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 KateWishing (talk | contribs) at 03:13, 28 October 2015 (→User:Dumb daisy competence issues: new section). 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

    Disruptive editing by BulgariaSources

    BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to make major changes like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] to the Bulgaria national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without leaving any edit sums or making any attempt to reach a consensus on the article's talk page. This has been going on for quite some time, and has included the using of IP accounts, despite being reverted on numerous occasions by different editors and messages being left at Talk:Bulgaria national football team#Changes being made by BulgariaSources and User talk:BulgariaSources#Major changes to Bulgaria national football team, etc., but still they continue on as before.

    Similar edits have been made by the same editor to other Bulgaria related articles, but the editor continues to leave no edit sums and make no attempt to engage in any type of discussion to clarify their reasons for making those edits as well.

    For the record, I've been assuming good faith, but I am starting to wonder whether this editor is really not here to help build an encyclopedia. I have notified them of this discussion here, so perhaps they will comment and help clarify things. I feel, however, that a failure to respond here means that some sort of administrator action is warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Might be time to throw all of the socks into the drawer. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd go one further and say that a medium length block is in order, considering they've been blocked twice before for this sort of behaviour. (For disruptive editing at the end of July, and for sockpuppetry at the beginning of August). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems as if BulgariaSources has never made an edit outside of the article namespace since their account was created in July 2015. It also seems as if they have not left an edit sum for any of the edits they have made during that time. I am not sure if this means they simply have no desire in engaging in discussion with other editors, or that they feel unable to do so effectively in English. Regardless, no acknowledgment at all of any of the comments directed to them either on their user talk or article talk pages is making it quite hard to resolve these issues through discussion and not administrator action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I think this was archived prematurely and that the matter is still unresolved, so I have moved it back to the main page per the instructions in "How to use this page". I hope an admin will take a closer look at what BulgariaSources has been doing and consider not only my comments, but also the comment of Sir Sputnik as well as that BulgariaSources has not yet responded at all to any of the above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    CurtisNaito at History of Japan

    CurtisNaito made a grand total of two edits (out of a total of over 5000) to the article History of Japan, nominated it at WP:GAN, and ten days later (after a very superficial review) it was made GA on 25 August. The article's status has been under heavy dispute by a large number of editors since, and after a month long WP:GAR, it was delisted today. Less then 12 minutes late CurtisNaito renominated it, and has editwarred with me to keep it nominated. Despite being told on his talk page that, per Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_1:_Prepare_the_article, the article is to be brought up to quality before nomination. His persistent WP:IDHT response is that "the nominator is permitted to decide whether or not he or she believes the article to be of good level quality"[6][7]—obviously not the case because the article was just delisted for not meeting the criteria. CurtisNaito has already been warned at ANI to drop the IDHT approach or he'll be sanctioned with a 72-hour block. He continually tries to filibuster any attempt at discussing the article or his behaviour, including currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan‎‎. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My personal belief is that the article is already of good level status, and that is why I chose to nominate it. In general, I think Wikipedia allows nominators to decide whether or not they want to continue with the nomination of a good article. On the good article review FAQ, one rule states, "Nominators have no special privileges over other editors, except that they can withdraw the nomination." Another says, "I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! - That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations..."
    During the good article reassessment, there was not a very clear consensus to delist. At least four users or maybe more were in favor of keeping. It is true that user Prhartcom, who delisted the article, stated that the article is only "70–90% there" towards good article status. However, my hope is that the future good article reviewer will check the article for quality and assess whether or not the article is at 70-90% or greater. If it is at 70-90% or more, then I expect that the future good article reviewer will merely ask for changes, rather than failing the article outright. Naturally though, whether it passes or fails is up to the good article reviewer.
    I'm sure it will take a long time for the article to get picked up for good article review. It usually takes months. In the unlikely event that the article is still very far from good article status right now, all we need to do is improve the article before the review happens. If CurlyTurkey or any other user asks me to make changes to the article prior to the review, then I will make those changes. If any further improvements are asked for, I am ready and able to make them.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that, while I did make only two edits before initially nominating the article. One of them was a large edit. I modified almost every section of the article in order to add citations and make the text more concise. I believe that if the article is up for nomination, there will be good incentive to solicit new opinions and to improve the article even further.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • CurtisNaito's disruptive behaviour both here and elsewhere should have resulted in blocks a long time ago. He and I were recently both told not to bludgeon discussions or engage in IDHT behaviour or suffer immediate 72h+ blocks. He almost immediately violated this moratorium by claiming on the GAR that no misrepresentation of sources had been found in the article, ignoring all the talk page discussion to the contrary (Ctrl+F this page for "IDHT" for the specific examples). His recent behaviour since the GAR closed has gone to a whole new level. Full disclosure: CurtisNaito has been monitoring my edits for the past year or so, jumping in any opportunity he sees to get rid of me. There is currently an ArbCom case due to be opened involving me and another editor with whom I am currently IBANned. CurtisNaito has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute, but immediately jumped in to badmouth me. However, the need to sanction him for his atrocious behaviour on the HoJ page is completely unrelated to the ArbCom case. If he is blocked but has anything worthwhile to contribute to the ArbCom discussion, he should be allowed do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Edited 11:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC). [reply]
    I don't believe any misrepresentation of sources was found in the article. During the good article reassessment, it was concluded that the accurate sourcing requirement "is done as much as possible" because "I was able to perform my spotcheck and have my questions answered." It was also noted during the reassessment that the article was at least 70 to 90% towards good article status. There was thus good reason to renominate it. If needed, I will make improvements to the article even before a good article reviewer picks it up, though when the time for good article review comes I'm expecting the good article reviewer may ask for revisions.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case
    Self-collapse by Hijiri88. Sorry. Disputes involving CN tend to enter TLDR territory very quickly.
    Can one of the many reviewers who have already been poring over the article for weeks and finding mistake after inaccuracy after OR claim that have yet to be resolved act as the reviewer and immediately reject the nomination until further discussion has taken place and consensus has been formed? Also, if there was any justice on Wikipedia, your IDHT claim I don't believe any misrepresentation of sources was found in the article. would result in an immediate block per Dennis Brown's explicit warning (with the caveat that you would be unblocked if you wanted to submit evidence to ArbCom, of course). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Edited 12:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't think there is a need to immediately reject it. In fact, the user TH1980 did a thorough spotcheck of the article and found no inaccuracies or misrepresentation to speak of. Given how many users have checked the sources and found no problems with the way they are cited, this doesn't seem to be a big issue with the article. Ultimately though, the future good article reviewer will likely check some or all of the sources in order to determine who is right.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, pinging another user apparently doesn't work if the link is broken in the first post and you edit it. I have heard tell you need to re-sign the post or some such. And why did TH1980 not find the misrepresentation that I later rooted out in the exact same text? TH1980 was recently the subject of a separate ANI thread because virtually all of his non-mainspace edits since May have been attempts to undermine me -- his !voting the opposite way to me in a GAR should most definitely be taken with a pinch of salt, especially when he makes outrageous claims like that he has checked the sources and there was no misrepresentation in order to justify such !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will point out that the clerk in the case has added Sturmgewehr88, CurtisNatio and TH1980 to the case as involved parties.[8] and your activity on the sections and talk pages may yet see you added. AlbinoFerret 12:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Like CurtisNaito said, it's up to the nominator to decide whether or not to nominate an article. There was nothing wrong with nominating it. All Wikipedia articles are continuously improving, and this one will improve before, during, and after any future review. I did go over the sources and I didn't see any problem with the citations. I did need to give the article a good copy-edit, but I corrected the typos before the reassessment was over.TH1980 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this is a behavior issue, as it seems to be, behavior is covered by the ArbCom, and, with the case about to be opened, I agree it would be reasonable to allow the Arbs to address this behaviorial issue. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I included the caveat that CurtisNaito is NOT involved in the ArbCom case but should be allowed to comment if necessary, even if he is blocked for this entirely unrelated problem, precisely because I new AlbinoFerret and John Carter would try to Wikilawyer and game the system by bringing up ArbCom to derail this discussion. I knew they would because they did this exact thing not long ago with my wikistalker TH1980 (whose almost every edit outside the mainspace since May has been to undermine me) -- and, lo and behold, who is the other user to comment here? Anyway, CurtisNaito is in no way related to my dispute with that other user, and merely posted to ArbCom to continue his campaign to get me removed from the site. If he wants to post evidence to ArbCom he should be allowed, but this should not be used as an excuse to oppose all sanctions against him for his other behaviour. Please also note that John Carter and AlbinoFerret also condoned my getting blocked for my dispute with CurtisNaito, during the ArbCom case, even though I am a named party in the ArbCom case, so there is some major hypocrisy going on here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am frankly disgusted by the above editor's insistent refusal to ever assume even the slightest degree of good faith, and instead continue to indulge in what some might reasonably call his ongoing paranoic jumps to conclusions about the motivations of others. That behavior, in and of itself, particularly the rather extensive history of such behavior, is probably the main concern the arbs will have to review in this case. It is also worth noting that Dennis Brown in his opening comment specifically noted in the request for arbitration that the interactions of CN and Hijiri were problematic, and that CN has in fact requested of thhe be specifically added as a party. Therefore, therefore, there is a very good reason to believe that his conduct will be potentially subject to review in the arbitration as well. However, evidently, none of that seems to have been considered in the framing of the ill-informed, wildly prejudicial, and frankly rather irrational attempt to insult others above based not on facts, but rather on what seems to be that individual's own preconceived biases. John Carter (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Carter: Where in the above did I fail to assume good faith? CurtisNaito made a statement about my unrelated dispute with him on ArbCom. You supported CurtisNaito's ANI thread on me while the ArbCom case was being initially assessed. I was blocked based on what he said. You condoned this block. You thereupon opposed a block for TH1980 based on their supposed, at best peripheral involvement in the ArbCom case. Your comments there ran that discussion off the rails. All of these are facts, not assumptions. I stated before you posted here that there is an open ArbCom case in which CurtisNaito is peripherally involved, and if he is blocked for his actions on the HoJ page he should still be allowed post evidence to ArbCom if he wishes. So why did you feel the need to repeat what I said with the allowance made for a temporary block and a provisional unblock carefully removed? You had clearly read my comment, since you expressed agreement with AlbinoFerret's view that "these editors" (plural) are involved in an ArbCom case. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Curly Turkey: Would you be willing to add this evidence to the ArbCom case, just in case this thread gets run off the rails? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I repeat, despite the insistence of editors involved in this discussion, the arbitration committee determines what is and is not involved in the cases presented to them. CurtisNaito has specifically requested the drafting arbitrator that he be made a party to the case on that individual's talk page, and Dennis Brown, in his comment requesting the case be opened, specifically referred to a prior incident of a dispute between Hijiri88 and CurtisNaito. I had attempted to remove the collapsing, but the collapser, I believe Hijiri, has collapsed at least two comments in this thread already, making it more effort than it is worth to revert the multiple collapsings. It is the place of the arbitration committee to determine what is and is not relevant to their case, and I cannot see how it is necessarily reasonable for involved parties to determine on their own, without the input of the arbs, what is and is not relevant to a case before ArbCom. I believe the comment in the visible collapse note, "Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case," while clearly indicating that the collapser considers him or herself qualified to make decisions for the ArbCom without their input, and the rather presumptive judgment contained in it, "Acrimonious bickering about an unrelated ArbCom case," that the parties involved are not in fact the sole determiners of what is and is not related to the case, despite the apparent belief to the contrary, and suggest that the individuals involved perhaps allow the arbitrators to determine what evidence can be considered relevant to the case, considering their greater knowledge and awareness of the policies and procedures involved, than parties and prospective parties to that case. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • That CurtisNaito's editwarring with me over an invalid GA nomination at History of Japan is irrelevant to an ANI case about Hijiri and Catflap and Nichiren Buddhism is an empirical fact. The scope of an ArbCom case cannot be all of Wikipedia. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the end of the collapse template once again above my last comment. The edit warring on the History of Japan talk page has only taken place after roughly a month has passed since the arb request was first made. I realize the extreme situations the arbs have been facing has been a reasonable cause for their delay, but, at the same time, I also think that virtually anyone would acknowledge that had the arbitration opened more quickly, in the normal manner, the individuals who have been waiting for the case to be opened, none of whom have had any direct indication when that might happen, may well have been, in a sense, postponing related action until such time as the case was opened and they presented their evidence. If that were the case with CN, that in and of itself might be seen as accounting for his apparent lack of other activity since the request was made.
    To Hijiri, you explicitly accused me of wikilawyering above, which is at the very least an implicit accusation of bad faith.
    I also point out to Curly Turkey that BMK has specifically indicated on the ArbRequest evidence page that CT be added as a party to the arbitration.
    I personally consider the rather poorly-thought-through, possibly rather GAMEy and OWNy, attempts to stifle any discussion, or even consideration of mitigating factors in the recent events, such as the collapsing of comments, itself extremely disruptive, and I sincerely urge Curly Turkey to refrain from such behavior in the future. Whether he wants that to be the case or not, there is a very real chance at this point that he will himself be made a party to the existing case, and, if that is the case, his own conduct, including attempts to collapse and thus refuse to address concerns of other editors, whether they agree with his own perceptions or not, and the possibility of such actions being in and of themselves inherently disruptive, may very easily be addressed there. And I believe I would be within the bounds of reasonable conduct here to remove further attempts on his part, or the part of anyone, to try to ignore the input of others regarding related matters. Those who may choose to respond to this thread should be given a full indication of related matters, including the matters collapsed by CT above, before being asked to make a decision. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsed comment. (Please sign your name when you collapse or archive text, as the original collapser of this did not do. BMK (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did accuse you of wikilawyering, because that is what you did. You accused me of being the collapser solely to associate me with this thread more than I am, in order to draw the link you need between this thread and the ArbCom case. Why on earth would I refer to my own post as "acrimonious bickering"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @BMK: Can you quote the relevant policy or guideline that says I am required to ~~~~ collapse titles? I have never heard this rule before, and I have seen probably hundreds of editors violate it. Furthermore, I did sign it, just not with four tildes; the collapse was clearly made by me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the primary rule it falls under is "Don't be a WP:DICK. I know that's hard for you to follow, but give it your best. BMK (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @BMK: How on earth does my collapsing my own off-topic reply to JC's off-topic comment and clarifying that I was the one doing the collapsing but not doing so with four tildes qualify as "being a dick"? Have you just resorted to childish name-calling at this point? You make up an imaginary guideline and accuse me of violating it, and then when called out you call me a dick? How is that in anyway appropriate? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The one stifling discussion here is you, John Carter, with this filibuster about an entirely unrelated ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say so. I believe that John Carter is simply making everyone aware that this issue is not a straightforward one, as it is scrambled up with the issues in that ArbCom case, which is why I've requested that the scope of the case be expanded to include all the editors involved in the conflict. BMK (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not involved, and if CurtisNaito is in any way involved, his involvement has nothing to do with the conflict here. If the issue were in some way related (which it's not) that would be an awfully strong reason CurtisNaito shouldn't be allowed to renominate the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the difference between when the article was delisted from GA and when it's current state (for the purpose of nomination) I see a majority of minor wording fixes that do not appear to resolve the issue with respect to the concerns raised. I suggest that the GA Nominator withdraw the nomination unless they wish their actions to be construed as WP:IDHT/WP:FORUMSHOP as the only reason to re-nominate so quickly after being delisted (especially in light of the cosmetic changes to the article) is to make a disruptive point. Hasteur (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The immediate renomination against the wishes of the editors sends a clear WP:OWN message and, I am sure, will emphatically discourage all necessary collaborative effort. zzz (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm purposefully ignoring whatever is going on with ArbCom because it isn't necessary to evaluate the local issues here. The rationale behind renominating appears to be based on the reviewer's initial opinion that the article is 70-90% close to fulfilling the GA criteria. Whether that that percentage is accurate or not, a nontrivial amount of work in article breadth and original research evaluation is needed on the article based on the reviewer's close. Those improvements have not been implemented yet (I see mostly copyediting improvements since 21 October), so it's premature to open a GAN so soon after delisting. CurtisNaito, I think it's a good idea to withrdraw the nomination for now and continue to improve the article-- there's no hurry here to renominate. Getting another reviewer for another GAN right away is not what is needed (and frankly, Prhartcom did a fantastic job of facilitating discussion on the GAR). I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) If CurtisNaito removes the nomination of the article and promises to wait for consensus to renominate, the issue here will be resolved. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He renominated 12 minutes after it was delisted? This sounds like serious WP:OWNership, let alone the continued WP:IDHT comments here. Will an admin please act on Dennis Brown's warning that CurtisNaito would be blocked for 72 hours for violating IDHT? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sturmgewehr88, tell me again about how often you disagree with Hijiri88 and criticize him for his intransigent attitude. I need to be reassured, because without your constant assertions of such, I would start to think that you were a proxy of your fellow "-88" editor, or worse. BMK (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: give me a few hours and I'll add diffs if that's what you're asking? And yeah, I'm definitely a proxy "or worse" since I care so much about ないちゃー poets and he edits extensively on Ryukyu. </SARCASM> ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then a word to the wise: you need to re-evaluate what seems to be your habit of supporting H88 in practically every noticeboard thread he's involved in, because you're creating a specific appearance of off-hand approval of everything he does. Whatever is true or not about him, that's not conceivably the case, and you might want to be more circumspect about your support in public discussions. BMK (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: I'll keep that in mind. I have never supported Hijiri's misbehavior, I've actually supported sanctions against him for it in the past. However, I do usually support him in content disputes, because he's usually right, and I rarely see some truth in his accusations. Take TH1980 for example. Hijiri accused him of being a sock almost the instant he noticed him. I have never beleived that TH1980 is a sockpuppet. However, I have seen first-hand an obvious pattern of wikistalking. TH1980 has gone to almost every dispute that involves Hijiri and immediately takes the opposing "side" no matter what the dispute is about. This is a textbook example. Just because Hijiri has a habit of crying wolf doesn't mean that wolves don't exist. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I shall assume that you know best about what you're doing, just keep in mind how it sometimes looks from the outside. BMK (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please close this section

    That's the second person you've accused of "filibustering". Before you try for a third, I suggest you look up the definition of what an actual filibuster is. If either AF or JC were really "filibustering", no one would be able to get an word in edgewise, and that's clearly not the case here - everyone's having their say. Having facts inconvenient to you or with which you disagree pointed out is not a filibuster, in this case it's an attempt to provide context for the issue at hand. You may not like it, and you may disagree that their relevant, but it is in no way "filibustering", nor is it an illegitimate use of an AN/I report, in which all aspects of the issue reported are subject to examination. BMK (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not "aspects of the issue reported", they are attempts to muddy the waters. This issue is unrelated to the ArbCom case, and this issue needs to be dealt with. Are those facts "inconvenient to you"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    CurtisNaito is a party at Arbcom case that deals with editors in this area. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08_and_Hijiri88 This section should be closed and reopened at a future date if necessary. AlbinoFerret 13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AlbinoFerret Please demonstrate how CN being a party to the ArbCom case involves this. Yes, Hijiri88 started the GAR but other editors commented and the consensus was to delete. I don't see how Curley Turkey is involved in the ArbCom case and therefore question if this really is connected to the ArbCom case between 2 other editors. Your proposition that being an associate party to an ArbCom case precludes other Dispute Resolution actions on other topics makes a very dangerous precedent that I believe should never be encouraged. Oppose closing this untill concrete evidence can be shown that CN's actions are directly related to the above mentioned ArbCom case. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While not a named party, Curly Turkey has involved himself in the dispute. Rather than retype, look here.[9] The topic of the nominations has already been added to evidence.[10] AlbinoFerret 13:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Until a clerk or ArbCom member agrees that Curley Turkey belongs in as a party to the case, I'd suggest we try to resolve this here. I see this dispute as a sidebar to the case, and I suspect with the large amount of reviews ArbCom has recently granted, they'll pass on pulling this into the case. I also note it's only your leap that puts Curley into the case, and therefore doubt the consensus. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Careful, Hasteur, if you get on AlbinoFerret's bad side, you'll find yourself a "named party", too. Just look at how far backwards he's bending to try ot get me named—and how hard he's trying to filibuster this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the nominations are a point of the case as they started right after CurtisNaito posted against Hijiri88 in a section on the noticeboards. It doesnt matter if Curley is added, CurtisNaito and the nominations already are part of the case. This is close to forum shopping, as this evidence should have been added to the arbcom case because of the place (nominations) and the party involved (CurtisNaito). This was added October 2nd in the case request.[11] AlbinoFerret 13:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence of what? CurtisNaito is editwarring against people, therefore Hijiri and Catflap are bad people? No, AlbinoFerret, you're just creating drahmah while trying to filibuster this discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the nominations are a point of the case as they started right after CurtisNaito posted against Hijiri88 in a section on the noticeboards. AlbinoFerret, you know perfectly well that that is completely untrue. CurtisNaito posted about me on "the noticeboards" because I was already challenging his faulty GA and FA nominations, and had been doing so (successfully, I might add -- I have always remained appropriately focused on article content, which is more than can be said for CurtisNaito) since May. (And if you try to assert that I have been "following" CurtisNaito since May, please bear in mind that he followed me to four other disputes before that over a two-year period.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The drafting arbitrator has indicated that Curtis Naito, TH1980, and Sturmgewehr88 all be added as parties to the existing case as perhere. Considering that there have been numerous complaints regarding CN and Hijiri88 among others recently, it seems to me that this matter, which is in ultimately the same topic area as that of the Catflap and Hijiri, and involves some of the same principals, as well as others who were asked to be made parties to the arbitration in the opening statements, specifically including Curly Turkey, I think it is reasonable to say that this matter can probably be addressed as part of the ongoing serious of behavior which is being dealt with by that case. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that the comment which was made about the article being 70 to 90% towards good article status was made in the middle of the review, long before many changes were made. In fact, at the very beginning of the review, I was told by Dr. Blofeld that, "it does appear to have the basics in place and is adequately sourced for GA." Dr. Blofeld said this before several sourcing spotchecks were done, which, according to Prhartcom, left the issue of source verification "done as much as possible". In other words, this article is extremely close to good article status, so much so that Prhartcom recommended that the article be reviewed again "in due course" Although I am hoping that the future good article reviewer will make recommendations for changes, I am already prepared to take suggestions on how to improve the article. I think the argument against renominating would be stronger if there was no one around with the time to improve the article upon request. However, I have the time to modify the article depending on what others users say between now and the many months which may pass before a review begins.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of those editors explicitly stated that they had not examined the sources even a little bit, and they also stated that they are not topic specialists and so don't know how comprehensive the article is. Put simply: They didn't say one way or the other whether the article's many critics were right in any of our assertions, since no one was talking about the quality of the prose. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Edited for clarity 08:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Photograph of a cat
    We can haz all boomrangz?

    Outback

    Boomerang for Curly Turkey

    (NAC) No boomerangs (especially ones proposed by involved editors) will be thrown today. Knock off your disruptive point making lest you find yourself at the mercy of a testy Administrator. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Curley Turkey has hidden discussion under a double hat.[12] when I removed it to show my comments Curley Turkey reverted it.[13] Then proceed to post multiple ABF comments to the section.[14][15][16] I have never edited an article he has to my knowledge. AlbinoFerret 23:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never edited an article he has to my knowledge.': no, you haunt ANI and target certain editors. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose CT didn't "hide" anything and you know it. He collapsed off-topic discussion under an appropriate title that clarified the content of those posts. Any closer is free to look at whatever was under those hats. Your actions here (attempting to filibuster legitimate discussion with endless reams of text about an unrelated dispute, repeatedly lying about the timeline of events, jumping in immediately to a dispute to which you are not party just because you like one of the participants' external edits and dislike one of the other editors', etc.) clearly justify everything he has said, so there was no assumption of bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AlbinoFerret curiously thanked me for the above post. I'm not sure if it was meant ironically or if I actually convinced him of my point of view and a withdrawal of this proposal is forthcoming, but the latter seems unlikely. If the former, this seems like an abuse of the thank function. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unacceptable. LjL (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88 Endless reams of text? What? I have two small posts under the hat with a total of 67 words. I did thank you for being so loyal to your friend. AlbinoFerret 00:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your" was plural. You and John Carter are clearly in this together, and no one could seriously argue that he has not been posting endless reams of text. You were the one who initially tried to make this about ArbCom (although I had already specified that if Curtis is blocked he should still be allowed to contribute to the ArbCom case, so both you and John Carter were being redundant), and you are now arguing that John Carter's endless reams of text should be allowed to clutter this thread and cloud the issue rather than being collapsed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats just fantasy, I have never edited a article with John Carter. I havent to my best knowledge ever had a conversation on either of our talk pages. Well I do vaguely remember there may be one on my talk page, but I cant for the life of me remember what it was about. This sounds like talk of a mini cabal, who are plotting against people. I think you better think that over a bit and come back and strike it. As for endless reams of text from others, I have no more control over the amount of text anyone posts that I do of yours, which is none. AlbinoFerret 01:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88s claim is, I regret to say, simply another manifestation of his previously and well documented paranoid tendencies.I believe it would be at best inopportune to take any action here, pending the arbitration, and I find it nothing less than hilarious that Hijri, who has as was indicated per recent discussion, BLUDGEONed a page with no less than 71 edits, would accuse anyone else of talking too much. And I note that Hijiri himself posted on six different occasions in the total of 14 comments made to this subthread before my comment here. That, by the way, is more than a little amusing considering this very recent comment in which he indicated he was going to attempt to devote himself to building the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Yes, and then I woke up the next day and found a whole lot more nonsense that I needed to deal with. I really would like to be working on Ariwara no Narihira or Natsume Sōseki instead. Or heck, even dealing with CurtisNaito's unending nonsense IDHT ramblings on Talk:History of Japan ("influence of regency over shogunate = influence of shogunate over imperial court; the two are the same, so having a source that verifies one automatically verifies the other") is more productive than posting here. The really amusing thing, though, is your claiming that I am paranoid and assuming bad faith while you are the one who said "Hijiri88 should be TBANned from Christianity because he will follow me to that topic area".[17][18] I really don't understand why you refuse to just get along and work together, like we did in the old days ... on articles on Christianity ... to which I couldn't have followed you because I had never heard of you ... huh.[19][20] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we clarify, are you claiming that John Carter is not trying to filibuster this thread with endless reams of off-topic commentary? Or are you claiming that you are not trying to facilitate this by uncollapsing said and calling for sanctions against the collapser? The claim that you and he "don't edit the same articles" (John Carter hardly ever edits articles to begin with, and hasn't since you started editing articles) is immaterial -- you are very clearly collaborating right here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not collaborating with anyone. Collapsing other peoples on topic comments about where this issue should be raised is a serious problem. The ABF posts by him, and now you are very sad. AlbinoFerret 01:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no assuming here. You are acting in bad faith, in order to filibuster this discussion. In the section above you explicitly asked for the thread to be closed, and when that failed you tried to make this into a boomerang. Furthermore, the user who not long ago wrote this should not be accusing others of fighting imaginary mini-cabals. You are not only in a glass house here, you are storing your throwing stones inside your tinfoil hat. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you strike all of these accusative posts your making. AlbinoFerret 02:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing accusative in my posts. I'm just stating the facts. And why would you tell me to strike a post that you thanked me for? Why did you thank me? Are you admitting it was ironic? If so, do you understand why this is problematic? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang for AlbinoFerret

    (NAC) No boomerangs (especially ones proposed by involved editors) will be thrown today. Knock off your disruptive point making lest you find yourself at the mercy of a testy Administrator. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For drowning this discussion in drahmah unrelated to the issue raised. Note that AlbinoFerret's revenge against my collapsing the attempted filibuster was suddenly to try to name me party to an ArbCom case involving an editor I've never interacted with and areas in which I don't edit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cut the crap please, and discuss what needs to be discussed. You cannot control the shape and form of an AN/I discussion, even when you are the OP. BMK (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Discuss what needs to be discussed"? None of you are discussing CurtisNaito's behaviour at History of Japan. That's the crap that needs to be cut. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - and I nominate John Carter for his share of the boomerang for WP:WIKILAWYERing: they both came here claiming that this discussion should be "put on hold" until the case at ArbCom was over (in a few months), and that CurtisNaito shouldn't be blocked during an ArbCom case. Well guess what? John Carter supported Hijiri getting blocked during the ArbCom case. Hijiri was blocked for a week, yet I heard no pleas from John Carter to wait until after ArbCom. The fact that he got away with this before over TH1980, and is trying again, is sickening. And a trout to Beyond My Ken for "being a dick" about collapsing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Lying ("Hijiri88 started the GAR as revenge against CurtisNaito for his ANI posts, not the other way around"), BLUDGEONing this thread with off-topic commentary, KETTLE ("The sinister cabal of Japan-focused editors are assuming bad faith by accusing me of coordinating my filibuster efforts with John Carter"), edit-warring (constantly reverting the collapse), double-standards ("Hijiri88, whose name is in the ArbCom filing, and his co-cabalists should be blocked, but all users on my side should be exempt from blocks by virtue of me claiming they are involved in ArbCom"), using the "thank" function ironically... a 24-hour block for AlbinoFerret in light of all this would be mild given all this, but it would at least teach him that this behaviour is inappropriate and might prevent further disruption. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This section is casting aspersions against me and others, and think this is a completely bogus charge. AlbinoFerret 12:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even close to being as bogus as the section you opened on Curly Turkey, or your (and John Carter's) claim that CurtisNaito should be untouchable during an ArbCom case while conveniently letting "the other side" get blocked. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is to my eyes simply a desperate, and rather transparently desperate, attempt of the individuals involved in making the request to try to dodge the inevitable criticism of the ongoing Arbitration case, and seems to me to just be adding more fuel to the charges against the individuals making it. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a transparently desperate attempt to drown the discussion of CurtisNaito's behaviour at History of Japan with non sequiturs about an irrelevant ArbCom case. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Curly Turkey, you seem to be incapable of understanding that the conduct of all people involved, including you, who have recently been requested by I think more than one person to be added as a party to that case, are not in a position to make the sort of absolute pontifications as the one above, even though you have made it several times recently. The arbitration in my eyes will, with luck, address the matter of the pre-existing battlelines which have been drawn in this content, which Catflap seemed to, inadvaertently, step into. Your refusal to believe that you could possibly be wrong in your recently oft-repeated assessment of the situation, which you repeated again above, can not unreasonably be seen as raising questions regarding your judgment. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep bludgeoning away, the ArbCom case ain't getting any more relevant. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    to try to dodge the inevitable criticism of the ongoing Arbitration case What? Could you rephrase that in an intelligible manner, please? Are we trying to avoid criticizing the ongoing Arbitration case? Or are we trying to avoid being criticized for the ongoing Arbitration case? If the former, why would we be compelled to criticize it, and why would we want to avoid doing so? If the latter ... what? The Arbitration case was your idea, and every involved party including Sturmgewehr88 and myself have been compliant with it, so why on earth would we be criticized for an arbitration case existing? And what on earth does any of this have to do with Curly Turkey, Prhartcom, CurtisNaito and History of Japan? Also, way to throw stones in your glass house, John Carter. Never accuse me or Sturmgewehr88 of being paranoid or violating AGF again, please. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    substitute the word "sanctions" for criticism, if you prefer. And, Hijiri88, I am not the only one who has accused you of paranoia, Hijiri. The frankly remarkable display of narcissistic gall in your preemptive demand of me regarding what I can and cannot do is itself something I think will probably be noted by the arbitrators. I have myself refrained from adding any evidence yet until such time as Catflap himself submits evidence. I will however submit as part of my evidence the e-mail Sturmgewehr88 forwarded to me in which he asked you whether you wanted Th1980 to be discussed at ANI, and your response. There is a serious question regarding the amount of impact on these matters numerous e-mails and possibly other on- and off-wiki communications exchanged by multiple parties have had in the cementing of the "sides" here, and I think that is something that will certainly be submitted as evidence, and, with luck, considered by the arbs in determine how to deal with this situation. John Carter (talk)
    I hope you also hand over your emails between you and Catflap, but then again, that would be self incrimination. The only thing that email proves is that I wasn't proxying for Hijiri. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @LjL: "With histories of blocks" what does that have anything to do with this? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems obvious to me by now but I guess those people who don't find it obvious will just ignore it. LjL (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @LjL: obviously it's "obvious to [you]" or else you wouldn't have said it, but nobody else knows what you're thinking. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't only say things that are obvious to me, do you? That would be pretty dull. LjL (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we all know what he's thinking, despite his bad-faith efforts to obfuscate. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So now your an Internet mind reader. Are you using software, or is it some mysterious inborn psychic ability? AlbinoFerret 23:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this comment supposed to mean something? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you said you know what someone is thinking. If it isnt software based, you must be a real powerful psychic to be able to read minds over the internet. AlbinoFerret 23:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, was this comment supposed to mean something? It's like reading random YouTube comments. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, you were the one who said they knew what people were thinking,[21] not me. While I think its impossible I thought you might have some explanation for the claim. You might think your full of psychic energy, but maybe its something else entirely different. AlbinoFerret 00:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ljl said it was obvious what he meant, and it was. If your comments are meant to be anything else but disruptive, you'll have to show us how. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang for LjL

    (NAC) No boomerangs (especially ones proposed by involved editors) will be thrown today. Knock off your disruptive point making lest you find yourself at the mercy of a testy Administrator. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't taken part in this discussion. How dare I? Maybe my contributions could have made a change, and now the chance is gone forever. I think I should definitely be hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. --LjL (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You should have posted on the sky being blue, or what songs are in the top 40. AlbinoFerret 12:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you can have a WP:WHALE instead for such a WP:POINTy proposal. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pointing out that Curly Turkey just removed other people's comments from this section. I can't easily revert that because of intervening edits. LjL (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I obviously did that in bad faith, to get at my longstanding enemy Hijiri. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I claimed nothing about faith, but please take the time to restore the deleted content. LjL (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice the obvious refusal to directly address the concern raised about removal of comments, which, considering the nature of this page, and the history of that editor in making unilateral declarations regarding what is and is not acceptable and/or appropriate, potentially one that raises very serious concerns regarding his conduct. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but John Carter is accusing me of bad faith, despite my having restored the content. Anything but discuss CurtisNaito's behaviour at History of Japan for some reason. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I do not think that anyone noting a tendency toward unilateral pontification is necessarily called acting in bad faith by people who are not involved. And the rather obnoxious insistence that I am somehow obligated to discuss an article which falls outside of my own interests is an amusing comment, and a rather transparent attempt at misdirection. If you can actually deal with the matters of present concern in the appropriate locations, that would probably be to everyone's benefit, including your own. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was gibberish. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 17:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes we all need a little boomerang on the head, and a strong trout whack.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop saying boomerang

    (NAC) No boomerangs (especially ones proposed by involved editors) will be thrown today. Knock off your disruptive point making lest you find yourself at the mercy of a testy Administrator. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps we should let the boomerang cool off for a little while, it is getting hot. It is meant for occasional use and there seems to be a line up to use it here. HighInBC 00:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact remains that AlbinoFerret started off the whole mess with a blatantly disruptive attempt to derail this thread, after he saw that an uninvolved editor, and myself, and an admin had just agreed with the OP. By your own logic, a double-boomerang should therefore be legitimately deployed in this instance. zzz (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest WP:FRISBEE for HighinBC for not letting us say "boomerang" anymore. BMK (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am wondering about the terminology for an offensive projectile that redirects itself mid-flight not to the person who launched it, but instead, ninja-style, to the user that (mis-)directed its redirection. SurelyProbably this has come up before. zzz (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, and don't call me Shirley. BMK (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Proposal I understand Curly Turkey's reason for bringing this up here at ANI. Curly Turkey is usually right on target when he feels strongly about any topic; He writes high-quality articles himself and naturally demands high quality from others. I have learned a lot from Curly Turkey over the years. Therefore, Curly Turkey's advice is at least worth listening to, if not outright heeding the advice of, every time.

    Curly Turkey observes that the nominator could do more to address the concerns of the community. Challengers in the community care about the article as much as the nominator does, and have access to sources just as the nominator does, and have fiercly but legitimately objected to certain acts of the nominator:

    • WP:OWN exhibited by edit-warring to keep role of nominator
    • WP:IDHT exhibited by failure to listen to and understand the ideas of the challengers or even to respectfully acknowledge each of their specific concerns.

    Eventually, the nominator must either win over the challengers or leave. Truly: If the nominator were able to satify each of the strong suggestions clearly listed by each of the challengers, ensuring that they are ultimately happy, then the nominator can be assured that the challengers will stop their fierce objections and allow the nominator to take the article all the way to good article status.

    What I propose is the following:

    1. An immediate, strong showing of good faith by a specific act of the nominator: immediately withdraw the article from GA status. After all, there is no time limit, and the community is loudly objecting, so it hurts nothing for the nominator to show the community that he is willing to back off; to demonstrate that, from this point forward, there is definite respect for the community: there is no WP:OWN and there will never again be any WP:IDHT. A withdraw at this time does not exclude the nominator from nominating the article again in the near future after community concensus, so the nominator can take comfort in that. This act would be a strong showing of good faith.
    2. An immediate positive statement from the nominator to the community stating suggested leadership plans for the article; i.e. that the nominator wishes the article to become GA status, and agrees that, of course, others have good ideas, and agrees to listen to and respect other's advice and ideas, and have meaningful content discussions with others, and asks for help implementing everyone's ideas. This begins real steps towards the ability to work with the community in a way that is nearly always postive and constructive. Remember, the nominator cares deeply about the article, and has the sources to improve it, but he is not the only one who cares and has sources. The nominator agrees to immediately state their desire from this point forward to make it right: to listen to the challenger's ideas, type them back out again; repeating them back to show that he understands their communication; and actively participate in the discussions about the content, always exhibiting a desire to implement the ideas that the challengers have suggested, as everyone only wants what's best for the article. The nominator proves with, not only words but actions, that he understands that the article is truly a team effort.
    3. A strong showing of good faith by a specific act of the challengers: Drop all fierce objections. Change the tone. Never decide to throw a wrench in the works by allowing yourself to be visibly frustrated; that only turns the "complain" volume way up and makes it look like you can't help but behave abominably. Understand that this approach only turns people off, it doesn't work, and it will no longer occur. From this point forward, all communication will be with a definite respect for each other, with a good faith agreement to work with the nominator to help him improve the article. The nominator has demonstrated good faith by agreeing to listen to and resolve your objections. Then why not demonstrate good faith and professionalism by proving your ability to work with the nominator. Objections must be stated, yes: All objections should be stated in list form, very clearly and concisely, then in discussion form, always in a constructive and helpful way. Be helpful, help the nominator work this list in a positive way. Do the work yourself whenever you wish, this will only help the article and will also demonstrate your excellence to the nominator. Remember that the nominator has pledged to listen to and respect your advice, and is competent enough to eventually put out good work, so therefore you promise to be nothing but helpful to achieve that, as it will be best for the article. Exhibit good faith that the nominator desires to read and understand your objections and meet your expectations. Everyone works with each other, all for the purpose of improving the article. When it is clear that the nominator is demonstrating good faith and competent effort, the challengers will allow the nominator to take the article all the way to good article status.

    If anyone reads anything above that they kinda object to, and they feel tempted to complain about it below: I wouldn't recommend it. Instead, we are so over all that—stow it. The time has come to ante up. Let's see you do it: become more positive and productive and collaborative and goal-oriented and get this GA done! Comments are welcome. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I very much like Prhartcom's suggestion above, and have brought it up with Curtis on the article talk page.
    @Hasteur: I hope you don't mind, but I slightly altered your collapse parameters. It was messing with the formatting in a manner that damaged the links in the table of contents as well as the edit summaries. I've changed it so all of the text is collapsed, but in individual sections, so the section titles are still visible. Again, I hope you don't mind...
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support proposal. Thanks to CurtisNaito for removing the GA nomination ([22]). I agree that Phartcom's proposal above is the right way for all parties to move forward here, and I especially want to emphasize that both the nominator and reviewers must be careful that communication is done with the purpose of improving the article. The disparagement and accusations, derailing of initially productive discussions and actionable suggestions, and repeated failure to productively engage reviewers' comments and concerns here— none of this is acceptable behavior, and some of that will get reviewed at the present ArbCom case. There are behavioral issues present here, but I see some evidence of productive outcomes and that the involved editors here can work together coming out more recent article discussions. I consider the case closed here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian

    Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian

    I have been an editor for now over 3 years now, and this is my first complaint here. I have issues with Iryna Harpy and Faustian, who work as a WP:TAGTEAM. I have had a problem with them on Polish census of 1931 repeatedly deleting the NPOV tag. (I believe this is the only time that I have invoked it on a page, and I did so with good reason, infra.)

    Evidence submitted

    Iryna Harpy was warned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=685660546#Do_not_remove_NPOV_tags_until_issues_resolved_on_pages. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=685660546#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931

    Faustian was warned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Do_not_remove_NPOV_tags_until_issues_resolved_on_pages. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Disruptive_Editing_of_the_Polish_census_of_1931 And here for removing maintenance tags by Poeticbent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#November_24

    Iryna Harpy was warned for innappropriate conduct on talk pages recently here by Admin Softlavender: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=683692541#Harassment_by_user_Iryna_Harpy

    Iryna Harpy was warned for canvassing on her talk page regarding Ukrainain nationalist POV here by user Volunteer Marek https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iryna_Harpy&oldid=683535025#2.2C000_dead_Russian_soldiers

    Iryna Harpy here is canvassing Faustian here on Ukrainian pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#Articles_being_changed

    and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#New_article_makes_me_very.2C_very_nervous

    and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#WARNING_regarding_Wiki_naming_policy_for_ethnic_groups_and_self-identification

    Faustian was blocked for edit warring on Polish-Ukrainain issues here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#March_2014

    Faustian was warned by Admin  Sandstein  of The Arbitration Committee sanctions for violating normal editorial process in pages related to Eastern Europe here: 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faustian&oldid=638861689#Arbitration_enforcement_warning:_Eastern_Europe

    In this case, over a year ago, the editors of the 1931 Census of Poland decided to replace the census results data from a tertiary source, to the published census itself (the secondary source). Faustian here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Regarding_manipulation and Iryna Harpy here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Removed_original_research Began making claims that citing from the original census document, which is standard practice on WP for a census, was OR, Synth, or a violation of policy regarding primary sources. (Comments from uninvolved editors on the NORNB and village pump policy are contrary to this opinion see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Primary_source_guidelines_on_census_pages ) A year later, percentages were calculated per WP:CALC and data was put in tables. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&diff=next&oldid=684533225 This resulted in POV blanking and more similar complaints from Iryna Harpy, (Faustian also reverted the page,) also claiming that editors cannot translate foreign documents, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#Objections_to_the_fidelity_of_this_page_reporting_the_results_of_the_Polish_Census_of_1931 In a discussion on the NORNB, Iryna Harpy, admited that she, herself, translates foreign langue into English in her editing, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 I consider this a tactical play to censor the page. Please note that this census was the last in what had been an extremely ethnically, linguistically, and religiously diverse region before WWII. The census data is an important tool for social scientists and students studying the region now that archives are now open. It is important that the original census be made public. So, to avoid disruptive objections about OR, I took the time to save images of the population totals both nationally and from each city and province and provide links on the page. This resulted in Iryna Harpy, censoring the images in what I consider vandalism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685657081 My edits adding the image links has been sustained by other editors and presently remains on the page.

    I also noticed that the page was giving undue weight to the opinions and contentions of a Communist Party historian Jerzy Tomaszewski that the census itself was somehow rigged, but obscuring that source through citing it indirectly through other tertiary sources, and also not giving equal weight to contemporary sources from the era of the census, or post-communist historians. Therefore, I tagged the article with the NPOV tag. This resulted in the WP:TAGTEAM of Faustian and Iryna Harpy repeatedly deleting the tag, with comments like “no need for tag judt because one single editor has a problem” purporting to speak for all of the remaining editors of the page. See here: here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686103633 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686118684 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686189263 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686359396 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686412518

    This is contrary to what the tag itself clearly states, “"The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight." Also note that it reads, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Thus, there is no rule for a consensus on the page for an editor who see a problem with NPOV to tag the page. Also note that improper deletion of page tags is considered vandalism: “Abuse of tags Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {afd}, {delete}, {sprotected}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of {policy} and related tags.” WP:VANDTYPES (NPOV is funadmental WP policy) Since the dispute had not been resolved, repeatedly removing the tag was baseless, and thus vandalism since those who removed it were attmepting to defeat the clear purpose of the tag. If nothing else, it was disruptive to normal editing process. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring or a violation of 3RR.

    Even though he had engaged in vandalism, Faustian reported me for edit warring and violating the 3RR rule here citing Iryna Harpy in support of his contention., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User_talk:Doctor_Franklin_reported_by_User:Faustian_.28Result:_blocked.29 The result is that I got blocked by Admin MSGJ without giving me an opportunity to respond. I honestly didn't think I had done this. I was not reverting the page content itself, just the tag in accordance with the stated policy. I was acting in good faith, and I believe that some clarification is in order on the NPOV tag if I was incorrect.

    I then requested to have the block that was placed on me removed. I even agreed to not edit the page again for the duration of the block, and requested to be able to respond to another editor on the noticeboards. This was denied by Admin  OhNoitsJamie, who considered this not as a first time possible violation of 3RR, but made a comment about “You don't get to keep ugly tags up until someone joins the discussion who agrees with you.” here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doctor_Franklin#You_have_been_reported_for_your_behavior. Well that assumed bad faith on my part, failed to address that another editor, Piotrus, had edited the tag on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=686453370 and agreed with my point in the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polish_census_of_1931#What_exactly_is_not_neutral_here.3F. Thus, the NPOV tag worked as intended, despite the vandalism and disruptive editors. Since this was my first citation for violating 33R, I consider the refusal to accept my promise to not edit the page for the duration of the block, and the resulting threats about sanctions for NPOV tagging by Admin  OhNoitsJamie inappropriate and punitive, contrary to the policy for blocking a user which did not amount to a violation of 3RR.

    In conclusion, this is my first complaint here. I have had a clean record in this regard, and I believe that there were problems with the other editors cited, and the application or explanation of the relevant policies related to the NPOV tag by admins. I was acting in good faith and trying to address this problem on the noticeboards when I got blocked. Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've collapsed the above for brevity's sake. What exactly are you asking for here? What actions would you like to see taken (in a short two or three sentence reply)?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I would like an explanation for the application of 3RR and vandalism of page tags. “Do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.” Should mean exactly that.
    2. I request protection of the image galleries from vandalism.
    3. I am requesting a WP:IBAN on Faustian and Iryna Harpy editing the same page for canvassing, following each other around and tag-teaming. Alternatively, I request that they be considered as a binary unit for issues of consensus and revert limits, or other sanctions that the admins deem appropriate.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see this: [23]. Doctor Franklin is involved in a one-man crusade against various other editors and this is part of his disruptive behavior. An example is here: [24] (this also linked to, in the other link I provided)Faustian (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have similarly noted the ethnicity of the individual and Nazi collaboration per RS-biased had the person been a Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Belarussian who collaborated with the Nazis. I object to the insinuations. WP:ASPERSIONS. I didn't inject that person into the page to hide the true source of the claim: A Communist party historian. Nice try. [Edit to note that Marek Edelman would not have found anything that I wrote offensive.] Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Faustian This would be a clear WP:BOOMERANG were it not too long to read. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't be bothered to read what was written, please consider abstaining from commenting lest you be considered overtly biased.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What a tl;dr hodgepodge of 'anything I can find to indict a couple of editors by cherry picking stuff I haven't a clue about and am taking out of context because it suits my purpose' (and, my, what a delightful way to start the day).
    Doctor Franklin has already explicitly misused another noticeboard as a venue to conduct a witchhunt - beginning on 9 October here - despite the fact that a number of other editors were disputing his changes, which speaks volumes for the calibre of this experienced WP:SPA. An editor who tries to develop an article introducing this offensive content is WP:NOTHERE, nor should they be. Considering how many editors involved in the article have disputed RS and OR issues, I can't help but wonder why he's targeted Faustian and myself. By the processes of his own logic, wouldn't that make all of the others who disagree with him Ukrainian nationalists? And multiply the number of TAGTEAM-ers by a half a dozen? Ultimately, I believe that the article falls under ARB sanctions. Doctor Franklin's accusations deserve to be met with a BOOMERANG and a block from editing any articles that fall under ARBEE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are here, because you removed a gallery of 22 images which I added, and two other editors further edited and wanted on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685629667 and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=685630808 Should I ping them? After being warned, you removed the POV tag, contrary to its clear wording. I do agree that this falls under ARBEE sanctions, and Faustian has already been warned about that on his page. You raised the claim of OR, so I put it on the noticeboards. The un-involved outside editors disagree with you. One even posted on Faustian's talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faustian#Primary_sources.2C_secondary_sources.2C_and_the_census Should we ping him here about your claims of OR? [Edit to note that Marek Edelman would not have found anything that I wrote offensive. See above.]Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy's disruptions continue. You were already blocked for being disruptive and violating 3R by removing the POV tag that you alone wanted at the top of the article, and that 5 others had removed. So now here you are. A note: your comment above was misleading. On of the editors who added the table also stated: [25] "While I agree that the gallery looks kind kinda ugly, IMO it is no harm to keep it until that time some not very lazy Wikipedian copies the relevant info into our wikitable. Of course the tables should not be copied completely; only language totals be enough, so everything fits into a single table: Languages per voivodships." In this discussion Woogie10w (talk observed [26], "A week ago I gave Dr. Franklin the benefit of the doubt and assumed that his edits were made in good faith. During the past week we have seen a pattern of disruptive editing that is obviously aimed at wearing down the patience of other editors in an attempt to gain control of this article and turn it into a soapbox for his OR and fringe theories." This ANI that Doctor Franklin opened is a perfect example of that.Faustian (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, addressing Doctor Franklin's enumerated points above:

    • 1. Your block for 3RR is correct and their removal of the NPOV tag is not vandalism. The part that you aren't seeing there is that a consensus of several editors are removing the tag and only you are trying to keep it up. Here you need to defer to that consensus and drop the stick. If you want more input from other editors then there are other ways to do it without needing that tag. I would suggest that you place a small concise, neutrally-worded request for more opinions on the talk page of WikiProject Poland...not the TLDR post that is there currently. Please do read TLDR otherwise your posts won't have the positive impact that you are hoping for. People don't like responding to raw data dumps.
    So "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved," actually means that it is OK to remove the tag. (Maybe because it is TLDR.) I make an effort to follow the rules here. This confusion was caused by Admins not explaining that 3RR trumps NPOV policy. That tag still remains on the page because the consensus is that it belongs there. Two editors wanted to remove it to prevent other editors from giving an opinion, which was a clear violation of WP:DICK.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2. There is no way to protect only a section of a page. Editors should once again work on the article talk page for consensus on how to handle the copy of the census that you have provided. The better idea would be to link to them but not display them. That way you leave it up to the reader to click through to analyze the data. Primary sources are permissible like that. Showing the whole thing within the article isn't normal or a good writing practice.
    "The results of the census were being published in 39 volumes between 1936 and 1939 in a publishing series "Statistics of Poland"." The editors of the page have concluded, for the present at least until chart summaries might replace them, to use 23 images of population summaries to summarize the 39 volumes. It is hardly a data dump of all 39 volumes, and it summarizes the most important information, much as WP pages from the U.S. census do.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3. I haven't seen evidence which leads me to the conclusion that an IBAN is necessary or that tag teaming is going on. This is a content dispute that has gotten out of hand across several noticeboards. I would encourage editors to not try to get anyone in trouble but to continue to try to reach a consensus and work together. If necessary, follow dispute resolution or file a request for comment to gain more input and balance from additional editors.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this dispute arises from the process of involving other editors to ensure NPOV, (the higher law). Here Admins have decided that keeping order in the nursery (3RR) trumps the higher law (NPOV). This only ensures more problems, rather than creating a framework for resolving disputes among editors. I put this on what I considered the relevant noticeboards, and declined to put it on more lest I be accused of forum shopping or disrupting WP to make a point. This is about how WP handles emotional attachment to ethnicity and nationalism by some editors. At its present course, it may well end up at ARBCOM. Hopefully, the problem will get resolved before the page becomes the subject of a published academic study in anti-polinism or Ukrainian nationalism on WP.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the irony of invoking NPOV and finishing on "Hopefully, the problem will get resolved before the page becomes the subject of a published academic study in anti-polinism or Ukrainian nationalism on WP." not lost on you, Doctor Franklin? The dispute continues despite the fact that there are multiple editors (who are not Ukrainian by ethnicity) being drawn in: all of whom disagree with you vehemently on everything from what sources are reliable and what sources are completely and utterly extremist, but cherry picked by you because they agree with your POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In a nutshell Doctor Franklin is pushing his own OR/POV on the page, he has yet to cite a single reliable source as backup. He has engaged in an long winded un-sourced blog on the talk page to discredit the reliable sources which support the pages content. His fringe theory about a communist conspiracy promoted by a Polish Jew [27] has been removed from the page. On the talk page he has cited as support for his POV a piece from the Russian nationalist website ruskline.ru by Sergey Viktorovich Lebedev who has co-authored works[28]with Oleg Platonov who has been described as an ultranationalist, anti-Semitic, and a Holocaust denier. Another source is a German map from 1930 of dubious reliability. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by *AirportUpdater*

    *AirportUpdater*

    I've been editing here for as long as I can remember, as an IP of course. But I have a complaint to make about this particular user. *AirportUpdater* .

    Overview
    When I came across the user I noticed that he was removing hyphons '-' from airport links on articles despite a consensus on WP:AIRPORTS. Not only, he has have removed references from articles. This could result in the article ending up with a source tag.

    Report
    Here is 1 example of his disruptive editing: from this diff .

    He continues the exact same behaviour using the exact same edit summary on multiple articles, despite consensus.

    Action
    I would like the user to be blocked for a while, maybe even indef. The editing has gone to far, without any admin action. Please take care of this situation as soon as possible. Thanks.

    46.208.248.225 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If that example is typical, what he's doing looks like a waste of time, though it's not clear why he should be blocked for it. There are no hyphons (or even hyphens) in "Orlando International Airport". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see why you might want me be blocked but my edits are not meant to harm any pages. I am simply making each page better. In relation to references, there is no need for them when flights are already running. That's why I've been deleting them from airport pages (and I'm not the only one doing so). Now, talking about MCO, this has been an ongoing issue and topic between editors and I have been commenting on WP:Airports about this issue. For the longest of times, MCO has been listed as "Orlando" on every airport website and I am simply sticking to this idea. We are currently in discussions on WP:Airports and until a final decision has been made, there shouldn't be any changes to the airport pages. Hope you understand. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, 46.208.248.225, I would consider you creating a talk page so we can discuss this matter privately instead of bringing to the Administrator's attention first. Thanks, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit I am confused about the idea that you don't need sources for flights that are currently active (am I misunderstanding?), like in [29]. Wikipedia relies on sources; not everything is required to have an inline citation to stay, but when there is a valid inline citation to prove a fact, it doesn't seem appropriate to remove it to me. LjL (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks you for your comment. Yes, you are correct. However, on airport pages, this is how we do things: When an airline announces a new service, we add the airport with a "begin" date and a source verifying that this is accurate. Then, when the service does start, there's no need for the reference anymore telling us when it will begin so it makes no sense to keep it. That's why these sources are then deleted. Hope this answers your question. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It answers it I guess, but it's concerning that it is the way it's done just on airport pages. Since "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope" (from WP:Local consensus), the accepted guidelines about having reliable sources in the articles are as valid for airport pages as for any other article. LjL (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know about other articles as I am only an Airport Updater (my name). All I know is regarding references for airline routes, we've always been deleting these after flights have begun. Otherwise, the page would get very clobbered and littered with unnecessary junk. One last thing we airport editors do is put references when services resume or end. Again, after they do resume/end, we take away the source as there is no need for it anymore. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    References to sources are not "unnecessary junk"... :-\ Don't you have sources with a consolidated list of current flights that you could use as non-inline references for such articles? LjL (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever edited an airport's page before? It seems as though you aren't entirely sure what I'm talking about yet. Airport articles only need sources for new/resuming/ending flights that will happen in the future. Once that date has passed, there is no need for a reference telling us when it will begin, end, or resume. It is, junk (it doesn't benefit the page anymore). Understand a little better? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to have edited an airport's page to know that claims on Wikipedia need to be backed up by sources. Do these airport pages claim that certain flights are currently ongoing? If so, are sources given to verify that the claims are true? If not, why not? LjL (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Every airport page has a chart listing which airlines fly from that airport and the destinations (next to the airline) that each airline flies to. Some also have which concourses/gates/terminal they are located at. Here are some examples: John F. Kennedy International Airport, Pittsburgh International Airport. Maybe looking at these pages can answer your 2nd question because I believe I've answered it multiple times already. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can see, there are some sources next to routes that will be beginning, ending, or resuming. There is no need for sources next to all the others because they are already running. This is how it's always been on Wikipedia. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My second question is a simple one that can be answered with "yes" or "no". My tentative answer is "no", as I can see no sources to the lengthy tables of current routes. Is that how it's always been? I don't know, but that's inconsequential. I'm sure if people systematically remove the sources, then in the long run they will not be there. LjL (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider that I do not share the opinion that administrative action needs to be taken against you, as to me, it seems obvious you have acted in good faith. At the same time, I see a possible inconsistency between Wikipedia guidelines and your "typical-of-airport-articles" edits, and I think it's worth making sure the people who routinely edit airport articles (like any other group) do it in line with the guidelines of the rest of the encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! It's always been like this. I'm not the first one to be deleting sources for routes that are running so I have no idea why this person is accusing me of doing something disruptive and worth blocking. Good discussion. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And thank you very much for agreeing. I am not a kind of person that goes around editing articles for pure enjoyment, I do it to make each page as accurate as possible without having unnecessary text in places it shouldn't be. Thanks again, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I must still stress that citations that verify the material contained in the article are not unnecessary, though, but in fact necessary in most circumstances. That doesn't mean you should be sanctioned, but if removing such citations is the norm for the airport articles people, then those people should really start a discourse with the rest of Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely agree. Citations are definitely necessary, I couldn't agree more. Airline/destinations charts are a whole different ballgame though as you've noticed. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am picking up a strong sense of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a touch of WP:OWN here. "(Policy X) is important, except for this one thing _I_ do" is not a Wikipedia policy I'm familiar with, nor is "We've always done it that way so it's fine". Perhaps the reason no one has commented on the sourcing issues with these articles might be that they're not a highly-trafficked area of WP?

    WP:RS is policy. Not "...policy except for these articles..." or "...policy when I think it should be..."--POLICY. *AirportUpdater* needs to abide by this just like everyone else. GJC 23:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is absolutely false. I am not sticking to my ideas even though the community has moved on (as stated in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Absolutely not. The community has been doing the same thing I've been doing long before I even started editing. To answer your question, these pages have a very high traffic and is constantly being updated by many editors. It seems as though you are not familiar with how airport pages work based on your thoughts and comments. I recommend you take a look at a few pages to see how they look, then make accusations if you still have any. Here are some examples: Pittsburgh International Airport, Orlando International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if you really want to. I suggest you read WP:AIRPORTS a little more carefully. If you still think no hyphons are needed, then you are welcome to start a new disscussion at WT:AIRPORTS. Why it was obvious that you were acting in good faith, note, that you can't rely on your opinion. I think community should find consensus, a non-involved editor can close if everyone's happy that this will have no action. 46.208.248.225 (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, websites are not a Wikipedia. Just because they do it one way doesn't mean we copy it. 46.208.248.225 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have an idea: how about dropping the mindnumbing enumerations of which carriers fly to which cities, departing from which concourses? Such information changes frequently (WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK) and really has little to do with understanding the subject. This would reduce the arguing such as above by 100X. EEng (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was afraid to suggest it... then again, I am an inclusionist (who does find it a bit backwards that long list like those generally survive while there's a trickle of genuine articles semi-irreversibly deleted, but that's off-topic I guess). LjL (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an idea. But I know that's never going to happen. Wikipedia is the only place where you can easily pop on and see where a city has flights to around the country/world. It's very helpful for someone who is trying to book a flight. They can see if that city has a nonstop flight to whichever city they want to go to. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK don't you understand? EEng (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at John F. Kennedy International Airport and the amount of information and unnecessary detail is just staggering. And, this might just be me, but I've never run into anyone who consulted Wikipedia when booking a flight. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikivoyage is a guidebook though, might it not be helpful to unobtrusively move the ever-changing flight information there and then continue to maintain them there? Although I'm not even sure wikis are the best place to search for that kind of data, because I suspect a backend that could connect origins with destinations would be so much handier... LjL (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports is an eye-opener. It seems like updating flight information is the primary activity of the WikiProject. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; updating flight information is a common task carried out by members of the WikiProject, but it contributes to building an accurate and comprehensive encyclopedia so I'm not sure why it would be considered a negative thing. The airlines and destinations served from an airport are relevant and notable, and they help to provide context to the reader by indicating the significance of the airport. The references to WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK would be justified if the articles were including non-notable information such as fares, frequencies or timetables, but the airlines and destinations serving an airport are significant, verifiable, widely covered by both primary and secondary sources, and are of interest to the majority of people reading an encyclopedic article about an airport. OakleighPark 12:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Verifiable and sourced, right? LjL (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not the destination tables are sufficiently sourced is debatable; most current destinations do not have inline citations as the airline's timetable is considered to be the implicit citation. This is stated in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, but if it's not in agreement with Wikipedia's policies then it should be discussed and changed. I'm sure the editors of WP:Airport would be happy to address your concerns and work towards a constructive solution for ensuring that the referencing in destination tables meets Wikipedia's standards. However, I strongly disagree that just because there are issues with referencing that all destination tables should be removed. OakleighPark 13:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not saying people go to Wikipedia to book flights, I'm saying that Wikipedia is a good site people can go on to get an idea of what flights run from which cities. Yes Liz, us airport editors are all about updating flight information. It keeps us constantly checking Wikipedia to make each airport page better. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is entirely inappropriate article content. In addition to NOTGUIDE, there's WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Hey -- why not include fare information too?
    The fact that this information is the locus of editing disputes makes it not just deadwood, but wormwood. It should all be removed. And yes, a look at e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Chinese_carriers_operating_.22direct.22_flights_from_China_to_Europe_via_another_Chinese_city shows how bankrupt all this busy-bee activity is. EEng (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see where you are getting at. There are constantly issues regarding these airline routes (and that is a good example that you gave), but again, these charts aren't going to get deleted because they've been on every airport page since Wikipedia even started. They go way back and I think they are a great way to see how many nonstop routes each city has. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, these airline/destinations charts are one of the most important stats for an airport that everyone looks at when they visit an airport page. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The more stuff like that you say the more you strengthen the argument for removing it -- all of it. EEng (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget maps, articles about roads, railway lines etc.. Because WP:NOTGUIDE. Did someone mention fare information? New York City transit fares *grabs popcorn, sits back to watch* Ssscienccce (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles on roads and railways aren't subject to the kind of rapid change airline routes are, nor do they involve anything like the same mind-numbing quantities of information. The transit fares article should certainly be cut. EEng (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the Wikiproject frequently has discussions to establish consistency, it does not make it 'bankrupt'. The discussion linked to was a case where what was reported by some sources (ie:direct flights from certain Chinese airports to the US) was not an accurate reflection of the real-life situation (ie:the flights were actually just domestic flights that were linked to the US flight only by having the same flight number). Such discussions may seem menial and pointless to many people, but they contribute to the quality of the encyclopedia by ensuring that the airport articles are as accurate, consistent and reflective of real-life as possible. Removing content because it has sparked discussions and disagreements among editors will do nothing to improve Wikipedia. OakleighPark 13:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give some specific examples of content you think is not verifiable? Ssscienccce (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the issue is that the destination tables are lacking appropriate sources, then surely the best solution would be to improve the quality of the referencing in destination tables, instead of removing them. Just because they currently lack sources, it doesn't mean that the information is unverifiable. OakleighPark 13:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not a good idea, take to WT:AIRPORTS. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You make valid points elsewhere but this report is getting way too off-topic... however, to stay within its realm, part of the original issue was that the reported editor was alleged to be removing references from those tables (or elsewhere in airport articles). Inline citations aren't mandatory for everything, but at least if the content is dubiously sourced or not easy to verify from the non-inline sources, then they shouldn't be removed. LjL (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to WT:AIRPORTS, please post your input there. And please act in good faith. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Diaanaa, David Biddulph, GiantSnowman, Blackmane, and JzG:need consensus on keeping/nuking transit fares, routes and times.ping admins for urgent attentionMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Diaanaa, David Biddulph, GiantSnowman, Blackmane, and JzG:retryMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that how you form consensus now, pinging a small group of specific people in an ongoing discussion? --LjL (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mahfuzur rahman shourov is under the mistaken impression that there is some sort of committee of higher up admins that can lay down the law as it were, which is somewhat amusing since I'm not an admin. @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: admins do not make editorial decisions as you think. Admins are granted privileges to enact the will of the community and to protect Wikipedia from disruption or damage. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this discussion has gotten way off topic for an Admin page. These are great discussions to be held on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports if you chose to do so. There you can discuss these topics with actual airport editors such as myself. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the Wikiproject page the right place to propose deletion of the Wikiproject?
    This discussion is highly relevant for right here. It seems to me there is an out-of-control group of editors tag-teaming on airport and airlines articles which has been hiding their non-Wikipedia-compatible practices by dealing with each separate regular editor who arrives, one-by-one. In their tag-teaming, they try to create an impression that the newly arriving editor is being disruptive for noting and tagging or otherwise beginning to address the obvious problems. I got their treatment recently, when I arrived at American Airlines destinations to disambiguate a term. I noticed it was entirely non-encyclopedic, an extreme example of a directory, and in passing I removed an asserted future destination claim. On basis that Wikipedia is not a place for forecasts of future film releases or airline services or other crystal-ball items. From an I.P. editor and from editor Oknazevad I got obstinate treatment asserting that "wp:AIRLINES" (not a policy or even a guideline) rules, when that is merely a link to their WikiProject. I was eventually directed to their [WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT]] guideline, which is a local consensus out of sync with Wikipedia. Some of this is reflected at User talk:Doncram#New services. They called my tagging an article "bad faith" and "disruptive and unneeded" and stated bureaucratically "it has been removed". Which is not how legitimate tags pointing out problems are to be handled.
    I didn't take it further then, but seeing others' encountering this stuff now and being equally horrified, I think it is time to eliminate all of this stuff.. on airport articles and on the 433 (!) airlines destinations articles in Category:Lists of airline destinations. This may all be moved to WikiVoyages perhaps, but certainly is to be removed from Wikipedia. The "Other stuff exists" argument about trains does not hold water; this is egregrious directory stuff and needs to be cleaned up, including for reason that we need clear treatment for trains editors and others elsewhere that this other stuff existing does not justify directories elsewhere. These editors' out-of-sync views and cumulative treatment of concerned other editors make this a bigger issue than one simply to be covered by themselves in their Wikiproject. Also, there have been past AFDs in ancient times (2007) which failed to stop this stuff (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations); it has only gotten worse since then.
    Has a big new AFD been started yet, or could someone please start one (and post here and notify myself and others concerned about this), or where else is this being addressed, besides here (which should continue here). This is a big ongoing problem area, which is not going to be resolved by a chat among airport/airline updaters themselves. --doncram 22:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ever heard of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH? You accuse the WikiProject of a grand conspiracy when the reality is that 99% of the members are just trying to improve the coverage of airports on Wikipedia. In my years of editing airport articles, I have never observed any 'cumulative treatment of concerned editors', as disagreements are regularly discussed in a civil manner to reach consensus. I think a lot of the conflict stems from misunderstandings from people who aren't too familiar with airport articles. For example, future destinations are only added to tables when it is reported in a verifiable source and is almost certain to actually happen, so stating that it is a 'crystal-ball item' is completely inaccurate. If concerned editors took some time to observe what actually happens in the Wikiproject, they would see that everyone is there to improve Wikipedia and improve the quality and consistency of airport articles; not to deliberately circumvent Wikipedia's policies and attack editors who disagree them, as some people are alleging.
    Finally, demanding that a Wikiproject be deleted is extremely nonconstructive, especially when you appear to have significant misconceptions about how it operates and what it does; if you are genuinely wanting to improve Wikipedia, then why not suggest ways that the Wikiproject could improve instead of demanding such drastic action? OakleighPark 23:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations about this following comment above about whether these articles are needed or not. Any further opinions are welcome on the AfD page --Mdann52 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, this turned to something.

    If you would be to remove the destinations both from airports and airlines, there would be chaos. Before I promote the argument, one editor will refer to the German Wikipedia. Which has no destination lists, but has done so well. But this is because it is so strict, every non-airport editor will refer to other guidelines. Which does not apply to all WikiProjects. @Doncram: Please stop removing future announced routes till consensus is revolved, thanks, also as per WP:AIRPORTS, The main issue here is also referencing, all we need to do is add references for unreferenced routes and there! Problem solved. As I said earlier in this disscussion, some airport articles have been ranked at amazing levels. And, big suprise, they have... destination lists. Removing these will destroy the WikiProject, destroy the Wikipedia. I don't want to bring this up but please take your time to look at the 'Wikipedia Is Failing' essay. Where it describes the general failures of the English Wikipedia. We are failing, rubbish consensus' are destorying this project. We need to finally realize what this project is really about. 217.45.102.139 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Competence/Copyright issues with User:Dhudhi

    User indeffed by Diannaa. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    the users only edits have been to spam copyright material. They don't appear to be able to communicate in English which is problematic as their focus is the troubled areas covered by the ArbCom caste case where communication is essential. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've issued a final warning and will monitor. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: User is now indef-blocked for copyright violations after final warning. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Programmatic Media

    Programmatic media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The following contribution to the programmatic media page has been repeatedly reverted by Macrakis and JohnInDC.

    "It has been suggested that the interactive media division of WPP Group's Ogilvy and Mather (now known as Neo@Ogilvy), has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media. Their 1981 venture, known as Teletext, entailed the broadcast of print material on television sets equipped with a special decoder that utilised binary code.[1] Programmatic media has built on this digital framework with an algorithmic method of transacting cross-media."

    The last revert came with the following warnings on my talk page unsourced verifiability. It was suggested that the fact about "Teletext and Oglivy & Mather" was "nonsense" and the "1981" date is inaccurate.

    After lengthy conversations, the following link was shared by User:JohnInDC https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19790516&id=DwEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=21gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6334,14832&hl=en here

    It was suggested that I "Forget Joseph & Turow and Yale" (my Joseph Turow citation), which I believe is the integral part of the paragraph.

    Following another lengthy conversation, the following link was shared https://books.google.com/books?id=rK7JSFudXA8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22the+daily+you%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI-fXXp8DRyAIVDJWACh345w5n#v=onepage&q=teletext&f=false this link

    This links to the page referred to in my Joseph Turow citation (which was apparently non existent and also the reason that a warning has been placed on my talk page).

    I would be grateful if someone could confirm whether the reverted item contained citations or not. If so it would also be useful to gain an opinion on whether citation about O&M being involved with a teletext venture in 1981 is in line with the book.

    If The above can be confirmed, it could be suggested that the other editors removed a perfectly relevant paragraph without a reasonable justification and also added unnecessary warnings on my talk page (on numerous occasions).

    The users Macrakis and JohnInDC continually revert any content that I add to this page and refute anything that I add on the talk page. The administrator User:Jbhunley does not appear to have a neutral approach, and has been known to use expletives in conversations with me. I am now at the point where I am simply receive deletion threats (sometimes based on make belief rationales).

    Please advise. Regards, -JG (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Joseph, Turow (2011). The Daily You. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-300-16501-2.
    Not an administrator. Used one (1) expletive. And for the last time stop copying my signature. JbhTalk 18:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems with the page, Programmatic media, and Jugdev's unrelenting resistance to any changes or improvements to the thing, were previously raised here at ANI, at this link. Macrakis, Jbhunley and I (among others) have spent quite a bit of time trying to improve the prose, clarify the concepts, and generally bring the thing more in line with what a Wikipedia article should be. Our concerns, and edits, have been extensively discussed (almost literally one by one) on the article Talk page. Jugdev has reflexively resisted all of these efforts, and in response routinely - and persistently - simply restores the text that he authored. Indeed he has been blocked at least twice in the past two weeks for edit warring. I invite interested editors to review the prior ANI filing, and the article Talk page, Jugdev's Talk page, and the current version of the page up against one of the earlier iterations, to permit them arrive at their own conclusions about where the problematic editing & behavior here in fact lies. JohnInDC (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm here, I'll take a moment to comment on the single substantive issue that Jugdev raises above:
    The passage that Jugdev would like to re-insert (he has done so by my count 8 times already - hence the blocks) is factually incorrect, inaccurately reflects the cited source, and is of no articulable relevance to the article subject. Ogilvy & Mather did not invent Teletext. Teletext was not invented in 1981, but well before that; and Teletext (involving the rote reproduction of ad copy text on TV screens) is not a precursor of programmatic media, which is the real-time purchase and sale of customer-specific advertising space based on computer algorithms. Indeed the cited source says none of the these things, but rather notes that O&M by virtue of a two-year stint in creating marketing material for a Teletext undertaking by Time, Inc., may have had the “deepest roots” in persuading wary clients to purchase ads in the nascent 1990s field of “interactive media”, including CD-ROMs and on line services such as Prodigy.
    Every one of these issues was extensively discussed on the Talk page (search for “1981” to see a sample). JohnInDC (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As this is a content dispute I'm not sure the discussion belongs here. Nevertheless - Jugdev, per WP:DISCLOSE, would you like to advise us of any conflict of interest in matters relating to Ogilvy & Mather? RichardOSmith (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two aspects to this matter: procedural and substantive.
    Procedural: Jugdev does not appear to respect the consensus judgment of three other editors that this particular paragraph is both irrelevant and misleading. He repeats arguments he has made before (many of them generic rather than specific) and which have been answered before. He flatters his own contributions as "technical" and questions other editors' literacy. In general, he acts as though he owns the article, presuming that if he feels his concerns haven't been addressed, there is no consensus. He deploys absurd arguments, like "Are you suggesting that Yale University [Press] would allow the publication of inaccurate facts?"[30]; not only are presses generally not responsible for the contents of books they publish, but the issue here is his (mis)interpretation of the text.
    On the substance: Multiple sources (including WP itself) show that Teletext was not invented in 1981, and not by Ogilvy and Mather. His paraphrasing of the source (which two editors have checked) is incorrect. The connection between Teletext as "mechanised media" and programmatic advertising is tenuous at best, since the core defining characteristic of programmatic advertising is targeting, whereas Teletext was broadcast, showing the same content and the same ads to all users. Adding weasel words like "It has been suggested that..." to questionable statements doesn't make it OK to add them. Puffery like "has the deepest roots in terms of exploring mechanised media" (even if sourced) doesn't belong in WP.
    Finally, I feel that Jugdev is beating a dead horse, wasting our time, and discouraging other editors (User:NinjaRobotPirate and User:RichardOSmith are no longer editing this article). I have no idea whether this is intentional (WP:AGF), but it is certain disruptive. I only bother to respond at such length because I hope it will keep me and others from having to waste more time on endless, pointless discussions with an editor who refuses to listen to consensus. --Macrakis (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jugdev's response to the above

    We must not digress from the items that have been noted in my original request to the administrators. We should address any other items in turn so that things do not get lost in translation. All of my contributions to Wikipedia contain citations from the industry and academia. -JG (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When you bring an issue to AN/I, all aspects of it are going to be examined, not just the ones that serve the purposes of the reporting editor. This being the case, you need to respond to the comments of the editors you've complained about, and of uninvolved editors. For instance, a specific question was asked about your connection, if any, to Olgivy & Mather. You need to respond to these things - stonewalling will not serve you well. BMK (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is a mess. How advertising networks and intermediaries decide what ads appear on a displayed web page is important and complex. The article does not provide much understanding of the process; there's real time bidding, multiple layers of intermediaries, and tracking going on behind the scenes. Here's a Gizmodo article which does a far better job of explaining this.[31]. The article tree which starts at Online advertising addresses the subject better, and has links to over 40 other articles about the details of online advertising. Those links do not include the article in question. This is almost an orphan article; it's linked from Online Target Advertising, which itself is an orphan article. Deletion is starting to look like a good idea here. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put a lot of time into trying to get my arms around the subject, and in trying to clean up the article, but I have never been comfortable with where we collectively have got with the thing and I have no objection at all to deleting Programmatic media if the topic is already covered, better, elsewhere here. JohnInDC (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please address the items noted in my original request. anything else in my opinion are another conversation - happy to discuss once we move on from this particular case. -JG (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed deletion of both Programmatic Media and Online Target Advertising, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. If the articles are deleted, this dispute becomes moot. As for the Teletext/Prestel/Ceefax issue, those were one-way systems which broadcast data by piggybacking it on TV signals, similar to the way closed captions work. Such broadcast content could not be targeted at all, and hence is irrelevant to "target advertising". Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting makes sense to me. We should also delete the 240 SEO-like redirects that Jugdev has made, pointing to this article as I suggested a few weeks ago. --Macrakis (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jugdev has removed the template from Programmatic media, so that'll require another avenue. JohnInDC (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Agree. The article has had a whiff of PR/SEO about it from the beginning, those redirects to everything under the sun have been an issue from the outset. Even the term itself does not seem to be widely used. JohnInDC, Macrakis and all of the other editors who have worked on it have done a yeoman job cleaning it up but it should go. JbhTalk 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media JbhTalk 20:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    -JG, WP:BOOMERANG is worth a read. Despite your accumulation of multiple sanctions, you chose to raise the matter here. Editors will look at what all sides are saying and past history and determine who is really causing the disruption. --NeilN talk to me 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NeilN Thank you sir. -JG (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding all the redirects (Programmatic media inventory Programmatic media suppliers Programmatic media agency Programmatic media company Programmatic media uk Programmatic media us Programmatic media france Programmatic media germany Programmatic media spain Programmatic media italy Programmatic media netherlands Programmatic media india Programmatic advertising inventory Programmatic marketing inventoryProgrammatic advertising suppliers Programmatic marketing suppliers Programmatic media owner Programmatic marketing agency Programmatic advertising agency Programmatic advertising company... and over 100 more) to the AfD. That's blatant keyword spamming. Nobody does that on Wikipedia. Now someone has to clean up the mess. John Nagle (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    John Nagle, its in good hands. The administrators will instruct as required.-JG (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, is it just me or, while all/most of those terms make grammatical sense in themselves (and some, like "programmatic media buying", the first one mentioned in the Programmatic media lede, even have some 100 hits on Google Books), "Programmatic media" itself - the article's main title - doesn't really mean anything? LjL (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Deep in the Talk page there's some discussion about renaming / moving the article to something a bit more descriptive but I think we figured to attack the substance first. (In short, you're right.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page is long and tedious to read, but it really does help understand the situation. A clear consensus emerged among several editors for various changes, all of which Jugdev opposed. He seems to see this consensus-building as an attempt to hijack his article. I don't know what to think about the 100+ redirects or the repeated insistence to include certain corporations in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Boomerang Topic Ban for OP

    I propose a boomerang topic ban on the OP, User:Jugdev, from the Programmatic media article and from the Programmatic media topic area, broadly defined, both for ownership attempts at the article, and as a vexatious litigant, whose use dispute resolution raises competency issues. As NinjaRobotPirate points out, there is a consensus on the article talk page, and the OP continues to oppose it. On 5 October, the OP filed a request for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but failed to identify the other editors. The request was closed by the coordinator, stating it was the responsibility of the filing party both to list and to notify the other editors. On 6 October, the OP filed another request for moderated discussion. This request was even more malformed, failing to identify the article at all, although it did list the other editors in the text of the request. This request was likewise closed. The OP was warned that future incorrect use of dispute resolution, after having the procedures explained in detail, might be considered disruptive editing. On 22 October, the OP filed a third request for moderated dispute resolution, this time listing the other editors, but still failing to notify them. Now on 23 October the OP has filed this request at ANI. It isn't clear what administrative action the OP is requesting, but it is clear that the administrative action to be taken should include a boomerang topic-ban. (A block might be in order, but that is another question.)

    • Support topic-ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, also because I don't know if we can talk about a WP:COI here as it was denied by the editor, but there definitely is something fishy (see Search Engine Optimization) going on. LjL (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I was about to strike this request for two reasons. First, the article has been nominated for deletion, and its deletion will render the topic-ban moot. Second, the subject editor has been blocked for two weeks (longer than the period of the AFD). I won't object to an uninvolved administrator archiving this whole thread, including the topic-ban proposal, as a case of the OP being blocked by his own boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Jugdev has edited other, related articles and indeed his first edit-war block came in connection with another, related article. I'm skeptical frankly whether he will be able to observe the limits of a topic ban, and would be surprised if it turned out to be anything but a rest stop on the way to an indef block, but that's a discussion for another day. JohnInDC (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As mentioned above, the article is at AfD and headed for deletion, mooting this specific issue. I can't figure out what Jugdev is trying to accomplish. At first it looked like a COI issue, but it doesn't seem to benefit anybody. All those redirects look like search engine optimization, but why drive traffic to Wikipedia for an article on a general subject? The insistence over a bogus claim about Teletext, a dead technology, remains puzzling. I dunno. In two weeks, their current block expires. WP:ROPE may be appropriate. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - It is a bit of a mystery. I don't think it's a COI, despite the fixation on this Ogilvy & Mather / Teletext issue. I literally think that issue became the focus of discussion because it was toward the beginning of the article and it was the first change he wanted to re-introduce after returning from his prior block. I believe ultimately it's a competence issue - with Exhibit One being his decision to press here at ANI an issue that was linked directly to - and directly contradicted by - a reviewable source. So, yeah, I agree about ROPE. JohnInDC (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think this editor should be fully site banned. They clearly aren't here to contribute accurate information to the project. Any ban in any area of the project gets my support.--Adam in MO Talk 20:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on all advertising related topics. I have tried to get through to this editor multiple times. Their behavior is intractable. JbhTalk 20:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The author seems destined for a permanent block and this may be moot, but if they can still edit at all they must not be allowed to continue making such a negative net contribution to Wikipedia. Several well established editors have spent a considerable amount of their time attempting to clear up the article already, a task that is made far worse whilst this editor continues to try to reinstate meaningless and/or factually incorrect content into it. I too cannot fathom exactly what is going on with some of the content issues but I'm pretty sure that if we assume good faith and take it that the editor is actually here to build an encyclopaedia, they lack the WP:COMPETENCE to do so. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Support topic ban, and also indefinite if there's a "majority" for that. Both because of suspicious/fishy editing (possible COI, 200+ redirects pointing to their pet article to make sure that as many readers as possible are led to it...) and because of extreme ownership behaviour. Thomas.W talk 20:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support after this obvious block evasion. Jugdev is never going to drop the stick, and I see no evidence that he's ever going to listen to the advice that's been given to him. Also, the retaliatory accusations of COI are silly – and they follow previous accusations of vandalism when people attempted to make copy edits. See his talk page for details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Site-Ban due to disruption of AFD by COI accusations and socking accusations made by a sock. (As proposer of topic-ban, I have already !voted for that.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban but should the SPI come back positive, I'd support an indefinite block. Zero tolerance for sockmasters. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Harvest of Sorrow

    I am notifying User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes. This two editors are looking for any excuse in order to delete all my edits to the article. I tried to find a solution, but it came out they are just excuses, they just want to delete everything. Please check Talk:The Harvest of Sorrow to see the relevant facts. Here are the diff [32], they always roll back to a stub article. Also Volunteer Marek is going under all my contributions in order to delete them, as it is evident in Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow and Warsaw Pact.-- Flushout1999 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, Flushout1999 is hitting a trifect on those article. WP:POV - on Harvest of Sorrow, he's got a criticism section which is six times the length of the rest of the article, misrepresenting sources - the sources actually give a positive reviews to the book but Flushout1999 has managed to cherry pick single sentences or out of context quotations to make it seem like the sources are critical of the book, and to top it all of WP:COPYVIO where they copy paste entire paragraphs (cherry picked of course) from the sources. In particular they've been told about WP:COPYVIO, they've been warned about it, but none the less persist in re-adding copyvio material. I suggest an indef block until the user acknowledges that we have a policy on copyright and promises to respect it. Volunteer Marek  22:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion recently started on another page; here is a comment about this. Then an RSNB report was filed by another user. Here is a discussion on talk page of Flushout1999. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Marek and MVBW. They deserve thanks, because someone is going to have to through Wikipedia and remove/fix all of Flushout1999's edits, which are a toxic combination of POV-pushing, tendentiousness, and copyright violations. As best I can tell, Flushout1999's sole reason for editing Wikipedia is to try to discredit Robert Conquest (a reputable, if opinionated, historian) by any means necessary. Personally, I was planning to wait till he was done and then try to clean up the damage, but a more proactive approach would probably be wiser. MastCell Talk 23:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    MastCell, Volunteer Marek, and My Very Best Wishes are correct. Flushout1999 is editing contrary to policy and looks like he isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just had the unfortunate experience of looking through User:Flushout1999's recent edits. Propose either block or topic ban for Flushout1999 until he can behave himself. Darx9url (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just looking to me as a cherry picking of old diff in order to put myself in a bad light and imply that I am in bad faith. I ask the administrators to go through the entire talks that have been reported here. The editors here are just now working as a team in order to have my edits deleted definitively, because they share the same point of view on these particular topics.
    My edits were all well sourced with reliable sources, if there was copyvio is because I am still new here and I had not time to read all the policies until few days ago (see my contributions to verify, still few and on few pages). Here all these users are just looking for a way to punish me as I have been too "bold" in their opinion. They actually know and are aknowledging that the facts I reported in my edits are well sourced and real, but nonetheless they are always looking for new ways in order to delete my edits. What happened here is that they never assumed good faith since the beginning, go in Talk:Robert Conquest, you will see a persistent constant attack towards me with allegations of "having an agenda" (perhaps, just to improve the article?) and claims of being marked with a "sin". While what you see in The Harvest of Sorrow it looks to me like just a hidden vandalism (WP:SNEAKY: "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages") as they don't delete only what they claim should not stay there (for copyvio and not RS) but everything everytime. And, moreover, they don't improve the page in any form, just reverting it to a stub.
    This is, in actual facts, POV pushing of their own personal point of view and a form of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing as they want to be present in the articles only what is according to their own personal point of view. Moreover User:Volunteer Marek and User:My very best wishes are now working as a team in order to delete my edits in The Harvest of Sorrow and discourage me to correct eventual issues on my edits. What I see it's just a distortion and misuse of the wikipedia policies in order to not have others editors going ahead with the edits they dislike (as these edits are not in agreement with their own personal point of view) even if, in the final outcome, these edits would comply with the wikipedia policies. In fact they are just working as political partisans here on wikipedia, in order to not have reported important facts that they dislike while knowing they really did happen. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang block (48 hours) for forum shopping at ANI and tendentious editing with a refusal to accept consensus or drop the stick. Hard to take you serious when you have refused to follow policies such as copyright under the claim that you are new. You began editing in July 2013. We don't appreciate having our time wasted collectively with such tripe. There is currently an article which is full-protected for a week because of you and I'm surprised that you didn't get blocked then. Perhaps it would be a good idea if someone would leave a neutrally-worded request on the talk pages of the three pertinent WikiProjects for more input into future discussion. This may relieve the editors that have been dealing with this and get more eyes on those articles.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh please...I never went to this noticeboard in order to not be blocked, in fact I was expecting to be blocked because of the copyvio. If the wikipedia rules state that you get a block when you commit copyvio more than one time then it's really fine to me! Mine was not an excuse in order to not be blocked, it was only an explanation of how it happened!
    I did not came here to not be blocked, I came here for a totally different purpose: to address the fact of the presence of "political partisans" who are doing whatever is possible to have important and undisputable facts omitted and deleted from the articles pages, who are distorting and using policies (such as WP:CONSENSUS for example, but also WP:RS) in order to have only their own personal point of view be present in the articles. For this reason, as I have more time, I will continue to write in the talk pages of those articles bringing again and again more new sources and proofs of the facts which I believe deserve to be present in those articles. And of course I will refrain to make new edits on those page if there is no consensus.
    Let's see what happens! Maybe I could be wrong and mine is only a misperception! I would be very very glad to give my apologies if I'll be proved wrong! -- Flushout1999 (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If I summarise your comment, Flushout1999, it reads as "I'm assuming bad faith until proven wrong." What I am reading in your editing pattern and general behaviour on Wikipedia is that it is you who is the partisan editor here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Being here to test other editors on how far you can push your POV before you point your finger at them and accuse them of obstructing your attempts to get at The Truth = you're WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Soapboxing/Edit Warring on the Uncyclopedia Article

    User Shalir Salim (talk · contribs), has been edit warring on the Uncyc article. They claim that Uncyc is not a part of Wikia anymore, and has removed any reference on the page of there being two wikis, despite the fact that UncycloWikia is still active. Despite being reverted by multiple editors, Shalir keeps trying to claim that there is only one site. In addition to this, they don't seem to take a hint that they're in the wrong, and goes as far to accuse another editor of vandalism. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dittoes. Bottom line (which can be studied on Talk:Uncyclopedia), there is the original website, operated by Wikia and administered in part by me; also a fork begun in January 2013 favored by DSA510 who posted above. The Wikipedia article, after several rounds of drama and discussion, documents both websites and the schism with a careful effort to avoid favoritism. Shalir Salim has recently edited this article to remove all references to the original website. I have told Salim on his talk page that this view is counter-factual. It can be argued that the fork is the "real" Uncyclopedia based on the personalities that assemble there; it can also be argued that if the patrons of Joe's Pub rejoin in the basement of one of them, it is not Joe's Pub. In any case, the Wikipedia article reflected a careful balance of these perspectives, which has been broken for reasons I presume are self-serving. The facts have not changed since that balance was struck. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS--Shalir is back on with a new round of revert plus warning/threat on my talk page, while deleting my response from his talk page. Shalir created the account 4-5 days ago, evidently for the primary purpose of vandalizing the Uncyclopedia article in order to promote the fiction that his preferred fork, of the two forks, is not just the better website but the only one. It is annoying having to continue revert the page to the consensus reached earlier, in the aftermath of a new editor who is spending a remarkable amount of time joining and generating drama versus factual editing.
    Shalir's account had few other edits (usual Summary: "Improved"), but did find time to edit Wikia, inserting a paragraph containing: "Wikia has also received condemnation for forcing unwanted features on their community." The controversy is chronic and is one reason the editors there parted ways, but the declaration that something is unwanted is subjective and would at least need citation, and the edit reveals a motive: an animus against the (PS: host of the) Uncyclopedia fork to which Shalir is removing references. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has cited me at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, comment removed by Materialscientist citing "unactionable." Edit summary of my edit of Uncyclopedia as "spam" was reverted by Clpo13 with a request to take it to Talk:Uncyclopedia, which with luck Shalir will read in its entirety before posting. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dimadick and the addition of WikiProject Women category (and peripheral categories) to every single female tennis player

    Suddenly today I see the addition to hundreds, and I assume soon to be thousands, of female tennis players a new category... WikiProject Women. That is way to general a category to add to every single female player that ever played the game of tennis. Do we add WikiProject Men to every male player? Do we add "WikiProject Homo Sapien" to all players? I deleted some additions and I asked the person in question to stop so it could be discussed wiki-wide... the answer was an emphatic no. So here we are. All I want is for it to stop since the widespread addition was challenged. User:Dimadick will be notified. It looks like this is not the first time this editor has had problems with adding categories. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the problem. As far as I know, there's no limit on how many WikiProjects an article can belong to. There are unique issues that affect women more than men and WikiProject Women seeks to address those issues. Adding related WikiProject tags is no more disruptive than adding related categories, and there are plenty of categories specifically for women. clpo13(talk) 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories get removed all the time from articles for being far to generalized or fivolous. This one takes it almost to the nth degree. 1/2 our tennis biography articles are affected. I can open a full RfC under Biographies or MoS. I sometimes go to a category like "cities in france" or "NFL teams" or "river of the United states" etc... to narrow my search for things. But this category is ridiculously large if it's tagged for every single female that ever lived and is here in this wikipedia. Before it gets tagged onto that large a base it needs to be discussed wiki-wide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit that the subject of that WikiProject is pretty broad, but nowhere on the page does it list criteria for what articles can or cannot be included. Given that, I really don't see how Dimadick has done anything wrong. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a question of punishment. The user started adding bunches of these. I asked him/her to stop and reverted several of those additions. The protocol now is for him to show a proper need and convince a consensus that the addition is warranted... not keep adding more and more. They refused, so we are here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant guideline would be WP:PROJSCOPE, which discourages edit warring over the inclusion of project headers. I would suggest that you just leave it alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't checked specifically, but my impression was that that project was being added to every article about a woman. If that's the case, I would say that's an unmanageable number of articles, and could become a problem if the project generates style or format guidelines and then attempts to enforce them across all those articles, a sizable percentage of the encyclopedia. If I'm correct about their intended scope, I would suggest to the project that choosing articles about people who have advanced the cause of women's rights or something similarly restricted might be a more manageable and appropriate purview. BMK (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. WP Biography has a unmanageable scope of articles on that basis. The better thing is to suggest that WP Women consider task forces for their articles that are basically the underlying major projects. Just like WP India has an Indian films taskforce and WP Films has an Indian films task force that I think redirect to each other, WP Women can create a women tennis players task force that's really a task force underneath WP Tennis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. let's take someone like Billie Jean King. I have no issues with that addition at all. But otherwise what would stop me from say... adding to EVERY US President and every UK Prime Minister, the categories wikiproject Mammals, wikiproject Homo, wikiproject Primate. They all fit but you can 100% bet it would be challenged (as it should be). Would @NinjaRobotPirate: say those additions should also be ignored? This is just far too broad a project if it intends to have itself attached to every single female on the planet. I think most of the tennis players are already listed under WikiProject Women's sport, and special ones are listed under WikiProject Women's History. Here's a query since it's running through my mind... if this sticks and I want to challenge this with an RfC, where would be the best most all-encompassing place to put it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate would say that he doesn't really care what WikiProjects do as long as they don't get in his way. But I don't see the harm in making task forces. If it were me, I'd go to WikiProject Women and suggest Ricky's idea. If that didn't work, then I'd maybe try starting a discussion at WP:WikiProject Council. If that didn't work, then I'd fall back to WP:VPP, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    On the German Wikipedia they made the decision long ago to add "Frau" as a category to all female biographies. I just checked Maureen o'hara and it's still there, but I was under the impression that the need for this (in order to measure the proportion male/female biographies) was answered with Wikidata. There all people items are assigned properties for human and gender. Anyone know whether the German Wikipedia is still adding that category? It seems a bit redundant to me. Jane (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProject Women is not about Women's rights, that is WikiProject Feminism. WikiProject Women has a much wider scope and discussions on its page regularly addressed the need to add more articles about women, whether manually or about robot. Since the discussion is about their scope, I wonder if they should be notified. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They were notified before this an/i took place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, and while this an/i is going on Dimadick continues to add this item to every woman and specifically tennis player articles. Talk about bad faith and chutzpah. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest that User:Fyunck(click) has misunderstood what WikiProject|WikiProjects are. They are not categories to help readers find articles. They are there to direct groups of editors to articles that fall within their particular field of interest. When an article is created, it should be added to as many relevant WikiProjects as possible so that editors who might have an interest in contributing to it can do so. The only people who should be concerned if there are too many articles, or inappropriate articles, being added to WikiProject Women are the members of WikiProject Women. The best place to discuss if the new additions are appropriate is probably the project's talk page. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple things. Those articles that fall within this field of interest are every notable female in history. I still say that's ridiculous. And it was being discussed at the project page, but while it's being discussed there (and here) this particular editor will not stop adding what I deem as controversial/overkill. They aren't even a member of the project from what I was told. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, there is a WikiProject Women's sport so for the women tennis players could it be suggested to Dimadick that this project be added instead of WikiProject Women? As an example I have been adding WikiProject Women writers to articles about women who are authors, and articles about their books. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I try adding both banners where they are missing. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a forum shop in the wrong forum; OP started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women#So_what_criteria_is_used_to_tag_articles_with_this_category.3F shortly before filing here. Per WP:PROJSCOPE projects define their own scope and per WP:PROJGUIDE concerns should be raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council. NE Ent 12:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the co-founder of {{WikiProject Women}}.
    Let's take a look at Jane Austen. Should we have a discussion over including both WikiProject England and WikiProject Hampshire, or including both WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women writers, or including both WikiProject Literature and WikiProject Romance? IMO, there is room for all of these. If editors want to concentrate on a subgroup of articles, they can create a WikiProject, and work on those articles. This entitles them to add their project's banner to talkpage space. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a question of having multiple banners. Almost every tennis player has multiple banners. No qulams about that at all. This is about a particular editor adding a particular banner that encompasses every single woman on wikipedia. Specifically 1/2 of all our tennis bios. Most already have a women's sport banner. Some already have a women's history banner. But this editor is now being reverted by multiple editors for adding an over-reaching banner to these articles. And make no mistake, this An/i is not here because of wikiproject women. It is here because a single editor kept adding the banner, was challenged, would not discuss these additions, and kept (and keeps) adding more... even while this discussion is happening. It is not inconceivable that wikiproject women and I could have seen eye to eye and come to a compromise. But User:Dimadick pretty much dared me to bring it here because of words and actions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding Task Forces: At WikiProject Women, we've talked about creating a separate Wikiproject or a TF for Women in Leadership and for Women Entertainers... we haven't created either, but we've talked about it... and there's talk about Women in Religion, too. Fictional women are also within this project's scope; did you know that WMSV did a series of edit-a-thons on them, bringing Lisbeth Salander to GA? Any woman who self-identifies as a woman is a woman, so transgender women are women, and are within this project's scope, i.e. Chelsea Manning. We're not going to start creating a slew of new task forces for all of these subdivisions of "women" as we don't want to split up our resources.
    • Regarding "Frau": While a "Frau" category has probably accomplished something similar at the German language Wikipedia, we have not gone in that direction on En Wiki and I haven't seen any discussion about doing so; if there is, link please.
    • Regarding Wikidata: it does NOT capture every article created on Wikipedia, and it does not have a gender value for every biography.
    • Regarding AfD: if an article has a WikiProject Women talkpage banner, and if the article lands at AfD, then WikiProject Women will be alerted and can participate in the discussion.
    • Regarding banner specificity: If a woman's biography is tagged with more specific banners, e.g. {{WikiProject Women's History}}, {{WikiProject Women writers}}, and so on, we don't add WikiProject Women, but if there are no "women" talkpage banners on an article's talkpage, why shouldn't we add an applicable one, such as WikiProject Women? Note, only 15.5% of En Wiki's biographies are about women, so it's a slim subset of WPBIO.--Rosiestep (talk) 25 October 2015
      But that's not the case here. Let's look at a couple articles in question. Talk:Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers already had 7 banners on it... two of which were "Wikiproject Women's sport" and "Wikiproject Women's History." Talk:Suzanne Lenglen had 6 banners that also included "Wikiproject Women's sport" and "Wikiproject Women's History." Maybe a more modern player like Steffi Graf that had 5 banners including "Wikiproject Women's sport." You don't see me removing multiple banners just because they're there. Above you say that "If a woman's biography is tagged with more specific banners we don't add WikiProject Women. Well most of these additions are already tagged so you should be admonishing this rogue editor who won't follow protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to try again. WikiProject Women exists and sets its own scope. If there are too many articles for the project to manage, that is not your problem, it is theirs. You really have no dog in this fight.
    Incidentally, your accusation that Dimadick "dared" you to bring the issue here appears to be misleading. The evidence of Dimadick's talk page is that you first threatened to report this to the administrators, and Dimadick told you to go ahead. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be misleading Nicknack since that was not my first post on their talk page. And it appears per their project founder that they don't put that banner on just every article, it depends on if there are other more narrowly defined banners already in place. So your dog appears to have run away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from tagging the tenniswomen pages in a way that mimics the behaviour of male dogs drawing the boundaries of their territory, perhaps someone could describe what improvements were provided to these tennis pages by the tagging team ? Pldx1 (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FkpCascais again

    I need external help at this point.

    Recap: There was a complicated RfC. It was closed against FkpCascais's stance. After further debates, he asked for a review of the close, which is, let's say, ongoing. This is when I got involved. In the meanwhile, there has been (a lot) more discussion on the article's talk page.

    I have been sort of mediating. FkpCascais has gone from seemingly hating my guts to apologizing. The current problem is that I had added a "disputed" tag to one of the two main points of contention. FkpCascais removed it twice and then removed my talk page request not to do that (I see he has reverted that now, though).

    He had repeatedly removed another such tag before (prompting me to report him for edit warring) and had been told by, among others, HighInBC that the tag should stay. He had gone well over 3RR before.

    There is also an IP-hopping sockpuppet involved in this (opposing FkpCascais), and I have more than enough of everyone, really. FkpCascais needs to cool down and realize that the RfC was against his stance and that it's completely backwards that, even though his stance is still reflected in the article, he's even getting "disputed" tags removed. LjL (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What I am proposing with this report is that FpCascais be somehow made to relent from edits and arguments on topics related to ex-Yugoslavia (I think there have been issues on other articles too, but I have not been involved), or at least Serbs of Croatia. How this is achieved is not my concern, but talk pages can't just keep on inflating with people running away from the sheer length and absurdity, and the consensus from the RfC can't be unilaterally overturned. LjL (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You added this last paragraph just now, you are asking for me to be removed. I am asking for an admin please to see LjL conduct as reviewer. From the very start they were not been making a neutral review but a clear tendentious one with a goal of prooving me wrong. I dont think that is a review at all, but rather involvment in the dispute. They even got to call things "my side and their side" that much neutrality has been seen on their behalve. Once I continue providing sources and backing up my points, it obviously becomes a situation where I become the undesirable one. I am the only one providing sourced arguments there against the Croatian POV, remove me and we will be left with no Serbian editors and the articles will loose even the chance of being neutraly written. What the admins need to do is to see what happened there and recoment this users to stop trying to eliminate me. They made a consensus ammong them which is not backed by any reliable sources and which goes clearly against what English-language sources are saying. Albino made a very controversial close, and now LjL all that has been doing there is to proove me wrong. That is a valid position as edtor, but than they are not a review that was asked, and should stop pretendng to be one. FkpCascais (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I added the last paragraph now, everyone can see the double signature. AlbinoFerret's close is not "very controversial", since you're effectively the only one still opposing it. You're making a ruckus. I also take big issue with the concept that to be neutral, the article needs to have both Croatian and Serbian editors. I'm neither, and in fact, I'm sadly starting to think that if neither nationality took part in its editing, it would be for the better. And, of course, no, a review going counter your opinion is not the review you asked for: I do recognize that. LjL (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one minor point of correction LjL, I asked for the review. FkpCascais mentioned starting one and then waited a few days, so I started it since I closed the RFC. AlbinoFerret 00:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be asking for formal mediation on this. LjL started wrong foot on this from the very start, and now is ignoring 20 reliable sources and engaging in WP:OR by making their own interpretation of the constitution. Things dont work that way, 20 authors certinly know why they are saying something, and there is no need for a Wikipedia editor to go to the Constitution and check their findings. They are unable to provide RS so that is why this is happening. FkpCascais (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LjL the talk-page revert of your comment was an accident, I reverted myself instantly. Also, I must say that LjL has been condoning the participation of that very same evading-block editor, and having a nice long chat with him at their talk-page, even using the arguments provded by the IP at the article talk-page dscussion against me. Strange at least! FkpCascais (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Things don't work that way" is valid about ignoring the result of an RfC, too. And my talk page is mine to talk to people at, thank you. LjL (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh and sorry about the original section heading HighInBC, it wasn't meant literally, but this has really felt... weird. Couple of days ago he gave me a half barnstar and apologized for, well, you can see that on my talk page; couple of days before that, he was hating me and saying I was "lying through my teeth", and removing tags; now he seems to be back to that. I am confuzzled. LjL (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I assumed you made the initial missinterpretation of soures by accident, I AGF towards you, however by seing your continuos loyering of one side only, you making ways to ignore sources, I really have to say I was not wrong, you are indeed involved in this, and you are being tendentious. I can, and will, provide clear exemples of your tendentious atitutde if asked to do so. FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to say I objected LjL being the reviewer of the close from the very begining, and I had my reasons, but I ended being flexible. Can I please ask this time for the reviewer to be an experienced admin please? This is an easy case actually, just that a series of mistakes were made in the process. Or, if the admins believe the option of fomal mediotion is better solution, that would be great as well. FkpCascais (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The review should be closed. There's a very solid consensus that it should be closed, despite it having become another very long thing to read because this is basically how you murk waters. LjL (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And perfectly sourced material (your own words) will be left out... You are letting emotions affect your decitions now, you know it. FkpCascais (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mirror, mirror... LjL (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not funny at all. This entire process was handled extremely poorly, and I spent weeks digging into sources and finding consensus ammong them. FkpCascais (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But you found none. You are actually still going counter RfC consensus, and I have also spent a long time trying to sift through your mess and arbitrate a little. I've had enough. LjL (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cause all you have been doing there is trying to find a way to dismiss my 20+ sources, a terribly difficult task. Obviously you had it enough and we got here. If you only once accepted sources are right we wouldnt be here. FkpCascais (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I didnt found consensus? Not because you receve advices from an evading indef-blocked editor and a user opposing me constituously claiming it is all propaganda my sources are saying (strong arguments for sure). But there is a clear consensus ammong the sources for what really matters, 20+ sources agree ammong them about most, it is just minor peripherical aspects left to work out and can be finished quite easily. But you come and you question everything, even clearly establshed facts backed by 20+ sources and contradicted by... zero sources and 2 partisan editors. Such as "Serbs lost constituent status in Croatia in 1990." You ignore the 20 authors, and you want to see yourself the Constitution. OK, you said you can do it talk-pages without breaking WP:OR, but how are you going to insert it n the article iif you have no RS opposing the statement? What are we loosng time there for? So you ignore WP:TRUTH, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:OR just to see if it is possible to make them right and me and my 20+ sources wrong, that is crystal clear. FkpCascais (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time someone examines those 20+ sources they come to the same conclusions that they dont say what you want them to say. An RFC, outside editors who looked after the RFC. Its starting to look like filibustering. Its starting to look like you are WP:NOTHERE because you are ignoring the consensus of everyone else and want to continue in an endless discussion that goes round in circles, Its time to drop the stick. AlbinoFerret 01:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not all saying "Serbs lost the constitutive status in Croatia in 1990" yes or not? FkpCascais (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being accused of not dropping the stick and WP:NOTHERE, and you thing that dragging the discussion to this ANI will help your cause? Listen to the others and drop the stick, you "lost" the RfC and soon the review. What else to do. Prevent a consensus enters the article? That would be a first, at least for me. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for a review of your close cause you didnt even read the sources, you just copy/pasted their argument, and later you refused to clarify the close to me. So obviously you want it now to be dropped. FkpCascais (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlbinoFerret:, I was even willing to have lengthy debates, but not ruckus. Not ruckus like removing tags, edit warring and even reverting me on the talk page, which I'm sure was done in the heat of the moment (since it was undone), but whatever: it shows what this has come to. LjL (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I told you the revert at the talk-page was a mistake, for God sake, the screan I was using is small. I reverted mself instantly. But using whatever to get me out, nice from you. FkpCascais (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my God, WP:NOTHERE is perfect! All this time I was trying to point that he isn't discussing in good faith in my own words and I didn't know of this. This perfectly describes it. Thanks. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    LjL, if you look closer at the discussions, you'll see he's really been attacking everyone who doesn't agree with him. The user who started the discussion got reported by him. He got fed up with Fkp and left. I got attacked that I'm a sock to the point that it's generally accepted as a fact, although no report was made. Director got attacked as a nationalist. You got attacked...The whole discussion should be reviewed so let's leave it for the admins. Every single editor had left the discussion because of FkP and if it weren't for me he would successfully enter his POV to the article after all the opposition is gone, one way (by blocking) or another (by exhaustion). I told it a long time, he's not been discussing in good faith and it's really hard to notice until you get involved with him. Isn't that right LjL. It's hard to notice that when someone puts a direct question how he neglects to answer it and buries it with a wall of text. You can't easily notice if you don't read carefully. But when you get involved you see it very clearly. Your last section is a great example. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid you're pretty much on the spot (but you still shouldn't evade blocks). LjL (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I shouldn't have to since I'm not blocked. ;) I can tell you that I'm staying away from this user when this is over. I won't get involved in another of his "discussions" since I tend to finish it when I get involved. I can tell he's doing some contributions on football related topics. I would advise him to stay on that topic,but I doubt he would listen. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not even going to comment this evident cumplicity the two of you had been having from the very begning. I will defend myself by saying just one thing: I was the only one to present sources there, and plenty. That was my way of "attacking you", sorry both of you perceve it that way. FkpCascais (talk)
    No: I previously documented your way of attacking me, and perhaps it's due time to bring it up. LjL (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I attacked you, you were lying about sources clearly ignoring parts of a sentence thus turning their meaning upside-down. FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, admitting and justifying your personal attacks won't help but, but on contrary... Stop, take a deep breath and objectively think what you are doing.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen pal, even if I didnt existed, your tendentious editing will not get to the articles cause people here are not fools. And you were not indef-blocked because of me reporting you, but because of your own edits. So deal with it, and stop chasing me around. Get a life. FkpCascais (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not get paranoid and see someone who doesn't exist and think someone is following you. If you get blocked here it will be because of proving the arguments against your behavior in this very own report. You are still not dropping the stick and you are even admitting and justifying personal accusations. You made them against everyone participating here and all in front of admin eyes. I told you, take a deep breath and think about what you are doing to yourself here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I see there is now a push into making this look as if it is me not dropping the stick. But the case is the following, in a cntent dispute I was alone representing one side vs a group of editors. I have plenty of sources, that is what made me hang on all the way. However, a reviewer came and made a close just copy/pasting their argument claiming consensus ammong editors. He made a mistake, but once a mistake is made it is hard to fix it without making the closing editor look bad. For some reasons, and in quite strange ciircunstances, an editor offered to be a reviewer, although rather than offering itelf, he started reviewing by their own will and sort of self-declared as such. All they been doing while eviewing is trying to make me wrong. I am please asking for a real review. If the reviewer want so, I will not even participate, and I will respect whatever the cocnclusion will be. Or a mediation. Whatever the admins find more appropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't get infinitely many reviews until one agrees with you. Also, one doesn't "offer to be a reviewer", and I didn't close the review, which is still ongoing (but ought, for the love of everything good, to be closed soon). LjL (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LjL you went above and beyond. I know that some will look at the claim of 20+ sources with concern that perhaps there was a mistake someplace. But you looked and found there was none. I am glad you did, because being an outside editor you confirmed that everyone else was right. This should have ended with the RFC, but I am glad you looked and found there was consensus. AlbinoFerret 02:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You made the poorest close I have ever seem in 10 yers, I ask any admin to confirm it, and if I am wrong I will block myself. FkpCascais (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already a review, and its going against you. You dont seem to understand that you dont get to argue again and again and again until by some slim hope you get someone (unlikely) to agree with you. AlbinoFerret 02:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah and let's remember LjL was slightly on his side at the beginning. It someone finds himself/herself in that situation I strongly recommend he/she takes a few days and tries to deal with him himself/herself.LjL I hope you saw what I was going trough this last few MONTHS. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LjL, There was just one close by now, and a non-admin one, in a hot-topic case. So it is not me asking for indefinite reviews for sure, and you certanly read the part me saying "I will respect whatever the cocnclusion will be". Do you have problems understanding my English or you iintentionally pretend not to? FkpCascais (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed a comment against you.[33] granted by an IP that is probably shouldnt be here, but that removal should be by an admin if anyone. AlbinoFerret 02:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, now make a party because of it. Anyway, that will not make your close any better. FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Because his comment about not asking for indefinite reviews wouldn't make much sense if he didn't remove my comment. Fkp, you can't and you shouldn't take this as a fight and try to win by getting others blocked by neglecting arguments and with personal accusations, by removing other peoples' comments.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At least let this current review finishes against your favor until you ask for another one. ;) All this doesn't help you look like you had dropped the stick.. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You dont even have a stick... @Everyone else, so nice you condone an evading-block user to post, and LjL even let him participate in the discussion perfectly aware of who he was and his sockpuppeting. FkpCascais (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You let me open a RfC. What a big mistake that was, to bring your fallacies to the eyes of other editors. So if someone is letting someone participate, as if it's up to them to decide who should participate. Everyone is free to make a report against anyone and you didn't make it. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I sure hope this is my last night I spend like this. I didn't get much sleep this last few months. FkP go to sleep and allow us others go as well. We can continue tomorrow. Maybe you really should sleep it over so you realize what you have done here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A further incident: after FkpCascais cursed and accused another editor, I was about to intervene when he simply deleted his message. I did not consider that fair, so I reinstated it struck-out (and explained in the edit summary), but he reverted my edit without further explanation. LjL (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ridiculous? Please focus on content there and answer the questions presented to you by another editor who clearly questions your conclusions there. And dont edit, move, remove my comments. Thanks you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What is this all about?

    If you want to know, then expand this hat. But it's a content dispute not belonging here

    This is my edit (The entire section "Socialist Yugoslavia", you can see the content and the sources, it was empty before my edit), this is the close of Albino (look at the argument and the edit of mine and the sources He sugests removing the entre section and replacing by a sentence saying just: "On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution,[89] which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.[90]"). This is basically an attempt to eliminate perfectly sourced content and replace it with a dubious sentence, but OK, that is my view, someone should confirm it. At bottom of Talk:Serbs of Croatia is where the review of LjL is found. I will leave this thread and not answer anymore unless asked by an admin. FkpCascais (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's another thing. You really shouldn't make unilateral edits while that very own thing is being discussed. Look at what you did here. Another user pointed out that the very same thing we are discussing on Serbs of Croatia is also present on Croatian_War_of_Independence article. You open this discussion (20:00, 18 September 2015 ) to point that both articles will be changed after the RfC is over. Then you go and unilaterally edit the article yourself ( 00:24, 20 September 2015). That article is still standing with your unilateral edits while the RfC is already closed against you. That's not a way Wikipedia is edited. Did you think no one will notice you went on unilaterally edit an article although the discussion is still open and pending? I could have reverted you, but I haven't.Since I know you would go to edit warring there as well and have that article protected as well.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Will someone please remove an evading blocked user? It is not because he is criticizeing me, couldnt care less, but because he is cluttering the thread. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for admins: there are many articles that dont get much attention beside the involved editors. Such articles clearly are some international disputes such is this case. Puts head-a-head the opposed views each nation has. In my view the ideal situation would be to have a decent number of editors from each, plus neutral ones, side making consensus all together by gathering sources, seing wht they say, and applying our rules and principles. However, when one side has just one editor, the situation becomes clearly totally different than that ideal one I mentioned. The easiest thing the lone editor can do is letting the other side have their way. But is that fair for Wikipedia as a neutral free online encyclopedia? This case here is very interesting because it demonstrates all the problems the lone editor faces if he wants to fight for archiving neutrality. Armed with sources, I am facing all possible and impossible means to get my text out or to get me out. Albino made a close just copy/pastng their arguments and I bet the life of my sons he didnt even opened one single source of the 20 I presented to see what they actually say. Then LjL, she imposed herself as reviewer and has been her best to see how to turn around things and make me loose. It was terrible for me. She even missquaoted sources, when I checked them to see how could I have missed them saying what she claimed they say, I found out she just lied brutally. Why she did that? Even so, I was conviced to give her a chance. But, what should I do as an editor when I see she is reviewing clearly tendentiously? Cause, they really got me to the limit, it is just a pharse to see when I am going to give-up or if I am going to do something they could report me for, then they have the group, and have the close editor who clearly wants to support his mistake... I really couldnt have done much better, I gatheres so many sources, all of them scholar and in English, all of them verifiable just with a click at Google Books, I made an edit as fair as possible having in mind te sources, and I am basing my arguments at talk with sources (I am so much pressured I even have to source my comments! And I do!). They hardly look at the sources (besides LjL who I made look at them after much reluctancy on her behalve; she did the best to avoid looking at sources and was trying to find a way to convince me to just accept the close, she even proposed an "one for you-one for me solution" just to escae dealing with sources, cause they knew I had sources). I had to gently ask to give sources a chance, after what they in anger just 10 minutes later, made a totally tendentious presentation. Instead of accepting to see what sources say, they started immedately working to defend their goal... Wait... should a reviewer clearly back one side? I dont think so, but that has been her behavior all time. Of course, in that edit, actually only 1 of the 4 sources says what she clamed, you can see the reality ofthat thread of hers: Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Sources_suggesting_.22rights.22_may_have_been_retained. FkpCascais (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well some things need to be said, and I think that other editors are not aware of your behavior on Croatian War of Independence article. I on the other hand have been dealing with you for months and I'm perfectly aware of it. Now's the time to point it out. It wouldn't be productive if I had gone to edit warring over there, so I waited to an opportunity like this. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed, I did this at that article. Please, please dont mention it anymore, if someone noteces I added perfectly sourced content in an article I will not get a chance to mantain my terribly tendentious nationalist editor reputation. FkpCascais (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To prove what LjL is doing, please see the exemple of what they are doing here Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Two_points_about_the_RfC on point 1. Lets see her claims if are backed with sources. 14:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

    Not that it matters much, but I'm male, by the way. LjL (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look what is happening there. I will saying nothing, just judge by yourselfs who is doing what. FkpCascais (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking to your own statement proves nothing. AlbinoFerret 22:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    History repeating itself

    This seems a lot like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_RFC_close_review. The same actors, the same dispute, same wall of text. It is also very reminiscent of the discussion at Talk:Serbs of Croatia. ANI is not the place to carry on a debate. While I agree that the original thread needs to be closed. I also think that while all involved(except for the IP hopping sock) are acting in good faith the behaviour of all should be examined. While I have acted only as an admin in this area I would welcome fresh eyes as the whole thing is making my old mind wrinkle.

    I don't think it is serving any of the party's interests to be carrying on this dispute here. I have read what has been written and it seems like the involved party's have already made their point and now just going in a cycle of disagreement. I ask that the involved party's refrain from providing information that is already present on this page and instead continue the debate on the article talk page. I ask that an uninvolved admin close the current RFC review on WP:AN and if there is not anything new here this too. HighInBC 15:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure; may I additionally ask that if the RfC review is closed in favor of the RfC close (i.e. against FkpCascais's stance), than that consensus be, at this point, and finally, enforced in the article, in one way or another? Dead-letter consensus isn't useful. LjL (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience when an RFC has that much debate afterwards there is a problem. A strong consensus is rarely hard to enforce because those who agreed with it want it enforced. The RFC repeatedly referred to here involved few editors and numerous occurrences of sock puppetry(including the person who proposed it).
    A fresh RFC with a clearly defined set of outcomes that is not created by a blocked user would represent a much more clearly enforceable consensus. Right now it takes someone with the patience of Job to sift that RFC and find the reason in it. Props to @AlbinoFerret: for closing such a mess of an RFC. HighInBC 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks HighInBC, I do think another RFC would likely be a good idea. But the way that RFC was laid out is really bad. I think another editor should open a new one, one who doesnt write a question that is almost TLDR, that leads to less participation. Another issue is how to remove the sock. They were heavily discounted in the RFC so they really didnt impact it much. I counted the IP's as one editor, and even if taken out completely it doesnt change anything. You have been doing what you can, but they seem to come back again and again. AlbinoFerret 17:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure now that an uninvolved senior editor came questioning LjL conclusions, LjL wants to see the RfC closed as quckly as possible. FkpCascais (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time I read a comment on this topic, its like deja vu all over again or Groudhogs day. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang

    This is what is happening. I am facing a clearly tendentious "reviewer" who is making WP:OR, intentionally ignoring reliable sources (sometimes even pretending not to understand their content despite being all in perfect English), and sugesting to drop Wikipedia:Verifiability. As revewer he has clearly been siding since the very begning clearly not in compliance with WP:NPOV, absolutely necessary for a reviewer. I am askng please uninvolved admins to review LjL behavior as reviewer, the link here is just one exemple of the constant he has been having there. In a subsecton I made, which LjL colapsed,are more diffs of exemples of their tendentious atitutude. FkpCascais (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This again FkpCascais? I think it's time for a TBAN for FkpCascais , broadly construed on anything dealing with Croatia. This is about the second or third time I've seen this issue come up, with him. Enough already ! KoshVorlon 15:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A senior editor has come and questioned LjL conclusions. Please wait to see the outcome, I believe it would be fair. It is very hard to be the only one at one side of the dispute and it is very eeasy to make a precpitated conclusion that I am the one in fault, by it may, or not, be that the case. FkpCascais (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are consistently mixing up content issues with user behavior issues. LjL (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no such thing as a "senior editor" FkpCascais. There are Editors, there are sysops , then there are Arbs. KoshVorlon 17:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, there are. Cause we have been dealing with a great ammount of new single-purpose accounts. That is why I said it. But it is OK, you are entitled to have your opinion. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please list the alleged single-purpose accounts (aside from the IP-hopping sock). LjL (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is him I aam talking about obviously. He has a list of related accounts already blocked. But what does it matter? All I meant is that the editor questioning your decitions is not a newby but an established editor. FkpCascais (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of the people who opposed you during and after the RfC were also established editors. What's your point? LjL (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes a topic ban on Balkan articles should be in order. I'm looking at his contributions and everywhere I go I see walls of text and him accusing others of being socks, nationalists, making personal accusations. It often leads to him reporting and trying to ban other users, like it happened on Serbs of Croatia where he tried to block me and another user when we were the only one that opposed him. I already told what I think of his behavior in the upper sections, but let's see what some of the other's think:
    Director : "Of course he's not discussing in good faith.Don't know when ever he had." [34] , "Frankly I think this horrendous, farcical mess is grounds for a topic ban." [35]
    Shokatz:"And here we go again, you should be topic banned for WP:UNDUE and obvious one-sided POV-pushing." [36]


    Topic ban for FkpCascais

    Withdrawn, FkpCascais has agreed to drop the stick and wait for someone else to start the new RFC. AlbinoFerret 22:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The above section shows that FkpCascais is WP:NOTHERE. He has engaged in personal attacks, removing others comments, filibustering, ignoring consensus/failure to drop the stick, and appears to be to involved in this topic. I propose a 6 month topic ban, the width of the ban determined by the closing admin. I suggest 6 months in order that he broaden his editing in other areas of WP and return a better editor to this topic area. If not, there will be enough WP:ROPE. AlbinoFerret 17:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that for the first time we have an unnvolved editor looking at the dispute criticizing your conclusions, sure it is time to eliminate me. FkpCascais (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time of the close I was uninvolved, and tried my best to stay uninvolved. But with everything that has happened, including talk page sections on my talk page after the close and comments in discussions after the close that is not the present case when dealing with the disruption you have caused. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Definetly support a 6 month topic ban - and just so you know this, FpCascais, I'm under one myself, I know what it's like and hate proposing this for anyone, but in this case, it's applicable. KoshVorlon 18:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal how to solve this and move on

    Seems obvious that by now personal conflicts are interfering wth the objectivity and neutrality. I seem to be the problem, LjL and AlbinoFerret are pointing out. I propose then to stay out from now on. Since a new editor gave a look at the content and is adressing some issues I myself was adressing earlier, I agree that my part is done; I made an edit, I provided sources, I asked questions, nothing else I can do anymore. I promisse to stay out from the review till its end, I will come only if asked to. User:LjL, User:AlbinoFerret and User:biblbroks, would you agree? FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned elsewhere, the review has ended. Until another RfC takes place, the results of the previous ones are valid. LjL (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it is closed then. I just asked. Its over then. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, its over, FkpCascais you agree to let RFC stand and the consensus that was reached there. You will drop the stick and wait for someone else to start another RFC? If you agree to that I will withdraw the TBAN request. AlbinoFerret 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course AlbinoFerret. I was actually unaware the RfC had been closed today. If it is closed, then it is closed. FkpCascais (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn, I am glad to see this on the way to solving the issues without banns. Dropping everything is a good idea while everything moves forward. AlbinoFerret 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Oppose any wide topic bans for FkpCascais, but if it were up to me I'd go with a narrow ban for the one specific article, no longer than 6 months. In other words: nothing big that stops him contributing in general - just something to get him to shut the hell up over there definitively, and not just start this all over again in a month. I know the user rather well, he's a clever guy: I'm seeing him getting a buddy to post another RfC in a week or two, and then starting this stupid show from the beginning. I'm hoping we can address that possibility here?
    Don't doubt for a second that he hasn't accepted the community's position, he just isn't dumb: he saw a tban on the horizon. He still thinks he's in the right, that he has "the sources and you don't have sources and I have them and.." etc. Pardon my frankness, but... -- Director (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Director I have no doubt that there will probably be a round two. But banns/blocks are not meant to be punitive, so if he dropped the stick I was willing to drop the request. Nothing in the agreement above stops anyone else from starting a RFC, you could do it if you want. I would recommend that at the first post by the sock on the RFC that someone ask HiInBC to block the page to IP's for the remainder of the RFC. This will give one less argument for anyone that disagrees with the outcome. AlbinoFerret 14:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AlbinoFerret Naturally. What gave you the impression I was proposing a punitive measure? Quite the opposite, I'm talking about making sure this affair comes to an end for more than a week or two, I don't want to see Fkp "punished". And I think you made my point for me: "there will be a round two"? Well there shouldn't be a "round two" of disruption. I think Fkp, while he has pledged to drop the stick, has an easy window back into there - simply by getting a buddy to post an RfC in a week. A 6 month ban from the article should cement the matter - and if he's honest he shouldn't even mind it, since he pledged to drop it.
    I'm really not trying to see anyone "punished" :). I'm opposed to any wide bans on Croatia topics or Yugoslavia, and am in general a big opponent of willy-nilly topic banning. And, in spite of us being on opposite sides in a few debates, I've known Fkp for a while on Wiki and I really hold no personal grudge against him at all. In fact, I originally joined the discussion there with the intent of helping him out, thinking he's advocating sources vs Croatian nationalism... and then it turned out to be Serbian nationalism vs Croatian nationalism... Sigh... (the change was indeed probably a deliberate provocation by the Croatian government, trouble is, Fkp wants it to have concrete legal ramifications - which it did not have.. even further, he wants it to justify a Serbian takeover of a third of the country as their constitutional right... ugh...) -- Director (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't saying you wanted to punish him Director, just me saying something I'm sure most people agree with. I have a feeling though, that if he repeats his behaviour in the near future my withdrawing will be seen as WP:ROPE. I really dont want that, I am a firm believer that multiple points of view make better articles. Its just that we need to discuss things in good order with cool heads, and no I am not suggesting you want disorder or are a hothead. :) AlbinoFerret 21:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I think the recent amendments to the section make it relatively balanced (though I might think that because I made them), since FpkCascais's point of view wasn't really reversed or even removed, but simply toned down considerably. Sources would need to be updated and reduced to a sane number, though, which I haven't done. LjL (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nikhil1234567

    User Nikhil1234567 (talk · contribs), adds unsourced claims about Hinduism in "Religion in Country X" articles [37], [38], [39]. He was informed/warned by several editors [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], but continues to rapidly add unsourced content [45], [46], [47] with support from several, possibly related, IP´s (41.136.*):

    Examples: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. JimRenge (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's certainly enough for a SPI here, BTW. Nikhil1234567 could be blocked for being a sockmaster in addition to adding a bunch of unsourced claims. Doc talk 09:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 41.136.0.0/18 for two weeks. Waiting for Nikhil1234567 (talk · contribs) to respond here before taking further action. If they continue to edit without communicating please update this thread. --NeilN talk to me 14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken it can be read as safe to roll back the multiple additions of cats, redirects to the same article, plus additions of unsourced content added by this dynamic IP. I'm checking through them all - from Liechtenstein to Guatemala and beyond - in case there's anything WP:HERE about them. So far, however, no banana. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptions (and WP:LEGAL) despite several warnings

    Rajatbindalbly disrupts Wikipedia by resufing to WP:HEAR. The user originally demanded that we change List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers to fit the personal opinion of some "Dr. Nautiyal" [57]. This was rejected, and explained. However, the user continues to disrupt the page (as evidenced by talk history). Despite the obvious WP:OR-pushing being rejected by at least four users, Rajatbindalbly continues to reset the question endlessly [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], and making the request edits just the same, despite the complete consensus against it [69].
    In addition to these disruptions, the user goes after users who object to their POV, sometimes with WP:NPA violations [70], sometimes "just" repetitive. [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77].
    In addition to the refusal to WP:HEAR and the disruptions, the user even took to WP:AN (!) to try to get their POV pushed through there. [78]. It was of course swiftly thrown out, and NeilN closed it by explicitly stating that ANI should follow if Rajatbindalbly continued this behavior. [79]. As Rajatbindalbly ignored Neil's warning just like he has ignored the complete consensus by Thomas.W, kwami, Arjayay, Stabila711 and myself.
    Last but not least, the user also violated WP:LEGAL be threatening to have the Indian PM block Wikipedia in India unless we let him have his way. [80].

    • In short the Rajatbindalbly disrupts WP by completely refusing to WP:HEAR, by resetting the same rejected demand eleven times (and counting), by spreading the conflict to several pages, by making the edit even though it's unanimously rejected, by threatening to have WP blocked if he does not get to call the shots. This disruption has taken up a lot of time for several editors and it's time to stop. I suggest Rajatbindalbly eithed be indeffed or blocked from any article connected to India, as the user is most certainly WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The legal threat is enough to put the guy on Himalayan ice, at least until he retracts and disavows the threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I'd want a more permanent ban on him editing India-related articles. Posing a question is fine, and I can even understand resetting the question if someone thinks there's a problem with the answer. But ŕesetting the question eleven times, after several users have declined it, and continue resetting after several users have told them to stop, that is indicative of a problem. Jeppiz (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, the link provide in the OP is not a legal threat. A legal threat involves some for of legal action, such as a law suit, retraining order, C&D letter, etc. Petitioning a government official, however, ("I will also request The Prime Minister Office to Ban wikipedia in India") is not a legal threat. —Farix (t | c) 17:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheFarix: but requesting the prime minister to ban wikipedia is a threat of legal action and causes a "Chilling effect" by trying to get the user in trouble with outside resources because of a on wikipedia dispute. Hasteur (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is definitely a legal threat by Wikipedia's use of the term, and even more outrageous than the usual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    90.200.46.221

    This editor, 90.200.46.221 (talk · contribs) makes people into Islamic/Arabic. Yi Gu was in Category:South Korean Roman Catholics before 90.200.46.221 made him Islamic. Julia Mullock apparently converted. Ben Gurion did just fine without Arabic transliteration of his name. I didn't have a look what else he did, but I think somebody should look into 90.200.46.221's edits, and possibly block him. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just plowed through their edits and reverted unexplained additions of Arabic names to Mauritian and Indian politicians. Not sure why they were doing it. Blackmane (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Persecution from Collect and McGeddon

    Hello. I'm here to talk you about the incorrect actions of other Wikipedian. There are two users that are percuting me. They delete, change or undo everything I add to Wikipedia pages. They have voted negatively in a AfD debat without reason. User Collect and McGeddon are persecuting me. He voted negatively in the AfD debat of the Internet Horror Movie Database, they are persecuting me in the page [81] and in the page [[82] where I added some titles. He have segnaled me here and here where the debat was archived. They continue to change all I do. Plus, Collect, for what i see in his talk page has various problems with Wiki like sock and blocks. This is why yesterday I afded some of his pages. Please help me stop this persecution. Please verify. Pizzole (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See also his WP:ANEW complaint, his multiple AfDs and PRODs etc. Note also his SPI file. Then kindly tell him what the result of his harassment is. Collect (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user Collect reported just now for the second time in one week an issue regarding biographies of living persons for an article I created. The first one it was archived. Please stop this persecution. Pizzole (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They brought it here because they were told WP:ANEW wasn't the right place. LjL (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "right place" for blatant harassment. Check out the AfDs and PRODs he did to "Get at" others. Really. Collect (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Collect, I already reported what's the problem for my AfDs. It's you and your bad faith. And I have withdrawn the AfD just after some minutes because I'm here in good faith.Pizzole (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Um -- two hours is not "some minutes" and you CSDed an article about the first African American letter carrier, and an article about the world's most renowned publisher of reference works on artists. And did not even apologize on the talk pages for the nominations. "Just after some minutes" is pretty brazen. Collect (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This editor started going after Collect yesterday with frivilous AfDs[83] [84] and [85], all of which were closed Speedy Keep. I believe it has something to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Horror Movie Database possibly relating to some COI the editor may or may not have [86]. This looks to be just another step in that same harassment. I think they have passed the threshold for at least a WP:BOOMERANG block for disruptive editing. JbhTalk 00:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdrawn the AfD. Collect are persecuting me for days, not yesterday. No COI for me. And for Collect? Please check out his history.Pizzole (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The real problem here it's that I'm not english or american and I dont't know well the language. I can't well protect myself from your bad faith.Pizzole (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This matter was discussed yesterday at Jimbo's talk page. I will repeat here what I first said there: Pizzole "is retaliating against people who support deletion of their overt SPA self promotional editing by nominating for deletion articles those other editors have written, on spurious grounds. It is naked and it is ugly. Fortunately, it will not be successful, but it gets people riled up and wastes people's time. Classic tendentious editing." I hope that a boomerang gets taken out of storage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, it isn't true. I want to stop the persecution from Collect and his negative behavior towards me. I have withdrawn the AfD by myself because I was wrong. But who protect me from Collect? Pizzole (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: you talk about Classic tendentious editing. Take a look at the last edits on one of the pages I created: [87]. Check out the two nominations in one week of this page in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Is this Classic tendentious editing or not? Pizzole (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a direct question for you, Pizzole: Do you have an undisclosed financial connection with Antony Coia or any of these other articles? Your behavior at the website AfD and the various related articles tends to create that impression. I do not want to violate your privacy, but if by chance you have any financial interest in these topics, you have a legal obligation to disclose it immediately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 3) I am glad you followed my suggestion and withdrew your AfD nominations of articles created by Collect and Onel5969. Nobody is persecuting you. Wikipedia is an collaborative effort, and you can not expect the rest of us not to edit e.g. Antony Coia or have an opinion on Internet Horror Movie Database. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Sam Sailor, and I'm glad that you are a reasonable person. I not expect all of you to have an opinion on Internet Horror Movie Database but I want a real debat and not a persecution without proofs. This is not mature. And if comments are immature and the same user persecute me in all pages, I think that not all wikipedians are really correct.Pizzole (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the first edits of Collect in the page Antony Coia i created was to modify "owner of the internet horror movie database" to "owner of a commercial site". What is this? Is a genuine edit? No. It's vandalism? Yes. And it was a week before the AfD close.Pizzole (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't sound in the least like WP:Vandalism. LjL (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at here: [88]. It isn't vandalism? He changed the text to insert about a site that sell movies. But the site don't sell movies. Is this a correct edit for a Wikipedia. I don't think so.Pizzole (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere does it says it "sells movies", it just says it's a commercial website. Anyway, no, that sort of thing is absolutely not vandalism. Vandalism on Wikipedia has a narrow definition: I encourage you to read WP:Vandalism. LjL (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that edit wasn't vandalism. It was the removal of a link which looks to me like an attempt at advertising a site. Your inclusion was inappropriate, the removal was appropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but you are wrong. There wasn't links. Stop talking about untruth. I'm new but i'm not an idiot. This is Wikipedia and not a forum. And Collect reported that website sell movies in the debat: [89] just after editing the page Antony Coia. Ok, it's not vandalism but it isn't a correct edit for a wikipedian. I'm forced to add tons of sources but Collect can edit articles with untruths and to ruin a debat with unsourced comments? Pizzole (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At the AfD discussion on the Horror db page, I repeatedly asked Pizzole to drop the stick. Which he refused to do. His engagement in this discussion is a continuation of that behavior. He then proceeded to target editors who disagreed with him. I suggested that he withdraw the bad faith AfD nominations, which he refused to do, more than once. Eventually, after other editor(s) (I'm not sure if it was more than one) also suggested this course of action to him, he did withdraw those nominations. He is a new editor, so a certain amount of slack should be given him. But this continued behavior is becoming very troubling. Please, Pizzole, read the links that other editors point you to. Don't argue simply because you feel wronged. Arguing with experienced editors is not a good start. Onel5969 TT me 01:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but it was a trial. This isn't the right place for me, maybe. I can not stand untruths and ambiguous behavior. I know that here there are a lot of valid people and good volunteers but I expect that in Wikipedia, all the comments are truthful and grounded. I keep reading unsubstantiated claims and no one checks the truth. It's very frustrating for a newbie. I am a consistent person and I can't wait for stars and merits to have to be considered credible. No one will believe me because I'm new and because you, old wikipedians are in bad faith with me. Thank you. Pizzole (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "I expect that in Wikipedia, all the comments are truthful and grounded" ← It's Wikipedia, not Dreamland... you really are off to a bad start if you're just in the business of feeling persecuted after any potentially less-than-exact comment. LjL (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok. This is your home, not mine. You decide how things go. Guest are unquestionable and base more on stars and merits. I'm not interested anymore in the debat. Things are misunderstood. Maybe because I don't know well english. Don't worry. I'm adult. ;)Pizzole (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cullen328, I don't have any undisclosed financial connection. My behavior is matter of principle. If anyone claim for a delete has to comment with truth and not with assumptons. The debat was a farce. I'm not interested in talking anymore about it. Pizzole (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much to add here. If someone is an WP:SPA whose only actions have been to create two articles on non-English subjects and have them merged into one by an AfD, then they're likely to see some of the same names commenting on "everything I add to Wikipedia pages" as they comment on that AfD and cleanup the merge. My AfD !vote certainly wasn't "without reason", and my only edits to Antony Coia have been to flag or remove unsourced content, and some minor copyediting and cleanup. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The movie database article was about an english subject. Is a english-language website an english subject? Yes. And I edited some other articles here on Wiki but only about horror cinema like Soska Sisters, Bruno Mattei, Lucio Fulci and Joe D'amato. So, if in Soska Sisters page I added horrorsociety.com as source, am I affiliate to that website? No. Pizzole (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And one of the "frivolous" AfD I opened, received a "delete" claim from an admin just after few minutes. The articles I AfDed was not very well sourced. Now it's different and more sources have been added.--Pizzole (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: look at this article [90] what sources are these? [91], [92], [93], [94] but they aren't the unique. I need to delete them? It's correct?--Pizzole (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A source can, at least in some instances, consist of a commercial site. I don't see anything immediately wrong with those sources, although I think I recall some guideline against linking to Amazon in book sources, but that seems like a detail, the important thing being having the key information about the book. LjL (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure. And the other sources? All is good. Yeah!--Pizzole (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And this one? [95] What kind of source it is? Oh yeah, everything is perfect.--Pizzole (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not responding to rants and sarcasm. LjL (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want you to respond to sarcasm but only about the invalid sources I linked here. --Pizzole (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note In this article [96] where are the sources about de birth date and place? And where are the sources for the citations?--Pizzole (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you find that sources are lacking for basic facts in articles, feel free to add them. The citation is sourced. LjL (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This text sound me like advertising, am I wrong?: "Dr. John Phillips, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities praised Seymour's work at Rollins. According to Keith Henderson of The Christian Science Monitor

    What Seymour has accomplished in his eight years here is "pretty remarkable," according to John Phillips, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. "He's gone against the trends." When others have been willing to say, "whatever people want, let's provide it," Seymour has never veered from his purpose -- the establishment, as Dr. Phillips puts it, of "a high-quality liberal arts institution in a place that's associated in the public's mind with Disney World and fun in the sun."--Pizzole (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you read WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LjL (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Pizzole: My firm suggestion is that you not go off on any source deletion sprees as right now, it would be seen as WP:POINTY behavior and you would likely loose your editing privileges for a bit. Just because other articles have poor sources is not a reason to include more. If you have not done so please read our policy on reliable sources and maybe look through some of the discussions at the Reliable Source Noticeboard to get a feel for things.

    Since English is not your first language you might want to reconsider the use of the term "persecution". It is a very strong term in the English language and I can think of no circumstances when it would be appropriate to use it in the context of behavior here. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and if someone disagrees with you assume they feel they have a valid reason for doing so and figure out what that reason is. Wikipedia has rules but you need to read the blue links quoted to you, not just the name or the first few lines. Look for the parts of the policy/guideline that disagree with your position not just what you think supports it. It takes time to learn the how to edit here and if you get stuck on what you think should be rather than what is you will only be frustrated. Cheers. JbhTalk 14:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have understand your messages. I'm an idiot and you have stars. I show you reliable and independent sources but I'm wrong. I tell you that other articles have not valid sources (something like 404) and so, I'm wrong too. Here I'm the newbie and I can't have any voice that matter. I already read the policy about realiable sources. Dozens of times. So there are 2 possibilities: 1. I am really an idiot. 2. I'm only a newbie and a spammer (for you). But sorry, here I'm the italian boy who knows how to open a real debat in english language. --Pizzole (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your attitude is being awful, honestly. This is not just about WP:RS, far from it. And by the way, dead links ("404") aren't automatically unreliable sources at all. Read WP:Link rot. LjL (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll try for the second time. What source is this one? [97] And this one? [98] Please... I need your help to understand Wikipedia. Are these two sources, valide and reliable? Thank you!--Pizzole (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the opposite of an expert on TV/film topics, but I'm not sure why that source is there since it doesn't seem to mention the fact that David P. Levin was in any way related to TV Land Confidential. Maybe it should be removed. But do you understand that the fact some articles may have bogus sources doesn't authorize you to do the same? LjL (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But I don't do the same!! I'm here to find help! My sources was reliable. They was sources from newspapers, blog and website written by journalists, blogger and professional writer. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand why I can't stop to have a voice here? This is not justice.--Pizzole (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blogs, for instance, are usually not considered reliable sources. LjL (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Only because is wordpress? And I talked about registered newspaper written by journalists. Collect claim a watch on the article Antony Coia because some sources are written on Wordpress!! Even if there are a staff page. In the article about the website there was 17 reliable sources. In the article antony coia there 21 sources, even from newspaper (La Gazzetta del mezzogiorno) but my pages are under continuous attack.--Pizzole (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pizzole: Please try to believe me when I tell you with kind and good intentions: take some time off from Wikipedia for the next couple of days. You do yourself no favor with this discussion. Tanti saluti -- Sam Sailor Talk! 15:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the problem, Sam Sailor. Why I can't have a voice? What is my fault? Why you threat me? Why do you all think I'm in bad faith? If you can't believe me, you can block me because there is no chance for me to find the truth. I'm italian and I have a big pride. I'll never shut up near the untruth--Pizzole (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your nationality has nothing to do with this, and the idea that it would influence your amount of pride is borderline offensive. Sometimes I choose to hide or downplay my nationality to avoid being associated with people with your sort of attitude and behavior. LjL (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're italian, right? :D Please stop to quote only my negative comments. ;)--Pizzole (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NoteOk, stop. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzole (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pizzole, take this from someone who edits occasionally, there are core secondary sources that establish notability. The articles you have linked have those. Then there are primary sources that you have been linking to above that have minor details that are above the level of trivial information and add useful, uncontroversial information. These are used throughout Wikipedia to add further detail about articles that have robust secondary sources. Articles from the lowest stub to many Featured articles have them. 129.9.75.194 (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't say what he would stop doing. He said "Ok, stop. I'm sorry." If he actually does stop retaliating and complaining, then that solves the problem, hopefully lesson learned. We can wait a little bit and see what he does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user 175.32.97.37

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

    The IP user 175.32.97.37 continuously edits numerous television related articles without adding any references for his/her additions. While the edits are indeed usually constructive or relevant, the user has been constantly reverted with edit summaries explaining that he/she needs to add reliable sources for the additions made. Additionally, the IP user's talk page has numerous warnings on it about adding unsourced content, yet the message still has not got through to this user. I also requested an edit notice on the article Border Security: Australia's Front Line which the user has repeatedly copied episode synopsis word for word from copyrighted material, yet the user has continued to do so despite the notices on this and other pages.

    Again, the user is not vandalising or deleting content for no reason, which I know makes the situation difficult, but none of the talk page, reverted edits or page edit notices seem to have gotten through to him/her. Some examples are [99], [100], [101], [102] and [103]. Thanks for your time, User:Whats new?(talk) 05:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism at Brad Warner

    IP blocked, many BLP violations on that page Rev-Delled. GABHello! 16:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Some vamdalism by an IP going on here. I've reverted once; could someone please revert again, and protect the page for a while? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's only one IP, so I've blocked it instead. Elockid(BOO!) 13:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Blocked for legal threat. GABHello! 16:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    120.144.130.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on Adelaide Institute, with this edit/summary. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The user also appears to have (and be indirectly declaring) a WP:COI per this comment on MelbourneStar's talk page. LjL (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for making a legal threat. Liz Read! Talk! 14:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Quick question...

    IPs can be indeffed now? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User Tzowu

    Tzowu constantly removes sourced material without explanation, ignoring other users and the talk page. On article Franjo Tuđman he has removed sourced material without explanation multiple times, even though there is a discussion on the talk page. It is common for this user to engage in a edit-war. He has done this many times before, which makes him a really problematic editor. He has many times tried to bully other users by edit-warring and ignoring the talk page. Now I am reporting him because some days ago when another user has reverted his edits and has suggested to me that if Tzowu does that again that I should report him here. That same user has warned Tzowu on his talk page, and Tzowu has in the mean time deleted that warning. It is really hard to be constructive when you have a user who is disrupting everything and pushing his own agenda without discussing anything. Here are some of his edits: 1 2 3 4 5

    For user Tzowu edit warring is a normal way to edit Wikipedia, and that kind of thinking is horrible. That leaves only one option to other users, and that is to report him. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not true, I'm on the talk page there, you are not. The content of the lead is a subject of a RfC, while my last edit was for the article body, which you reverted without examination. Even edits that involved typo fixing and adding images from commons. I also discussed the comment of Rms on the Franjo Tuđman talk page, as he didn't take a closer look and see that I explained my edit on the talk page. So I don't see which rule did I break. As for you, you basically called my edit insane [104], and now you say that my "kind of thinking is horrible", that I'm a "really problematic editor", a "bully", "distrupting everything" and "pushing his own agenda". So I'm reporting you for insults in a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. Let's remember that in the past you insulted my parents [105] and called me a liar [106] [107]. Have a nice day. Tzowu (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In your edits you have removed sourced material without explanation. Threatening me won't help you, and it is rude. Everyone can see what you are doing. Rms125a@hotmail.com suggested me to report you if you do that again and so I did. You have ignored the talk page, and everyone can see that. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting the bickering aside, the dispute is about whether to include material in the lead that apparently everyone agrees should be in the body. Both parties are edit-warring at the article over it, and both are discussing the issue on the Talk page of the article. An RfC was started I believe yesterday. At this point, very few editors have contributed to the RfC, so there is no consensus. This does not belong at ANI. It's an ongoing content dispute that should be resolved hopefully through the RfC. If the edit-warring continues, though, one or more parties risk being blocked. Also, both of you should cut out the name-calling and stick to content. I don't much care what the history is between the two of you. The time to stop that sort of behavior is now. And that's just as true here as it is in any venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Spambot attack

    We are under attack by IP spam bots from China. Please click on "recent changes" to locate these IPs. I have to get ready for work now, need help here. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon IPs reversion drive

    Following IPs involved. 1, 2, 3, 4 at article viper (rapper), possible WP:COI, placing huge list of linked self-published music releases (uploaded to Spotify) as part of what looks like WP:SPIP. Encouraged discussion, nothing, drew attention to WP:NMG, no engagement. Semitransgenic talk. 18:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Light show

    This editor, also known as Wikiwatcher1, was placed under a topic ban prohibiting image uploads less than a year ago Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community, after an extensive copyright investigation and an essentially unanimous ANI discussion (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#Long-term_copyright_concerns:_User:Light_show). The topic ban has not been lifted or relaxed. Nevertheless, Light show resumed uploading images here on October 17. User:Moonriddengirl blocked Light show earlier today. A review of Light show's contributions shows that they both continue to disregard the extensive copyright concerns that have been expressed in the past, and have otherwise violated image use policies. Their recent uploads, in particular, show a complete disregard for the serious concerns that led to their topic ban:

    1. File:Sharon Tate 1966.JPG, No evidence of prior publication, or of the date or location of the supposed publication. This may have been the most serious problem; as Moonriddengirl stated in the ANI discussion, Light show "was advised by one of the WMF attorney that for us to be certain of copyright he needs to verify on upload whether an image contained a copyright notice, how the exact image was released, and whether the release was 'general' or 'limited'". Yet Light show is, yet again, disregarding these simple, basic requirements. Same problem with File:Sharon Tate still.JPG.
    2. File:Mamie Van Doren.jpg. This image carried no indication of US publication (or, really, of any publication). Instead, the back carried a Spanish-language stamp indicating it had been sold through a retailer in Latin America. To the extent there was any evidence of publication, it indicated that the image was published outside the US and that neither a copyright notice nor copyright renewal was needed to protect copyright.
    3. Polanski and Tate 1968.jpg. This photo was taken in London, and while distributed for promotional purposes, was intended to publicize a UK event. There was no evidence of US publication. It was offered on ebay by a Canadian seller. There was absolutely no basis for concluding that US law applied and the photo was public domain.
    4. Light show made repeated posts at Wikipedia:Files for upload, trying to escape their topic ban without disclosing its existence. Many of these requests show the same disregard of copyright issues that led to their topic ban, including items 1-5 and 7 here [109]. While requests at this board may technically not breach the topic ban, it borders on improper proxying requests and, given Light show's recalcitrance, amounts to more, and cumulatively substantial, timewasting for editors who understand and accept our copyright policies. It's also clearly not what that process was intended for.
    5. On August 17 and 18, 2015 -- barely two months ago -- Light show deliberately committed major NFCC violations by adding multiple nonfree images [110][111][112] [113] (not a complete list) to Jack Nicholson, which is, of course, a BLP, and is amply illustrated with free images. Compounding the violation, Light show, despite being experienced with our image use policy, did not provide article-specific use rationales for the images. I removed the violations about a month later [114], but didn't realize at the time that Light show was behind the violations.

    I therefore propose that Light show's topic ban be expanded, to prevent further waste of other editors' time and efforts in necessary scrutiny of their edits, as follows:

    • Light show may not post requests at Wikipedia:Files for upload;
    • Light show may not add nonfree images to any articles;
    • Light show may not edit file description pages to change file descriptions from nonfree to free.

    Copyrights may be a complex subject, but that that cannot justify ignoring simple, basic rules. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He also mistook being technically able to upload images with being allowed to upload photos. I'm not sure what's unclear about an indefinite ban on uploading images. clpo13(talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Light show claims that he misunderstood something about the ban when uploading the files. If there was a simple misunderstanding, then I do not think that an indefinite block is appropriate.
    One problem with many of Light show's uploads is that he often states that files are in the public domain without providing any evidence of this. If we want him to learn from his mistakes, it may be better to arrange a solution where the editor can ask for assistance before an image is uploaded. Therefore, I am not sure if banning the user from using files for upload is a good idea, as that page is meant for editors who need help uploading images. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume the indef block will be lifted (or made limited duration) by Moonriddengirl as soon as Light show agrees to abide by their topic ban. The problem with allowing Files for upload requests is that Light show has not been using the page for requesting help, but for rearguing the same issues over and over. After the mess they made at the Nicholson bio, I've lost any hope that they're ready to learn. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An indefinite block is nothing more than a block without a set expiration. It is not a forever block and could last mere minutes. I've unblocked him after reiterating that the topic ban remains in effect so he can contribute here. However, I do not believe that this resulted from confusion between the two projects and their rulings. Light Show was blocked on Commons for nearly a year before he was topic banned, as I noted here, and continued uploading images to Wikipedia throughout. He knew then the difference between Commons and Wikipedia. (As he should, being a contributor of nearly 8 years.) That he has an agreement whereby reviewed images may be uploaded to Commons after they are preapproved does not mean that he can upload to Wikipedia any more than his block on Commons meant he could not upload here (a fact he understood). Beyond this, he was cautioned on Commons by the admin who unblocked him that he could not assume tacit approval on 14 October. Three days thereafter, 17 October, is the day he started uploading images to Wikipedia - for none of which he had approval here or on Commons: File:Vincent Sherman.jpg (10/17); File:Polanski and Tate 1968.jpg (19 October); File:Sharon Tate still.JPG (20 October); File:Suzanne Somers - Three's Company.jpg (20 October); File:Mamie Van Doren.jpg (20 October); File:Walter lippmann.jpg (22 October); File:Maureen-OHara and Walter Pidgeon-1941.JPG (25 October). Prior to his block, Light Show understood quite well how to upload images to Commons (as distinct from Wikipedia) and more recently since his unblock has managed to upload modifications to older images. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone to have been on Wikipedia for nigh on 8 years to not know that bans of any sort, excluding site bans, cannot be enforced by admin tools except by blocking the account smacks of BS. Blackmane (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support proposal - I remember the thread linked above from a year ago. In response to a query to WMF's copyright lawyers, the community advised Light show that they should follow certain simple criteria when uploading photos; Light show's response was somewhere in the vicinity of flagrant refusal, and that led to what I thought was already an indefinite ban on uploading images. An indefinite topic ban recognizes a severe problem, which copyright of course is, but gives the banned user the opportunity to acknowledge their mistakes and learn to edit according to community standards (and in this case, the law). Light show's recent actions show continued flagrant refusal, so a block for violating their ban and a discussion about extending it are appropriate. We're not talking about a few mistakes by a new user, we're talking about thousands of unacceptable contributions. And Light show continues to insist that their own novel interpretation of copyright law is correct, when they have been told that they are wrong by lawyers. I think that Hullabaloo's proposal is quite reasonable - this is a user who has shown up to this point that they should not be allowed to participate in Wikipedia images at all, and Light show shows no signs of even trying to improve. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of note: I didn't think of it, but since Light show is currently blocked, they cannot reply here, but they have replied on their talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by User:Light show, reposted from their talk page

    As noted above, I have last year proposed on User:Moonriddengirl's talk page and last month on Commons that I would add a special talk page with links to potential images in order to get them reviewed and pre-approved. I was therefore unblocked. MRG and a Commons admin both also suggested I try to find other editors to pre-approve them, since a wide broadcast of my request wasn't getting any feedback. As far as I can see, the only other place to request an editor's review and feedback was at Wikipedia:Files for upload, in which case they would review and upload an image. I use the term "broadcast," since MRG has nearly 700 watchers on her talk page and the Commons Copyright group has 750! My photo proposal pages got 250 reviews. Yet not a single editor could or would review any bio-related images. Therefore now banning me from even requesting another editor's help seems contradictory in the extreme. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding your comment at the ANI, "Light show deliberately committed major NFCC violations by adding multiple nonfree images...", I think that while the use of the images on Jack Nicholson could have been disputed, but weren't, they were in no way a "major" violation. That's plain silly. For example, I added a supporting image to Nicholson's page, directly relevant to the commentary. Not only was the image used to support the entire subject discussing the particular film, but the image supported the descriptive details. The other non-free images were likewise included alongside commentary discussing the particular films. And while I wasn't going to argue the point after your deleting the images, their use is only slightly less relevant to their use on the film article's pages, none of which discuss either the image or poster itself. And FWIW, most of the other free images are recent event candids which really add little or nothing to the commentary. The article could clearly benefit from some descriptive relevant images besides snapshots of him at a recent party or holding a wine glass somewhere. --Light show (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding another comment, "Light show made repeated posts at Wikipedia:Files for upload, trying to escape their topic ban without disclosing its existence," that makes little sense. My very first upload request, for Rod Steiger, explained that because I was unable to respond to a deletion request, I had already asked that the proposed image be uploaded by someone else. Seems a bit melodramatic, to me at least, to say I was "trying to escape" a ban. --Light show (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding User:Ivanvector's comment that my response to MRG about the copyright lawyer's reply "was somewhere in the vicinity of flagrant refusal." If anyone cares to read it, my reply was essentially the opposite of a refusal. Not only did I agree with most of what they said, I actually expanded on their reply by saying that they didn't go far enough. I wrote, "The result is that the attorneys have included "production stills," including movie posters as usually PD, when the opposite is the case."
    In other words, while they allowed "production stills" as PD, I pointed out that they in fact needed permission. I was adding restrictions to PD claims, not removing or "refusing" them. And FWIW, I have made multiple requests to have the WMF find a U.S. copyright attorney go over this issue, since part of the disputes relate to Europe's lack of laws about pre-1989 copyrights. --Light show (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    hi there i found mistake in one article

    This is not the place to discuss article content. Please go to Talk:Israel. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    on this article israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel on the category it saying that israel was establish in 1948 but the truth is that israel was establish in 1 may 1949 since there was an independent war in the middle she was only declared in that year please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.165.130 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Many countries don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist so it is appropriate to even say it was established? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.78 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Greengauge121

    Battlefield behaviour at Movement for Socialism (Britain), and other pages in past - many warnings, and history in deleted comments on user talk page. Clearly a new editor with much to learn, but polite warnings are having zero effect. Some intervention needed, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor concerned is currently at 6RR at that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This Ghmrytle (aka Guy Hamilton) is pursuing an editing vendetta against me since I successfully managed to modify the BBC page of the obviously right-wing bias in his edits. He started the "battlefield behaviour" with his sneering, pompous put=down to my initially cordial reply to a post by another editor. This individual is obnoxious, arrogant and pompous and deserves a lesson in netiquette. I am deleting the content of the disputed page (and not the page per se)because there is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate the actual existence of the Movement for Socialism. The MASTER EDITOR III refuses point blank to post any evidence for its existence and yet he lets its supposedly factual content pass unchallenged. If Wikipedia is replete with master editors like this, then heavens help us! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengauge121 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "I am deleting the content of the disputed page (and not the page per se)" - all you left was the title? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel that he article in question here does not meet Wikipedia's standards, you can always list it for deletion at WP:AFD. However, just because you don't link the tone of the article does not give you the right to completely delete all of the content from it. That's considered page blanking and seen as vandalism. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given Greengauge121 a 31 hour block for edit-warring. You could also have filed a complaint at WP:ANEW. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did file a report there, I guess that's moot now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest this thread could now be closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I suspect we may need to revisit the issue in a day or two's time. Hopefully I'm wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You could be right, but we have to adopt WP:AGF and assume the editor has seen the error of their ways? I must admit the tone used in responses and the use of multiple usernames does not bode well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, this editor has engaged in battleground behaviour before, against editors who tried to help them at the Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    2.27.x.x / 2.24.x.x (Orange Home UK) persistent transport system vandalism

    Hi, got a problem with a person or group of people in the 2.27.x.x / 2.24.x.x (Orange Home UK) ip range performing persistent vandalism on transport articles/templates (changing numbers and colours mostly). I had been reverting (those I've found), warning and reporting to WP:AIV. However they are now changing IP addresses frequently without even being warned (so maybe a group of local friends) and I'm not sure I've caught it all - and not sure what can be done if anything?

    Today I found Special:Contributions/2.27.214.244, Special:Contributions/2.27.206.246, Special:Contributions/2.27.215.53, Special:Contributions/2.27.214.64 and Special:Contributions/2.27.206.144 at it.

    Previously:

    There may be others I didn't make a note of as well, as it's taking me longer to find, fix, report, track than it does for them to vandalise. (Also I haven't bothered to inform all of the above of this report as it seamed like a pointless exercise - let me know if it must be done!)

    Can anything be done to combat this? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's likely one person on a dynamic IP rather than a group of people. The ranges are 2.27.192.0/19 (covers 8192 IP addresses) and 2.24.0.0/16 (covers 65536 IP addresses). It doesn't look like the second range has been used by your guy since the 15th, so there's no point blocking it. But it looks like we can block 2.27.192.0/19 without a lot of collateral damage so I am going to block that range for a week. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at MEDRS

    Hello, recently there was an RfC that was closed with a consensus reading that stated a particular change was warranted. However, there have been a couple of editors who objected to the reading and have been disruptively edit warring this change off completely, User: Alexbrn, User: QuackGuru and User:CFCF. See diffs 1 2 3 If they have a problem with it, there are other routes to take, but it appears they have chose disrupting and edit warring. LesVegas (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The closer was not clear how it should be worded and is it clear there are specific countries where journals are of low quality such as Chinese journals. See Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Country_of_origin for current discussion. Without context LesVegas continued to add "country of origin" to the MEDRS guideline page.[115][116][117][118][119] LesVegas claims what he added was the "best compromise". See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive896#User:LesVegas for previous discussion involving LesVegas. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing the close was clear on is country of origin is not a valid reason to exclude high quality sources.[120] Its the wording afterwards that some want to use to create a loophole. I think it is possible that the simple "country of origin" could have been added to MEDRS list of things that dont disqualify high quality sources and the remainder could have been worked out. Simply removing things that have a consensus close isnt a good idea. AlbinoFerret 21:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is qualifying low quality sources such as Chinese journals when "country of origin" is added [121][122][123][124][125] without any context. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats part of what I was refering to. The "country of origin" wording is clear in the RFC close. The rest is not. Taking that out with the rest is tossing the baby out with the bathwater. AlbinoFerret 22:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    During the RfC evidence was shown that Chinese journals are low quality. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC was asking if we should add "country of origin" to that particular sentence. The consensus read was "yes". By the way, the closer came back to answer QuackGuru's objections with a reply stating you have an odd interpretation is utterly nonsensical. Get the point. Discussion closed. And for everyone's information, QuackGuru was also recently topic banned from a topic related to this discussion and his presence on this current discussion might be an attempt at border lining, the same behavior that got him topic banned in the first place. LesVegas (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think Chinese journals are low quality or high quality? QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's off topic. But the consensus reading clearly said that the high quality ones shouldn't be rejected based on country of origin. That this addition has been removed, is disruptive and is the only purpose of this thread. LesVegas (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is germane to the topic. Do you think journals from China are low quality or high quality? What you added was claiming there is no problem with country of origin. There is publication bias from certain countries. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I go along with consensus and therefore, I believe that the high quality ones shouldn't be rejected based on country of origin which was a problem that was occurring on a topic you have been topic banned on. LesVegas (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats a tangent QG, the RFC was about high quality sources, the section the edits are in is about high quality sources. Bringing up low quality sources is besides the point. AlbinoFerret 22:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone think it is possible that there is publication bias from Chinese journals?
    Please read "The outcome of the RfC is not constrained to be binary. It's intended to gauge consensus, and the closer found consensus to include 'country of origin', but with the caveat that it might be a legitimate consideration where "hard data" demonstrate a concern about biased literature." Including the phrase "country of origin"[126][127][128][129] without the caveat was a direct violation of the close IMO. LesVegas, do you think you had consensus for your change after reading the comments by others? QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    QG, we are waiting for the closer to clarify, bringing it up here is starting to look like forum shopping the question. AlbinoFerret 23:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It may–but QuackGuru was not the one who started this discussion. CFCF 💌 📧 23:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, QG did not start this section. But LesVagas did not ask for the language or RFC to be reviewed or make suggestions of what it should be, that is not the purpose of AN/I. He came here because some editors are reverting contrary to consensus from a RFC close. AlbinoFerret 05:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes

    ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. If anyone here wants ANI to deal with a user behavior issue, please post evidence in the form of diffs that establishes the behavior in question. Otherwise, this should be closed and referred to one of the content dispute resolution venues listed a WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, one editor here is trying to turn this into an off-topic content dispute so I can understand your confusion. This matter is purely behavioral with editors disruptively edit warring a phrase that had consensus to be added following this RfC. The closing reader also was asked to clarify and stated that the discussion was closed, yet some editors persisted in changing the wording to their liking or removing it entirely 1 2 3. That's why we're here. LesVegas (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is the upshot of RfC is not clear: the "behaviour" problem lies with axe-grinding editors falsely saying it is and trying to ram home their preferred text in support of such misrepresentation. And that would include you. Probably better this is discussed further in Talk, we shouldn't be trying to decide our WP:PAGs through edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect, there is a clear finding, and a unclear part. The closer will probably clear up the unclear part. But there is already consensus from the RFC for adding country of origin to the list of things that should not be considered when looking at high quality sources. The close can be found here. [130] The words of the closer are "There was consensus however that "country of origin", per se, is not a valid reason to reject a source (and no more valid than "funding sources") hence for the change." This isnt a case of a content dispute, this is a case of some editors not liking the close of a RFC and reverting contrary to consensus mentioned in a close. I will grant that some have added things that are unclear, and that should have been removed, but not everything. AlbinoFerret 05:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clear; you are oversimplifying it since nobody is arguing that country per se should disqualify a source. The point at issue is how to deal with sources when there are material grounds for supposing their national origin compromises them (so not "per se", but based on distinct evidence). But this is all better discussed in Talk rather than trying to "win" through misrepresenting the situation here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User deliberately provoking arguments at Talk:Jews

    The article Jews and its talk page is a sensitive topic even at the best of times, permanently semi-protected and under WP:ARBCOM-protection. Given this, it's highly problematic that No More Mr Nice Guy treats it as a battleground and repeatedly violates WP:SOAP and WP:AGF with multiple comments only directed at provoking other users and not even an attempt to discuss the article. These are some of the most recent comments by No More Mr Nice Guy:

    • "It's news to me" says the one-stater. What a joke. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% WP:SOAP) [131]
    • Another self-serving anecdote about Jews? What a surprise! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% WP:SOAP) [132]
    • That is all very obvious. Why do you think all these "anti-Zionists" have suddenly shown such an interest in this article? Check out who's participating in the NOR board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (nothing on the article, 100% violation of WP:AGF) [133]

    As a previously uninvolved user, I already removed these obvious policy violations once, and informed the user about the policies and warned them about this behavior on their talk page [134]. The user's response was to immediately revert me to reinsert all the above provocations once more [135]. It's obvious this user is only here to treat WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Already the name (No More Mr Nice Guy) is indicative, and repeatedly inserting (and reinserting) numerous comments only meant to provoke other users on the of the more sensitive talk pages shows that this user is WP:NOTHERE for the right purposes. Jeppiz (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kindly note that Jeppiz did not find any fault with another user telling me to "try not to be an idiot" or calling other editors' comments "useless" and "stupid", not to mention the general SOAPboxing my comments above are directly responding to. I'll leave the obvious "why would he focus only on one editor?" question open. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been involved in the whole dispute, but I left a notice to all users to discuss the article, not each other. No More Mr Nice Guy was by far the most disruptive. The comment above is of course irrelevant as a defense, as the fact that other users may violate a policy is never an excuse. While other users also used inappropriate language at times within comments about the article, No More Mr Nice Guy seems to be the only user with several comments that only are aimed at other users. Jeppiz (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me help you out here: my "It's news to me" comment was a reply to this comment. Kindly explain why you thought the comment I was responding to is relevant to the Jews article, why you don't consider it SOAP and why you didn't remove it and warn the other editor on his talk page, like you did with me.
    My "self-serving anecdote" was in reply to this comment. Can you see the self-serving anecdote (SOAP) in there? Can you explain why you didn't remove it or warn the editor on their talk page? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can explain it. I read it, considered it, didn't think it added much of value, but thought it at least addressed the topic. I never remove talk page comments unless they are obvious violations, like yours. The whole reason I, as an uninvolved user, filed this report was because I noticed you treat WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and you deliberately seek to provoke arguments, as shown in the diffs I posted. Your repeated insinuations here that I have some hidden agenda only strengthen that impression. You're reported here not because of your views ( the last two users I reported related to the Middle East were Pro-Palestinians so I really think I'm neutral in this matter) but because you're behavior is disruptive. Worse, it's deliberately disruptive, you continue to engage in it even after being warned. Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? The "it's news to me" comment addressed the topic? How very interesting. I think we've gone about as far as we can go here. Let's see what other editors think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a sensitive topic. What ARBCOM protection? Not seeing any indication that this article is under any sanctions, general or otherwise.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to the content of the discussion it would seem that WP:ARBPIA would apply to the discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NMMNG's antipathy to Nishidani is widely known and long-standing. Even in unrelated discussions, he will bring them up. Nishidani has at times snapped at NMMNG but the vast majority of their comments are content based. If Nishidani is not involved, NMMNG can be sometimes reasonable. Otherwise, all reason goes out of the window, with WP:ABF being the default. I see that editors on the WP:NORN page are being referred to by NMMNG as "all these anti-Zionists", which probably refers to me, since after Nishidani, I wrote the most number of comments there. Apparently, suggesting that the lead should summarize the article, in particular that the definition of a Jew should summarize the section "Who is a Jew" can only be done by someone with an ulterior agenda of destroying Israel. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review my block

    Please can I get a quick review of my block of Blethering Scot (talk · contribs) - partly because I was the one of the subjects of his insults here and here; and partly because I will not be around that much over the last week and don't want to be seen to be 'blocking and running.' FWIW he's probably attempting death by admin and has also tagged all of his sandboxes/usrpages for deletion. It all stems from a dispute he has had at 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season. I've not been involved in that but I have been involved in a subsequent discussion (which is where the insults were made). GiantSnowman 22:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like 36 hours was warranted, the language was pretty unacceptable and seemed to stem from a very minor dispute. From my experience of the editor it seemed quite out of character so a cooling off period would probably be for the best. To be honest I'm not sure how genuine the requests are given how quickly this seemed to escalate so I declined the speedy of the main space article on the grounds that it was difficult to assume genuine good faith given the way wider related discussions had progressed. Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently a discussion on OTRS regarding this. Amortias (T)(C) 23:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm logging off for the night, will try and come back on tomorrow morning. GiantSnowman 23:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the decline of speedy. It's a deletion request - doesn't mean we have to abide by the demand. As all contributions are released under CC BY-SA 3.0, there's no requirement that we abide by a G7 request, only that we consider it. In this case, as 2015–16 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season is well sourced and is widely linked, I see declining to be perfectly acceptable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the decline. Also we might need to revoke TP access looking at the threats(with or without merit) as it may be they're planning on releasing personal information but I'll leave that to someone with a bit to decide on. Amortias (T)(C) 23:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, the user is also insisting that User:Blethering Scot/WikiProject Football/Scotland task force be deleted. In all fairness, this template should have been moved to be a subpage of the related Wikiproject long ago. As all edits to Wikipedia are released under CC BY-SA 3.0, they have no ownership of it - but they have the right to disappear and not have the template lingering in their userspace. By moving it to a subpage of the Wikiproject, the users in that project can just update the usage on their userpages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Barek that moving the template is a good idea. BMK (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The userbox was moved by someone else into a subpage of the Wikiproject. So I have updated all of the transclusions to point to the new location, and deleted the redirect from the userspace location. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone needs a wider explanation of my involvement in this, it can be found here. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • A bit of general advice: if you are unsure of a block, it is better to ask for outside input before rather than after blocking. Perhaps what you really wanted to say is, "I made this block and the user might appeal, but I will be away. Feel free to amend as you see fit." Jehochman Talk 16:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user 173.21.188.179

    IP blocked for 72 hours by Jehochman. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Numerous past warnings on their talk page over the last three months. Persistent disruptive edits to Solar System articles and templates. They keep adding uninformative images to articles and when told why they are not appropriate for the article in question, they simply revert without comment. They've also been deleting information from templates and again, reverting back changes even when they are explained. ([136]) In the rare cases that they have left a comment with an edit, it's something like, 'OH MY GOSH STOP TAKING OFF IMAGES LEAVE THEM'. ([137]) --Patteroast (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    De-prodder

    This SPA has de-prodded about 20 articles in 15 minutes (as of this moment), the ip has no prior editing history... Vrac (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I know anyone can remove a PROD for any reason, but I think mass-removals like this should be considered vandalism, especially since they haven't justified any of their PROD removals. clpo13(talk) 01:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I had already asked them on their talk page, but it doesn't look like they're gonna respond. Vrac also reverted one of their edits, and they immediately reverted it without comment. Rchard2scout (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now they've moved on to adding {{old prod full}} to the articles they removed PRODs from. clpo13(talk) 01:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This SPA doesn't look much like a SPA. Deprodding has a set of requirements. One of which is giving a reason for your objection either in the summary or on the talk page. Absent this it can't be considered deprodded I feel.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting which says, in part, "You are encouraged, but not required,..." It may be annoying but there is nothing wrong it what they are doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, they're not breaking any rules, but that doesn't really matter. Removing PRODs from such a high number of articles without any explanation is clearly disruptive. And while we're on the subject, I strongly disagree with the fact that an explanation is not required. Just like you can't place a PROD without a reason, you shouldn't be able to remove one without a reason. JDDJS (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the IP 48 hours for disruptive editing. Since the removals of PROD were not in good faith, in my opinion anyone who believes the PRODs were justified can restore them. A brand-new IP who knows how to use the Template:old prod full is presumably a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user hasn't been active since the question was first put to them. They're clearly an experienced user, but there's no evidence that they're a sock, rather than just a user who doesn't use an account (which is not required). This block is wholly baseless in policy, and appears to be vindictive. The user isn't doing anything, and hasn't been online since questions were first put to them. Absolutely inexcuseable. WilyD 16:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user did over fifty-prod related edits after the question was put to them and they were informed of this thread. --NeilN talk to me 16:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, yes, I was confused by the timestamps in the userpage posts being in a different time-zone from the edit history. My rhetoric in the first place should've been somewhat toned down (although the block is still bad, and re-adding PRODs is still unacceptable.) WilyD 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember back when the Prod process was first implemented, a number of editors went around mass deprodding articles because they opposed the entire process itself. Nothing was ever done to those editors dispute repeated reports to ANI as those editors were within their rights dispute any prod. So why should this be any different? What evidence is there that the deprodding wasn't done in good faith? —Farix (t | c) 16:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That thing you describe seems very very WP:POINTy to me, and the fact nothing was done back then doesn't necessarily mean it was right, or that circumstances haven't changed due to the fact that PROD is now a much more established process. LjL (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion explicitly states that even bad faith removal of prod tags is allowed. Any editor who reads Template:Proposed deletion/dated will quickly discover Template:old prod full. I do not see any policy-based reason for this block. —Kusma (t·c) 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Proposed deletion can say what it wants (although condoning things done in bad faith seems like a very strange policy), but how does that make admins suddenly not allowed to block someone who's disrupting Wikipedia in bad faith? WP:Proposed deletion merely states that the template can't be re-added, anyway, not that administrative action can't be taken if it was removed inappropriately. LjL (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two issues here. One, is the removal of prod tags without giving any reason allowed? Yes. Two, can editors simply ignore good-faith concerns from other editors and simply continue on their way? In my view, no. Some response, however brief, is needed as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. --NeilN talk to me 17:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undone the block per objections here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I think that there is an ARBCOM ruling that says making mass edits against consensus, or when you have reason to know that they are objected to and do not discuss them, is itself disruptive editing. (I would have to search to find the exact ruling.) Other than that, I think TheFarix and Kusma are correct, there is no evidence of socking here, and not much of bad faith, IMO. But that ruling might be the basis of a block. DES (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I note that not so long ago, a user who dePRODded articles in a particular subject area with no explanation or with a clearly spurious explanation, was allowed to continue. The editor disagreed with the applicable SNG and was attempting to disrupt the deletion process to frustrate enforcement of a consensus guideline. If that was OK, there shouldn't be a block here. There is a prehistoric ARBCOM case that said that you could be blocked if enough editors disliked your dePRODding criteria, but that goes back to the days when ARBCOM was infested with sockpuppetteers, impersonators, and other bad actors, and should probably be disregarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that this shows we need to have a discussion about the current policy dePRODing articles. It does not make sense to even have PROD if an IP address can just massively remove them from articles without offering a reason. You can't PROD an article without a reason, so you shouldn't be able to de-PROD without one. Can somebody steer me in the right direction to start this conversation? JDDJS (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, but I wouldn't be surprised if a similar discussion is buried in the archives. clpo13(talk) 20:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the logic of being able to remove PROD tags is that PRODs are supposed to be for uncontroversial deletion. If the deletion is contested, the discussion has to go to AfD. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Define "contested" though. One thing is "contesting", as in, being against the deletion of a particular article; another thing is "contesting" the idea itself that articles can be PROD'd; yet another is mass-dePROD'ing likely so that you can grab popcorn and watch admins and others wikilawyer over policy at ANI. LjL (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Greco-Italian War

    Article semi-protected for one week by Diannaa. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The above article has seen a wave of vandalism over the last week. Per the talk page, editors are requesting admin intervention to perhaps block the article from being edited by anons for a short period to attempt to curb this.

    It is unknown if the below are socks of Thelematarios (who was making the same changes but has since agreed on the status quo, per their talk page comments) or if they are separate individuals or one person with a roaming IP address:

    37.6.92.172
    94.64.138.37
    94.70.90.207
    46.190.116.61
    46.190.117.52
    46.190.116.167
    109.242.65.98
    2.86.48.195
    220.157.131.109 (blocked as being a sock of AnnalesSchool)

    Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected the page for a week. For simple protection requests, you can also post at WP:RFPP, which is usually quicker I think. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lord and Taylor COI anon editor is back.

    Blocked again. GABHello! 16:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The Lord & Taylor COI editor has finished their second block, and is back inserting promotional material at Lord & Taylor. [138] This would be a perfectly good contribution to Women's Wear Daily, but on Wikipedia, listing this year's fall lines is blatant advertising. John Nagle (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked again, three months this time. Guess we'll see what's in the winter collection when their block expires. --NeilN talk to me 05:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion from sockpuppet disrupting Good Article nominations

    WP:DUCK case of sockpuppets performing WP:BLOCK EVASION to disrupt Wikipedia's Good Article nominations process.

    Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.

    Bringing here, as problem is ongoing, right now.

    Would appreciate admin action on this.

    Thank you,

    — Cirt (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Self admitted sock

    Sock blocked. JohnCD (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See here. Per common practice, I'm not notifying. Came to my attention through some trolling comments here. John from Idegon (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Question for administrator

    As the User:Marchjuly told me, i created the temp section for Keith Sequeira's Section Personal life in my own words. I request all administrator, OTRS and clerk For the rewrite of Keith Sequeiras personal life section and removal of the copyright violation tag as soon as possible. --kartiktiwary3 (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not 100% sure what you're asking to be removed, but it does seem like this would be a better question asked at the help desk. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone is spamming the name Gautam Mrinaal in Bollywood pages.

    First it started in Prem Ratan Dhan Payo (check my reverts) and the next revert by Peppy Paneer. After that I found it exists in many pages. This is not a website that can be added in spam blacklist.1 2 , All Ips start with 182.66/ range. 3 , 4--The Avengers (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding [5]. The Avengers (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on Scarsdale diet resuming within hours of release of EW block

    It looks like Anmccaff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) resumed an edit war over at Scarsdale diet almost immediately after release of previous block for edit warring. Diffs:

    While not a 3RR violation, it seems like a continuing pattern. The Dissident Aggressor 14:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was the admin who blocked Anmccaff for edit-warring on the other article. DissidentAggressor was also edit-warring. I didn't block them, though (the reasons are complex). DA, unlike in the other article, has nothing to do with the Scarsdale diet article, and, frankly, I don't trust their motives in bringing this to ANI. If you look at the history of the diet article, you'll quickly note that there was an edit war in September, a discussion on the Talk page, and no consensus as to what was appropriate. For whatever reason the last version in play was Anmccaff's on September 28. Then there was a blissful one-month break, and then Alexbrn reverted (while Anmccaff was blocked, which may of course be pure coincidence). That then triggered some back-and-forth between the two users. This issue should not have been brought here, and certainly should not have singled out Anmccaff. The involved editors need to spend more time on the Talk page, and DA needs to stay out of it unless they want to join the discussion based on content.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RfC might be workable. DRN, I suspect, would not. Anmccaff (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    peacocks, un-RS infos, personal bloglinks in "rakkhi bahini" page

    EndeavorBD add those in page, OP can remove not all, helpMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Endeavorbdfix linkMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you talking about Rakkhi Bahini'r Shotto-Mittha? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user being reported is an unregistered account. GRAPPLE X 16:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini and Endeavorbd (talk · contribs). And it also looks like a content dispute and should be handled on the article talk page for now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure what's going on here; is there a language barrier? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User Unbuttered Parsnip

    Hello. Unbuttered Parsnip blanked large section of Ryōtarō Okiayu which I reverted on AGF. Despite warnings, he then engaged in edit warring and I cautioned him accordingly. This user has a history of disruptive editing, edit warring and has been blocked previously also. User has a track record of not leaving edit summaries and has been warned several times. his talkpage and it is full of warnings, notices and then hostile comments by the user: here he used term "f**k off. And now, in response to my comment here, he responded with quote "Already stuck this shits in the pan were it be looks...." unquote. Several other aggressive comments can be found on his talkpage. Several edit warring notices have been issued to him but he does not seem to be slowing down. Incidentally, he was attempting to delete filmography from this page in discussion, and in Apr 2015 he was issued a 3RR warning for exactly the same reason (but for Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards). Not only is he abusive, he refuses to learn too. Please check here. This user appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE and his userpage reflects that. Kindly consider a block on this user. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming you're talking about this edit, I'd consider the removal entirely correct. His language could be better, but it's understandable to occasionally lose your cool when you're trying to uphold Wikipedia standards and someone keeps edit-warring with you. ‑ iridescent 19:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AKS.9955, what is the difference between your edit warring and Unbuttered_Parsnip's edit warring? You both have reverted 3 times now and neither one of you have made a single edit to the article's talk page. You have been warned before about edit warring also. Your response to Unbuttered Parsnip's edit warring warning was wrong. You are edit warring also but your response is that Unbuttered Parsnip was just out for revenge. Take it to the talk page. -- GB fan 20:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are both edit-warring and before I placed a comment on the article talk page, it hadn't been used since 2008. The filmography on this article is ridiculous and needs serious pruning. As for Already stuck this shits in the pan were it be looks, I would not be offended as I find it completely undecipherable gibberish. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Even gibberish can be insulting and offensive, Liz. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kumquat allopecia nickoldeon pork sausage hat trick, Kemosabe. BMK (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone revdel this egregious assault? Admins plz. clpo13(talk) 21:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone revdelete what? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lemon curry!! BMK (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Purplebackpack89 edit warring

    PROCEDURAL CLOSE
    A discussion about the issue has commenced here (btw, Taffe316 should watch out for the boomerang). (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User has been editing warring on 300 save club over a sentence I gave a valid reason for not to be on the article. User seems to have history of harassment and warring as you could see from his block log (he's been blocked 5 times). User has also resorted to senseless name calling as you can see here. Taffe316 (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I see the editor trying to discuss this on the talk page, but I do not see you doing the same, even though you edit warred as well (it takes two). What you told him on your own talk page, instead, was It's me me and only me because I'm the only one who has bothered to update the page during the regular season., which sounds a lot like WP:OWN. Care to clarify? LjL (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, he accused me of claiming ownership on the page saying it was me and only me who edits on it. I responded that the reason I'm the only one who updates the page is because no one else updates it, so I keep it up to date. For someone who supposed to be a conflict resolution person, you trying to take my quotes out of context is disappointing.Taffe316 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry the people on this board don't always necessarily take the reporter's side, and anyway, I am not a "conflict resolution person". You reported to the wrong board, by the way, the board for edit warring is WP:AN3. LjL (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, @Taffe316:, you might want to consider why I might be upset with you. I made some relatively innocuous edits of adding active leaders to baseball statistics pages, and you acted like it was WWIII. And you refuse to discuss your edits anywhere until you ramp things up to ANI. BTW, in the interest of consistency in your crusade against active leaders, you might want to remove them from the baseball statistics pages I haven't edited. pbp 00:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing this to AN/I was premature. Purplebackpack89 has started a discussion at the relevant project, WP:BASEBALL. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't have said it better myself...OWNership, failure to engage, and edit warring on Taffe316's part. Not to mention the fact that WP:3RR is the proper venue for this; and the five blocks number is inaccurate. pbp 22:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Engleham

    Dealt with. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have kindly requested User:Engleham to remove a personal attack against User:George Ho from his userpage (and, to a lesser extent, from Talk:Full Service (book)) but he refuses. I will not do so myself, as I am George's mentor, but I ask that the community intervene and do so on George's behalf. Shaming editors with a learning disability is entirely unacceptable for Wikipedia's standards of community. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Struck. Might be worth pointing them to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA if you haven't already. Amortias (T)(C) 23:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Dumb daisy competence issues

    Dumb daisy (talk · contribs) wrote on their user talk page: "I currently hold a Ph.D in the following: biology, neuroscience, psychology, physics, psychoneurology, applied neuroscience, mathematics, medical science.[148]" They started by edit warring on the Dissociative identity disorder page to insert POV material over the objections of myself and Flyer22.[149] Now they are edit warring with myself and Quercus solaris on Language acquisition to insert material like "Language acquisition is one of the quintessential human traits, specifically innate to the genetic adhered gene pool of specific groups of cultural humans." (a representative example of paragraphs of confused nonsense).[150] On Epic (genre), they wrote that epic "refers to not only epic amounts of action, drama, storytelling and literature, but also fear, passion and most of all an epic death," among other nonsense.[151] On Literary nonsense: "In few other forums is this seen more than in Wikipedia, because this is a place where vultures collect and attack as a whole those they see as weak and beneath them. Is this a form of literary nonsense or not?"[152] The rest of their edit history follows the same pattern, including more edit warring.[153] I propose an indefinite block. KateWishing (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=687849557"