests for page protection, (eg: [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82]) all of which are on soap opera characters, and most of which have had barely any edits this month and hence in my view do not meet the semi protection guidelines. The apparent cause of this, according to Cebr1979, is that a single editor has been undertaking slow-moving disruption (their words, not mine) across many articles, as documented here. A look through 172.0.210.68 (talk · contribs)'s contributions though, suggests to me that this is a good-faith editor and if there was any problem, I think it would be WP:COMPETENCE related. Therefore Cebr1979's protection requests are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. What should we do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure we have anything to do right now. Between your post at 0:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) and your request above, Cebr1979 hasn't resumed the disruption. So, since he hasn't continued the problem, I don't know why you think admins need to step in and use their tools. Give him a chance to actually do the right thing before demanding Admins step in... --Jayron32 14:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't suggesting blocking or anything, rather it seems this issue has been going on in various places over the past few weeks, and it's probably a good time to bring it to a central place to get some more views. I realise it's a bit odd to have an ANI thread when I just want a discussion, but there you go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie, there is absolutely no disruption from me. I have been in contact with many admins about this guy (something you know because you linked to one of the conversations yourself) and, you are wrong. This is not a good faith editor, it is a sockpuppet using multiple different IPs to make his nonsense edits. I'm not going to bother explaining the situation to you since you can't be bothered to take two seconds to look it up (even though you claim to have "looked through..." like, I just don't even know). Some of those IPs have been blocked for nonsense edits/vandalism and you definitely knew that before you came here so, common sense should have dictated there is more to this story you are clearly unaware of (especially when you were actually aware of it because this conversation was right there in front of you and there's no way you didn't see it). The next time you have an issue with something, my advice to you would be to ask some questions instead of immediately running around to the nearest place you can to instantly cause some drama. I'm not talking to you anymore.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When I said I wasn't talking to you anymore, Ritchie, I hadn't seen this yet. Don't you EVER come to my talk page and put something back I have removed. EVER. You wanna talk about disruption? Go read talk page policies. I don't wanna see you at my talk page again. I shouldn't need to be schooling administrators on how wikipedia works.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cebr1979, since you don't want drama, what is your suggestion for dealing with this problem? Given the range of IP addresses you list here, I don't know if a range block would be useful. Let's try to resolve the underlying problem rather than the symptoms of too many page protection requests. Liz Read! Talk! 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I have already linked to conversations I've had about this guy (there are many more but, now I just don't see the point in even trying). You and I even (indirectly) had a conversation about him on my talk page just days ago. I have already attempted everything under the sun I can think of and it's gotten me nowhere. If you have suggestions, feel free to toss them out.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at a random sample, I see a whole bunch of editors getting angry and upset at IPs on their talk pages, and a random spot-check of them here, here and here reveals a completely clean block log. To pargraphase Willard Duncan Vandiver, "you gotta show me". Where is this disruption? I think if you keep raising frivolous requests to WP:RFPP (all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins) somebody's going to think about ways we can keep the backlog down a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins"
    You couldn't be more wrong, Ritchie. I had already decided to stop fixing this guy's mistakes. Let him have his free reign. This is just too much of a headache.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the current version of RFPP I can see Ged UK and Ymblanter also declined some of your recent RPP requests and I see KrakatoaKatie had a word with you about this yesterday. So that would seem to justify my view that multiple admins have addressed this. I was really hoping we'd get to the bottom of who the IPs are, possibly someone that an admin reading this would know about, but I guess not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you were not! You're just changing your tune now! Re-read your original post right here in this thread. You defended this guy. You were not trying to get to the bottom of anything involving him.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and KrakatoaKatie actually approved every single one she looked at so, again... "all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins???" You just proved you knew what you said was false when you said it. I'm off for the day. Have a god one! Cebr1979 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cebr1979, since we're having this discussion here, here's my take on this: Yes, the person who is doing this is a disruptive force, and should be reverted. However, given the low-level of disruption (a few edits a month, at what I am looking at), there's nothing we should do to pre-empt this. That is, page protection is used only when the level of disruption is so rapid or high volume that we can't keep up by reverting. This level of disruption can be managed quite easily by simply reverting and blocking if necessary. Simply: this level of disruption does not merit page protection, by our protection policy. Now that you've been informed of this, please do not continue to make protection requests which you have been informed will not be acted on; you've also been explained to why they have not been acted upon, so I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Just keep up the good fight, keep reverting this person, and we're sorry that we can't do more to stop them; except maybe a range-block, if that is feasible. Page protection cannot be done because the potential for collateral damage against good-faith editors outweighs the need to stop this one person. --Jayron32 16:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I've found it - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumgrainger200 - that was all I was really asking for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since when did accessdate become superfluous?

    I am somewhat concerned by the mass change to articles made here: Special:Contributions/The Original Filfi with the comment, "Remove superfluous accessdates using AWB". I didn't realize it had become superfluous. I missed that discussion. I would have stated that it helps determine the last time a source was known to be active and when it goes dead, it helps to find the info in archives. Should these 400+ edits be reverted or should a discussion be opened? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    1) What steps have you taken to fix this problem on your own before asking for Admins to step in and fix it for you and 2) What do you expect admins to do right now, involving their ability to block, delete, or protect, to fix this problem. If the answer to either question is nothing, there's no reason to post this here right now. --Jayron32 14:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted one and I am asking admins for help because they have told me not to get into edit wars. I am asking for advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you ask Filfi? Because that seems the easiest path to discovery. --Golbez (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, but the editor seems to be done for the day and I am seeking advice rather than get into an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Original Filfi wasn't notified on this discussion on ANI so I have done that. Liz Read! Talk! 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Ditto, I've partially reverted one aswell,[83] but as other (useful) changes are intermingled in the same edits it's going to take either a vast amount of time to review and sort the wheat from the chaff, or the alternative is to roll the whole lot back. —Sladen (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) A quick sampling of those contribs shows that the access dates were removed from cite templates which don't use the field—book or newspaper sources, for example, which are static and don't care when they were read, unlike a website which may fluctuate and actually requires the field. This is a non-issue. GRAPPLE X 15:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "accessdate without url" is flagged as a CS1 error. I'm not seeing any admin activity needed here (neither because there was no attempt atno failure to get a suitable answer via direct discussion (edited: editor was asked but not yet answered, but also behavior stopped, so not urgent here) nor because it seems to be a content dispute that has basis in long-standing apparent consensus). DMacks (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)To mirror part of my reply at [[84]], "Classes of hard copies are not always immutable, nor intact, nor complete—even when one perhaps expects them to be. |accessdate= gives the confirmation that on that date a retrieved copy indeed contained the claimed information." Whether or not the latest temporal revision of {{citation}} happens to display or not should be relevant to whether carefully collated WP:V information should be deleted or not. Ditto for |chapter=, |section= and a whole bunch of other stuff that some recent versions have been known not to display. —Sladen (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to that iscussion about this specific set of edits at Template talk:Citation#Strip use of accessdate param?, this topic appears to be a perennial discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 (that's probably the right place for it, since that's the style that specifies how/when to use which fields). DMacks (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joshua Jonathan disruptive editing on Ramana Maharshi´s article

    I would like to raise my complaint about the conduct of User:Joshua Jonathan regarding the article `Ramana Maharshi´. His actions clearly fall into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

    I dealt with User:Joshua Jonathan some time ago (2013), in relation with an old threat on the page `Ramana Maharshi´, please see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ramana_Maharshi/Archive_3#Suggestion_for_lineage-section

    Facing his obstinate opposition to every opinion not in line with his I already complained:

    “...you didn´t discuss any of the points people made here up, instead you are bringing third people opinions which only distort the debate. You spend so many time criticizing other people´s work and putting down their words saying there are just opinions with no steady information behind them when, indeed, you are the first one bringing here opinions, not facts or reliable data.”

    In relation with this conversation other users raised complains about Joshua Jonathan as well.

    I gave up then, feeling it was impossible to deal with such attitude, I think user Iddli did stop editing the page about the same time for the same reasons.

    I came back recently trying to make some adjustments on the page only to find even fiercer opposition from him.

    User:Iddli summarized the situation in a recent conversation in the Talk section of the page:

    “I very strongly agree with what Mauna22 has said above about how discouraging it is to attempt to edit the Ramana Maharshi article. I worked on this article for years. I have read dozens of books about Ramana Maharshi and used to very much enjoy collaborating with other editors on this article. However, as soon as Joshua Jonathan began editing it, any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible. After repeated attempts to continue working on the page, I finally gave up. Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him, rules the page with an iron fist, and makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors yet aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors). The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem. I, for one, would very much welcome Joshua Jonathan taking an extended break from editing (controlling) this article so other past (and, I hope, new) editors can freely contribute and collaborate.”

    From some time now Ramana Maharshi´s article is being overruled by User:Joshua Jonathan. He is pushing harshly his POV promoting his preconceived assumptions on Hinduism, the colonial era in India, and the relation between religion and politics in that country, adding information not directly related with the article in order to uphold his postulations, changing the very nature of the article, that is a biographical one.

    He is constantly putting down every commentary that doesn´t fit his agenda, treating them with disdain and asking constantly for justifications and evidence, demanding editors to defend before him such changes while he himself feels free to make any change without asking. He demands as well any data to be strongly supported by sources while he again feels free to introduce his own changes without any backing whatsoever, bringing third party opinions or information that is not even directly related with the person of Ramana Maharshi or his life for the sole reason that “is useful”. He even goes further than that and when the sources that support a particular position he´s not comfortable with are presented, he questions the sources, stating that they might be biased. He is reacting negatively again and again to each and every change not coincident with his political and religious views.

    Since he started editing the article there´s no room for opinions that do not tally with his, making it impossible to edit the page anytime he feels his position endangered. I believe this conduct throughout this years is being discouraging and disheartening and keeps new editors away from the page. Mauna22 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=685575608"