Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive behavior with ethnic overtones on Blue Army (Poland) Talk Page

I'd like to report User:Faustian for disruptive behavior on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. Several editors are in the process of agreeing on a consensus based on the results of a nearly finalized RfC, which concluded that the there is a issue of undue weight and coat-racking within the article. Unfortunately, despite the outcome of the vote, Faustian has continued to argue that more information should be added, contrary to the RfC results, more importantly his behavior is taking on the characteristics of bullying when Faustian wrote: "So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source" and "Double-standards motivated by nationalism" and "You are presenting with a pattern of dishonesty" [1] . I would request that Faustian is blocked before this gets out of hand. Also, he continues to revert edits which have gained support — here: [2] [3] and [4]--E-960 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Darouet's assessment that your RFC is non-neutral and thus rather problematic. Additionally the most support is for the third of three options ("Other possible solutions") so it does not seem as though consensus is really very strong. I don't see that Faustian is doing anything to be blocked for. I would recommend you withdraw the RfC and rephrase it in an unbiased way, plus have only clear options for people to support rather than a vague "other." —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

—Мандичка, the RfC is a separate item (btw most folks clearly voted for option 3, no need to question the results), the problem I'm reporting on has nothing to do with the merits of the discussion. But, the tone struck by user Faustain, pls address my request. --E-960 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just telling you my unbiased impression. I don't think Faustian has done anything worth banning for and may have a point. You shouldn't be making those changes before the RfC is complete so Faustian is right to revert you. I don't agree with your assessment that it's a nearly finalized RfC. The tally vote math has "Option 1: 1.5 votes/Option 2: 2 votes/Option 3: 3.5 votes to reduce the text / 1 vote to expand the text" IMO this is not very clear at all and not much of a majority. Additionally, the RfC as you formed it clearly violates policy as it is very leading and biased, and thus an admin may choose to close it with no consensus by default. So I recommend starting over with a neutral question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

E-960 is operating as essentially a SPA devoted to removing negative information about the Blue Army. This is part of his disruptive process. The talk-page is filled with his mostly one-editor struggle to do this. He has already been caught deliberately misrepresenting what a source says. On another RFC he claimed [5]: " Also, as noted by Encyclopedia Judaica such actions were the result of "individual soldiers",[2] so the article text should not overemphasize controversial subject matter to tacitly imply that the entire army was a pogroming force." The actual source stated [6]: "Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." This sort of thing has been common with him. He is clearly not here to build an Encyclopedia but to remove information he doesn't like, and to disrupt the efforts of those who are here to build the encyclopedia. If anyone ought to be sanctioned, it should be him. Please do so.Faustian (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note the results of the RfC vote, I think most editors who commented have a genuine desire to improve the article, however the recent tone struck by Faustian is counter productive:

• Option 3: As suggested by users SMcCandlish and Ivanevian. I think that the proposed "third way" approach is fair and worth pursuing. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Faustian (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: Certainly keep lead and body material that describes pogroms, but add more information that also describes the causes of anti-Semitic and anti-Ukrainian violence, as we discussed in the Talk Pages above. -Darouet (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 2: Keep as is no changes. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: There is clearly a WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK problem here, but it is not as significant as the nom suggests. I do agree that this material can be compressed by about 50%, but a summary of it should not be removed from the lead. As noted below about Enc. Judaica, Haller's Army is notorious for this; i.e., it's one of the things that establishes WP:Notability. It's not WP's job to do a WP:SYNTH analysis of our own on how significant the alleged pogromming was in relation to the Blue Army's role in the war. Just follow the sources. That said, don't dwell and dwell on one aspect from cherry-picked sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 3: I wouldn't go as far as option 1, but the emphasis on anti-Jewish violence by the BA completely distorts this article, so a re-edit of some kind is definitely needed. Ivanevian (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1/3 I second Ivanevian; the article currently has an undue focus on this issue. I'd suggest shortening the lead a bit (what are "numerous segments"?), and trying to be more concise in the body. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Option 1: Re-edit the sections as recommended. Reason: It is too one-sided, hence POV now. Zezen (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

--E-960 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

He has now violated 3R. Reversions are here: [7], here: [8], here: [9] and here: [10]. He was warned here: [11].

Most of his reversions involved removing sourced information without consensus and despite a previous RFC having concluded that the information was acceptable in the article (RFC here: [12]).Faustian (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, the removal of this text was seconded by an experienced user Volunteer Marek, because the text originally cited to back it up was taken out of context and was missing key verses that completely changed the meaning of the statement. --E-960 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

False. The full passage was included and RFC passed with the full passage. Anyone can follow the RFC here: [13], just scroll down. The missing verses actually made the RFC less likely to pass. When I included the full paragraph it was determined that the statement in the article did reflect the original source. Had I deliberately left out information to make my case better (as you falsely claim I did) people wouldn't have disagreed with me initially.

At any rate, this is off-topic, although it does highlight your negative approach to wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, lord. Could we please have an admin involve themselves here? In all honesty, any editors who have had dealings with E-960 have been subjected to his blunderbuss techniques to the point of EXHAUSTion and should no longer be expected to assume good faith. He's an SPA who's NOTHERE being allowed to continue BATTLEGROUND tactics on all things ARBEE. Please see these archived ANIs: here, here, and here. He's a bully, pure and simple. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment, as I told Faustian, that the current discussion on the talk page, is attracting input from several experienced editors and we are receiving feedback on how to improve the disputed section, however Faustian wants to add material without gaining consensus and reverting text which was seconded by another user. I suggest any admin should look at the ongoing discussion before rushing to judgement. --E-960 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• On quick note, my last recommendation was to initiate a cool-off period until other editors can review the proposed edits. [14] I don't think that by making such statement I'm engaging in battleground tactics, just simply trying to get more editor to review possibly controversial text. --E-960 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• On a quick note, I don't accept this piece of WP:CRUSH as being 'respectful' in good faith. I'm afraid your reputation precedes you here. Paying lip-service to 'civil' when you believe it serves your purposes is a misrepresentation of the machinations of how and why you edit, and how you interact with other editors. Incidentally, starting this thread and posting this slanted 'request' on the AN is FORUMSHOPPING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Addendum: Anyone who reads through the protracted dispute on the article's talk page will see for themselves that the context in which you 'initiated' a 'cool-off period' belies your claim not to be batteground... and anyone who knows the first thing about how RfCs work know they are not a !vote... so why do you keep counting !votes? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has several editor comments and we are in the process of agreeing on how to fix the disputed actions, the votes are just a quick reference point. No need to ridicule my method, also because several editors have lend their feedback, I don't think that Faustian's approach is productive, when he tries to insert more information to the disputed section while the discussion is on how to reduce the size of the text to avoid Coat-racking with in the article. --E-960 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Faustian inappropriate comments questioning editor's ethnicity

Moved up from bottom of page as new report. BMK (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, for the the third time User:Faustian has questioned an editor's ethnicity on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page. This again happened after I submitted an ANI yesterday — 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — to check his behavior before it got out of hand. Unfortunately, my request was ignored. Since, then Faustian has made the same obnoxious remarks to Volunteer Marek.

• Double-standards motivated by nationalism? Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• In the RFC and here every non-Pole felt that it reflected the source. Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Prompting this response:

• I have no idea how you know the ethnic background of everyone who's commented here. Second, you are ascribing views to people based on their ethnicity "Y believes X because Y is Z". This is at best a form of offensive stereotyping and at worst a form of bigotry. Third, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to be aware that the proper way to carry out discussion is by commenting on content, not editors. Volunteer Marek 22:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm very frustrated by the apparent selectivity of how admins discipline editors, I myself have been accused of being an instigator, yet no disparaging remarks were made on my part. All the while user Faustian has been blocking content which was agreed on with other edits and making rude comments. Yet, no disciplinary action has been taken against him. Is this going to continue? --E-960 (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is your second complaint here about Faustian on the Blue Army article and the other one is not even closed. The reason why you're accused of being an instigator is apparent. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask that you address the statements made by Faustain, pls. Yes, it's the second request because I'm afraid you ignored the first. --E-960 (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC

He was just blocked for edit-warring: [15]; after coming off his block he is continuing his pattern of disruptions and harassment.

My statements that he is complaining about, in the talk section of an article about a Polish military unit that killed Jewish civilians: "In the RFC and here every non-Pole (once the full paragraph was included) felt that it reflected the source: [12]. Me, SMcCandlish ☺, Malik Shabazz, and here Darouet. truther2012 felt it wasn't but that was before I provded the full context, and he didn't respond after that. RFC was closed by Robert McClenon (talk who concluded "The statement does properly reflect the source." My statement that all the people who happened to not be Polish, felt that the statement reflected the source, was accurate. I suspect this may not be a pure coincidence. I have respect for you as an editor and I think you edit in good faith, but like all of us you might not be completely free of unintentional bias. A good thing about an RFC is that it can get neutral voices. In this case, the neutral voices didn't agree with you. I would be happy to do another RFC. My next and final comment on this topic was: " Volunteer Marek , I'm disappointed in your harsh tone; I had been quite civil with you. I did not ascribe views to people based on ethnicity but suggested the possibility of subtle bias, due to one's background, in you (as in anyone), whom I consider to be a good-faith editor. I pointed out that it would be good to have non-Eastern Europeans comment on these issues as they have no "dogs in this fight" and that on this specific issue concerning a Polish military unit non-Polish peoples' attitudes differ form Polish editors. Something to think about. that being said, I won't comment on this anymore and will stick to content."

This discussion was finished, but then E-960 (talk decided to use it to continue his pattern of harassment and disruptions.Faustian (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this was simply false: "All the while user Faustian has been blocking content which was agreed on with other edits".Faustian (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already addressed Faustian's behavior and once again I don't feel Faustian has done anything wrong. IMO he is arguing for a neutral viewpoint here, not just the Polish POV, which I think is necessary for content such as this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, majority of users who commented recently on the Talk:Blue Army (Poland) page: User:Piotrus, User:Ivanevian, User:Zezen, User:Volunteer Marek, User:SMcCandlish and User:SageRad believe that Faustian is not arguing from a neutral POV, but unfortunately when an admin is selectively looking through the content you can justify just about any kind of behavior. --E-960 (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet another misrepresentation, but off-topic here so I won't get drawn into a discussion here.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

E-960, please stop attributing sentiments to me. I do not endorse that attribution above. Please strike it. I haven't looked closely into the matter to make my own judgment. I was only called by Legobot to an RfC on the Blue Army (Poland) page, and my only contribution i believe was to help discern what the Morgenthau Report actually said. I did not weigh in as you suggest. SageRad (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for E-960

It's been suggested here that E-960 is a SPA for Poland who is WP:NOTHERE. I've noticed seriously problematic, non-neutral and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior so far on the talk page for the Blue Army, and elsewhere E-960 does not appear interested in engaging in a civil manner[16], [17]. We have previous ANI complaints[18][19] and I propose this be dealt with via a topic ban for Eastern Europe, which is already under WP:ARBEE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. His efforts are a largely a trail of disruptions. Faustian (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Against. This is a WP:TAGTEAM initiative, by users who's share similar POV on issues related to Eastern Europe. I want to show user Faustian's misconduct which has continually been ignored by admin Мандичка who marginalizes Faustian's out of line comments and instead tries to shift attention to users who oppose him. Simply a hit job. Also, the false charge of "SAP for Poland"… pls see e-960's edits to Gothic architecture, Brick Gothic, Baroque architecture etc. The entire argument if based on loose facts. --E-960 (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This is really preposterous to accuse me of being part of a tag team scheme aka meat puppetry. Additionally, your edits on architecture are largely related to Poland anyway![20], [21], [22], [23]], [24], [25] Looking through your edits, it doesn't appear you've ever made a single article edit not related to Poland either directly or indirectly (ie Allies of World War II). —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, WP:TAGTEAM is very different from WP:MEATPUPPET. And Мандичка isn't an admin.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:: See WP:TAGTEAM: "Tag teaming is a controversial form of meatpuppetry" —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You are extremely bias in your accusations. Yes, my interest focuses on Poland and it's history. I'm not going to get involved in editing subject matter I know nothing about like Quantum mechanics or history of History of Canada. Unfortunately, in an effort to pin me down, you are distorting the definition of "single purpose" account to fit your needs. --E-960 (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to add that — several editors including: User:SMcCandlish, User:Zezen, User:Ivanevian and User:SageRad commented and agree that the BA page has issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. So, my arguments and position is by no means unreasonable. --E-960 (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• I never said that. I just reviewed the article's talk page where i arrived due to a LegoBot call to an RfC, and my only comments were to establish a point of fact about the Morgenthau Report. Please strike my name from the above comment and don't attribute things to me that i didn't say. SageRad (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Too much drama and disruption coupled with silly accusations. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support This has been a long-running problem Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything even close meriting a topic ban. I also do think that E-960 brings up valid points on talk. There's a lot of discussion but that is precisely what is suppose to happen in these situations. Volunteer Marek  08:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, and take this to ArbCom. The only evidence presented is two diffs of questionable civility (one is more like excessive stridency, and neither are from the talk page in question), followed by a suggestion for an excessive topic ban from all Eastern Europe articles, which isn't justifiable. I don't think E-960 is the only problematic editor at the article. The page has been subject to months of editorial controversy (I've participated, via WP:FRS, in several RfCs there, which were basically rehashing the same issues). I'm skeptical that singling out one editor for a topic ban will resolve the problems at that article, and may simply amount to supervoting in an ongoing, long-term content dispute. This mostly appears to be a conflict between those who view the subject's notability as primarily or at least deeply tied to antisemitism, versus those who see the anti-Jewish violence material as a PoV/OR coatrack, overplaying the relation of alleged pogroms to the subject's history. There's a second dispute axis, alleging anti- and pro-Poland PoV pushing that doesn't seem tied to the antisemitism-or-not arguments. Finally, some of us with no dog in the fight(s) thought some coatrack and/or NOR and/or PoV concerns were valid, and some of them were not, and thus supported compromise; the multiple RfCs have not reached one. It's not primarily a two-editor or even two-faction dispute, so I'm skeptical that WP:DRN or WP:MEDCOM would be useful. This can probably be done at WP:ARCA, as a request related to WP:ARBEE, or maybe the clerks would instruct the filing of a new WP:RFARB (I don't spend much time at ArbCom, so I'm not sure). That won't resolve the content dispute but it will deal with the (non-singular) behavioral problems that are preventing resolution of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

E-960's problems extend beyond mere content dispute. He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to (disruptively) advocate for the Blue Army. Opening these ANIs against me seems to be part of that struggle. He has also made numerous false accusations, such as of tag-teaming, as well as edit-warring, on this very ANI. He made a false claim of what another editor stated on this ANI, as described by that other editor here: [26]. In addition to frequent misrepresentation of other editors' actions and words, there is also a pattern of misrepresenting sources to suit his agenda. For example, here: [27], here: [28] and here: [29]. He advocated for "During the fighting on the Ukrainian front individual soldiers within the ranks of the Blue Army acting on their own initiative attacked segments of the local Jewish population" when the original source stated "Foreign officers and the ties with France kept Haller's forces independent of the official Polish command, a fact exploited by Haller's soldiers (called the "Hallerczycy") for undisciplined and unbridled excesses against Jewish communities in Galicia. Attacks on individual Jews on the streets and highways, murderous pogroms on Jewish settlements, and deliberate provocative acts became commonplace. While these may have been on the initiative of individual soldiers, they were known to their officers, if not openly supported by them." Fixing this took a lot of effort due to multiple reversions by E-960. E-960 has also tried to blame the anti-Jewish assaults on links between Jews and Bolshevism ([it took an RFC to clear this one up: [30]). Here I found a piece of information, reliably sourced, that could result in a brief 6 word addition to the article: [31]. As seen from the diff, he falsely claimed one of the sources was not reliable and will of course fight to keep the information off the article. So apparently an RFC will be necessary for every piece of info that is critical of the Blue Army...or to remove every piece of "information" that (as in the case of the alleged Jewish support for Bolshevism I linked to above) seeks to justify or exonerate the Blue Army's actions by misusing sources. It just goes on and on. I fear that WP:ARCA and WP:ARBEE will simply be more tools for him to use in his efforts to defend the Blue Army. He may have already worn down Darouet (talk, who had been quite active but who has recently disappeared from this article, with his efforts.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, pls do not suggest that I insert bogus claims into the article — a source which you cited in the BA article has this statement: "In the borderlands many Ukrainians, Belorussians and Jews accorded an enthusiastic welcome to the invading Red Army." Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920 p. 108. In any case, I don't think this is the place to argue about specific text.--E-960 (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of editors who share aspects of E-960's concerns, including Volunteer Marek, Piotrus and SMcCandlish, who are vastly more competent and well able to guarantee that the article maintains appropriate balance while describing violence against minorities in eastern Poland. E-960 however has long stonewalled any kind of improvement of Blue Army (Poland) because of their commitment to exonerating the unit from actions for which they are notorious, and lack of interest in what either WP:RS or other editors really have to say on the issue. I wish I could say that they can be brought around, but I think that's a lost cause. Whatever we do, I don't think E-960 will ever be a productive editor at Blue Army (Poland). -Darouet (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Darouet (talk, I take this this is a support?Faustian (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm too involved to offer any meaningful support to this proposal, and I don't think that E-960 has nothing to contribute to Polish articles in general (it might be true but if so, I'm not aware). However, I do maintain they have nothing good to contribute to this article. -Darouet (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"E-960 however has long stonewalled any kind of improvement of Blue Army (Poland)" - seeing as how the current version reflects almost entirely Faustian's views I don't think your statement is true at all. E-960 has engaged in detailed and perhaps drawn out discussion on talk but a lot of their suggestions or approaches to improving the article have been ignored or... stonewalled. If there's stonewallin' going on here I think it's on the other side of the argument. Volunteer Marek  17:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've opened up neutrally worded RFCs and abided by them, and the current version reflects a compromise that you were involved in also, and not some sort of "Faustian's views" (except that, my view is that the article ought to reflect compromises that follow wiki guidelines with respect to reliable sources, etc.)  Volunteer Marek , E-960 has been caught making obviously misleading "interpretations" of sources (see my comment on this very section: [32]) to support his POV- any comment on that?Faustian (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support for all the reasons already voiced here by other editors who support a topic ban. Disruptive, battleground, and exhaust tactics have been used by E-960 not only on the article in question, but on all articles the user has been involved in since they began editing. As an editor, E-960 is unadulterated WP:SPA: prepared to get his/her own way by hook or by crook. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, unfortunately your opinion of me has an inherent bias — from the start you were accusing me of various "alleged" offenses, example: @E-960 and Ivanevian: Two editors now playing at WP:TAGTEAM in order to minimise the BA's reliably sourced violence does not make for consensus: --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC) But, then you realized you were wrong: Also, my apologies to Ivanevian. The allusion to tag-teaming was unwarranted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC). --E-960 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this vote has the character of "score settling". --E-960 (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you've taken that comment out of context. I apologised to Ivanevian, not to you. My opinion of your SPA, battleground, tendentious editing (etc.) activities still stands, and is not based on WP:GRUDGE but in following your behavioural patterns on articles and talk pages. Note that a handful of edits on articles such as Gothic architecture, Brick Gothic and Baroque architecture fit squarely in the middle of the promotion of the same subject matter beginning with your first edit to each article in the same sequence, and continuing on elaborating on the same tangent thereon: Gothic here, Brick Gothic here, Baroque here. Hardly a show of a diversity of interests and input on Wikipedia... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This looks to me as persistent disputes between two or more contributors, maybe a case of WP:TE/WP:DE, but it is very difficult to tell who (if anyone) was at fault. If anyone feels there is a serious problem here (I am not sure), please submit this to WP:AE. This subject area is covered by EE sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not merely a dispute, it's about a pattern of disruptive behavior, harassment (he opened this ANI in order to harass), misleading edits, wrong claims (evident here on this very ANI) etc. all done not in order to build the encyclopedia but to remove negative info about the Blue Army from the article about it. There's a reason why all the people who have interacted with E-960 extensively have had very negative experiences about him, that they do not have with others who may also agree with him on some issues.Faustian (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, why do not you or someone else submit a request to WP:AE? Most contributors who supported the topic ban above seem to be heavily involved in these particular disputes. I was not, but after quickly looking at this, I am not at all sure what should be done about it. Perhaps you are right, but this is not immediately obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it. We are here because he opened an ANI against me here for no legitimate reason, in order to harass me. Another editor, uninvolved in my interactions with him, reviewed the situation and proposed that he be topic-banned as a result of his behavior. Hopefully this is settled here; he has caused enough disruptions and spent enough of others' time. So far both admins who have reviewed this have supported topic-banning him. Faustian (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after looking more carefully, I think his editing in Allies of World War II and several other pages was problematic. Does it warrant the broad topic ban? That could be properly decided by uninvolved admins on WP:AE. However, I think you all need to simply compromise on the issues, because bringing this to WP:AE might result in sanctions with regard to several contributors. I can be wrong of course. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, no disruption that's clear. But if must, take this to Arbcom, but remember: it's a nuclear option, and few walk away happily from it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban for Faustian

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

---

I'd like to propose a topic ban for user Faustian on Eastern Europe, who has been blocked several times for his editing approach on the Blue Army (Poland) page, disrupted other pages with related topics, and has used inappropriate tone to comment on other editor's ethic background instead of focusing on the content of the article.

• Double-standards motivated by nationalism? Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source. Faustian (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• In the RFC and here every non-Pole felt that it reflected the source. Faustian (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also here is a list of complaints from the ANI, which were filed against user Faustian by other edits:

• Vandalism of page tags by nationalist tag-team, Iryna Harpy and Faustian
• User:Faustian reported by User:Jacurek (Result:Page protected )
• User:Faustian and User:Ward3001 reported by user:jmh649 (Result:Page Protected )
• User:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: Semi)

And a recant warning about Faustian's behavior on the Blue Army (Poland) page by admin User:MSGJ: @Faustian: Looking further I see you have been blocked previously for edit warring on this very same article. If evidence is produced that more than three of your five edits on this article yesterday were reverts, then I will consider blocking you too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) --E-960 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as noted above. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The above is a good example of this editor's dishonest and disruptive approach. A quick example - "user:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: Semi)": (link through google): [33] IP's claim was rejected by an admin, who followed my advice and semi-protected the article to prevent the IP who reported me from disrupting it. E-960 is using this as evidence to prove I am "bad?"Faustian (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC

• Oppose - silly. Additionally please stop accusing people of being in a tag team (WP:NPA) - that people agree with each other and disagree with you does not make them WP:TAGTEAM. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. In my experience, Faustian has been a constructive editor in those topics, and amenable to reasonable discussion. I'd oppose a topic ban, barring serious evidence of disruption, which I am not seeing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose; ArbCom. Per my comment in previous section. Not all of E-960s complaints are invalid. Not all of Faustian's are either. And they're not the only editors who need to take a step back at that article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Faustian has been working to improve this article for years, and as others point out above, there is essentially no equivalency between their style of editing or contributions and those of E-960. Faustian's competence and good faith is well borne out by any review of the history of Blue Army (Poland) and Talk:Blue Army (Poland), and their longstanding ability to reach consensus, including at Blue Army (Poland), with editors who disagree with him/her. It would be outrageous to sanction Faustian for being the only person, in the long term, with the fortitude to tackle E-960's disruption. I certainly don't have it. -Darouet (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose too drastic an action. Dorpater (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Darouet. It's a pity that the topic ban for E-960 has been closed off with no action. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think anyone here deserves a topic ban. It's just a controversial, contentious topic with a lot of talk page discussion and some very minor edit warring (relative to comparably controversial topics). The matter needs to be hashed out on talk, although it's true that the issue really does need some fresh eyes because otherwise these two editors just end up going in circles. Volunteer Marek  18:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban for E-960 and Faustian with Pending changes protection

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

---

This conflict has been going on for several years with no hope in sight. It is a terrible drain of Wikipedia resources. Some commentators (including an admin) since left Wikipedia. No uninvolved editors are being acknowledged by the active participants in this feud ... one of the better established puppet theatres I've seen. Repeat assumptions of bad faith shown in reverts and in uncivil comments never stopped since the article was created. It takes two to tango. User:Faustian has been warned by the Arbitration enforcement numerous times for edit warring in Eastern Europe, User:E-960 even worse (with repeat warnings: Callanecc, MSGJ). These two editors (incl. blocked: Factor01 and COD T 3 among numerous "cameo appearances") constantly goad each other and everybody else into prolonging the conflict by personal attacks, vilification, and accusations of bad faith as well as "falsehoods". Please be informed. The General restrictions affecting all users editing in this area have been defined in § 11 of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe as follows: "Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling." – We do already have in place all the administrative basis necessary for imposing this topic ban; and installing the Wikipedia: Pending changes protection in the article, in order to finally stop the bleeding! Poeticbent talk 17:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What have I done to deserve a topic ban? I have not been warned "numerous times" by arbitration enforcement for edit warring. In 9 years of editing I have had one (24-hour) block on an eastern European topic, which involved reverting the removal of reliably sourced information by a since-permanently banned user (compare to your own block history: [34]). When I have run into trouble, it was simply due to not walking away from an article that was undergoing attack or disruption by a clearly disruptive editor. When someone provides a falsehood, I describe it as such and provide clear evidence for that. I have created about 30 articles on Eastern European topics (see my use page: [35], several of which were featured in the "did you know" section of the wiki main page, and made about 10,000 edits. Equating me with E-960 and proposing to ban me from eastern European topics is, sorry, just not right. Faustian (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Try to see the forest for the trees, please. This is not about you, but about the time and energy wasted by the community members tricked into believing that this thing with the Blue Army (Poland) can be resolved with their pointless and useless attempts at helping you. The waste of time and resources will never stop until we stop it. Think about the Wikipedians other than you, who could use a break from this never-ending story for a change. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is nonsense. Faustian has not done anything to deserve a topic ban and Poeticbent's reasoning of "This is not about you, but about the time and energy wasted by the community members tricked into believing that this thing with the Blue Army (Poland) can be resolved with their pointless and useless attempts at helping you" shows it is a bad faith proposal. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support (as nominator). None of them has shown any desire to resolve their differences between themselves, ever! This is a good faith proposal with everybody else in mind. Faustian made 231 edits to that talk page beginning in January 2011, E-960 made 118 edits there. The unresolved issues today, are the same as they were in 2011 long before E-960 showed up on the scene; nothing has changed one iota in spite of numerous attempts from the community. They need help, Poeticbent talk 21:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think you understand what topic bans are for. It appears you might be thinking of interaction ban, but I don't see that is warranted either. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Equating a disruptive editor and someone else very active on the same page is wrong. I have opened several RFCs on that page to resolve issues, and I have worked collaboratively with non-disruptive editors with whom I disagreed (such as here: [36].Faustian (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Faustian, has been the main editor who disrupted the article from the beginning. Most of the conflicts started when he inserted highly controversial material as seen in the talk page over the years, he has been edit warring with established edits on this page such as User:Volunteer Marek and User:Piotrus not to mention all the newer edits like myself or User:Ivanevian.--E-960 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Admin perspective

Well this is a spectacular and complicated mess. Beginning with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Final_decision, closed in 2007, the article the editors are dog-fighting over is subject to discretionary sanctions, for which Faustian (talk · contribs) was previously warned under in 2014. E-960 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly named as a possible sockpuppet of COD T 3, logged at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/COD T 3/Archive (see October 2015), for which he was apparently cleared (repeatedly) and more obtusely at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław/Archive (alleged behavioral evidence as mentioned in the first SPI listed here). Given the above observations, I'd say that leaves the motives of both of the editors suspect here. My suggested course of action would be to topic ban both E-960 and Faustian, adopt a 0RR policy on the Blue Army (Poland) page, and permanently semi-protect the Blue Army (Poland) article to prevent ISP-based editing around a 0RR position and to better track any alleged sock accounts of interested editors working to undermine the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not committed misconduct on this article since my warning. I have sought consensus, opened neutrally-worded RFCs, etc. I am guilty of being present and active when someone else has been disruptive and feel that a blanekt topic ban would be unjust and would essentially be punishment for my presence, not for any actions. Please see this comment: [37] by User:Darouet, seconded by User:Iryna Harpy( [38]) Please consider the commnents by User:Wikimandia at the beginning of the ANI here also: [39].Faustian (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I really think punishing Faustian is extreme. I don't see any diffs of him violating policy. This most recent episode, from what I can tell, started with a very non-neutrally worded RfC by E-960, who decided to begin removing info from the article claiming "consensus" on the still open RfC. (It has since been closed as no consensus.) Several of the editors active on the page have stated E-960 is an SPA and Faustian is helpful. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would also like to see diffs demonstrating misconduct by Faustian. @TomStar81: I intend no offense, but Faustian and E-960 have essentially nothing in common, except their disagreement at Blue Army (Poland). Banning Faustian from the article would, in my opinion, be a fundamentally lazy response, since it requires the most superficial examination of what's been happening at Blue Army. Many editors have been able to disagree on the article and make some progress, but the combination of E-960's POV and inability to evaluate sources has repeatedly poisoned discussion there. It's entirely unclear on the other hand what Faustian's infraction is. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No offense is taken. Remember, this is a suggested course of action, and its based on a cursory glance through the article and its history. This also relates to me insofar as I usually take an all or nothing approach to these matters - meaning either everyone gets disadvantaged in the arena or no one gets censored - as such an approach usually lets me gauge who the problem people are. Often, but not always, its the people who complain the loudest when being locked out of articles who are the most disruptive editors. So far three independent people have come to Faustian's defense, I fact I have noted and it does seem to suggest that he is not part of the problem here, but part of the solution. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dƶoxar and Kyiv/ Kiev

User:Dƶoxar is not ready to accept Wikipedia consensus that the capital of Ukraine is Kiev (not Kyiv), see Talk:Kiev/Naming. Hedoes not edit Wikipedia often these days, but when he does, he comes back to Ahatanhel Krymsky and replaces Kiev with Kyiv on all occasions. Lest year I took it to their talk page, and they said they do not accept the above-linked discussion as consensus. For safety, I took the issue to the WikiProject:Ukraine and got exactly zero comments. Today, they started an edit-war in the article (at three reverts now) and called me a "vandal" [40]. This is usual article ownership problem, which is exaggerated by the fact that only them and me care about the article at all. IAt this point, I am not sure what to do, I would definitely reject myself a similar RFPP request, and I do not see how 3RR would give smth in this situation. I think the general problem is that nobody cares, and the user just insists on keeping it at their version.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

May be to add that other users have been blocked in the past for mass renaming / replace Kiev by Kyiv, but to get blocked, they really had to work hard and to exhaust someone's patience.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a particular need for consensus about this specific issue, given it falls under the more generic scope of WP:ENGLISH. As far as I'm aware, the English-language name of the city is Kiev, even though Kyiv is a more direct transliteration of the Ukrainian name: "do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one". LjL (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I accept Kiev but I don't accept exclusion of Kyiv. Historically Kiev was used wider but practically both versions are correct. So, I think users have right to choose depending on context. (Although this is not precisely this case but I see it similar.)--Dƶoxar (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kyiv is the Latin spelling of Ukrainian name and it is the capital of Ukraine, versus the Russian-era Kiev. Kyiv is used nearly universally by a majority of reliable sources, including other governments, the CIA Factbook, National Geographic etc. Insistence on the Russian spelling of Kiev is ridiculous and Dƶoxar is right to question how this is allowed to be "consensus" when it's clearly politically motivated from pro-Russian editors. It goes to show the problem with consensus in that facts are irrelevant; consensus could be that fuchsia is yellow; that doesn't mean it actually is. It's no different than clarifying Peking/Beijing; Bombay/Mumbai, Calcutta/Kolkata, all of which are respected on Wikipedia. Both can be used but Kiev should redirect to Kyiv, and not other way around. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not the venue to discuss Kiev vs Kyiv issue. We have Talk:Kiev/Naming for that. I suggested to take the issue there a year ago, but nothing happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kyiv redirects to Kiev and many articles, such as Kyiv Post and Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, use this spelling as it is perfectly correct. Kyiv is not wrong nor is it vandalism. There are many articles with spelling variations of proper names, such as Lwów Ghetto for Lviv, because of transliteration or common name. I fail to see how Dƶoxar is being disruptive and think you are POV-pushing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me Wikimandia, who said "Kyiv was vandalism"? The OP said that the other editor accused them of vandalism for insisting on Kiev. LjL (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: IMO, OP is implying Dƶoxar is being disruptive by using Kyiv in articles, and that he went on his page to warn him not to do that. I'm stating that there is no such need as Kyiv is not wrong and as I stated, is frequently used across Wikipedia. It's not vandalism so why the need to go tell them to stop using it? It would be like going on someone's talk page and warning them to stop using the name Myanmar to refer to Burma. Surely there are more important issues to worry about. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not there is merit to using the "Kyiv" name (which is not so much for this board to discuss), WP:Vandalism isn't the only behavior that is against Wikipedia policies. LjL (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

OP stated that Dzoxar started an edit war when that is not true - OP reverted Dzoxar first.[41] Meanwhile, Dzoxar did not violate any policies by using Kyiv and I can see his frustration over this. I think it's a real problem that OP, who is Russian, is POV-pushing insisting on the Russian version for the Ukrainian capital. LjL what you said above about Kiev being the English name is not correct - Kyiv is recognized as English by multiple English dictionaries and reliable sources. It's not the equivalent of using "Munchen" for Munich or "Moskva" for "Moscow." "Kiev" is an artifact of Soviet Ukraine and no different than the Russian spellings of other Ukrainian cities that have been changed and recognized, such as Lviv, Kharkiv, Zaporizhia, Luhansk etc. Reverting mentions of Kyiv is pure politics and IMO rather unbecoming of an admin like Ymblanter. If people want to use the spelling Kyiv in random articles about Ukrainians like Ahatanhel Krymsky, who cares? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, do care a bit about consistency. As to "reverting first"... that's not (necessarily) starting an edit war, as per WP:BRD. Usually, the one reinstating the reverted content without discussion is the one considered to be edit warring. LjL (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Iron-fisted consistency is not a hard and fast rule, thus we allow variations for British/American spelling, DMY/MDY dates etc. They are all correct. Kiev and Kyiv are both English, and thus we have Kyiv in article names because it is not considered foreign. Consistency in the same article is what I care about. The article on Ahatanhel Krymsky was started from the very beginning with the spelling Kyiv. Ymblanter is the one who changed it to Kiev. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As advised, please take content debates to Talk:Kiev/Naming and off of ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Where I've started an RfC here. BMK (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I personally disagree with the idea that this merits yet another RfC about Kiev/Kyiv, when every single one of the perennial RfCs on the matter comes up as a close as Kiev. This is a user disruption issue, and a IDHT issue. If the user will not accept En-Wiki style, they need sanctioning in order to stop their disruption. The sanction could start as small as a topic ban on anything Kiev-related, broadly construed, enforceable by very longterm blocks (since they only edit sporadically) followed by an indef it if recurs. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, I'd be happy to withdraw the RfC if something else could be done - but it's not just Dƶoxar now, it's also Wikimandia edit warring to put in "Kyiv". Any solution involving topic bans, or promises not to continue their policy-violating editing, would have to include both editors. BMK (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. You're right. Wikimandia needs to be included in the topic ban if she is going to be obtuse like this. Wikipedia has been through this revolving door far too many times for it to be open to debate every six months. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made my opinion clear here and in the RfC, and I fail to see why I should be topic banned. I hardly even edit in this area so excuse me for being knowledgeable and unbiased. BMK has done more reverts than I have. People claiming Kiev is the "English" name of Kyiv are the ones being obtuse à la "Bombay is the English word for Mumbai!" Duh. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

We go by consensus on Wikipedia, not by your personal opinion. And the consistent consensus every time this comes up every few months like clockwork for the past 11 years is to use the English-language WP:COMMONNAME spelling/transliteration of "Kiev". Perhaps you have not been privy to all of those discussions – if you have, you're being obtuse; if you hadn't, you can check them out now. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the same brilliant Wikipedia consensus that got Bicholim Conflict labeled a featured article? Consensus does not replace fact. Looking over recent RfCs, most of them "no consensus". About what you'd expect if you'd done an RFC "which is correct, DMY or MDY"? They're both correct. But for Ukrainian articles, Kyiv is correct. Just like Mumbai, Beijing, Kolkata and Almaty are correct. Old names are no longer used. Arguments show that people used in this so far show most people don't understand the difference and think Kiev is how you transliterate Київ, and the pro-Russian bias here is apparent. I'm hardly a Ukrainian nationalist, and frequently correct names based on how people actually refer to themselves,[42] but I'm neutral enough not to inflict Soviet-era spellings on a capital city. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone would argue that consensus gives the "correct" answer everytime, but since we don't have a Content Supremeo to hand down rulings on content disputes, there has to be some mechanism in pace to settle these things so everyone can move on, and consensus is the way we do it. Og course consensus can change over time, but the "Kiev" consensus has been remarkably consistent since at least 2007, and a glance at the page the RfC is on will show at least 8 RMs from 2007-2013 in which a move to "Kyiv" was rejected. Teher may be more in the archives, I haven't checked.

It's one thing to refuse to accept a local conses which consists of 2 people with an opinion opposed to yours, but it's another thin completely to fly in the face of multkiple consensus decisions involving large numbers of editors. I suggest that you and Dƶoxar simply grit your teeth, accept the fact that you are in the minority, and drop the matter. I also suggest that if either of you change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" again, that an admin should drop a significant block on the editor who did so. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I generally turn to the BBC when I want to know what the common spelling is in the English language. While it does use Kyiv in some places, it overwhelmingly uses Kiev in general usage - up to and including this month. Having checked a few other western news outlets, they also tend to be the same, Occasionally Kyiv, mostly Kiev. Which doesnt appear to have substantially changed since the last 15 discussions on this topic. Also, content dispute yadda yadda.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The RfC on renaming was closed as WP:SNOW. Kiev is the WP:COMMONNAME. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As it has been since at least 2007. BMK (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BMK's suggestion. There is a problem. Normal people believe that English is a language in its own right, and therefore the English language can have words for places that are different from other languages. Some people do not accept this point of view, and believe that English should use transliteration from the Ukrainian language instead of using English words. It is such a pity that such people have to edit in the English language Wikipedia at all. Let them edit in the Ukrainian Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have absolutely no problem with either of these editors contributing here, as long as they follow the long-standing very clear and strong consensus to use "Kiev" as the name of the city. BMK (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

The long-standing consensus having been confirmed, if editors User:Dƶoxar or User:Wikimandia again make a change from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" or any other version of the name, or if they make any other change of name for a person or a place for which a standing consensus exists as to what the WP:COMMONNAME is, they will be placed under an indefinite topic ban from changing the spelling or transliteration into English of any name, anywhere on English Wikipedia, It is their responsibility to determine if a consensus exists or not. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. BMK (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as common sense - Kyiv exists in many articles (including titles) and is a perfectly valid spelling and in fact is CORRECT per every single official source. Being that I'm not a sheep, I also would not accept consensus if Wikipedians decided that the earth is flat and vaccines cause autism. And indefinite topic ban of what? What is the topic? Proper spelling of European capitals? —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No one is forcing you to change your own personal opinion, to which you are well entitled. But if you don't accept the community's decision regarding the spelling of the name, your only choices are to attempt to change that consensus, or to refrain from making any edits relating to the name. Seeing as the first option has repeatedly failed, for the time being you need to go with the second option, or else it will be imposed on you. (Other editors can voluntarily abide by this community decision despite their personal objections, so I hope you can as well.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No, I don't accept the community's "decision" regarding the capital city's name, any more than the community can "decide" who the queen of England is or who is on the U.S. Supreme Court. Facts should not be left open to consensus and this is the biggest joke about Wikipedia, especially in cases like this when you have serious ethnic bias and ignorance running amok. I am not an active editor on Ukrainian articles but I will continue to call bullshit like I did in the case of OP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That you still cannot see the difference between "the truth" and an editorial decision does not bode well for your continued freedom to edit in this topic area (or at all). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
        • LOL the "truth" essay - are you suggesting it is not verified that the capital city of Ukraine is called Kyiv? Even though the government of Kyiv and Ukraine, in all English-language material it has published, clearly calls it that? It's not verified even though the CIA World Factbook and National Geographic call it that, among many other expert sources? This is not verifiable? Perhaps you should visit WP:CIR if you think this can't be verified. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Although BMK and I see eye to eye, in this case such a broad topic ban is excessive. If Wikimadia continues to do what they're doing now, just levy an edit warring block. Blackmane (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Box Office India has gained a lot from Wikipedia

Few days ago I filed an ANI about a user who removes reliable sources to add boxofficeindia.

Today another old editor comes to prove that boxofficeindia is the only source for boxoffice collections, removed references from Bollywood Hungama and The Financial Express with edit summary "Don't add box office figures now. Wait until BOI publishes" and removed content sourced from International Business Times

Me, myself regularly visit boxofficeindia.com to check latest box office colections of Bollywood movies. Now: How I came to know about this website? Today i remembered.

Few years ago I used to read Bollywood movie articles in Wikipedia. I read the critical reception and the box office section. I read the plot of movies, that i didn't want to watch. In the box office section, boxofficeindia website would be used as reference. Due to that i visited the website. There was no other such Bollywood box office related website dedicated only to box office. At that time the website was very ordinary than what it is today. I don't get it why this website is given preference over others.

I read the warnings of Administrator given to spammers "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for driving traffic to your website". But me and many people visited boxofficeindia through Wikipedia. Some third party news websites also mention about boxofficeindia. Even they might have read wikipedia articles. Even good faith editors have begun to trust boxofficeindia. I never objected against boxofficeindia, but if editors with high edit count starts preferring boxofficeindia over other much much reliable websites then there is something fishy going on here, as much more reliable websites as International Business Times India edition, India Today - 1 2. Business Standard - 1. The Economic Times- 1 also publishes Box office reports along with Koimoi and Bollywood Hungama.

Novice spammers, open an account, and directly start spamming their website in multiple pages and get blocked. Experienced ones read the Template:Uw-sblock which are posted on user talk page blocked for spamming. And this blocking template has link to this Forbes page page named "Spin Me Softly"--(reasons unknown to me, why that link was given in the template).

And in this page Andy Greenberg wrote in the year 2007: -- "But with the right tactics, articles can be successfully tweaked to improve brand visibility and drive traffic to other Web sites, contends marketing guru Spencer. He suggests that marketers add valuable text to an article, along with a link to their own Web site. Since Wikipedia’s editors will hesitate to delete useful content, the link often stays on the page.

Even better, Spencer says, is to develop a user profile on the site that builds personal trust within the Wikipedia community. That means spending time deleting typos in articles, cleaning up spam and otherwise cultivating a good Wiki-citizen image. “You have to make real edits that add value, not just ones that boost your company or your client,” Spencer says. “Developing that street cred is really important. If you try to add links or content without it, chances are it’ll be reverted.”

As if, we want to teach the spammers how to spam successfully, otherwise I don't see any other reason that article with such spamming/advertizing tricks being included in a blocking template meant for blocking spammers. --The Avengers 13:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's not immediately clear to admins, in addition to musing generally about problems in Indian cinema articles, The Avengers appears to be complaining directly about user Arjann, for instance about this edit summary linked above where Arjann bossily instructs users Don't add box office figures now. Wait until BOI publishes. This sort of gruff assertion is not helpful as it's not based on any Indian cinema community precedent. Indian film grosses are all estimates. There is no reliable way to track this information, and there is corruption throughout the industry. Some of that corruption takes place at Wikipedia as well, with paid editors and socks going to extreme lengths to inflate numbers, deflate numbers, report the newest, highest pet estimate, etc. as if the made-up box office estimate from Times of India that comes in at 2pm is more reliable than the made-up estimate that came in at 1pm from the Mumbai Mirror. Facepalm

The Indian cinema community has made no such determination that BoxOfficeIndia.com is the only reliable source. In fact, it generally feels the opposite, and this assertion that BOI is the only go-to source is very similar to what indeffed user WikiBriefed tried to pull.[43][44][45]. Arjann has done this a few times, for instance, here he removes would normally be a suitable reference, IBTimes, with the insufficient explanation unofficial source. I can only surmise that he means that he prefers BoxOfficeIndia.com, but when do we discard reliable sources like this? Here he makes an unsupported proclamation Oye Times is more reliable than Filmibeat. Who said? There's nothing in the Indian cinema task force's WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources that asserts this. I don't see any discussion at RSN. I don't know what Arjann's specific motives are, but by all appearances, it looks like an attempt to take ownership and to craft articles to fit a POV. I also notice bizarre edits like this where Arjann ignores an obvious embedded note that asks for film budget data to be attributed to a reliable source. He doesn't add a source, just the comment, Budget is confirmed. Arjann may need a refresher in proper Wikipedia editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Avengers does ask some, on the face of it, reasonable questions about the rationale behind inclusion, and content of the external link, which was added in 2008. Perhaps they might be best addressed at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace if it's not deemed appropriate here? Begoon ^talk 01:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The thing I found about BOI is that they do no independent checking of the factuality (if that's even a word) or accuracy of the information that is posted to the site. I wonder whether there is a circular action going on here. BOI is used as a source in WP, driving more traffic to BOI, consequently encouraging more editors to use it despite the fact that the material on BOI has not been confirmed to be accurate. Blackmane (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should remove sourcing from legitimate newspapers in favor of a website with zero information about them. If the paper sources the website, fine, I can accept that but we shouldn't remove it in favor of the website. Before there was spamming to get Koimoi as the official source and I think it's been rounds of other websites in the same fashion over the years. Take note that, for example, Box Office India has more details on its server and its domain registrar than any person behind the company. But we've had two prior discussions at RSN over the years and once again at the Indian films talk page. I think the prudent thing is warn Arjann and others not to remove other sources in favor of Box Office India at the moment and then to have another discussion at RSN about it. If they want to spam it, block them. We may have really reliable sources we use for American films for example, that doesn't mean we would eliminate newspaper and other sources in favor of one source. Again, we're down to the same issue of several newspapers use it as a source and therefore should we consider it a reliable source (or I guess the reliable source) based on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Box-office means film business, and that's why Indian business/finance newspapers publish box-office related news. If we have sources from Indian Business newspapers, then these websites shouldn't be used as reference. If we don't have a source from any newspaper, then only these websites as BOI, Koimoi can be used. There must be some consensus about this, as we can't repeated ANI discussion about old editors preferring Boxofficeindia to remove references from well established business/finance based newspapers. Boxofficeindia's popularity is due to Wikipedia. And if some newspaper mentions boxofficeindia, it's more likely the journalist read wikipedia Bollywood articles (which use BOI as reference).The Avengers 08:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read this discussion titled Box Office India Discussion and BO of all BW films. However, one may use also use Rentrak for the accurate figures. I have been a lot through this BOI discussion and I'm really tired.

• 1. I know putting the premise again despite knowing that it has copyright problem was in good faith. I assumed that some user who may have seen the film observes this and writes a full fledge plot of the film in his own words, later.Here Oye Times is more reliable than Filmibeat. On this I want to say that it was Oye Times that published first and filmibeat just took that from it. Filmibeat is not reliable in any case.
• 2. I'm not pushing any fan POV. Go through the article and the history of edits I have made on the page. I kept and always keeping it as neutral as possible. If any disagreement clear it on talk pages or invite users for the same.
• 3. The Avengers you are simply getting mad at me for all this. I didn't expect this from you side. Arjann (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Arjann:, Read the full comment made by me. The heading is about boxofficeIndia. I didn't make the section heading as Arjann. The bitter truth is that we all, including me are taking part in this game of promoting boxofficeindia above others, when it comes to boxoffice figures. I have clearly mentioned that, for last few years i am visiting boxofficeindia to check the details of latest Bollywood movies. And it is from Wikipedia movie articles, I became aware of this website. You try to think hard, Honestly----When was the first time you were aware of this website. Was it through Wikipedia or some other sources. I am not against boxofficeindia. I don't like when people remove sources from websites of Indian newspapers which are more than 40 years old and include boxofficeindia. I checked some old movie pages and the BOI refences become deadlinks. The Avengers 16:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) 166 troll. BMK (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BOI is the NUMBER ONE source for indian box office numbers. No other source compares. We should be banning all other sources right now. Don't be attacking editors like User:Semanti Paul who are doing good work and spreading BOI everywhere. 166.170.46.213 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is being discussed again at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#BO_of_all_BW_films. I think the general view there is that BOI is a reliable source but no one believes that it is the most reliable source. I suggest that further discussions continue there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

www.boxofficeindia.com geolocates to United Kingdom

Two domain Ip results showed that the websites'IP is 31.172.248.224 which is located in United Kingdom. 1, 2. The Avengers 05:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. Box Office India needs some actual reliable sources though (it's largely useless), it states that the server is in Houston which of course means nothing about who is actually running it. Again, we should take this back to the Indian cinema talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) Ho-hum. 166 range troller again. BMK (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support BOI BOI is a first class website and is the best source for Indian films. 166.170.48.222 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Why have you not been range blocked, Mr WOP troll? 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unresponsive editor making unexplained changes

Chickensire (talk · contribs) continues to change geo-coordinates on city articles without providing a source. I left this message asking for an explanation and source, and was provided with a dead link as a source. I asked a second time here, and again no response, yet the user continues to change geo-coordinates on city articles. Also, the user has been creating redirects, but would not respond asked why they are doing this. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Are the changes improvements? BMK (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've spot checked their changes. The good news: the new coords are within the cities that are the subject; the bad news: I can see no rationale behind the change - the old coords seems just as valid as the new coords, and the new coords don't do anywhere logical, like City Hall. Given that, I think we do need to here from Chickenshire as to why they are doing what they're doing.

When they do that for coords, they might also explain why they made a handful of article moves, shifting "Town, New York" to "Town, County, New York" without discussion. These I have reverted. There's also the question of why they created a redirect from "Harlem, New York County, New York" to a subsection of "History of Harlem" - I have changed the target to "Harlem, New York City", which is where our article is. BMK (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor says on the talk page that those are the coordinates for the city's original settlement. Since these may or may not have anything to do with the city's current geographical center, I've asked them to stop, and to explain the moves as well. BMK (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused at your report, Magnolia677. You called them an "unresponsive editor", but in fact they've responded to your inquiries 3 times. How is that "unresponsive"? This is clearly a newbie who doesn't know how to indent or add a sig, we should probably give them a break or two. BMK (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, not so much a newbie, since they've been here since March 2012 and have almost 1500 edits. BMK (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This editor continues to randomly change coordinates here, continues to move articles without discussion here, and still has not responded to either User:Beyond My Ken or myself on their talk page. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::Maybe the editor is just a little busy changing random stuff to read his/ her messages? I am sure he/she will catch up when the time is right. I don't believe there is any need for action on our part. Just let them do what they need to do. W oWiTmOvEs 13:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC) striking comment by blocked troll account. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to have moved on to other types of edits which do not seem problematic. BMK (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion watching needed

Can one or more uninvolved admins keep an eye on Talk:Bangalore#Requested move 29 November 2015 please? RMs on the names of Indian cities have been a tense issue and the current proposal expresses concern about canvassing in previous RMs which does nothing to settle this. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of racism at Talk:Bangalore

I wish to propose a ban on User:Loginnigol from commenting on race in any forum. Two weeks ago, he claimed that stating an issue was "manifestly two-faced (Western/white versus non-)" was "not ... making it a race issue". He was asked to withdraw the comments, apologize and desist from making similar comments in the future. Today, he has returned to the attack by accusing opponents of "white supremacy (Indian sources are regarded as inferior to lily white Anglo Saxon sources)". DrKay (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Notified the editor as required here. Is there a reason we shouldn't block under WP:NOTHERE? Race-biting over sources is not a good use of time here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He is editing since 2011 though and looks active, right? D4iNa4 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

DrKay had notified in a different section, perhaps you missed that Ricky. I'm pinging Future Perfect at Sunrise who had proposed placing this page under discretionary sanctions. —SpacemanSpiff 14:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He should have been blocked for edit warring at Apple pie where he seems to have an anti-western or anti-American pov and introduced ridiculous "facts". Although others tried to use the article talk page to address his changes specifically, he did not engage. Also, he blanked different editors attempts to discuss with him on his own talk page. This may be more than just race issues.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I propose a ban on the DrKay for making false accusations and for attempting to ban discussion on a TALK page? It's bad enough that the article is biased but that's not enough for some. They also want to prevent discussion on the talk page. Needless to say I categorically reject his claims that I am "accusing opponents" of racism whatever that means (I didn't even know there were "opponents" here. That itself sounds like racism to me. My comments today or yesterday refer only and exclusively to content, not "opponents" or persons of any other sort. —Loginnigol (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Opponents of the move. DrKay (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, there will be no such "ban". I actually agree with Loginnigol that the comments on Talk:Bangalore aren't racist or race-baiting--they're just completely inane. I hasten to add that I have not looked at the issues signaled by Berean Hunter. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Inane isn't better. Either way, dismissing sources due to the race of the author accomplishes little and doesn't get you taken particularly seriously. And this is the sixth discussion (all five prior opposed) in just over a year so I'd say a ban on proposing the move again is prudent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, that's not better. But a move ban, sure. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeated unfounded accusations by User:Dalamani

User:Dalamani has continued with their behaviour despite adequate warning and despite stating that they would cease. They made a baseless accusation of sockpuppetry here, for which I gave them what I thought was quite a mild warning ([46]). They responded by accusing me of harassment ([47], [48]). User:Drmies also pointed out the error of their ways ([49]) and they stated they would cease but went on to make a pretty clear insinuation of meatpuppetry (also baseless, of course) in the same AfD ([50]). Dalamani has previous for this sort of thing, in their interactions with another editor ([51], [52]). Their behaviour is unacceptable and I don't see any useful editing coming from that account. There's no point in me warning them again, as it will just result in further accusations of 'harassment', and frankly I don't see that further warnings would be an adequate or worthwhile response. --Michig (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well as I am a new editor you are expected to assume good faith, which you have not. From the first attempt to edit the page (which I admitted that I made errors on being new to the process) I have felt as though these editors are being exclusionary and acting like Wikipedia is their own private club. I never explicitly accused anyone of sockpuppetry, despite previously being accused of having an agenda or ulterior motive to nominating the article for deletion. As for accusations of "meatpuppetry", is user Michig denying that the next user to support their position on the AFD page, Wwwhatsup does not have Michigs username on their talk page, indicating a relationship of some sort? I find it curious that an editor that obviously has a Wikipedia connection with another editor suddenly appears on an AFD page enthusiastically supporting their position. Coincidence? Possibly, but curious nonetheless and its obviously something that Michig has taken personal exception to. I find the behaviour of Michig to be confrontational and arrogant and frankly bullying. If you need to drag out a very old and irrelevant incident with another Wikipedia bully to bolster your case it doesnt bode well. Ban me if thats what will make Wikipedia a better place for bullies but it wont do anything to encourage new editors to "be bold". Im considering doing an open letter to Wikpedia on my userpage in the style of Paolo.dL. Dalamani (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Predictably, another accusation, now of bullying, for notifying them of this discussion ([53]). --Michig (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Look Michig, Im not interested in you so please just stop with the harassment. There are a lot of Wikipedia policies that Im reading up on and it is very illuminating. Id suggest you do the same. No need for further discussion, lets leave this to arbitration. Dalamani (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Leaving repeated and unwanted messages on a users Talk page, as you have done, is just one of the many Wikipedia policies that I believe has been breached here. I REPEAT, as a new user you should have assumed good faith, not criticised a new users motivation for deciding to nominate a particular article for deletion. You did not and this is where it has led. I believe some introspection is required here on your part regardless of the outcomes of your pre-emptive actions (yes, I told Michig I would report them for harassment if it continued just prior to this being actioned) Dalamani (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Assuming good faith does not imply simply ignoring missteps like baseless accusations. As DrMies stated, you are not being harrassed, you are being addressed as a Wikipedia user who is expected to play by the rules. Just like anybody else. Kleuske (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yet another accusation with no basis in fact. I have only made two edits at Dalamani's talk page. One perfectly justified warning for making false and bad faith accusations of sockpuppetry and one courtesy notification of this discussion, of which I was required to inform them. In contrast, Dalamani has made 5 edits to my talk page even continuing after I made it clear I wasn't interested. It's quite clear who the harrasment is coming from. --Michig (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So it is OK for administrators to imply ulterior motives on a new users attempts to edit wikipedia, but not for a new user to defend themselves and point out that there appear to be conflicts of interest in their own agenda? I see Kleuske and Drmies are known to each other as can be discerned from Klueske's Talk page. This is getting more interesting by the minute! Dalamani (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Dalamani, these days I am first and foremost Dr.K.'s sock. I see you've been doing some research into my editing behavior--you may have noticed that I have made some 45,000 edits to user talk pages not including mine, only three of which on Kleuske's page. Kleuske, this is not to say you're not special to me--you are, of course, and I will do my best to make it up to you. Besides, I am honored to be suspected as being in cahoots with you. Also, Dalamani, you are not being harassed. Au contraire--which I find reflected in older comments like this and this, besides in this treatment of Michig. If we're going to have a bullying task force, as some users seem to want, don't be surprised if all this boomerangs back on you. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So a new 43 edit account says silly stuff about an 11 year / 56K edit / administrator ... and the response is to open an ANI thread?? (complete with canvassing). The far better choice would be to ignore it per User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility. NE Ent 18:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. That very essay mentions that when incivility consistently comes from a new editor, then that account may amount to little more than a troll, and it should be taken more seriously. And while we don't bite newcomers and assume good faith, IIRC, WP:BITE itself (or some related page) mentions that when a "newcomer" is the one invoking it, then it probably doesn't apply as they simply aren't enough of a "clueless" newcomer if they can cite that policy. In this case, they cited WP:AGF with a similar argument, "I'm a newcomer so here's the exact policy I know precisely about that says you should put up with my nonsense". No. LjL (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the response was to warn them about their behaviour. When they wouldn't let it lie I did try ignoring it, and for a short while it looked like they were going to stop, but it carried on and spread to accusations against another editor. I only informed Drmies as he had already intervened on my talk page to reason with Dalamani. I don't think accusing me of canvassing is either helpful or justified. --Michig (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

SO what Im reading here is that if you read up on Wikipedia policies you must not be a 'real' newcomer but a troll, and that long term editors have more rights than new Wikipedia editors. Im sure I read policies about both last night when I read up on it. Now if Michig continues to make assertions about me I will continue to defend against those assertions. Civility is a two way street. Im happy enough to let this go, it hardly rates as an important issue in my life, but if everytime I come onto Wikipedia I have to deal with this crap I will go well above petty editors here and make a significant noise about this treatment. Dalamani (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, you could interpret in that way. But if you let folks who think that any editor who clicks three times per three steps is a troll rather than simply a literate individual capable of RTFM get ya down you're experience on Wikipedia isn't going to be pleasant. Or particularly long, either. We don't really have a civility policy as explained at WP:Civility meme (sorry). You don't actually have to deal with it, just ignore it per WP:Other duck. In any event, you really can't make significant noise; there's already so much wiki-noise it's kind of like screaming in a hurricane. NE Ent 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed NE Ent, it seems like screaming in a hurricane, however I notice that the most recent editor to take exception with my AFD, Duffbeerforme, is also connected to Drmies. Now out of the hundreds of thousands of editors on Wikipedia it is indeed a remarkable thing that these people just coincidentally come together on this one AFD and to personally attack me? Duffbeerforme has made another personal comment on the AFD page - "Disruptive pointy nomination from someone not here for the right reason". What is the right reason? To act like a voting block and try to cajole and intimidate new editors and call their motivations into question while having questionable moivations themselves? I notice that there are still a lot of unsourced claims on the Ezekial Ox page. The hurrican blows on... Dalamani (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dalamani, you should really stop claiming I'm connected to this or that person. Duffbeerforme is not one of my socks (yet). Nor am I a fan of this Ox person, who I had never heard of before. I'm also not Australian. Or a secret lover of oxen. *sigh* I've made a few edits here and met a few people. You could consider there's another option. Obviously, the first is that if a few people say you're wrong about something, they've orchestrated it because they are "connected". Or, maybe, you're just wrong... No, it's much easier to claim you're being bullied. Wait--bullied? by oxen lovers? Coincidence? Drmies (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

So you deny that you know both Duffbeerforme and Kleuske? OK right. You go through my editing history looking for dirt, dont be surprised if others do the same. Ill admit Ive been wrong about one thing, and that is assuming that all Wikipedia editors and administrators are sincere people who dont act like they own the playground. Mea culpa on that one ok! Continue to question my motivations and I will continue to call yours into question. After all, just how much evidence is required when examining claims of meatpuppetry? Dalamani (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As much as I would like to know Drmies personally, we have never met. Like him, i would be honored to be "in cahoots", but we're not. We merely share similar interests and (apparantly) a mutual respect. Kleuske (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We're truly at a pretty low level here. I'm accused of being in cahoots with someone, I deny that, and then I am made out to claim I didn't "know" these editors. Dalamani, you are not presenting yourself as very competent here, and I can't put it more mildly than that. Kleuske, you are rising fast on the list of likely people to get invited to my Sinterklaas party, as is Duffbeerforme, whom I don't know from Adam but who sounds smart enough to hang out with. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Der Statistiker and Paris-based articles.

Map of the Greater Paris Metropolis (Métropole du Grand Paris) and its 131 communes.

New Development

This has just taken on an entire new dimension. Outright canvassing forum members to target several Wikipedia contributors specifically.

English link: [54] - Original French: [55] - targeting 3 Wikipedians, posted on the 30/11/2015

English link: [56] - Original French: [57] - mentioning just one (yours truly), posted on the 30/11/2015

I got there by:

1. looking for sources for unsourced numbers that Der Statistiker and Minato ku had insisted were the 'right' ones (without providing sources) [58]
2. that turned up only two Google results:
   1. A post by Minato ku on the aforementioned skyscrapercity.com forum, citing (banned, but member since 2006) forum member "Brisavoine" [59] (fr)
   2. But more importantly, a post (most likely the one cited) by "New Brisavoine", member since 2007, on the forum.skyscraperpage.com forum [60][61] (en)
3. So, in the forum.skyscraperpage.com forum, reading a few pages ahead from the 'numbers' post, it seems that Brisavoine "knows" the London French correspondant for the French newspaper "Le Monde" - funny, the same one that interviewed Der Statistiker and I last year? [62][63]
4. And those maps look really familiar, just like the one Der Statistiker uploaded to Wikipedia (the one to the right), especially the oldest version [64]
5. So a google image search for that [65]...
6. ...turns up yet another forum, pss-archi.eu, where forum member "Brisa" had posted it [66]
7. And a google search for "wikipedia" and "paris" in that website ... [67]
8. ...turns up, right at the top of the list, our targeted-canvassing post; it had been removed (why is in the post itself), but Google still had a cached version. [68]

And, since it's relevent once again, the link to the canvassing from last year's meat-debacle [69](fr) [70] (en - gt): Brisavoine was probably already banned then, which is why it could never be proven that User:Der Statistiker was a member there.

What gets me most was the craftiness of hiding the targeted Wikipedians' names through posting their names in image... and how even those other forum members were lied to and WP:GAMEd to get them to help disrupt Paris articles.

Cheers, and sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerned and Canvassed Contributors

I'm putting these here because they are related to this case (not part of it, this is only about Der Statistiker) and are still registered wikipedians here. It is up to whoever decides here to decide to decide what they want to decide if they find the evidence acceptable. Apologies for the links, but it seems that skyscrapercity(dot)com has been blacklisted, so I can't post them directly, or the translated version - please use google translate (just paste the corrected url into the 'French' input field)

First off, perhaps it's useful to mention now that Der Statistiker is Hardouin, which sets this canvassing (and other bad behaviour) much farther back, but, in addition to the same trying to publish the same WP:OR and same 'tactical' disruptive behaviour, one tie-in (I can provide more) related to the above evidence:

Minato ku's first 'backup' appearance on the 2007-07-20 when Statistiker (Hardouin) was creating/publishing WP:OR for which he could not provide references (but was trying to preserve by reverting/edit warring all the same) : [71]

then Brisavoine (Statistiker) mentioning me in a skyscrapercity forum conversation with Minato ku on the September 22nd, 2007 : www.skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=284568&page=8#149.

www.skyscrapercity(dot)com/showthread.php?t=385785&page=149#2962
In the link above, the canvassed contributors in the skyscrapercity forum thread (being instructed by Minato ku where to go and how to edit Wikipedia); they were:

Minato ku (who has made a few wikipedia edits between his 2007 first appearance until 2011, but returned in 2013 directly to the vote debacle, and has been 'backing up' Statistiker ever since [72]) - edit-warring & voting [73]

Sesto Elemento (most likely also Sesto92 - [74]) - edit-warring & voting [75]

Clouchicloucha - voter only [76]

Abdel-31 - voter only [77]

AvemanoBZH - voter only [78]

These are the votes they were called to: [79][80][81]

Original ANI

Der Statistiker (and his www.skyscrapercity.com allies [82]) has, in all impunity to date, been disrupting editing to Paris-based articles since years now, and this is I-don't-know-how-many-th'd case opened against him [83][84][85][86][87], and many contributors, including administrator jmabel[88], expressed overwhelming support for a topic ban over a year ago [89].

Der Statistiker is particularly good at WP:GAMEing Wikipedia. Wikipedia's default 'assume good faith' is easy to abuse: for one example, he repeatedly creates false claims that look plausible on the surface so that, if an administrator takes only a quick look, they will seem legitimate. He then directs complaints to precisely those administrators who have taken his claims at face value in the past [90]. Concerning that last diff/complaint: I made my first real edits to the article (and I had announced my intentions on the talk-page well before) in a year on November 11 [91], and Der Statistiker, after a total absence of a year from the article, came a week after [92].

But that in itself was not really a problem at that point, until Der Statistiker replaced recently-edited (by SiefkinDR) article-relevent data with out-of-context data [93], and I edited that back into context (without removing anything)[94]: Der Statistiker reverted this with another false accusation (calling it 'starting a revert war') and, again, threatening admin intervention [95]. Again there was no rationale for this, even after SiefkinDR's protesting questioning [96], only an 'answer-sounding' non-sequitur...

...because the rationale for that, and everything from there on, was pure WP:POINT disruption: one of the skyscraper-forum members (who by now has been around long enough to be considered a real wikipedian), Minato ku[97] first edit on wikipedia in months is to remove a just-edited Paris-events paragraph [98], and the same day, reverts a just-edited entire section to a state last edited by Der Statistiker over a year before (under the edit summary 'reorganising')[99], and Der Statistiker's response to this was only to update Minato ku's outdated revert himself, and, even after voiced opposition, re-insert the removed content under a misleading edit summary [100]. The entire 'what happened' is on the Paris talk page. Der Statistiker and Minato ku have worked as a 'team' since around 2007, as made obvious in the Economy of Paris article (the scene of his 'bigger than thou' battles with other big-city articles) and talk page.

While writing this, yet another skyscrapercity.com-er, Clouchicloucha[101], just showed up to 'vote support' Der Statistiker and Minato ku.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, but I can provide more data if it is needed. Please do check up on my record, and any questions are welcome. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with Promenader. Der Statistiker has a very long history of problematic behaviour surrounding the Paris article. I still remember his trolling comments when I promoted the article to GA, disgusting. He has shown time and time again he canvasses support from offwiki as evidenced by the recent Clouch "support", gaming the system. Based on what Jmabel told him before I strongly suggest we topic ban this editor from Paris articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... Here the only person I see contacting people off-wiki is ThePromenader, who, in the admission of Jmabel himself, contacted Jmabel last week (see [102]), despite the fact that there is no trace of any message by ThePromenader in Jmabel's talk page history ([103]). So we have an obvious case of off-wiki contact there, from someone who accuses other editors of "gaming" the system. And I suspect User:Clouchicloucha is an account created by ThePromenader himself to discredit me by writing what looks like awkward messages of support in the talk page right in time for ThePromenader to open his complaint against me here. Like how timely and convenient! Der Statistiker (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did contact Jmabel off-wiki (an admin here, by the way, not an off-wiki forum member), for advice and to intervene, which he did, and he said as much [104]. The only difference is that now he doesn't have his talk-page full of complaints.

The User:Clouchicloucha accusation is just lame. Both Der Statistiker and Minato ku know full well who they are. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a user asking me (or anyone else) off-wiki to take a look at what's going on with an article and my openly indicating that I did so. If you think something about this was inappropriate, please say precisely what it was. If you don't, then stop making insinuations. - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again!! The problem came from a badly written transportation section full of errors that did not bother anybody until I changed it to put more information (accurate information). I think this bothers ThePromenader because it does not follow the plan he wants. In his few edits of the transportation section prior to my edit he kept the numerous errors that were there. Does he really care about the quality and accuracy of the information in the Paris article?
I don't understand why this change of the transportation section has created such noise. No content was deleted; quite the opposite, information was added.
I don't get the war between Der Statistiker and ThePromenader and I'm tired of being used as a pretext for this war (find another scapegoat). I want a good wikipedia article about Paris at the level of New York City article. Nowadays Paris article is more like a tourist guide focused on history (more like the history of anecdotal events rather than a history of the development of the city) and stereotypes. You just need to compare Paris' article with London's article to see this problem. The quality of the information in the Paris article should be the goal of everybody rather than this stupid war of ego. Minato ku (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For both comments above, I'll let the Paris talk page speak for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

But about the 'scapegoat' issue: the article quality concerns you mention here is what the article talk page is for. If you see a problem, open a discussion, and you may find people even helping you. You and Statistiker have overlapping goals (showing Paris as the most modern, etc., city possible), but his example of "impose X (in total disregard for other contributors); use 'tactics' to make it stick" is an extremely bad one to follow; Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on cooperative reasoning, not 'tag-team tactics' (against (an)other contributor(s)), so if you're going to 'team up' with the latter, it's going to turn around to bite you in the end. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Der Statistiker from Paris-related articles

As per above, there has been clear evidence that Der Statistiker is gaming the system and causing disruption of a large scale with Paris-related articles. ThePromenader has already supplied the diffs above and previous evidence as well as another proposal to topic ban Der Statistiker from Paris-related articles last year. The evidence is overwhelming and the disruption caused seems to go at no end. He has also been cautioned about meatpuppetry and despite the warnings, he is clearly doing it again. I propose that Der Statistiker be topic banned indefinitely (provisionally) from Paris-related articles, although it might be more suitable if an admin determines the length. JAGUAR  14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Long time coming, should have been topic banned last time. I'd suggest a permanent ban as he has a habit of returning after a year or two and causing trouble.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. There has been too much disruption at the Paris article and several editors have been forced away because of the behaviours exhibited there; this needs to end. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The foremost challenge when editing Paris articles should be article quality, not Der Statistiker. This has gone on for too many years already. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I reviewed and promoted the article for GA and was dismayed at what happened to it thereafter. Der Statistker's repeated interventions seemed to me to go beyond what was reasonable and collegiate as we understand it in Wikipedia. I hope we can eventually rescue the article and restore it to GA standards. Tim riley talk 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The is no "clear evidence". There is insinuations from always the same user, ThePromenader, who apparently thinks the more something is repeated the more people will believe it. It reminds me a lot of Saddam and weapons of mass destructions in 2003. None of the diffs above prove anything. This wouldn't stand a chance in a regular court of justice.

As for "disruption", here the one who creates the most troubles in this article is ThePromenader, as is obvious with repeated complaints on this noticeboard despite the fact that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise asked all editors from the Paris article to stop doing so, and with ThePromenader's aggressive behavior in the Paris talk page and the history of the Paris article (for example here accusing another editor of "POV creep", or here rewriting Minato ku's edit from just a few hours before, and in the process introducing various errors such as a dot after "daily" instead of a comma, or repeating "257 stops and 587 km (365 mi) of rails" twice in the same sentence; isn't that the very definition of disruption?). Der Statistiker (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, fixed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see what Der Statisker has done wrong. He is bringing useful information in the article. I find rather funny to see ThePromenader saying Der Statistiker is disrupting the article because since I am a member here I found ThePromenader much more of a problem in this article concerning the quality of the article's content. Also I find strange that SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld suddenly found this complaint here that is not mentioned anywhere in the talk page of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support The evidence is clear, and this has been going on far too long. A waste of everyone's time. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: While there's certainly disruption here that may be in need of admin intervention, I'm not convinced a unilateral ban of Der Statistiker is the right way to go. Last year when I intervened as an admin in this conflict, my impression was clearly that of an it-takes-two-to-tango situation: There are two parties with equally strong POV perspectives, Statistiker and Promenader, who are both backed up by their respective tag teams, are both equally allergic to each other's presence, and both probably suffer from "m:Megalomaniacal point of view" to an equal extent, insofar as they both seem quite unable to realize that their own POV is just that, a point of view like others. The article was quiet for a year as long as both of them were away, it exploded again within a matter of days as soon as the two of them were back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is what it may look like on the surface (according to statistiker's complaints to you), but, if you look further, namely at the diffs I provided above concerning the complaint to you (and everything else, for that matter), that's not the case. I don't see where the POV accusation comes from, nor the 'tag-team' one: just because article contributors find themselves having to deal with statistiker's behaviour doesn't make them a 'team' pushing a POV. And even then, it was article contributors opposing one contributor and others summoned off-wiki... I don't see how it is possible to overlook that. When this happened two years ago, I only became aware of it after it was already in full swing, so I'm hardly any 'ringleader' in this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This is repetition, but concerning 'just me', statistiker had been gone over a year when I announced [105] that I was available for editing (and would be editing soon) just to be sure, and it was another month before I made my first edit to the article [106]. Statistiker showed up one week later [107], and for everything after that, I refer to you to the Paris talk page. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support:Der Statistiker has consistently been rude, sarcastic and aggressive, attacking and insulting any editor who disagrees with him. He makes it very hard to work on this article. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The biggest disruption on Paris has come from Promenader. If anyone is to be topic banned it is he. It certainly does not help when his friends dr blo and schrocat add to the disruption. Their POV pushing has been going on forever at Paris. Caden ^cool 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that, then? JAGUAR  20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

All editors who have had long-time involvement in either of the tag-teams mentioned, as well as their habitual wikifriends and wikifoes, need to lay off this discussion; their !votes here are unhelpful and unwelcome. (Caden, that certainly applies to you just as much as anybody, given your long-standing feuds with Blofield and friends.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to the admins

ThePromenader already asked for my topic-ban from the Paris-related article ([108]) but his request was suspended by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise who set the following rule: [109]

" from this moment on, the talkpage of the Paris article (as well as all related discussions elsewhere, edit summaries etc.) are under a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" rule. You can all continue to discuss what content should be in the Paris article, but until further notice, no contributor with a prior significant involvement on the Paris discussions is allowed, in any context, to engage in any negative remarks about any of the others. This includes, in addition to the usual forms of incivility and personal attacks: any complaints or accusations of wrongdoing, speculations about the other person's motivations or POV agendas, reminders about (real or alleged) past misbehaviour or allusions to such, talk about somebody's behaviour off-wiki, ad-hominem arguments about somebody's lack of qualifications or of editing merits, "tu-quoque"-types of responses to accusations from others. Anybody who engages in any such behaviour, on either side, will be blocked, immediately, without further warning, for substantial periods of time."

After nearly a year without editing the Paris article (in a large measure due precisely to previous witch-hunting by ThePromenader, which doesn't really induce people to spend time to work on this or other articles... I note that the French editors who used to work on that article are all gone now), I finally made my first edit in almost a year in this article on November 19, 2015 ([110]). Almost immediately, and despite the fact that I had had no contact or interaction with ThePromenader in almost a year, ThePromenader:

a- accused me of "POV creep" ([111])

b- then opened this new complaint against me with for the most part with the same old recycled paranoid and unsubstantiated stuff as last year

If words have a meaning, a- and b- both breach the rule set by Future Perfect at Sunrise for this article. I find it unfair that I have to defend myself against someone who breaches rules and harasses me within 24 hours of my 1st edit to this article in a year. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If your first edits to an article since a year are confrontational [112][113][114][115][116], there's already a problem, and some sort of (not 'harassment', push back ) reaction is only to be expected, don't you think? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Der Statistiker has been bringing out this one-time 'ruling' every time his behaviour is questioned since... a year now, and seems to think that it's an excuse to act in all impunity (because people aren't 'allowed' to complain about his behaviour). A look at the Paris talk page will show this clearly enough, but I can provide diffs if needed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, distorted presentation of facts... I haven't made a single edit in the Paris (or Paris-related) article between November 30, 2014 ([117]) and November 19, 2015 ([118]), i.e. almost an entire year. Yet you somehow imply that during this one year when I have not been editing the article my "behavior" has been "questioned" and I have brought out this rule "every time"... in a year when I haven't even edited this article. Like... right. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thus the '...' in my reply. Before, after, here, like a day never passed inbetween. Shall I provide examples? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's high time for an interaction ban. It's pretty clear that these two editors will argue forever. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not like before. I actually regret leaving my last comment, there was no need to. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Summit, I have no opinion about whether an interaction ban is a good idea or not, as that decision belongs entirely to the admins, but I think if an interaction ban is decided, it should also include User:SiefkinDR as per for example the case that I've detailed here on Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this. An interaction ban limited only to ThePromenader and myself would fail to achieve the goal of pacifying this article I think. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This has no place here - one cannot use admin attention to an inquiry into one's own behaviour to try to 'enforce' a personal vendetta against another contributor - but it is a perfect demonstration of the aforementioned WP:GAMEing. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to the admins: ThePromenader is now moving around comments from other editors in the talk page and deciding where they should stand inside the talk page: [119]. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Also of note for the admins: in the Paris talk page, SiefkinDR claims that he rewrote the section about the Greater Paris Metropolis that I had written and created only 3 days before because "it lacked specifics about the area, population, and competences of the Metropole." ([120]) The diff of my edit from 3 days before shows that this section in fact DID contain the area and population of the Metropolis ([121]), contrary to what SiefkinDR is claiming. This is an example of what I'm confronted with in this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

New attacks against editors

I hope the administrators are aware of the posts that were made at the end of November on two French urban planning sites, urging members to come into Wikipedia to support Der Statistiker and specifically to attack me, Promenader and Blofeld. The attacks on me, by name, and the other editors are quite personal and insulting. This kind of behavior is unfortunately typical. Der Statistker has to stop using articles on Paris to promote has personal agenda. See the posts below.

English link: [122] - Original French: [123]

I hope administrators will act to stop this kind of behavior. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why this isn't getting any attention at all - it's been six days since this was opened. I have to keep making silly comments just to keep it from being archived. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:WikiBulova

WikiBulova (talk · contribs · count) appears upset that me and other editors did not appreciate his/her copy&paste creation of new list-type articles (List of newspapers in Karachi, List of magazines in Karachi, List of radio stations in Karachi, List of television stations in Karachi), all being a selective copy-paste of existing artciles (List of newspapers in Pakistan, List of magazines in Pakistan, List of radio stations in Pakistan, List of television stations in Pakistan), and in apparent revenge went on to revert anything I edited on Wikipedia in the last 24 hours.[124] [125] [126] [127] [128]. I politely pointed out to the editor the reasons behind my edits to the lists,[129] and requested undoing his/her edits, but he/she does not appear to have understood this. Thank you to intervene. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this user has engaged in (and been warned for) retaliatory editing—see [130] [131] [132] [133]. (TLDR version: I fixed one of their cut-and-paste moves and left a polite note informing them about this and about the correct procedure for moving pages. They responded by accusing me of threats, and then filed a spurious edit warring report on me at WP:AN3.) —Psychonaut (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think copying within Wikipedia says to give attribution to the parent article in edit summary or on talk page of article even while copying something from other Wikipedia articles. This editor seems to be not giving any attribution to his/her copy paste articles. Also he/she should read WP:SIZESPLIT before making any sub-articles related to same issue. Specially his this behaviour seems to be very disruptive, though he self-reverted himself. --Human3015^TALK  20:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the editor saw in my edit history that I edited Kashmir Railway and decided to inflict some damage.[134]. Childish, to say the least. kashmiri ^TALK 09:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Omar-toons

[Pulled this out of the archive given the new comment by M.Bitton. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)]

Omar-toons (talk · contribs) is a prolific editor on topics related to northern Africa, particularly Morocco and Algeria. Unfortunately he has a strong pro-Moroccan and anti-Algerian POV that makes it impossible for him to work constructively and collaboratively on those topics. The example that brought me here was the Sand War where Omar-toons is giving prominence to less reliable sources and for spurious reasons either removes or de-emphasizes better source. Examples include [135], [136], [137], [138]. By now there's a rather wide, policy-based consensus established on the talk page; that didn't keep him from labeling those opposing his preferred order of sources "disruptive".

That pattern of edits is not limited to a single article: [139][140], [141], [142], [143]. The standard modus operandi is to revert, possibly quoting some irrelevant policy, and to keep reverting until the other side is exhausted. In my experience talk page comments generally are short, if they're given at all, and do not address the points raised by others; they're more of a diversionary tactic than an attempt to establish a consensus.

For these reasons I'm proposing a topic ban for Omar-toons from edits related to North Africa and the Maghreb. Huon (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

In my defense I could say that I always try to keep it NPOV, and that disagreeing with me about the edition on one sole article isn't enough to accuse me of being a POV-pusher (I even keep it NPOV about Western Sahara, for example by considering it a separate territory from Morocco, which can be considered illegal here... just to say).

Also, I called M.Bitton "disruptive" because... actually he is. Did you take a look on his TP (in its pre-cleaning version)? He did a mess last time he intervened... [144]. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reduce Sanction to 1PR I don't think that we should TB any editor who is adding material to an article. YES his additions are POV(I have just come here from Sand war, an article I went to browse and witnessed it brim over with drama), but still he adds sources and does work. So we should just make sure that we take out the disruptive side of his contributions , and a One revert Per Day sanction should be just that. Toons can continue editing Wiki, but if he is reverted he will have to discuss it without being disruptive. Win Win for all. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And, FreeatlastChitchat : you are nor an admin nor involved, except the fact that we had some diagreements on previous articles (where you POV-pushed a lot)... so, what's your point? --Omar-toons (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ummmm, don't know what to say here when faced with this kind of imbecility. But here goes. DUDE! I am on your frigging side here. Did you not even read my comment? It says "REDUCE SANCTION" right there at the start. Being involved with you in debates and still taking your side on this is evidence in itself that I am not INVOLVED, so whats your point? had I been involved I would have commented something like "Toons is a complete troll who routinely edit wars on Algeria related pages diff, diff, diff, diff. Ban him asap omg why isnt he banned yet. /hairpull #BanToons". So please do not look a gift horse in the mouth. @admins who judge this, my stance still remians that toon should not be topic banned. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, Omar-Toons was blocked for edit-warring this time; my suggestion was going to be that we try and let regular processes play out. I can't see if an ANEW report was filed, but that, perhaps, should be done every time OT gets to edit warring--and kindly point out, in such reports, that typically OT isn't always guilty of 3R, but rather of slower edit warring. I am well aware of OT's zeal and occasional disruption, which includes ownership-style editing and very loose interpretations of policy ("You are a little bit late : all sources are kept per WP:BOLD"); for a topic ban, however, we would need more evidence from different pages. I'll have a look at Huon's second paragraph; in the meantime, I'll also ping Dougweller, who has some experience dealing with this type of problem. In the other meantime, Omar-Toons, I wish that on occasion (like, on this occasion), you could break out your most mellow and collaborative side. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• OK, Omar-toons did the exact same thing on Algerian War just signaled by User:Huon, and I have blocked him again for edit warring, now for 72 hours. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask for a topic ban for a slow-moving edit war, though that's tedious enough on its own. What did it for me was a mistranslation and a misrepresentation of a source. Omar-toons adding sources is no benefit if the sources don't say what he claims they say. Huon (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that Omar-toons has used multiple accounts in a very deceitful manner and somehow, managed to cover his tracks. He created Omar-Toons (with capital "T") on April 2010. A few months later (October 2010), he created another account with very similar spelling, Omar-toons (with lower-case "t", the one he still uses). He used both accounts at the same time such as here and here (as usual, either removing sources and claiming that the statement is unsourced or adding WP:OR). After numerous blocks, including one for socking using IP [145], his account Omar-Toons (with capital "T") was finally globally locked for massive crosswiki edit-warring on July the 29th, 2012 [146]. To hide his tracks, on the 30th of July 2012 (less than 24 hours after his global block), he created a third account TooNs-NC, claimed a forgotten password (obviously, he could not log in since he was blocked), redirected Omar-Toons (with capital "T") page [147] and talk page [148] to it (even though, he had no right to mess with a blocked account). Three hours later, after a couple of contributions, he archived the pages and redirected them to Omar-toons (he shelved the temporary account, claiming it was a bad idea to create it). He also added "formerly Omar-Toons (with capital T)" to his page[149] knowing full well that When you click on it, you get redirected to the new page and won't notice anything unusual. @Huon, Drmies, and FreeatlastChitchat: How do you deal with such devious practice? Is a topic ban enough in this case? M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Doesn't evading a global lock warrant an indef block? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Omar-Toons Fences&Windows 23:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It's block evasion and sockpuppetry, which automatically should see the socks indeffed. Huon (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite, you indeffed capital T in 2012. Any comments? Drmies (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction: you blocked them for socking. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of articles from establishment by place categories.

User:Spacini has repeatedly removed articles such as 119th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment from categories such as Category:1862 establishments in Illinois claiming these are "Unneccesary categories". The articles clearly state that these units were organized at a certain place in a certain year. Of there last 50 edits, 49 have been such unjustified removals of place/year categories. It seems to me if they disagree with such categories this is a matter that should be brought up as a category discussion, not by unilaterally removing categories. Here are some diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=119th_Illinois_Volunteer_Infantry_Regiment&diff=prev&oldid=693294807 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=116th_Indiana_Infantry_Regiment&diff=prev&oldid=693294776 This is very disruptive and an unjustified undermining of the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

IP editor removing Star Citizen from List of most expensive games to develop

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

---

Someone (IP: 75.156.66.139) is continuously removing this game from the list of most expensive games to develop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop), based on these false arguments:

- Game is unfinished (Irrelevant fact to be removed from that list as the list itself doesn't have in mind the current status of a game, the game is currently work-in-progress, and there are also other unfinished/cancelled games on that list that he doesn't care about in the slightest, proof that he's only a SC hater).

- Numbers doesn't represent the amount destined to the development of the game (False: the SC devs have stated many times that the funds in the linked Stretch Goals page goes exclusively to the development of the game (1) (2). Other marketing and event stuff is handled by donations from subscribers (3) ).

(1) https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals , quote: "As a crowd funded project, Star Citizen's scope is based directly on the support provided by our backers. Money pledged goes directly to the game's development."

(2) "10 for the Chairman, Episode 69" YouTube video , (minute 4:45), quote from SC's creator and chairman as of 9, Nov 2015: "We're not doing the typical commercials. We're taking all the money we've raised, and put it into the development of the game".

(3) https://robertsspaceindustries.com/faq/subscriptions

Even knowing the truth, he keeps removing the game from that list. Thus I ask if that guy can be banned from editing this page any further. Thank you.

P.D: I'm afraid I have no idea about how to use the ANI-notice. Any help about that would be appreciated :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have notified the IP user. But this looks like a content dispute. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have asked 75.156.66.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to discuss this on the talk page. Kurt, before going to AN/I you should have opened a discussion on their talk page and on the article talk about the edit, not immediately about blocking them. It is irritating when this happens, but if you don't explain on the talk pages why the content should be kept and why repeatedly removing it is not OK then an admin can hardly take action this early into a disagreement. I have now warned them that they may be blocked if they continue to remove Star Citizen. Fences&Windows 08:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Am, sorry. I'm a complete noob in this :) Thanks for notifying him for me thou. I also wrote the reason why it shouldn't be removed on the Talk page, but I'm gonna update it with this version (which is more complete). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 12:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you not call the IP editor a "Star Citizen hater" or any other pejorative. That is a direct violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and could result in your own temporary block if it continues. —Farix (t | c) 12:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed as well, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtMaverick (talk • contribs) 12:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Brief note: I believe I've corrected the mass of unsigned comments and refactoring at Talk:List of most expensive video games to develop and posted a warning to KurtMaverick concerning refactoring/deleting the talk page comments of other editors, which he has done twice on this topic in the last two days. -- ferret (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue is under discussion on article talk page, so I suppose request here can be closed. Sir Lothar (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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

178.217.194.100

178.217.194.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has, over the last few weeks, been trying to add a huge table about birth rates by the country of birth of the mother and father in England and Wales. When reverted at Demography of England, the IP posted it at Demography of the United Kingdom, then when reverted there at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom, and now Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom, despite warnings not to continue doing so. Seeing their latest edit, I thought that I would see what they have been adding to articles on other countries. I found this addition to Demographics of France, including the text: "If French people (whites) didn't wake up they will be minority in their own country, and they arleady lost Paris". Is it time to block? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Following my revert, the IP has restored the unsourced commentary less the racist postscript. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

And I have removed and deleted it as a copyvio of http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/04/race-in-france-a-sketch-based-on-first-and-second-generation-immigrants/. They began editing in June with gnoming table edits on demography, they appear to be an experienced editor. Their recent commentary noted above reveals a disturbing motive for their editing, it may be time to block if they won't properly engage in discussion. Fences&Windows 08:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Some of the user's edits can cause improvements, as the information added to demographics of the UK was then turned into prose by myself. The problem is that they have never engaged in discussion or edit summaries and most of the edits miss the mark on the style of Wikipedia (i.e. overloaded tables). The scale of articles with such tables added is staggering and I'm amazed this has gone on for so long without being picked up. Maybe a block will force the user into discussion... Jolly Ω Janner 09:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Abstracting out the content issue, there's an interesting question regarding tables and data, especially tables which collate readily accessible (and verifiable) information, possibly from multiple sources, but which don't fit well, stylistically. Is there a place to put big data tables? Wikidata seems to be the wrong place, but articles do suffer from large tables. Argyriou (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's worth saying that excessive lists of statistics are discouraged by WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A reply from 178.217.194.100: "My mistake, I'm sorry for that. It won't happen again. I'm still learning what is acceptable. I like French people and I want to help not hurt anyone. Notice that I help in editing many pages about demography in many countries". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to get 178.217.194.100 to understand how to use decimal points, but I'm not getting a response and they continue to use commas for this purpose. Any suggestions? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You could try reverting a few of the edits, since that's normally when the user is prompted to engage in discussion. It's rare that any of the edits are worthy of inclusion anyway. Another alternative would be to follow the user's every edit and cleanup after them, but this is very time consuming and perhaps a waste of time since these tables are barely worthy of inclusion (I certainly don't want to volunteer!). Doesn't look like the topic is attracting much help from admins, sadly. Jolly Ω Janner 21:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Despite a further reminder yesterday, this has continued this morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted that edit as suggested, Jolly Janner, but 178.217.194.100 just reinstated it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Politically partisan disruption of Proportional representation

• BalCoder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since Aug.16 a new user, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, has been disrupting the proportional representation (PR) article for politically partisan reasons. He displays all WP:DISRUPTSIGNS except cite-tagging. He is WP:NOTHERE to improve WP but to help the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). I am the only person protecting the PR article, I don't see a way out except to get the user blocked, so I come back to WP:ANI.

Story so far: I have tried talk page discussion, WP:BRD, not reverting to encourage cooperation, a WP:ANI incident to block him which attracted no admin response, a request for help at WP:WikiProject Politics which also brought no response (it appears to be moribund). The article has twice been protected to encourage cooperation. After the ANI failure my only recourse was reverting but we were both blocked once for edit warring. Others encouraged me to try WP:DRN, which I did twice, here and here, both attempts failing because Ontario, although agreeing to both mediations, failed to cooperate.

Political bias: Apart from PR, almost all Ontario's edits have concerned Canadian politics, obviously in connection with the Oct.19th Canadian federal election, and obviously in support of the Conservative Party of Canada (e.g.here, here, here). In the PR article he puffs FPTP and diminishes the various PR systems, particularly MMP. MMP is the official policy of the New Democratic Party, and reform of the electoral system to a more proportional one is a policy of the new Liberal government. The CPC wants to retain FPTP. Ontario has also misleadingly changed a number of other electoral system articles with crude copy/paste from the PR article, as well as a template:

• Mixed-member proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Semi-proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Plurality voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Closed list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Open list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Electoral systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The basic dispute: Ontario insists that mixed member proportional representation (MMP) is not PR but "mixed", and has mutilated the article's structure in consequence. MMP is both mixed and proportional, as its name implies. That it is "usually considered PR", as the lead says, is uncontentious, has unimpeachable sources, and has not been challenged since being introduced on Dec.11, 2014 (diff) (in those eleven months, though the article receives ca.1000 hits/day, the only changes to the MMP section have been some commas and the words "Scotland and Wales".) Although I have referred him seven times to these sources, and they were the subject of both DRN incidents, he has yet to justify his removal of the statement. He allows only that MMP is semi-proportional for which he produces thirteen (!) sources, none of which supports his contention. His only arguments are some specific MMP elections which did not produce proportional results, one of which, Hungary, is already mentioned in the article as an example of gerrymandering.

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

Tendentious

Ontario's edits are determinedly anti-PR and pro-FPTP, and sources are bent to this end. Not only concerning MMP, but also party list PR (e.g.that open and closed systems do not use districts, a nonsense - he uses the word "zone" rather than "district" as an evasion), and, since Nov.5, he has removed sourced statements about STV in the article lead that were the result of a consensus (here) presumably what the comment "removed/moved redundant or superfluous sentences" refers to.

His Talk posts are wilfully misleading. His most recent post is typical, a whole paragraph about an uncontentious classification of electoral systems; the actual problem, that MMP is nonetheless proportional, is not mentioned. He adds: "I have, in good faith, retained all of your minor edits...": as far as I can see he has retained one, a positive (for him) change in emphasis at the beginning of the section "Link between constituent and representative", but removed all other changes, for e.g.that some researchers question the importance of this link, and the sources for that. Another example is this post to user Reallavergne: none of his claims in it is correct.

He repeatedly protests that his edits are mostly minor edits (he doesnt' t grasp WP:MINOR), spelling & grammar (there was one spelling error, I think), layout errors (presumably the mangling of the article's structure) or formatting that doesn't change the meaning (the table in "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", probably a WP:COPYVIO), implying I am unreasonably reverting trivial changes. But this is deception: his changes are not at all trivial, and his revised structure (sections "Party list PR" and "Mixed electoral systems") is chaotic. User:Reallavergne, invited by Ontario to comment, and who has suffered at my hands in the past (e.g.here,here) and so is no fan of mine, agrees that my mass reverts were "largely justified".

Qualifications are frequently used to mislead: e.g. fully proportional, pure PR, delineated districts. Another deception is his trying to imply that it is I making unacceptable edits to his text and not the other way round. He accordingly changed the talk section title, this in his first (!) talk post in WP (it was later changed by User:Drcrazy102). But until Nov.26 - when after eleven days without an edit I assumed Ontario had withdrawn - I had not added any text at all since Ontario began editing on August 16. I am just protecting what was there before.

Verifiability

He cannot produce sources when challenged (e.g.here), but boasts about the "plethora" of sources he has introduced, bamboozling with quantity, knowing they won't be looked at. They seldom support his arguments. For e.g.his lead, para 3, "MMP is a middle ground between" is supported by none of the nine (!) sources; the same for "This has led to some disagreement...". In the section "PR systems in the broader family of voting systems", only one source (from which it was copied) supports the table, the other nine (!) don't; neither do they all support the classification. On Sep.27 I complained that a RS did not support his text: he has removed the RS but not the text, which is not correcter for now being unsourced. His ref.30 (Geometric Voting) ostensibly supports MMP producing semi-proportional results, but it in fact says this happens only if the system is "deliberately" designed that way (see my Oct.3 post). His references in DRN #2 to p.22 of the Forder book are fiction. I haven't checked them all. I have repeatedly pointed him to WP:VERIFY and he retorts it is I who should provide sources to justify my revertions!

Does not engage in consensus building

Not once has he straightforwardly answered a question of mine. From the start his tone has been confrontational. For example, after I proposed BRD he replied: "Know this, if you continue to simply reinsert the same flawed text..." - this tone in only his second ever post to a talk page. And I'm not inserting anything. When, at his request, I posed three central questions (on Sep.21), he avoided answering them by answering different questions. He has several times been told by others to discuss point by point, but has yet to do so. This statement to admin User:Abecedare is therefore an outrageous untruth.

Ignores community input

There hasn't been much community input, but there is the failure to partake in the WP:DRN incidents; ignoring this earlier proposition from User:Drcrazy102 to mediate. And when User:Reallavergne (Ontario's invitee) confirmed that "MMP should be considered proportional", Ontario simply "overlooked" this inconvenient truth.

Exhaust the patience of productive editors

This seems to be Ontario's tactic, keep the tsunami of text coming until I give up. What the text says is secondary, so long as a semblance of reasonableness is preserved to mislead the uninvolved; he knows no-one else is going to read it all.

Failure to 'get the point'

One example: I wrote on Aug.26 that MMP is mixed, but on Nov.3 he was still maintaining I "flip-flop" on the very existence of "mixed" systems. But the point is uncontroversial and irrelevant, a distraction to avoid confronting the real point, that MMP is proportional, which would bring down his house of cards. Another: he seized on a recent anonymous IP edit as a new battleground, insisting it was from me. I denied that it was. Nonetheless, in the following posts he continued to claim it was from me, an entirely synthetic dispute, another red herring. There are more.

Ontario should be permanently blocked from all electoral system articles. --BalCoder (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments: This is a content dispute

I've been watching this content dispute unfold. It really needs to start from scratch, back to the beginning, dumping all baggage. Though interested, I'm largely ignorant re different voting systems and how they impact elections in Ontario or Canada. As an outsider, I don't see a solution in this fog, but I can see a shadow of hope in the direction of discussing edits and putting aside editors' behaviour. There's a lot of animosity here (on all sides) that needs to be digested and disposed of.

To BalCoder & Ontario Teacher BFA BEd: I direct the comments above to you personally. If you respond as if I directed these comments to you personally, you will have missed my point about discussing edits, not editors, even though you have been attacked. A solution will need editors to make heroic efforts to completely ignore comments on their motives, competency, and adherence to rules.

BalCoder, you might step back and see this from an outsider's perspective. Statements such as "I am the only person protecting the PR article", and "a WP:ANI incident […] which attracted no admin response" are red flags to me that an editor has invested their interest too personally, and may not be able to retreat to a consensual position.

Yes, there has been a frustrating failure to resolve this with talk pages, dispute resolution and appeals to administrator intervention. Perhaps a lot of that has to do with the intricate nature of the topic, and the nuances that are in contention. I bet I'm among many readers that would have loved to have helped out, but were not knowledgeable enough. This one is going to take a painstaking slog through edits one at a time. Apart from ejecting egos, my other recommendation is making edits in small steps, and allowing agreement to settle before proceeding. The article has been unsettled for three months now. I see no harm in proceeding carefully for another three months. My two cents. Willondon (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• TL;DR. Dude. 166.176.59.110 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Is this really just a content dispute?

I would not be so quick as to call this just a content dispute. As BalCoder points out, I have had my own quarrels with his ready use of mass reversions when a more constructive approach might have been called for. That said, I think he and I did succeed in improving the Proportional Representation entry somewhat together. It was just way more tedious and time-consuming than I could afford, and I had to move on to other things, abandoning with regret some of the work that Balcoder had block-reverted. Later, I saw Balcoder adopting the same approach with someone else, but I got involved in helping to come to a constructive solution and found that this worked out well.

Whatever difficulties Balcoder and I may have had, there is much to be said for his willingness to go the extra mile to protect the integrity of a polically-sensitive Wikipedia entry like this one. One can forgive a lot of sins when one witnesses such a high level of dedication.

From a content perspective, I can vouch for the fact that some of the changes proposed by Ontario appear to be politically motivated and make no sense to me from a strictly content perspective. The example that Balcoder gives of Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) treating MMP like it was not a proportional system stands out very strongly in this respect. Ontario's views on this are nonsense, and I spent a considerable amount of Talk time explaining that, apparently to no effect. Balcoder cites a number of other quite convincing cases where political motivation appears to be involved in Ontario's Wikipedia edits.

I suggested earlier that Balcoder's mass reversion probably makes sense in this case. I stand by that suggestion. More difficult is the question of whether Ontario should be blocked as politically motivated. I believe this option should be more carefully considered, looking at the examples that Balcoder has cited, than I can afford to do right now, but I would not be too quick to dismiss it as an option. In fact, if our concern is to protect the integrity of the site, I would say that this is the risk-management option to choose. That's my two cents worth. Wish I could afford to do more than that!Reallavergne (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This is only a "content dispute" in that many disputes arise as content disputes and are then complicated by conduct issues. Both another DRN volunteer and I tried to mediate this dispute, and we both had to fail it because User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd didn't participate constructively. In the case of my thread, they agreed to mediation and then didn't reply for five days, after a statement having been made that every editor must participate at least every 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I have to Support a topic ban, because content remedies have not worked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:Robert McClenon,

There are currently two disputes: a conduct dispute and a content dispute. In terms of conduct, User:BalCoder has repeatedly used uncivil language such as calling me an unscrupulous liar on 27 Sep 2015. Comparatively, I have, in good faith, used 'adaptive edits' in order to build consensus whereas BalCoder has merely mass reverted content based on the author alone. Furthermore, I have contacted other editors who have previously contributed to the article in order to build consensus and have input their suggestions/points of view several times through adaptive edits. Moreover, BalCoder has accused me of being politically motivated, and holding an anti-MMP stance. This accusation is quite shocking as I am personally in favour of MMP, as it is a compromise between the other two voting systems families. In fact, I voted for MMP in the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007. I do feel, however, WP editors have a responsibility to compare the advantages and disadvantages of electoral systems fairly. For this reason, I have attempted to ensure fair and neutral language is used throughout the article, while BalCoder has used severe language ripe with biased tones in his/her edits.

In terms of content, User:BalCoder has renamed the subtitle 'Mixed or Hybrid' from the WP article on 11 Dec 14 to the seldom used term 'Two-tier systems'. I reverted this change. This user has deliberately misrepresented the truth by acting like his/her subtitle is the original version in order to establish a false incumbency. The premise of his/her arguments is that he/she is "protecting what was there before" is blatantly false. In truth, it is the other way around. Additionally, BalCoder removed the entire, and extremely well sourced section, 'PR systems in the broader family of voting systems'. This user has mislead others to believe I created this section- I did not! This section of the article was present prior to my contributions. I merely transferred existing information into an easy-to-understand table.

Proportional Representation Systems	Mixed Member Systems	Plurality/Majority Systems
Single Transferable Vote	Mixed Member Proportional	First Past the Post
Party List Proportional Representation (closed/open/local)	Alternative Vote Plus	Alternative Vote/Instant-runoff voting
	Additional Member System	Preferential block voting
	Majority Bonus System	Limited Vote
		Supplementary Vote
		Two-Round System
		Borda Count

This table primarily comes from the Electoral Reform Society of the UK. However, the classification of electoral systems into these three groups: PR systems, Mixed member systems, and Plurality/Majority Systems is universally used around the world by academic scholars, journalists, and electoral reform advocacy groups alike from a wide variety of political persuasions. For this reason, I provided examples from around the world to demonstrate that this classification is global. So, in addition to the aforementioned British example from an electoral reform advocacy group, I provided an example from a major Canadian magazine(Aaron Wherry from Maclean's Magazine), and from an Italian (Associate Professor of Comparative Public Law and School of Law Claudio Martinelli from the University of Milan-Bicocca) University professor. This quite blatantly disproved BalCoder's wild accusation that I am somehow exclusively using Canadian sources.

In terms of the accusation that I have not worked to reach consensus or that I have not provided sources which list MMP/AMS as semi-proportional, consider the following:

As notes in the Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR) website,

"Mixed member systems differ slightly from country to country. In AMS (The UK term for MMP) the number of MPs in the parliament is fixed, and as a result AMS is sometimes called a semi proportional system. With MMP additional MPs may be required to achieve the required degree of proportionality. The degree of proportionality varies depending on the ratio of MPs elected by FPTP to the number of party list MPs, and the rules by which the party list MPs are appointed." I have added this source to the list substantiating the phrase "This has led to some disagreement among scholars as to its classification.". This phrase has been added under the suggestion by, and consensus with, Øln on November 4th, 2015.

Therefore, I believe User:BalCoder should be banned from the WP article based on both uncivil conduct, and the intentional misrepresentation of facts. The content of the proportional representation article can be resolved by other editors who have demonstrated good faith such as User:Reallavergne and Øln. Thank you for your time.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

---

References

Rhema Media

Disruptive edits are being made to Rhema Media.

• Sourced content is being repeatedly removed without explanation.
• Third-party sources are being deleted, and even basic bot fixes are being reverted.
• Content is being added that is copyright, unsourced, non-NPOV, advertorial and highly subjective - most copied from here or here.
• User:Leenz999 has done this here and here. They have made similar edits here, here and here.
• User:MikeMediaNZ has done this here. They have been invited to talk but haven't engaged.
• User:RM1251 has done this here. They have been invited to talk but haven't engaged. They continue to make disruptive edits.

Thanks. Paewiki (talk)

Very, very clear promotional and COI edits. Note the usernames: Leenz - Lee is a named employee in the article about this New Zealand (nz) company. MikeMediaNZ - Mike is also the CEO's name. RM1251 - Rhema Media 1251 (AM 1251 is a their radio station). Requested page protection and left a message at WP:COIN pointing here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Page protected for two weeks and all editors notified about COI. Let's see how they respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. With three COI editors inserting fluff such as "Star reflects that life really does begin at 50 and has the music and teaching programmes to prove it, but... don’t tell the kids!"[150], the article had turned into ad copy. It still is. Reliable sources for this article subject are surprisingly few for a broadcaster; I've been looking. See Talk:Rhema_Media#Deletion? It's one of those situations where the article subject is just barely notable, and AfD seems inappropriate, but there's very limited third party coverage. John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible uncivil conduct; requesting mediation

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

---

• HuntClubJoe (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Contributor has possibly engaged in uncivil behaviour on their talk page. [151] It is requested that a party not involved in discussion mediate or weigh-in on the matter so as to help deescalate situation.

Background: This is an out-crop from (extremely minor and trivial) dispute involving addition of advert tag to Rogers Communications article. This resulted in comments left on talk page of Raysonho, found here; to which myself [152] and that contributor [153] responded. After this, I also left a reply on talk page of HuntClubJoe, stating that uncivil behaviour is unwelcome within the project and encourage them to behave civilly. [154] (I replied to the first-linked possible incivility about 30 minutes ago and that diff may be found here)

-- dsprc ^[talk] 14:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've warned the editor about personal attacks and asked them to redact it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary and can be requested at the dispute resolution noticeboard or requests for formal mediation. Civility is not optional and one editor has been warned. If the editors want to resolve a content dispute, they can request mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 December 2015‎

@Robert McClenon: WP:DRN says in header with bold text it is to only be used for disputes on content. AN/I seems to be the only venue as ingress point for conduct-related matters. Formal mediation (and most other routes) require preceding options to have already been explored and/or exhausted before raising issues within, and escalating to, those particular venues. Gotta love (loathe?) all that red-tape! Berean Hunter handled the matter perfectly (a simple "Hey, cut it out" was sufficient action at this juncture). -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dsprc - You said that there was uncivil conduct and you were requesting mediation. Maybe you made the good-faith mistake of labeling a request for an admin warning, which was given, as a request for mediation. You are correct that DRN is for content disputes. Mediation is for content disputes. Maybe this has been taken care of. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Bad move
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If not one of you idiots have the wherewithal to say something about the actual CONTENT, you can block the shit out of me. WP has become a cesspool of corporate trolls, and people like myself who can't afford to invest 100 hours a month fighting it are helpless to do anything but watch it swirl the fucking bowl. WP:3RR is what, only for people like me who can't pull out all the procedural stops to fuck others over? OK. Peace the fuck out. PS: You can look at my record of edits. Though not as voluminous as some here, they are stellar and, with two notable exceptions (by troll jerkoffs User:Dsprc and User:Earl Andrew), unchallenged. I tried to contribute to this project, but all I get is shit on. Fuck you all, you lot of keyboard warriors. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. Apparently, that offends you more than the whoring out of WP. Jesus Christ. Be sure to hold your collective breath for a redaction! LMAO!HuntClubJoe (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for personal attacks.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Spammer

PicoRobin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems like a single-purpose account for spamming one url, and trying to disguise it as a valid source. Eik Corell (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't appear as though s/he has edited since you left him/her a warning. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

2.86.255.196

2.86.255.196 continues to silently removed condensed box office values at 2015 in film, most recently here, despite having received two warnings about edit warring, along with my clear explanation that consensus already exists for the condensed values. Further, I've pointed out to them twice that a discussion is already in place at Talk:2015 in film, which they have not participated in. The article had recently been protected to foster dialogue, but the IP editor failed to participate. Other edits of the same kind from the IP: [155][156][157][158] Looks to me like the user is determined to get his way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I will also point out that six minutes after I notified him that an ANI case was open on him, he again submitted his preferred version after another editor had reverted him. Clearly disruptive behavior, and he has crossed 3RR. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I placed a 3RR warning on the IPs talk page. Regardless of the content involved (which I'm not taking a position on at this time as I'm about to logoff and haven't had time to review positions on each side about the content), edit warring is not acceptable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Nonsensical Edit-Warring, Hostile Editing and MOS:LEAD Violation by TheRedPenOfDoom (TRPoD)

Zee Bangla is a major Indian television network in the Bengali language. It has a viewership of over 55 million. [159] Just to put that into perspective, this network has a larger viewership than NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX and the CW combined. [160] Due to WP:BIAS, naturally there's not a lot a proportional amount of editing in English WP.

But you wouldn't know it's even a television network due to TRPoD's edit-warring.

User:TheRedPenOfDoom has been hell-bent on getting this deleted with either blanking redirects to the network's holding company or "Notability" tags.[161][162][163][164]. During a WP:TNT job he deleted the lede.[165] You would have no idea what the article topic is by TRPoD's edit. Naturally I added a lede per MOS:LEAD. That lede was:

Zee Bangla (Bengali: জ়ী বাংলা) is a Bengali language cable television channel in India. It is offered by Zee Network, part of the Essel Group.

TRPoD deleted this sentence and didn't replace it with anything so nobody has any idea what even this topic is! His edit summary was "WP:BURDEN it is obviously a claim and unsourced." [166]

Either this editor is operating on the assumption that every single sentence in WP mainspace must be cited by sources or he's just being combative for the sake of combativeness. Given his history, I'm wondering if it's the latter. I wouldn't have brought this case to this board but I see that this editor was blocked by Administrator User:HJ Mitchell for "edit-warring and creating a hostile editing environment" so this behavior is clearly nothing new to him and he has learned nothing from that block. I also see TRPoD has been the subject of multiple ANI cases.[167][168][169][170]

Can something be done about this longtime problem editor? TRP

Also, can someone please fix the MOS:LEAD violation on the Zee Bangla page? --Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. In my opinion his edits do seem a bit too aggressive in terms of removing unsourced stuff (rather than tagging it), since it's not like this is a BLP or a situation where leaving tagged unsourced stuff up for a bit while people search for sources would be a problem; but I don't see how it's a policy violation, so it doesn't really belong here, especially since there seems to have been no attempt by anyone but him to resolve the dispute on the talk page for the article. In any case, if it's as big as that, answering his objections by finding sources should be easy to do, so I don't understand why this dispute has gotten so far -- just take the sources you presented here and put them in the article, if you think they pass WP:RS (I'm not sure myself, but that's something you can hash out with him on the talk page if it turns out to be an issue.) Also, you're required to notify people when creating an ANI thread about them, though I went ahead and did it for you in this case. --Aquillion (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of what you said is correct. This is more about this editor's long-term edit-warring pattern of behavior of that has displayed and still hasn't paid heed to the community's request he stop this behavior.--Oakshade (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are correct about Aquillion being correct, we can close this thread. User:TheRedPenOfDoom, the fate of the world is not at stake in this article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to close this. But I guarantee this is not the last time someone is going to bring this editor to community scrutiny.--Oakshade (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? Does anyone still have the energy to resist Red Pen? This is one of the most destructive editors here (and yes, quote me on that). They have a vast history of edit-warring, wikilawyering bureaucracy to the overall detriment of the encyclopedia. How often does anyone see an edit from them that isn't an edit war?

Yet WP is seemingly powerless to act. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, take a look at the recent history of Krampus for yet more of the same. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, we've all had our little blah blah blah and everyone feels self-satisfied. Now read this again and let it sink in: "Zee Bangla is a major Indian television network in the Bengali language. It has a viewership of over 55 million. [171] Just to put that into perspective, this network has a larger viewership than NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX and the CW combined. [172] Due to WP:BIAS, naturally there's not a lot a proportional amount of editing in English WP. " — Why are we not taking this seriously? Carrite (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking what not seriously? Do we ignore WP:BURDEN because someone yells WP:BIAS? No one says find an English language source, just find a source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Better delete the lede of MSNBC - "MSNBC is an American basic cable and satellite television network that provides news coverage and political opinion (mostly progressive) on current events." - because of WP:BURDEN and there's no citation supporting that claim.--Oakshade (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not helping your cause here. Feel free to go around with WP:POINTy idiocy and test everyone. One reason I hate editing anything India related is there's almost guaranteed to be some claim that it's biased or racist or whatever. That and the ginormous overreaction to every little slight. And that's from someone who's Indian so I'm used to it. To summarize, unsourced content was removed, sources were provided and people still want TRPoD blocked anyways due to Gamergate it seems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing the simple sentence lede for which a vast majority of WP articles don't have a citation under the pretext of WP:BURDEN is what's WP:POINTy. I see even in your good and helpful edits, even you have opted not to delete the lede which is uncited - "Zee Bangla (Bengali: জ়ী বাংলা) is a Bengali language cable television channel in India." - as that would be POINTy.--Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The lede doesn't require a source if the content below repeats it and contains a source. You don't get an out on sourcing by making all the content into the lede. The MSNBC page has extensive citations regarding those facts so the lede is superfluous in that regard. Even then, you argued about not just the lede but about a notability tag, the removal of an non-reliable source, and the redirect of the article. And as noted below, in all the complaining you've done here, the only talk page comment you have is "send it to AFD" which ignore the source concern entirely. Did you really want it taken to AFD or were you just being argumentative as you are here? Even then the lede isn't clear. It's discussing the fact that the channel was banned in Bangladesh without any indication that it is a channel in that country (if it is a current channel there). As I note on the talk page, there's three separate years when it allegedly began. Do you care about any of this or do you think that everyone should just ignore it all in favor of an unsourced list of programs and whatever else people want to post there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The source supporting the lede content, that this was a cable channel in India, was indicated in a source in the article, but TRPoD deleted the lede anyway. As pointed out below by Swarm who opposes a block, TRRoD should've brought this to AfD as opposed to unilaterally redirecting. As for what would transpire in the AfD, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:AFD, WP:BEFORE and WP:DELETE all make it explicitly clear that notability is indicated by the sources that exist, not that are present in the article. No editor with common sense would believe a television network with a viewership over 153 million [173] (it was even more than I thought earlier) would not have existing sources, and in this case, most likely in the Bengali language.--Oakshade (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Block TRPoD for disruption

I think it's clear that TRPoD's conduct is disruptive. There is no need to remove content. 166.176.59.69 (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support I agree IP and with Andy Dingley above. Seriously, what is with the failure to act? —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Did banishing TRPoD improve either the content of the deportment at Gamergate? It did not; things got worse. Yet some of the same actors who were so earnest in their pursuit of Gamergate’s targets, the five horsemen of wikibias, are back here. A block discussion is not the answer. A block is not the answer. The answer is to pick up your toolbox, go look at the television network page, and improve it. A network this large should should be covered in plenty of reliable sources; go use them. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, if even Gamergate won't have him, that's a strong suggestion that there is a problem here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a content dispute that has barely been discussed on the talk page. If discussion and regular dispute resolution procedures are fruitless, then we can consider it here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is about TRPoD's long term hostile disruptive behavior and inability to properly work with others. The "content dispute" is just another example of his behavior that demonstrates his recent block for the same behavior has had no effect on him.--Oakshade (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• wut? I have no idea what Gamergate has to do with this (though I realise it is the horse Bernstein loves to ride) but the rest of his post is correct. It should also have occurred to TRPOD that this is a significant network; perhaps TRPOD has realised this now pablo 19:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a content dispute. (A) What article are we talking about? If people object about Gamergate, start a new discussion. (B) As to Zee Bangla, things are unsourced and so it can be removed. (C) The WP:BURDEN is on those who assert the statements not on the rest of us to just go with it. Cite needed is fine too but we do have over 100 pages with issues for over a decade. (D) Regardless of the claims about English-language bias or whatever, there is no requirement that sources be in English. The fact that no one has found sources in any language is problematic but not particularly disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  "Things" may be unsourced but the second paragraph of the source cited backs up both those sentences. You know, if you actually read it.  pablo 22:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

  • • The content dispute is the thread above, this is about the long-term pattern from Red Pen.

Wikilawyering is using policy to find an excuse to act in a particular way, regardless of whether the end result is useful or not. This typifies Red Pen's editing. I've known of them for a few years, this is all I've ever seen from them. Sometimes the end result is useful (real spam is spam and we're well rid) but all too often - and I'd hazard that it's 50:50 for Red Pen - the results are both harmful and yet policy-compliant. This is the behaviour of the cop who thanks you for pulling over to let the ambulance past, then issues you a ticket for parking on the grass. Red Pen's contribs history is one long slew of red - bulk sections of articles removed on the slightest of whims. Nearly every time he bulk-removes it's against another editor(s), and he will always then edit-war repeatedly to enforce his view and his remarkable persistence. He wins out by sheer doggedness.

Most of these removals are unwarranted. Repeatedly removing mention of a big budget film release as "unsourced" (see Krampus through November) is no excuse when the real fix is to find some sources and add them (It is implausible that a multi-million film doesn't make a footprint of good sources). I do not believe that it is acceptable editing to make this deletion-only edit repeatedly, even when policy permits that, when the better alternative is so obvious and so easily achievable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The deleting the the simple lede of this television network article was another act of WP:POWER rather than the benefit of the readers. This additional example of absurdity is demonstrating his recent block for this kind of behavior has had zero effect on him. Something more substantial needs to be done.--Oakshade (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking an editor over a content dispute. TRPoD can be abrupt and abrasive but I find his edits usually improve articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not just a "content dispute", but another example of an overall long-term pattern of hostile and disruptive editing that this editor has demonstrated. --Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out the long-term pattern? Simply saying "editor was brought to ANI multiple times" isn't going to cut it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not only has there been multiple ANI cases against this editor for the same edit-warring and hostile editing, he was blocked earlier this year for such behavior.[174] I'm not alone on this board when feeling this behavior has gone on long enough. --Oakshade (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom has been an editor since 2007 and has 135,990 edits and one block (one fewer block and 120,000 more edits than you). I am having trouble seeing this as evidence that "this behavior has gone on long enough". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Duration of time at WP is just a red herring and does not absolve an editor from persistent hostile edit warring.--Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I can put it any better than Liz has. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Completely deleting the lede and breaking MOS:LEAD because they were mad the article was still there did not improve the article. That edit-warring beyond "abrasive". --Oakshade (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose If you block TRPoD you may as well hand over the keys to this asylum to every promotional sock farm and paid editing group that proliferate our Indian and Pakistani entertainment articles. I don't think anyone who has not edited in this area can comprehend the amount of puffery, promotion and outright falsification of references that occurs in this topic area. Does he get it right every single time? No, though with 135k+ edits I can imagine it would be hard to achieve perfection. I see TRPoD started a discussion on the talk page prior to the issue being brought here and the response was pretty much "take it to AfD if you disagree", which is hardly constructive. I don't see this as an intractable dispute requiring blocks, people just need to talk to each other and figure out what content should be included (or not) in the article. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "Multiple ANI threads" is just a red herring. Persistent hostility is unproven. BTW you do not need to respond to every post made here by those who do not agree with you. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't find TRPOD's conduct in this article to be helpful or constructive, but no case has been made to demonstrate a blockworthy, ongoing problem. If the effort put into complaining about it at ANI was instead put to actually resolving his complaints, we wouldn't have an issue to begin with. Three problematic things I did see that I would caution him about: Notability does not apply to content found within an article, it applies to the subject of the article itself, and thus, content should not be removed for being "non-notable". The accusations of content being promotional appear to be empty. Do not label information as "promotional" unless it's clearly intended to advertise. Lastly, existing articles should not be unilaterally redirected. This is what AfD is for. Swarm ♠ 00:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a good summation and I agree with a lot of it. I would point out, as pointed out above, TRPoD has been an editor since 2007 and has 135,990 edits. He knows all of this. He knows about notability not applying to article content, he knows what is "promotional" and he knows what should be the sent to AfD as opposed to unilaterally redirecting. But he ignored all of this, edited un-constructively and went to to edit-war to supporting these edits which he knows were wrong. That's why this behavior, which is nothing new, was brought to ANI. --Oakshade (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Tripod is a case study in why civility is not the be-all end-all of evaluating an editor. He does what needs to be done. I don't see any indication here of the personal attacks that crossed the line and got him in trouble before. Rhoark (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Before life ate me into a lengthy Wikibreak TRPoD was regularly hauled to ANI and regularly had nothing come of it but sound and fury. I return and I may as well set my watch to it, because here he is again. And again, there's nothing here seeming to rise to the level of blockworthiness. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. TRPoD is a good editor who has the gumption to keep a lot of our problematic articles sailing straight. For these pains of course they get dragged here a lot. TRPoD deserves the community's support. Alexbrn (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support and block Ricky81682 as well for his meat puppetry. The lede must not be touched. Ever. 166.170.50.225 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the many opposers above. Strong good faith editor who edits in many difficult areas of the project, certainly not afraid to show a strong approach to NPOV as we know it in some of the more lawless spots! -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. TRPoD tirelessly works to bring problematic articles into compliance with our community's most important policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and the manual of style, and to maintain them in that state. Regardless of any merit to the objection to his behaviour in this particular case, there is no evidence of an ongoing problem which would warrant a block. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a content dispute which (when it was brought here) no one but TRPoD had made any attempt to resolve on talk. He should have looked for sources or tagged rather than just deleting, but calling the deletion of unsourced material "disruptive" is silly. Just find a source and restore it with that. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the lede so nobody had any idea what this major television network was is what was just silly, not to mention disruptive. Calling bad behavior a "content dispute" simply because his disruptive behavior was instigated by a content dispute only masks the disruptive behavior.--Oakshade (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Supporters haven't shown any good reason to block TRPoD. The edit deserves, if anything, a WP:TROUT, not a block. There's no evidence of a long-term pattern here. clpo13_(talk) 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User Springee Canvassing

User Springee has taken to canvassing to find support for his point of view on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. He explicitly asked SlimVirgin to contribute to the discussion after discovering s/he held the same position as him in an earlier talk page discussion from 5 years ago. [175] I warned[176] him about canvassing which he dismissed as an attempt to "intimidate"[177] and then continued to recruit SlimVirgin to weigh in on the discussion.[178] His statement wasn't neutrally stated and he didn't contact anyone with an opposing point of view to join the discussion. This is a violation of WP:VOTESTACK and Campaigning as described by WP:CANVASS.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Except for that there isn't a vote, and that this could just as easily be seen as someone asking an expert opinion. Your warning consisted of nothing more than dropping a template on their talk page. No doubt this results from all the animosity on the talk page, where Gamaliel has already asked for the thermostat to be turned down a little bit. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Springee's Reply This is simply a case of an editor with a wp:battleground mentality trying to game the system rather than assuming good faith in addressing a content dispute. It is similar in nature to an ANI the editor filed against me in September also related to the Southern Strategy article [179]. Admin Ricky81682 was the only admin to reply to (excluding some unrelated IP harassment) noting that "There's a perfectly good reason it's been ignored. These kinds of arguments also keep going to WP:AE (which at least has a word limit) and no one particularly cares because everyone can see what this is."[180].

Over the past few weeks I have been trying to edit a section of the same article. Scoobydunk has reverted my edits a number of times[181][182][183][184][185] claiming, in part, that WP:RS says that non-peer reviewed sources are less reliable than peer reviewed sources and thus can not be used to challenge a peer reviewed source.[[186]] Likely due to the walls of text this discussion yielded no support for his views. To get outside help in solving the WP:RS question regarding scholarly vs non-scholarly contradicting sources I started a RSN discussion.Reliable Sources Noticeboard Given the contentious exchanges in the topic only editor replied prior to today (only after I started replying to this ANI did I see today's replies to the RSN discussion). Given the lack of replies I went looking for older archive discussions and found the thread Scoobydunk is referring to. It was clear from reading that discussion that the consensus was that peer reviewed sources should not automatically trump non-peer reviewed sources. I asked an editor from that thread to weigh in on the topic. I did not ask the editor to decide if the sources I was using were reliable nor did I ask the editor to decide if the edits I was making to the article were correct. It is quite possible the editor would totally disagree. However, as someone who was involved in the discussion and as one of the editors who helped craft the WP:RS guideline it seemed reasonable to ask for the opinion. I do not feel I asked in a non-neutral way since I was asking for the opinion on a policy, not article edits. Furthermore, asking ONE involved editor hardly seems like canvasing. Springee (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Springee, I was starting to be on your side until I saw you responding to DreamGuy with a half a mile of text, and now you're doing the same thing here. Good god you are wordy. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And we see that once again history repeats itself. A "slim", "Virgin" is at the centre of drama. Apparently Springee has abducted the aforementioned virgin to render him favours, which does not suit dunk's view as he wants the Slim Virgin all for himself. One a more Boring and wiki policified note, this does not appear to be a Canvass as the forum being used is not one which relies on voting. This is a basic request for views on source credibility and asking an expert to voice her(yes I presume all virgins that are slim should be "her") views. So, in a nutshell, Mush Drama about nothing. Regards , a slightly high FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, sorry about the long reply. I too often feel the need to include all the details. Springee (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Canvassing is not limited to "voting" and clearly applies to debates and noticeboard discussions. Also, if Springee wants to make his own ANI topic to address his concerns, he's more than welcome to. However, this topic is specifically to address WP:VOTESTACK concerns. The policy explicitly says "In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters." Not to mention the part about Campaigning. Springee didn't just ask for clarification, he repeatedly asked for involvement on the RSN which is directly defined as canvassing. He explicitly explains how he found this discussion, identified a user that had the same opinion as him, and requested that user weigh in on the discussion, while no asking editors with opposing views to weigh in. That's verbatim WP:VOTESTACK which also says nothing about "voting". Scoobydunk (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Since when is notifying one expert vote stacking? Springee (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate." as per WP:VOTESTACK. It's literally right there in the policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What is an undue number? Springee (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

More than zero. BMK (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's an uneven number. But let's not forget about this part too "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." here we don't have to worry about defining "undue" because this explicitly explains what you did in encouraging SlimVirgin to participate in the discussion. You knew their position on the matter, only selected that single editors, and encouraged them to join the RSN. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

She (I assume she) was an editor who helped write the RS policy and thus was well placed to tell us what the indented meaning was. Contrary to how you portrayed things, there was a general consensus in the archived discussion that RS does not automatically place scholarly sources over other reliable sources. The debate was how that should be communicated, not that it was the intent. Springee (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Notice: I got pinged here so whatever. I think that was canvassing but Slimvirgin commented mentioning that and did not actually seem to offer an opinion. I think the Scoobydunk's templating is fine, nothing more is needed as long as Springee stops doing anything more in that vein. Second, there are four outside other opinions at RSN now so I don't think there's nothing more needed as the discussion is properly focused on weight which is the actual issue. Third, god the length and bickering is nuts here. I think it's almost time to consider dual topic bans or something just for the sake of the rest of us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Question I have been accused of asking only a single admin in an archive thread. Scoobydunk claims there was not consensus on the particular question I was asking. So whom else in that archived thread should I have asked to avoid the perception of imbalance? Springee (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Comment Scoobydunk previously accused me of canvasing when I asked another editor to lend a voice to the Southern Strategy article. When looking for an 3rd party POV I was deliberate in picking an editor whom I respected but almost always disagreed with.[187] As can be seen in the article talk section and the notice board discussions Fyddlestix has largely not agreed with me and my proposed edits including the ones related to this discussion. For the trouble of going out of my way to pick an editor whom I assumed would not be inclined to agree with me I was accused of canvasing.[188] Springee (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I get that Springee is frustrated. Let's channel that frustration in other ways. The impulse to seek other opinions and break an impasse between two editors is a good one, so instead of complaining about inappropriate canvassing, let's try to channel that into an RFC or a post at Wikipedia:Third opinion or some other means of appropriate dispute resolution. Here, this discussion is just becoming an extention of the initial dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I only listed canvassing concerns for the current RSN, however they've been going on for about a month in various degrees of our discussions. If Springee is going to reference his outreach to Fyddlestix, then the rest of his outreaches should be noted. So, Springee considers Fyddlestix a typically opposing view when it comes to matters of dispute, however Fyddlestix had no previous involvement on the Southern Strategy article before Springee contacted him. Springee left Fyddlestix, the opposing view, a neutrally worded message. At the same time, Springee contacted Rjensen [189] who had been recently engaged on the Southern Strategy, and left him a clearly biased message laying out his argument in full and seeking assistance. I gave Springee a warning for this biased approach in recruiting editors, as Springee notes above. Since then, Springee has also contacted Scott Illni [190][191] who's previously edited the article similarly to Springee, like including information claiming Reagan didn't use the Southern Strategy[192]. Springee has also contacted Guy Macon[193] to seek assistance, and Guy Macon has taken similar stances with Springee regarding multiple political issues in the past. Then, of course, there's SlimVirgin. So Springee attempted to involve 1 editor with an opposing view, while contacting 4 editors with supporting views over the course of the last month. I only focused on SlimVirgin and the current RSN because I don't like raising issue when the content can be subjective, and with SlimVirgin it is an objectively verbatim violation of WP:VOTESTACK. However, if Springee considers his outreach to Fyddlesix to be an example of recruiting an opposing view, then his similar outreaches to 3 supporting views should be noted.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Not these two again! It's User:Scoobydunk and User:Springee continuing to forum shop and quarrel about Southern Strategy. This has been going on for a month at multiple noticeboards. They have both been notified of discretionary sanctions for American politics. Can some uninvolved administrator please topic-ban them from discussion of and reports about Southern strategy? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, You previously accused me of forum shopping in a NPOVN discussion that was started by Scoobydunk. I do not understand how that would have been forum shopping. Asking a specific RSN question is also not forum shopping (and no one claimed it was). This ANI was started by Scoobydunk so again, please don't accuse me of forum shopping related to this discussion. Springee (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Robert McClenon this is one thing I agree with Springee, and your accusations of forum shopping do not exhibit good faith. Every issue posted at the relevant noticeboard has been separate and justified. This hasn't been over a single issue, but regarding multiple aspects of individual pieces of information, sources, and behavior that a single noticeboard does not encompass. The issues have ranged from Majority opinion over the Top-Down approach, to NPOV concerns, to reliable source issues, and now behavioral. There is no one noticeboard that can address all of these and they all regarding different edits. I also think it's inappropriate to suggest a dual topic ban when editors follow the dispute resolution guidelines outlined by Wikipedia.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure based on self enforced break I'm announcing here that I am going to stay off the Southern Strategy article for at least the rest of the year. As I've said before, between multiple undos of my edits by Scoobydunk and the generally heated (as noted by others) discussion pages I think it has become too challenging to work productively on the topic. I hope this will simply put this mess behind us and hopefully other editors can work with some of the sources I've brought to the table. Springee (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a self imposed break is a solution. The last time Springee suggested a self-imposed 30-day Iban for wikihounding another editor[194], he immediately went back to following that editor to different articles and reverting his work after the 30 days expired[195][196][197]. Those are just 3 of the article reverts of HughD, but there are over a dozen reverts that all occurred on the same day his iban expired on October 15.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk, if your object is to get both of us topic banned I suspect this is a good way to do it. I think we have two admins who would be quite happy to see that happen. If that is your wish so be it but I would rather not be topic banned. Springee (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• So Springee followed the self-imposed break then. I don't see a problem. If Springee self imposes a break until the end of the year and doesn't edit the article until the end of the year, is that enough for you Scoobydunk? Else what do you want, four weeks? A full ban? You're free to bring this up again if this starts on January 1st but I'm assuming that people will move on to disputing the next item then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Ricky81682 I'm not sure what all an I-ban entails but he maintained contact with HughD either directly or indirectly throughout[198][199][200]. He just didn't directly revert his edits. What is the difference between a self-imposed break and one forced by an admin? I think if I understand this, it will help me answer your questions about what I'm looking for.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A self-imposed ban means nothing but an admin can shut this discussion down as moot and we can move on. An admin one is admin imposed and either requires an admin deciding to do it or enough support here to do it. Again, what would you propose be done? As I stated above, mutual topic bans may be required if it's helpful to the encyclopedia. If you two simply cannot co-exist together, and I can't figure out who's more at fault, I'd prefer not having this page nor AE filled up with bickering by telling you both to find another one of the 4.9 million pages here that aren't this one. If Springee stays away for the next few weeks, then you have free reign there but if you're back here on January 1st complaining that Springee is back, then we've resolved nothing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My complaints are strictly limited to policy violations and have never been because "someone is back". I don't see how a mutual ban is any sort of solution when Springee is the only one who's canvassed. I'll settle for self imposed break, but I hope next time Springee resorts to wikihounding, canvassing, tendentious editing or whatever, an admin actually does something about it. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying if there's a limited self-imposed ban, I would be surprised if upon editing there again, the same issues didn't pop up again and thus all we've done is had three weeks of quiet and delayed the inevitable. I'm not offering any opinion as to your complaints, as noted above, you were correct in that it seems somewhat inappropriate so the templating is correct but I don't see it as problematic enough to warrant a block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Scoobydunk's comments and demand for punishment come across as WP:BATTLEGROUND to me. Perhaps we should both voluntarily leave the article for the rest of the month. My requests for outside help, improper though they now appear to be, were the result of Scoobydunks efforts to absolutely block all my editing efforts in the 1970-1990 subsection (we were the only editors at the time) and a desire to avoid an edit war. An ANI less than a month back found we were both less than civil [201]. 1RR for me, Scoobydunk got a warning due to a technicality [202]. Taking advantage of my 1RR limitation, all 5 of my edits from Nov 14th to Nov 28th were systematically reverted, [203][204][205][206][207]. The first was new material to the article. The subsequent 5 were good faith effort to address the limited feedback Scoobydunk offered for the undos. These reversals of good faith edits go against WP:DONTREVERT and look like WP:OWN. I'm taking the time off from the article because I'm tired of the above and tired of the implications of bad faith after spending several hours in a research library finding hard copy sources. If Scoobydunk wants sanctions then I suggest we review the above reverts in context of the recent uncivil editing ANI. But, perhaps the better option is we both take some time off from the article (I am) or we just drop it. Springee (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You're the only one responsible for your behavior Springee. Springee also misrepresents the events. Following his 1RR sanction, Springee immediately took to reverting information in the article again. [208] Yes, he did add some new material, but he also removed and edited pre-existing material which partially lead to his 1RR sanction in the first place. Slakr was the admin overseeing our previous edit war ANI and he has been kept informed of just about all of the editing since he gave Springee a 1RR sanction. This includes all of the diffs Springee just listed above. Slakr ultimately decided to temporarily lock the article and asked us to use dispute resolution.[209] We have been following Slakr's advice since then, but since the DRN's weren't going in favor of Springee, he decided to start canvassing and that's why we're here today. Since Slakr suggested we use dispute resolution, there hasn't been any edit warring and we've been following his suggestions, however it's hard to achieve a valid consensus when one editors resorts to canvassing to influence the outcome.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your claim of immediately 'started reverting again' makes the presumption that the article was 'correct' before the reverts. The ANI finds (which found against both of us) did not make any ruling on the quality of the material, only the uncivil behavior of the editors. The article lock also didn't claim to support the current state of the article. Slakr told you he saw nothing wrong with the continued edits.[210] Your comment about DRN's is misleading. 3 of your 5 reverts occurred before you filed a COATRACK NPOVN claim. After it was clear that claim got no support I tried to edit 2 more times. You immediately reverted both edits. My RSN filing on the 29th, was made after your 5th reversion of my material. Perhaps your intent is to get us both blocked in order to maintain status quo in the article. Either way, I think Ricky has made it clear that if you think sanctions are appropriate, propose them. Else, let it drop. Springee (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I already said I was fine with your self proposed break, then you started to bring up information that has already been addressed by Slakr. So it's clear that you're the one that needs to "drop it". Also, for every revert of mine that you're complaining about, it followed a revert of your own. That's to say, you resorted to reverting first instead of waiting for a consensus of a dispute resolution. Also, I didn't mislead about anything and I actually started a DRN before Slakr locked the article and suggested using dispute resolution, which is all I spoke to. Yes, I've been using dispute resolution to solve these issues, but you've resorted to reverting the article to suit your narrative and then resorted to canvassing to affect the outcome of the dispute resolution. Again, I'm fine with the self imposed break.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If Springee is canvassing, he is really, really bad at it, based upon the fact that he also asked me for advice (User talk:Guy Macon#Help with Southern Strategy editing). Springee is familiar with how I do things, and would have known that asking me is pretty much asking to have me impartially examine his own edit history along with the edit history of whoever he is having the dispute with. I declined in this case because I don't think I can be unbiased on this particular topic (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Southern Strategy), but he had no way of knowing that ahead of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest (but not mandate) that no canvassing of anyone in the future be done. It's clear some people will take it as a slight no matter who is contacted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Actual canvassing is bad. Asking for help is not. Because I have been involved in WP:DRN for a long time, many people who have been is DRN cases that I mediated ask me for help or advice regarding content disputes. Nothing wrong with that unless they have reason to believe that I will favor their position. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Censorship of religious phrases and words in usernames and abuse by administrators

• Pinging: @The Anome, Ohnoitsjamie, and Rklawton:. Swarm ♠ 06:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A group of us are starting the Wikiproject Satanism. A number of us are related to current in the news Satanic organizations such as The Satanic Temple we recently created (last 24 hours). It was long overdue and we were suprised it wasn't online.

Members started adding recent events and protests to applicable arties (with reasonable or better sources) including:

Mass (liturgy)

Fred Phelps

St. Junípero Serra

The Satanic Temple

Lucien Greaves (admins rushed it into deletion even though it had valid references and person notability; he's on CCN tonight (was supposed to be interviewed at 9:00 EST).

The first admin Rklawton decided to remove ALL of Barfbag666's content posted (with valid citations) arbitrarily. Having not known the process and it was quite apparent he appeared singling Barfbag666 out, Barfbag666 complained on his (Rklawton) user talk. These were some of Barfbag666's first edits in quite a while, and spent a lot of time on them and figuring out syntax. Barfbag666 should have posted on the talk on pages impacted and not his; wrong place. Barfbag666 didn't know the process however the complaints were valid. The articles Barfbag666 posted had extensive notability Lucien Greaves for example, and Barfbag666 wanted to build the "leaf" pages while others built The Satanic Temple page.

If you haven't checked the news the TST is all over the place and so is Lucien Greaves

Barfbag666 didn't put a lot of effort in Lucien's article, but knew his notability, provided valid links. Barfbag666 needed peers to help edit and was in the process of getting help elsewhere. It was obvious based on conversation Rklawton was near clueless about how in the news the TST and Lucien; practically ignorant on the topic. He thought Barfbag666's articles were "vandalism" whereas they were directly supported by rather large news reports and sites; they were very notable and supported.

When Rklawton's attack failed due to Barfbag666 providing rather extensive sources; magically the username Barfbag666 was blocked claiming it violated TOS and in particular "disruptive" (rather subjective). Barfbag666 stated a "barfbag" (otherwise synonymous with Sick bag) is nothing offensive, disruptive, or the numbers 666; it's a significant number to Satanism. Another admin The Anome decided to team up and come to Rklawton's failed ignorant efforts. The Anome may have performed the original block, we hunch in kahoots due to timing. Satanism isn't always pleasant however a barf (space) bag is just a bag similar to that of a brown paper lunchbag. In fact, it can be kind of humerous which last i checked wasn't against TOS. The Anome stepped in and basically didn't listen to reason, He also made an irrelevant sexual reference to emetophile suggesting Barfbag666 may get off sexually on the concept of vomit. Was i offended? Maybe, maybe not but it shows a double standard. Barfbag666 just kind of stepped away in disgust for the two (kind of three) admins and obvious bias and Witch-hunting.

So a related friend HAILXSATANX666 creates a new account to continue Barfbag666's work starting with the actual The Satanic Temple then adding content to Junípero Serra per relatively recent events however including valid references. Not too much after The Anome was apparently stalking a few of the pages Barfbag666 was working on and places a similar name ban on HAILXSATANX666 and removing valid content.

A huge justification was given primarily out of HAILXSATANX666's name is just a religious greeting/goodbye phrase one would say to another Satanist or well, anyone really. It's like a Christian saying "God Bless" greeting or saying goodbye. Again, the number 666 was added this time more or less because HAIL SATAN was already taken. However, the HAIL SATAN text in a pen name is desired. Obviously the concern with Barfbag666 based on the logged talk was "Barfbag" and didn't appear to be the "666". Therefore the admin The Anome has a personal problem with "HAILXSATANX"; again a outright cherished religious phrase used when saying hello, goodbye, "right on", "kick ass", "yeah buddy", type celebratory moments. Ref Hail_Satan It's documented as part of our religion!

1. The Anome violated unblocking guidelines Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Block_reviews by performing the unblock review expeditiously him/herself demonstrating bias.
2. The Anome took one sentence in the whole argument out of context saying my omission of "might" be distruptive to a few was grounds enough for his self block (and unblock review reject) when HAILXSATANX666 was obviously saying "not all usernames people will approve/like"; since mine is 100% religous not everyone may be disturbed by it just as any other differing religious word such as "GOD" "JESUS", "ALLAH", "LOKI", "BLESS" whatever... Anything religious in a username is likely to make someone cringe that doesn't like that religion. HAILXSATANX666 is not sorry for expressing a religious citation of Hail_Satan just as a Christian wouldn't God Bless. Therefore there's a double standard if people aren't getting booted for similar actions based on their faith which is probably not in line with Wikipedia cultural whatever... Mind you over all of this both users above were adding VALID CITED content and not vandalizing articles. What HAILXSATANX666 was trying to do is give a NPOV admitting "yeah, the name isn't something say a Christian would like, but that's just out of ignorance which nobody has to pander for" but in kind of a civil way. However interpreted it as an agreement with the disruptive claim; it wasn't.

What kind of happened is HAILXSATANX666 and Barfbag666 walked into a room with Pentagrams on their shirts, and likely pages that were going up, and needed to repaired noted above everyone wears Cross's. So logically everyone in the room is going to rate a pentagram and symobols of Satanism offensive out of ignorance that Atheistic Satanists deal with everyday and kind of the overall backing of the Satanic movement currently in the U.S.

1. (3 - I couldn't get the numbering to contine, i'm still learning wiki syntax) Finally another admin steps in and gives a rude "get out" edit note. OhNoitsJamie The she also compared the username Barfbag666 to HAILXSATANX666. 666 is "common" leaving Barfbag = HAILXSATANX in this arbitrary "disruption". This is obviously a religious discrimination viewpoint that has no place on wikipedia nor should naive administrators get involved in saying either, and in particular HAILXSATANX666's name is disruptive. Anyone could go around saying "Hail Satan" in a library long as i'm not screaming it being intentionally offensive or disruptive. Saying it to a friend at a table is acceptable; if a few tables they're offended that's just their ignorance. Those people should probably read a few Satanic Wiki's we're making. A satanist might name their own kid "Satan" so that leaves "Hail" the "disruptive" term. It's just foolish by said admin's above to discriminate like this.

What are we Satanists asking?

• Restore both accounts, both writers are eager to contribute to Satanism.
• Provide appropiate coaching to these particular wikipedia administrators and others this behavior and religious censorship is not acceptable.

Or.

• Give guidance on the use of religious words as not allowed or words / letters used.
• the letter "t" should no longer be allowed as if that person walked into a room of Satanists, we'd be "distrupted". No "t"'s.
• Be careful not to use fonts that make other letters look like crosses. \
• Maybe even biblical names are not appropriate either like Joseph or Mary?

For additional info just see the two user talk pages in question. Either or Satanism is being given an unfair shake here and wikipedia articles. WP:GREATWRONGS as OhNoitsJamie doesn't apply here. There's a lot of people that are looking to put Satanism in articles where they belong. Just because other religious organizations got there first doesn't mean this is some kind of impenetrable first come first serve game.

Pardon the poor grammar, it's late and i need to get to bed. These admin's have wasted enough of our time.

I'd add OhNoitsJamie on the notice but she's goofed around with her edit/talk functions and i don't have time to jump through (assuming) her hoops. Someone be so kind to do it as it's wasting a lot of mine messing with her abnormal registering process. Have her fix it and i'll submit it. I'm not sure any other avenue to fight this nonsense.ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I may be high, but not THAT HIGH, so I'd just like to ask the simple question. @ILOVESATAN666 is this for real? or are you just trolling around? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IMHO HAILXSATANX666 and ILOVESATAN666 should be allowed as user names as ILOVEJESUS or LOVETHELORD would be allowed. Additionally please see this discussion on religious messages in signatures[211]. I never got an answer to my question. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Honestly, in the context of Satanism those usernames are not inherently inappropriate or unreasonable and should not be blocked simply for being related to Satanism. The notion that "barfbag" is a blockworthy username seems like a stretch. I will also point out something that most people don't understand: Satanism is 100% a real thing, and it is not about actually worshipping Satan but more so about free expression, religious equality and rationalism. Satanism is certainly notable and widely covered by reliable sources. As such, the topic should absolutely be tolerated for expansion on Wikipedia, and self-proclaimed Satanists should not be blocked nor their contributions suppressed as "trolling". If they're actually editing constructively and in good faith, they should be allowed to do so freely and mistakes/disputed edits should be coached with ample warnings given, just like dealing with any other newcomer. These editors do appear to be in good faith and while they haven't been entirely unproblematic, I don't think they've warranted an indefinite block. I will be inclined to unblock unless anyone can present evidence of clear abuse intolerable from any newcomers. Swarm ♠ 06:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Swarm here. I think that the UAA reports (if any), as well as the blocking of those usernames, were legitimate. Everyone involved were legitimately acting within the capacity of their roles, believed that the usernames were in violation of UPOL, and that blocking them was the right thing to do. Before I read this AIV thread, shoot I probably would have done the same thing. Per UPOL, do these usernames show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia? No. Do they contain or imply personal attacks? Again, the answer is no. Now this is where the grey area begins... Do the usernames seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling")? If I saw these usernames, I would have originally thought so. But when I paused for a second to think it over, as well as read this ANI, I quickly realized that the answer is no; it's not an unambiguous attempt to troll or anger others. Could usernames be created containing the word "Satan" or other words reverencing satanism that are intended to troll? Yes, but the usernames centered in this ANI thread do not. The last username policy is where the center of the debate lies: Are these usernames likely to offend other contributors? Absolutely. However, I 100% agree and acknowledge those that have mentioned usernames containing other religious figures such as 'Jesus', 'God', 'Allah', and the like. All of these usernames fall into the same category; they reference religious figures, and can offend other editors and viewers - not just due to the context of the username, but simply due to the mention of these figures at all. Think of the words "Holocaust" or "Hitler" - the words themselves are enough to emotionally "light some fires". Either all usernames that reference religious figures should be allowed, or none of them at all - provided that they do not violate any other UPOL policies. On a side note, I feel that it is important to mention that editors with these kinds of usernames will probably experience more difficulty than others with community trust, reception, AGF, etc. If it were me, I wouldn't choose a username that could/would draw negative attention to myself, and I really don't recommend it. However, if these editors choose to make these kinds of usernames, and they acknowledge the potential hardship that may result from that choice, I say it's fine with me. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

References

I agree that both sets of names -- i.e. ILOVESATAN etc. and ILOVEJESUS etc. -- should be treated exactly the same, which is that they should be disallowed. The relevant section of the username policy is "Disruptive usernames":

The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are disruptive or offensive:

• Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities or referencing controversies.
• Usernames that contain or imply personal attacks.
• Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling").
• Usernames that otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

Both sets of usernames in question violate three of the four criteria for determining a disruptive username, and on that basis should be disallowed.

However, as long as any articles on Satanism are properly sourced and strictly adhere to WP:NPOV, there is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about them. As long as the editors in question have acceptable usernames, they should be able to edit freely, with the understanding that their edits are most likely going to be highly scrutinized for bias. BMK (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

How are they disruptive? Nobody has banned the users CrucifiedChrist, Jesus Saves!, A guy saved by Jesus, Jesus Lover, JesusFreak89, Jesus loves me very much, BengaliHindu, Trust on ALLAH, Allah is great, Aquib American Muslim, AtheistIranian or the any number of usernames based on Bible verses ie Psalm84. Until there is a specific rule saying usernames with religious or anti-religious connotations are disruptive, I don't see why they should be banned because someone somewhere could possibly be offended by that particular religion. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not a "safe space." —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No, and those accounts, if they have edited, should all also be forced to change usernames, as they are WP:POLEMICal, likely to offend many people, intended to produce an emotional effect, and intended to make a political or religious statement, which is disruptive of editing on Wikipedia. What you believe is not offensive is not the criteria here, it is, as quoted above "likely to offend other contributors." I, for one, am offended by people proclaiming their religious beliefs on a non-sectarian project to create a NPOV encyclopedia, just as I would be -- and am -- offended by Nazi-based usernames, Communist-based usernames, usernames which proclaim the superiority of one country or one type of people over another, or usernames which defame groups of people. None of these are acceptable, and all are totally unnecessary given the near infinite number of possible names available. The disruptiveness of these names is manifest in the reactions to them detailed above. BMK (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't bring up WP:Wikipedia is not censored, that applies only to articles and other encyclopedia content, not to usernames. BMK (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to weigh in here a little, given that I'm involved with this. I admit that I'm a little uncomfortable with the blocks. While sure, as a Christian, admin, and a general Wikipedia editor, I can see where their usernames might make other people uncomfortable - especially given that we've had vandals in the past with similar-ish names. (Names that resemble things you’d see on a fanfiction site also tend to set off “NOTHERE” pings.) However as Wikimandia states, we have plenty of other editors that have indicated their religion in their username and there is apparently no rule against having religiously themed usernames. That's a discussion for another day and honestly, I doubt that there will ever be a policy against religious usernames because that could potentially infringe on the religious rights of the individuals. We could probably add a bit about religiously themed usernames that are clearly oriented at promotion (names of churches), are too broad (like someone trying to name themselves "Christianity"), or contain obvious content that would be seen as threatening or trolling (like "AllFemalesShouldBeCircumcised"), but we already sort of have policies in place for that. I'm aware that what is seen as offensive or trolling is subjective, however at the same time we have to exercise extreme caution. It's entirely possible that someone showing up with a seemingly offensive username could be making a genuine statement about their faith, so we need to weigh the username against their edits. As Swarm put it, the names are not inherently inappropriate. Would I recommend that anyone sign up with a religiously themed username? No, since that tends to make them a bit more of a target because of pre-conceived notions about any given religion, but I wouldn't stop them from signing up with one.

Now a bit of a disclaimer here. I e-mailed the Satanic Temple and told them about the article the day that I moved it to the mainspace, so it’s entirely likely that HAILXSATANX666 is a separate person from. My purpose in e-mailing them was because I wanted to see if they could upload any of the church’s images to WC. They’ve done quite a few things that would be extremely interesting to add to the article, namely the art pieces they’ve done (Baphomet statue, Snaketivity) and their performance art. As someone who studied religion in college, this topic greatly interested me and I was excited at the idea of getting some of these pictures, as they do have encyclopedic value and would be an asset to the article.

I also asked them to point out any incorrect information and holes in the article, as I knew that my content was incomplete. In the e-mail I let them know that while they could make edits about things they’re involved in, it’s generally discouraged because it’s easy to slip in promotional content unintentionally and that it’d be better for them to mostly/solely suggest additions on the article talk pages. I forgot to tell them that they need to identify their COI somewhere in their userpage or on the article talk pages, so if they haven’t done this then that’s actually ‘’my’’ fault that they haven’t done this, as HAILXSATANX666’s edits have heavily suggested that they have listened to my recommendations.

I think that we need to assume some good faith here, at the very least for HAILXSATANX666. I’m undecided on BarfBag666. I think that he’s an extremely green editor that is very passionate about the subject, but also a little confrontative. He did seem to be trying to do what we asked of him and his conduct at the REFUND request with me was civil, but I’m not very happy with how he responded to RLawton. I think that everything just snowballed from there. That’s why I didn’t entirely protest his block, since I did think that he needed a cooling off period since things were getting very heated.

The bottom line here is that we have two editors that are currently blocked for username violations. I don’t think that either is inherently offensive or promotional and both appear to be trying to edit within good faith, although BarfBag666 does need to be warned to approach things in a more cool manner. Getting angry won’t solve anything on here and it makes it harder to assume good faith. I think that unblocking them with some warning over how to respond to others (more for BarfBag666 than HAILXSATANX666) and a request that they seek a mentor wouldn't be a bad idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• The TL;DNR of all of that is that there's reason to believe that the two accounts are separate and while inadvisable for anyone to sign up with a religious username, there's no current policy in place against them. Creating one would likely be a fairly large landmine because of the various implications it could hold. That this would possibly become a media debacle if Wikipedia were to ban religiously themed usernames the potential media coverage could be a nightmare. (Not a reason not to do it, but likely one of the reasons it'd be hard to pass.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• BMK: Then would you also have a problem with the user categories that exist for every religion ie "Christian Wikipedians" etc? In which case, do you also feel people shouldn't be allowed to show preference for anything? What about userboxes showing national allegiance to Palestine, Israel or Kosovo? How about people who identify as transgender or in favor of same-sex marriage? Because you know all of these things might offend someone and show they are not here to create a NPOV encyclopedia. Maybe we should all have assigned usernames ie User 24601 so nobody can possibly be offended, until they come up with a reason to be offended by that particular number. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not crazy about userboxes in general, but at least they are contained to the user's page. Usernames go wherever the user goes, everywhere on Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with Satanism (particularly not the folks-it's-actually-really-atheism variety in question here), Satanists, or edits about Satanism, or indeed the creation of a Category:Satanist Wikipedians. This is a username issue. -- The Anome (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with BMK. It's the same as a user name such as ILOVEHILLARY2016 (except that SATAN666 is more obviously trolling). The user name puts a mini-WP:POLEMIC statement on every talk page where they contribute. Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Folks, you're being trolled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.130.104 (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This isn't a content dispute or a free-speech issue, this is trolling, and they're getting exactly the attention they want, as you can see with the tone of pseudo-outrage in their comments. I would not be at all surprised if Barfbag666 and the others were actually all the same person, and the first username, "Barfbag666", should tell you all you need to know. -- The Anome (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Then if they are trolling, since It does not appear they have made any trolling edits or vandalism, their intent seems to be to expose the hypocrisy on Wikipedia regarding religious usernames, to which I say well done. Unblock them. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion is the trolling, and you are, alas, being trolled. -- The Anome (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion is not the trolling. It was started after the usernames were wrongfully blocked! —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know... HAILXSATANX666 did seem like they were trying to edit within policy and although I think that BarfBag666 could have handled himself far better, he did look like he was trying. Also, I need to state that they only began editing after I e-mailed the Temple itself asking for them to upload images, so them appearing at the same time as BarfBag666 was blocked doesn't automatically mean that it's a case of sockpuppetry. Especially given that they appeared to be following my fairly specific recommendations that I detailed in my e-mail to them. I just think that this all needs to be approached very carefully and that we shouldn't automatically assume that their usernames are an attempt at trolling or that they're the same person. Do they know one another? Maybe, but it's also entirely possible that HAILXSATANX666 is a separate entity that only came to Wikipedia after I wrote an email inviting them to upload photographs and point out issues with the Temple's article on the article's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hence the use of soft blocks, not hard blocks. I have no issue with their edits, just the usernames. -- The Anome (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm really not comfortable with assuming that the usernames are problematic because they tend to incorporate things that are typically used for shock value. While yes, we see a lot of people coming to Wikipedia looking to shock and troll, this doesn't automatically come across like it's one of those situations. Basically, we have a rare situation where we have someone (specifically HAILXSATANX666) who is claiming that their username reflects their religious beliefs and has so far edited within policy. I wouldn't have recommended the direct edit to the saint's page, but that can be debated on the talk page (which it is/was). I just don't feel exactly right with us blocking someone for a username that isn't meant to be offensive and while it has negative connotations elsewhere, isn't necessarily inherently offensive in and of itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps should they rename their accounts into User:Grammar satanist or User:Grammar666, these names are not yet used. Pldx1 (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know - right now there's no policy against religious usernames and both users identify as Satanists. This puts them in a different area than if they were random users or not because we need to take their religion into consideration. If anyone wants there to be a policy against religious usernames then they need to open up a discussion about it in the appropriate forums. This isn't really the appropriate place for that and I don't offhand think that either name is a violation of policy given the users' stated religions and because neither offhand appears to be here to promote anything. If they did come across as promotional it's likely unintentional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Barfbag666 is complaining about because I reverted two of his edits. Since that time, I've been trying to explain to him the problems with his edits. He's been very obnoxious in response.

1. The Phelps reversion was because incident cited had no bearing on Phelps or his life and, as I noted to Mr. Bag, belongs in the article about the group conducting the protest rather than in the biographical article about Phelps.
2. The second reversion was because Mr. Bag wanted to insert a non-Christian mass into an article about Christian masses - and because the mass he wanted to insert was from a group representing an extreme minority - thereby disproportionately representing them by comparison. There are other articles where that particular mass would fit well, and I pointed that out as well.
3. Mr. Bag has represented these two reversions as if I were mass reverting numerous edits. It's only been two.
4. In the meantime, Mr. Bag is editing articles directly with a conflict of interest. He is representing his temple and essentially spamming articles that have nothing to do with it. Wikipedia has had problems with religious organizations in the past - and has banned at least one entire organization as a result. Mr. Bag, if not his temple, may well be heading in that direction.
5. Next, Mr. Bag has threatened to recruit other members of his group to edit Wikipedia in order to force Wikipedia to accommodate them, even though, as I pointed out, he's attempting to spam articles. This, again, goes against Wikipedia's culture and making such threats is highly inappropriate. Such efforts by other groups in the past typically end in bad press and mass bannings.
6. One last note, Mr. Bag left a mal-formed notice on my talk page which I initially thought was an attempt at harassment. I temporarily blocked him from editing until I realized that he may have been attempting to notify me of this particular thread. Rklawton (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Mr. Bag's usernames, I have supported the first block but leave other admins to decide. As for his second user name, I've copied the following from WP:USERNAME, and I believe it fits Mr. Bag's case precisely: A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account. (Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.) Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. Rklawton (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'm worried less about the username issue and more about a tiresome user trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and venue to right great wrongs as if Wikipedia was a state courthouse. In retrospect, I would've blocked Barfbag for general disruptive editing rather than the username. I agree that the usernames are polemic, but they are a secondary concern to me in this case. Suggest WP:BOOMERANG and future block-on-sight so we can all get back to building an encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - initially I'd hoped that Mr. Bag would make some effort to edit constructively if only pointed in the right direction. However, it's clear that at best he has a chip on his shoulder and at worst we've been trolled. An indef block and block on site mandate would allow us to resume building Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The Satanic Temple is all about highlighting the ways people are inconsistent in their treatment of religion and the various aspects of church and state. In doing so on Wikipedia, there are a couple things going on worth noting. First, you're making their point with the username issue. Nobody should have a problem with names that reference "satan" unless you're also willing to block the hundreds of users with "god" (either religious or blasphemous), "jesus christ", many of the names with "jesus" or "christ", "allah", "yahweh", etc. Just do a search in the user space for "intitle:christ" for example. It's like how they challenged nativity scenes at state capitol buildings by introducing ridiculous monuments to satan -- it's trolling because it takes to an extreme a bias that otherwise gets ignored. Not unlike Anonymous in e.g. Project Chanology, I wouldn't necessarily endorse their actions but to reduce it to "just trolling" misses the point. The problem I think they're going to run into on Wikipedia, however, is that NPOV doesn't work like laws about religion. Articles don't have to reflect all perspectives -- just all significant perspectives as determined by the body of work on a subject. Within the vast majority of discussions of religion, religious practice, and Christianity, satanism in general and the satanic temple in particular are marginal subjects. Doesn't mean there's no place for them on Wikipedia, but POV-pushing just isn't as effective because on Wikipedia all religions are not equal -- it's all determined by sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• • As I said above, I've no problem with self-professed Satanists (who of course in this case, if they're aligned with The Satanic Temple, are most likely not actual believers in Satan at all) editing here, or identifying themselves as such. If they want to call themselves User:Satanic topic editor or User:Happy Satanist, that's entirely fine with me. Regarding religious relativism: if a self-professed Christian, or member of another similarly popular mainstream religion, created an account called User:SINNERSXWILLXALLBURNXINXHELL777, they should also be blocked, for the same reason, regardless of whether or not it is their sincerely-held religious belief (which indeed it might well be), exactly because usernames are not intended to be a free-speech platform for making points like this. Or for having a bit of anarcho-Situationist fun, or for the sheer joy of pissing other people off, on or both of which I believe may well also be a factor here-- The Anome (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I see User:HAILXSATANX666 has been blocked for running afoul of WP:USERNAME. Is it worth discussing his disruptive editing now, or do we wait for him to create a new account first? At this point, he is welcome to create a new account with an appropriate user name. My preference would be to see if anyone is willing to mentor him. Barring that, then I believe we should just send him packing and be done with it. I see nothing even in his newest edits that shows me he understands and accepts what we've been trying to tell him. Rklawton (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's another of his accounts: User:ILOVESATAN666‎. This isn't sock puppetry as it's only his account names (so far) that have been blocked. This name shares the same problem as his last name - it's both promotional AND he's using it to inappropriately promote his agenda in our articles. Rklawton (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So, basically, it would be a similar problem if User:ILoveJesus was editing on Jesus-related pages? Or User:ProudAgnostic on skeptic pages? I think we're sinking into the worrywart world here; if the users make offensive or bothersome edits, deal with that, but proclaiming your religious faith seems an acceptable use of user names, even if some people don't like that particular religious profession. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So basically we should change WP:USERNAME? It currently reads: "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked." - and that's what's going on now. His edits are promotional in nature and not appropriate for their articles. Rklawton (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep this in mind (from a cross-wiki prospective). Tropicalkitty (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I need to re-state something: I purposely reached out to the Satanic Temple and invited them to come to Wikipedia. That means that it's very likely that the new accounts are someone that isn't BarfBag666. In that e-mail I detailed several different guidelines, which they seem to have followed. They predominantly edited the talk pages and made suggestions and they've at least tried to edit in a neutral manner. This is their only mainspace edit and if we were to completely divorce it from their username then it likely wouldn't have been seen as self-promotion by anyone. I also need to state that this was done after they posted on the talk page, so they did try to suggest this first. Granted they only waited a short amount of time before posting the content to the mainspace, but there was an article for the Temple in the mainspace at their point so they could have assumed that it wouldn't be contested because of this. Basically, that edit was not done out of any deliberate mischief. And again, I forgot to tell them that they needed to disclose their COI - I can't believe that I forgot it, but I did. That they didn't disclose their COI is MY fault, not theirs, since they look to have tried to follow my instructions very carefully.

From my viewpoint, HAILXSATANX666, has shown that s/he is willing to try to work with us rather than against us. I would say that BarfBag666 has done the same, although his reception towards another editor trying to help him was poor. However I will state that he was polite towards me and did start editing in the draftspace after I requested that he do this. At the very least here I think that HAILXSATANX666 should be unblocked. While the name does make the Sunday School girl in me squirm a little, I see nothing wrong with it and I'm not going to stand in the way of someone else expressing their religion in their username. It's just a religious statement done in their religion as part of their worship, no different than if someone were to have the word "Amen" in their username.

Now someone else has said that this group might be coming on here to get attention. I can't really see proof of that because if the group was coming on here to raise a stink and purposely cause a fuss, then they're not advertising this anywhere on their Twitter or Facebook pages that I can see. If they wanted to gain attention then I think that they'd have posted this all over their social media accounts.

I think that we need to assume better faith here because by all accounts they seem to at least be trying and I can't help but think that if their usernames had been something like "HappyPuppy123" or "ILikeCheese", they wouldn't have been blocked. I just really don't like that we're automatically saying that their usernames are promotional because they happen to be relevant to the religion they say that they practice. I mean, it's not like HAILXSATANX666 named themselves "SatanicTempleDetroit" or anything like that and by all accounts they were trying very, very hard to edit within the bounds of COI because again, they've pretty much done everything that I asked of them. If I didn't think that it might pose a potential issue since I'm involved in all of this, I'd unblock them myself because so far they're getting a pretty poor reception given that they seem to genuinely be trying to make us happy and follow our rules. BarfBag666 is a bit more difficult because they did react poorly, but I do think that they should be given a legitimate second chance to act properly. Automatically assuming that they're the same person as HAILXSATANX666 and the other editor isn't really a good idea here, given that there are legitimate reasons (IE, that I invited the Temple to come to Wikipedia) for the other accounts to be here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Basically, I do think that there's uneven treatment here. I'm not arguing that BarfBag666 reacted poorly, but he did seem to respond well when I tried to help him so perhaps that might have been a case where he was just wasn't going to respond well to the other two editors. I've seen it happen with me in the past where I've had editors that reacted poorly to my help but responded better to another editor coming in to say the same things - and vice versa. I really, really think that it'd be a good idea to unblock both users. Give BarfBag666 a warning that if he responds that poorly again, he could be blocked for incivility. Make sure that HAILXSATANX666 knows that they need to be transparent and that both need to stick to talk pages whenever it comes to edits directly relating to the Temple (ie, general edits on Satanism are fine, but Temple specific edits should be discussed on the talk page), at least until both have shown that they are knowledgeable enough to make direct edits. I don't see anything automatically or inherently promotional in their usernames - and I'm someone who will block someone if I think their username is promotional. Their edits seem to have been done in good faith and anything that they've done wrong, they've done so because they were unaware of policy. That HAILXSATANX666 has tried very hard to follow what I asked of them shows that they likely would have been willing to accept the revert on the saint's page and discussed it on the talk page. I really think that this could have been handled better as a whole. And again, there are legitimate reasons to suspect that these accounts aren't the same person and I actually endorse opening an SPI to check for this just so we can make sure that they aren't. Could they be the same person under new accounts? Possibly. I can't rule it out entirely, but there is some argument to say that they aren't and because of that, I'd like to ask that not automatically assume that they're the same person or that HAILXSATANX666 only came here because BarfBag666 invited them - they could have come here only because I invited them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiment -- but I should point out that I just blocked a bunch of these accounts for WP:SOCK. It's quite unambiguous, and should someone bother to write an SPI, any other checkuser will immediately be able to verify. I think the username blocks are marginal at best, but that's a policy argument, not relevant here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• If that's the case then that does change things greatly. Technically they wouldn't be violating guidelines if they opened new accounts, although I would imagine that the expectation would be that they would be transparent about who they are. I know that the third account I'm aware of gives off the impression that they're separate people, which is a definite no-no and would (in my definition) be considered sockpuppetry since it would be a definite account opened to give off the impression of support from others. Now if they opened multiple accounts at the same time as the third account, that'd also be sockpuppetry and it'd be pretty difficult to defend that and that'd be a definite show of bad faith on their part. I could maybe give a very weak justification that they made the third account out of fear of reprisal for being the same person, but it'd be very weak. Most of my argument stemmed from a belief that at least the second account could potentially be a separate person and that they appeared to be editing out of good faith. I've summed up my viewpoints at the ANI that's been opened. I think that Barfbag reacted poorly all around, but they did respond well to myself. There does need to be a discussion over usernames since I'm really not comfortable with the original blocks for promotional usernames and this could be used as precedent. If they're to be blocked, I'd much rather it be for incivility or over the top self-promotion, given that at least the second editor's edits weren't over the top in my opinion. If there is a thread opened over religious usernames - and at this point I do think that there needs to be a discussion given that there are so many differing opinions over this - then I'd certainly like to participate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Whelp, game over. lol ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• So were there problems with the articles or just the usernames? If the names, fine, I'd say don't create names that make people sigh when they see them. If it's the articles, then we can discuss that but it seems like it was just "these terms shouldn't be deemed offensive" and ANI is overblowing arguing that issue. Suggest taking anything further about names to Wikipedia talk:Username policy (rather than a WPT:UP reference to here). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Both, to a degree. BB had some edits that were, at best, too casually written for Wikipedia. I can see where the vandalism concerns came into play with phrasing like "like a regular mass, but gayer" (I'm paraphrasing), but they did seem to listen to me when I tried working with them. The second account seemed to genuinely want to work according to the rules, at least from my point of view. Their edits weren't inherently problematic in my point of view, although I can see where it'd have been better to wait on adding the demonization stuff to the saint's article until there was more consensus. The biggest argument with the last two people is mostly their usernames. However like you said, that's something for a different forum. I do think that this needs to be hashed out somewhere, to be very honest. This isn't exactly the right place for it, but it's a good jumping off point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Wikimandia: I know that neither of us are really happy with the idea of making a username thread about this, but this should probably be brought up at some point because of how difficult something like this could be and what it could mean for a lot of users. Do you think we should go for it or should we wait and see if someone else starts one up, or if anyone signs up with a similar username? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I sense you have some remorse about inviting representatives from this organization to come and edit Wikipedia. But what began with questions about account usernames spiraled into generally antagonistic behavior, claims of discrimination and censorship and an eagerness to take offense. Much of this disruption could have been avoided through reasonable conversation without claiming religious discrimination and martyr status.

You might have invited them to participate on WP but their reaction was all of their own. When admins raise questions about an editor, whether about their usernames or their conduct, it's not wise to adopt a posture of outrage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz, they were banned on their usernames, NOT their conduct. Their usernames do not violate any policy as far as I can see. What is going on here 666 times more offensive than any username: hypocrisy. Either change the rule so it applies equally to all religious messages and saying, or unblock these people. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Suvrat Raj(sonu kumar)

This user appears to be the indef blocked user User:SUVRAT RAJ.

Almost all of his edits have been attempts at self-promotion - most recently, creating redirects from namespace to his user page, and also adding categories to it. PamD 09:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Someone might want to delete this too: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suvrat Raj(sonu kumar), because it ain't got a snowball's chance in hell... Thomas.W ^talk 10:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• I've blocked and tagged them, plus I've deleted their various pages. It's a pretty obvious sock. @PamD:, you think that it'd be worth opening an SPI? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25

Please can somebody take a look at Alexiulian25 (talk · contribs)'s recent edits/behavior - the background can be found here (talk page of the effected WikiProject, where I have tried to resolve the matter), but this is basically a low-level content dispute. I have been removing content citing WP:OR, Alexiulian25 has been reverting. I didn't want to come to ANI, but his edits are increasingly concerning, he is exhibiting severe BATTLEGROUND and OWNERSHIP issues, and he has now resorted to personal attacks e.g. "retard" which was followed by starting a section on my talk page called "Giantsnowman is a idot" [sic]. GiantSnowman 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not riding to the defense of the user here, Alexiulian25 has been rude and uncivil - however, they've calmed down a little and are starting to listen and make changes to their behavior. I'm willing to continue to discuss this with them on my talk page, and have asked them to apologise to you Giantsnowman. This user has, in the past, been a very constructive member of Wikipedia, however I understand if they continue that a block would be the result -- samtar ^whisper 14:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry Snowman. I was really angry ! You did delete a lot on Wikipedia without giving me a warning to add references ! You should inform people before you delete --Alexiulian25 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD does not require that - and you have been told by others about your editing problems. However I appreciate your apology. GiantSnowman 20:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Editor continues to edit war and is reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alexiulian25 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ) Qed237 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Almost two dozen articles, apparently robocreated

User Carolineneil (talk · contribs) created nearly two dozen articles in the span of as many minutes this past weekend. One of them, Different Instruments for Different Equations, has recently been nominated for deletion. I agreed with that assessment, it was a case of textbook writing and the creation of a chapter name, and treating that self-chosen name as if it were a distinct "topic". I then checked regarding the article's creation, and found nearly two articles, all pretty much in the same style were mass created by the same editor. At most one of them, Roy model, seems to be an actual topic, and thus salvageable. (As written though, perhaps WP:NUKE would be appropriate.) There are also two more created after the initial spree, and again, perhaps one of them, Maximum score estimator is an actual topic, but again, nuking might be best.

WP:DP does not seem to have a mass deletion option. It seems pointless to have the same discussion once per article. Recommendations?

Also, someone with biochemical expertise might want to peruse the several successful AFC's on the Talk page. The subjects do not look like "topics" to me, but they are far enough from my expertise that I refrain from pushing it. Choor monster (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion delete the pages in whole, not the specific discussion topic. Tropicalkitty (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a biochemist here either. Most of these seem to me to be indistinguishable from sections of a multi-chapter review paper - highly specific, and very textbook-style. The editor should try to a) fit that material into existing articles (there's an easy match for the role of 'parent article' for each of those), and b) turn the text into an encyclopedia article, not a didactic monograph.-- Elmidae 18:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, one of his successful AFCs, Glucose oxidation reaction was speedily deleted yesterday as content duplication, User:DGG/CSD log#December 2015, while another Biosynthetic mechanism was turned into a redirect. As an outsider to biochemistry, I'll venture that it would seem "Glucose oxidation reaction" ought to be a redirect to Glycolysis, the existing content duplication, which I'll mention the editor in question has now added material to. And again, speaking as an outsider, I have the impression that "biosynthetic mechanism" is not a topic as such, and so that entry should have been speedy deleted. Choor monster (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes Glucose oxidation should have been redirected as you say, & I will do it. I redirected biosynthetic mechanism to this nearest phrase; I would interpret the potential meanings as either reaction mechanisms of biosynthetic reactions, or biochemical pathways of metabolism; the draft article seemed rather confused between them. I don't think the redirect useless just in case someone types it in. It is in cases like this with a confused article an open question whether to delete and then redirect, or just redirect. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Checking Google, I find that "biosynthetic mechanism" is in fact a term of art in biochemistry. So you are correct, and I was flat out wrong. Whether or not it is a "topic" as such, it is a genuine search term. Choor monster (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As Elmidae guessed, many of the titles match sections in this textbook (ToC linked there); perhaps others match sections of other books. The content doesn't seem to be identical to the book, though. Kanguole 17:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Just happened to come across this. I'm an academic (not a biochemist) and have read that textbook repeatedly. The articles he's writing seem to be rewrites of condensed notes drawing from multiple reference texts, with some attention paid to organizing them into reasonable topics, not a mere copying of that textbook. I should also note that this textbook in question is more similar to an advanced reference text in econometrics rather than a typical textbook, meaning that its treatment of the topics are fairly encyclopedic, and the methods covered have generally gone through some notability criteria.

Having gone through the dozen of article he's created, while several articles have textbook-style titles, my opinion is that they could be close to encyclopedic quality if renamed and reorganized, and certainly not all of them should be deleted. These are legitimate and notable statistical methods that have been widely used and adopted in multiple disciplines. There is currently a huge gap in Wikipedia on some of these topics, since so few of our users are statisticians. I would recommend not discouraging the effort from this user.

I also went through his edit history. Those articles were not robo-created; he actually worked on them in a sandbox. 50.153.133.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed at Knanaya

For some time, Knanaya has been repeatedly affected by at least two editors trying to enforce their views, both using myriad sockpuppets and IPs. Periodically, an "anti-Knanaya" editor has repeatedly added disparaging material about the group, misusing sources to do so (see discussions here, here, and here). Alternately, a "pro-Knanaya" editor (or connected group of editors) edit-wars over the article to excise material they disapprove, even (or especially) well cited material by academics who studied the community (see discussions here, here, and here). They've edited under the names Stansley, Psthomas, and various IPs:[212][213][214]. In August, the article had to be semi-protected through November,[215] and now that it has expired the edit warring has resumed.
I'm also submitting a WP:RFPP, but it's a shame to have to semi-protect the page for so long considering that the disruption seems to come primarily from two people or groups. Perhaps someone could look into the feasibility of a range-block for this problem?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[216],this revision has kept the excised material intact with previous references. This gives more clarity to the subject. Further more if the collected excised material is checked Admin's can see various Origin stories apart from Neill. The only official version that should be taken is the material mentioned in Knanaya community website(http://kottayamad.org/knanaya-history/). That credibility is more than enough for publication (This is the approved version by bishops, priests, synods and community members). If looked more into the excised material Swiderski himself reports as per Cuchullain version that he is unsure about the Southist-Northist divisional history. All these points to the self-conflicting and invalidation of Swiderski's material. Disregarding this facts and further backing up this fictional elements seems to be more detrimental. These material is published in the 1980's and under a foreign private university, so the standards of this are also questionable. But probably out of respect that Cuchullain is a Master Editor, there are requests to keep the Southist-Northist theory, but under a separate title or a new page. None of these sensible suggestions seems to be tasteful for Cuchullain. I hope the use of these semi-protection requests aren't a means to an end; the edit history shows as such. Let the excised material remain excised or to the other person's request under a different page or title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.76.25 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that you don't address the sockpuppetry and edit warring matter at all. For others, please see this, where 61.3.42.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited a comment by 59.88.210.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the same post they claimed to be a different person.[217]--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If the edited version is a mere grammatical correction which gives more clarity and the same are on the same page of request and if the both parties seems to be o.k about it, where does your sock-puppetry claim stands. Is it a deflection from the mentioned concerns. If not so you have failed to ascertain how a person from Delhi and Maharashtra can be the same - Then that will be the million dollar answer. Other Admins may look at this: http://www.distancesfrom.com/ (From Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India to Pawti, Maharashtra 431703, India) - 1274 Km; I only just saw the talk page rampant now. But standing within all respects to Cuchullain, I have to say from edit history checks, this is not his/hers first claim on the article. There might be people who say that keep the excess material in it and all. I would say just remove it. This is too much and the issue is very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.193 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

People using proxy servers to disguise themselves happens pretty regularly on Wikipedia, and people from different areas can easily coordinate together as meat puppets. The issue here is that we have multiple IPs pushing the same edits on the same subejects at the same times, and revert warring over it. That's not going to fly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Cuchullain, I don't think wikipedia allows edit through proxy servers. I use CyberGhost 5 to overcome certain area-restrictions. You may use it and try an experimental edit - Wikipedia wont allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.171.193 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to cease drive-by POV tagging

@Jbottero: is apparently going to keep adding {{POV}} to the article Kshama Sawant [218][219][220][221] without any indication as to what the POV problem is. How are we supposed to correct the problem if nobody will tell us what it is? As the template doc explains: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Jbottero has been warned four times about this, with reference to the POV tag instructions. This could easily be resolved by Jbottero simply going to Talk:Kshama Sawant and telling us what the problem is. If they are not willing to do that, the editor should be banned from Kshama Sawant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If he's been warned for this four times, and is continuing to do this afterwards, I'd say that a block per disruptive editing is completely justified here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic but I looked at the article and talk page and did a quick web search about the subject. I don't see serious POV problems though maybe a few missing points could be added, e.g. from here. Jboterro did comment on the talk page on 21 October 2014,[222] apparently supporting adding material about Sawant's personal life that others opposed on IINFO and BLP grounds (I don't think Jboterro's comment in that diff is consistent with Wikipedia's current approach to privacy of article subjects). Since that discussion was more than a year ago, I'd say consensus has been reached on the issue, so the repeated tagging is unjustified absent a new talk page discussion with specific concerns. Simplest might be to just post on the article talk page saying this. If that is done and the drive-by tagging continues, it's reasonable to block for slow-moving edit warring. Right now I don't see enough ongoing disruption to warrant an immediate block. I'd support an admin leaving a warning message on Jbottero's talk page. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I put a "final warning" notice on Jbottero's talk page. People are not obligated to psychically guess what POV concerns other editors have. The talk page hasn't been edited since May so Dennis is right in that there's no way for him to be able to respond about it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

IP vandal

While doing new user greet earlier, I came across Grizzly bear and saw that a new user had vandalized it, but ClueBot NG had reverted the issue. The problem is that an IP vandalized it again twice immediately after that. I removed their edits, and when I went to their talk page to warn them, I saw that they have a list of warnings going back to 2010. Is it time for somebody to block them? Thanks, White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)White Arabian Filly - This belong at Administrator intervention against vandalism. File a report there. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: It's complicated with IPs. However, if there is a lot of recent vandalism, then a report to WP:AIV is in order for a short-term block. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In this specific case, neither IP had been used since 2012. You could report to AIV, but it'll get turned down for insufficient recent vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In that case I won't file a report. I warned them on their talk page, so maybe that will take care of it. Thanks. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Harassment by Trinacrialucente

I previously reported this editor for various unwelcome behaviors, though it was archived with no action.

Now, out of the blue, I was notified that he had just undone a revert I had made on his user page back almost a month ago, where I had removed vandalism by the now-blocked User:Jabberwock2001, who had been doing similar vandalism to other user pages. This is to make clear that

• I was undoing obvious vandalism
• there had not (yet) been any request to stay away from his pages

It was peculiar to see this revert, but of course, he can do what he wants on his page. However, he subsequently sent me this angry talk page message, after I had already asked him to stay away from my talk page (and to avoid Italian when communicating with me on the English Wikipedia).

For added absurdity, he also removed the vandal's stuff again himself. So, exactly, why is he sending me any of this, except to cause petty annoyance? He reverted his user page just so he could immediately revert it back to the previous state, and send me a bogus message on my talk page after I had asked him not to — while making it incorrectly seem like I was the one violating a request to stay away from his pages.

My requested actions are:

• to at least warn this user to respect my wish not to be contacted on my talk page (with the usual exceptions), and generally to stop playing WP:POINTY games like this
• in light of the previous report, to look at further recent edit warring coming from him, which I could hardly not notice when he keeps calling for my attention

LjL (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never told the above user that he was unwelcome on my page...and now I did. As far as I am concerned the case is closed. This is yet another CLEAR example of the user above misusing these Arbitration boards. I would point out that initially this user THANKED me for my edit.Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And of course, by making this frivolous ArbCom request the user notified me on MY page (since that is the protocol). This is very passive-aggressive behavior on the part of this user to get the "last word" so to speak.Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And only now, after a month has passed since I removed vandalism from your user page, and just a few days after I asked you not to contact me on my talk page, you make that revert and (guess what) contact me on my talk page about it? Which part of not contacting me is hard to understand? LjL (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want him leaving you messages on your talk page, maybe you shouldn't mess with his. --Tarage (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, LjL did the justifiable removal significantly before the disagreement which led to the "stay off my talk page" requests. Right now, LjL and Trinacrialucente need to stay away from each others userspace pages and move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem doing so, and in fact have been doing so (apart from neutral notices) well before Trinacrialucente even asked (Tarage, look at the timeline of events please). I hope he will now do the same, but given what led to this report and his other shenanigans (for instance, after he's been informed that I don't want to be spoken to in Italian here, he won't miss a chance to speak it and to mock my English), I'm not sure the hope is justified. Don't forget all the bellicose stuff in the older report (he was over 3RR but got lucky on ANEW), plus the edit warring now. Will he stop? LjL (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Editor excluding widely reported undisputed religion of San Bernardino Shooter

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

---

I am being threatened by User:Cwobeel with [223] with discretionary sanctions for reinserting a neutral statement noting the shooter's religion in with other biographical information. [224] [225] The statement was previously last removed by an editor now blocked for edit warring over this exact point. [226]. Could an uninvolved Admin look into this please. See these discussions [227] [228], [229] maybe other sections too. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to avoid mentioning the shooter's religion, which has been widely reported, and which is starting to figure heavily in the investigation. It is not irrelevant information, and Cwobeel should know better. And this view is coming from a person (me) who has been known to remove listings of religion from infoboxes when there is nothing in the article to support it; i.e. I have no prejudice for or against including religion, it all depends on the circumstance and the relevance. We do our readers no service by excluding pertinent information because of political correctness. BMK (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain how this is not a normal content dispute which would simply require time and consensus building to solve? --Jayron32 03:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Jayron. I agree this forum is being hijacked by users who are using it for petty arguments (I'm the brunt of 2 such accusations here myself). What I personally would like to see is some consensus (not here) on whether or not citing a figure's religion can or cannot be mentioned irrespective of whether or not they specifically stated it as the motives for their actions. I'm finding this topic to be very selective and think there should be a wikipedia standard in one direction or another...but agree this is not the forum for it.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

While only tangentially related, Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality provides some useful guiding principles. While it does deal only specifically with assigning categories to articles, some of the principles therin could perhaps be generalized to article text where there is an impasse in trying to find general guidance. However, written policy, whether direct or indirectly related, rarely overrides broad consensus. The most important principle is that, while reliable sources are a necessary condition for a fact to be added, they are not sufficient to prevent it from being excluded. This sort of "necessary but not sufficient" thinking is very important in consensus building discussions: We do need to prove a concept is reliably sourced; but after that there ALSO needs to be consensus (sometimes as simple as "consensus by lack of objection", but in this case we're looking for a more overt consensus by affirmation), in the sense that people need to agree that the referenced fact is relevent on top of being referenced. If consensus is that it isn't relevant to the article, the fact that it is reliably sourced doesn't mean much at all. Now, that is not being specific on this case. Consensus may find it is very relevant. But these are things that need to be discussed and negotiated every time, and are NOT something which can be solved by having some policy statement in place ahead of time. It does need to be discussed, and given time to work out, every time, so long as there is a good-faith difference of opinion. If there is, you just need to let consensus develop, and that does not happen instantly. I hope this general guidance helps frame the ongoing discussion better. I have no pony in this race, I'm just trying to provide all parties with some guidance on how civil discourse among differing opinions is supposed to work. --Jayron32 04:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not looking to discuss here - just looking for an uninvolved Admin to look into the content dispute and resolve it (there is no RfC but similar idea). This article is one of the highest traffic on the site currently, and the issue of the topic is dominating the news (see CNN.com for example) Better not let this drag on for weeks. I see clear consensus one way... but an uninvolved admin would be appreciated. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Start an RFC. Don't edit war. Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I was also threatened by this user in the same manner, for making one single edit to that page to restore the removal of facts that were properly cited regarding the shooter's religion. [230] This is the first time in over a decade of contributions to Wikipedia that I have been threatened insulted in this manner. --Dan East (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What makes this not just a content dispute is the possibility -- not yet shown to be true -- that an editor is using Discretionary Sanction notices as a tool to enforce a specific POV about what should and should not be in the article. If that is true, it is a misuse of the DS notice. I would suggest that (1) Cwobeel stop putting DS notices on the talk pages of editors who think that the shooter's religion should be noted, or put DS notices on the talk pages of all editors involved with this dispute; and (2) Cwobeel should participate in this discussion and disclose the thinking behind their actions. It's perfectly possible that Cwobeel's actions have been misinterpreted or misunderstood, so it would serve them and the community well to hear form them. BMK (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC) (Comment edited for correction: Cwobeel is not an admin.) BMK (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I do see disruptiveness on Cwobeel's part there. There's enough discussion on the talk page favoring including the person's religion in the article that one can observe a consensus without a formal rfc or wikilawyering. Unless I missed something, there's no actual content- or source- based opposition on the talk page to including it. There's just some BURO saying it should be discussed first, which it has been. And Cwobeel has reverted the info at least 3 times.[231][232][233] The earlier reverts might be more defendable than the later ones, since the sourcing has become more extensive in the past day or so. However, I agree that the DS notices in this situation are obnoxious and come across as threatening. Cwobeel, please give it a rest. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have placed notices to alert several editors of discretionary sanctions related to the BLP topic. That was not done to enforce a POV, but to alert those users that may not be aware of these sanctions. The OP may be attempting to use this board to resolve a content dispute, instead of continuing the discussion (about which there is yet no emerging consensus) per WP:DR. AN/I is not the venue for content disputes. The discussion is ongoing at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting#Devout Muslim edit. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that section shows no consensus at all; in fact, the stronger arguments lie with the removers right now. Verified, possibly; relevant in an encyclopedia, not necessarily. Since motive is still not clear, the role of his faith is equally unclear, and while the tabloids and Twitter seem to know exactly why he did what he did, we can't speculate. I note that Robert Lewis Dear is supposedly Christian, evangelical--but neither his article (now up at AfD) nor 2015 Colorado Springs shooting mention this. This is one problem with a million editors who don't care about NOTNEWS: we have to jump to conclusions and follow whatever is tweeted and blogged and reported. Jehochman, you suggested an RfC, but we seem to have no time for such niceties. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Drmies, are you looking at the same talk page as I am? I don't see anyone supporting removal. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't know what you're looking at, but let me just namecheck General_Ization, 24.130.189.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Cwobeel, ParkH.Davis, ATinySliver, Epicgenius, all of whom have at the least expressed reservations. BTW, this does not mean I agree with any strongarming, if that's indeed what Cwobeel did. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I see, you're looking at the earlier sections [234] and maybe [235]. I was only looking at the more recent [236] and [237]. I'd tend to put more weight on the later contributions due to new reporting of the FBI claiming the guy may have been radicalized by talking to people on a terror watchlist, and extensive secondary sourcing from the last day or so interpreting the religion angle (there were fewer such sources available earlier), plus the info that one of the shooting victims was an islamophobe who the guy had a beef with.[238] But ok, fine, if there's still uncertainty then yeah, talk it out. I'd suggest putting a note at the bottom of the talk page linking to the discussion that is happening way further up the page. Alternatively, move the discussion to the bottom. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I see more than a 2:1 consensus for including their religion.
• I made one single edit to the page. So are you saying that you are posting discretionary sanctions notices to every single editor to that page? Or only the ones that do not share your point of view? Either way it is clearly misuse and bullying on your part. --Dan East (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the OP has reverted to his preferred version [239] two hours after he posted this thread, instead of allowing consensus to emerge. While I understand the reasons for wanting that information included, there are other opinions expressed in talk page discussions that are relevant and significant enough to allow for consensus to emerge. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say that this edit can speak in favor of inclusion. But what I see on that talk page is too much "it's verified so it's in", and a few things that are just totally speculative--"he went to Saudi-Arabia so he must be a Muslim and a terrorist", to paraphrase. Drmies (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Even the usually left leaning CNN is reporting that Farook was a Muslim and that officials indicate that he was "radicalized" and had contact with someone on the FBI terrorist watch list. [240]--MONGO 06:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Left-leaning CNN? Aw Mongo, you so sweet... Drmies (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Clinton News Network? Lol. I loved yesterday how they kept trying as long as they could to spin it as a case of "workplace violence"...completely jumping to conclusions about the motivations with nary a thought about neutrality. Compared to the oft claimed Fox News as right leaning, of course CNN is left leaning in comparison.--MONGO 06:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologize for after starting [241] and there is another discussion too [242], responses to which confirmed the need for basic religion info in the midst of other bio info. Please don't name check an editor on 24 hr block over this issue. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• How about the Wall Street Journal.[243]...why wouldn't it be okay to indicate that the shooters were Muslim? Major news sources have no issue with it.--MONGO 06:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Or Canada's CTVNews which covers his faith from a variety of points [244]. I'm not anti-muslim, I'm just trying to get the article to reflect the sources in a CREDIBLE way. I'm also not seeing anyone posting anything like "he went to Saudi-Arabia so he must be a Muslim and a terrorist", - perhaps I missed that. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of DS notices to enforce POV - since the question was raised by User:Drmies and BMK these are the pairs I could find - which seems to me to contradict his stated purpose above:

• Reverts User:Tdl1060 [245] and hits them with DS template[246] right after
• User:Dan East restores [247] his deletion of Muslim reference and he gets a DS template [248]
• Reverts my addition [249] and 6 edits later puts DS on my talk page [250]
• According to him "We don't template experienced editors." [251]. Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I was name-checked above, I'll leave this here: IMO, the article is about the event, not its perpetrators, and the argument that Farook's religion is merely biographical fails on that basis alone. More importantly, until and/or unless it is determined that his religion is a factor in the event, it fails SYNTH and UNDUE. My opinion would be the same were he Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Pagan or Jedi. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If we split the bio info into Bio articles over the current redirects for the perps you would be ok with including religion then? Cause at Boston Marathon Bombing that is what happened and the dispute over including faith was short lived. Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue of this thread though should return to how Cwobeel, who has been blocked five times for edit warring over similar issues, is going around slapping discretionary sanctions warnings on any user that disagrees with his edits, even though the article talkoage already has that boilerplate atop it.--MONGO 07:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ATinySliver, there is now plenty of secondary sourcing discussing the religious angle and its (possible) significance. It may turn out to be wrong, but by now it's sufficiently notable that it can be documented anyway per NPOV. That can be done without a trace of SYNTH: are you saying it still shouldn't be?. Similarly, media and LE reporting during the attack said there were 3 shooters, but there were later determined to be just two. As I see it, that too is also notable and should be in the article. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible significance is not significance per NOTNEWS, and can be added at any time its significance is established per NODEADLINE. Even then, an RS would need to establish that Islamist extremism was appealing because he's Muslim (extremists appeal to people of all stripes, religious or non) or we violate SYNTH. On that note specifically, the "plenty of secondary sourcing" I've seen comprises family and co-workers saying he was (or used to be) devout, as if contrary to, not explanatory of, his actions; Muslim leaders engaging in what appears to me to be preemptive damage control; and investigators saying there may—as in, may not—be ties to Islamist extremists. This again points to synthesizing from his religion that he was somehow more susceptible to the message than a non-Muslim. All of this may turn out to be fully accurate, or it may not—and, hell, that invokes CRYSTAL to boot. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

All this said, in context within the paragraph, I would not have an objection to the likes of "His father and co-workers described Farook as devoutly religious." —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No there should be no synthesis. Just report what the secondary sources say, including summarizing whatever interpretations they give, and they have given some. The article has an NPOV failure if stuff like this is missing. The media response to that report is notable in its own right.[252] 173.228.123.101 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO that the DS notices are combative. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, I don't think there should be a separate bio article for now, per BLP1E. The biographical info (unless a lot more emerges) should stay in the article about the shooting. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

That much is absolutely correct. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've blocked Cwobeel for 24 hours for misuse of DS notices. Max Semenik (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from User:Lecen in my talk page

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

---

Hello.

I come here to denounce the conduct of the user User:Lecen. As of the December 4, 2015, I uploaded on commons a historical map with sufficient references to corroborate its verifiability. The file in question is File:Brazil (1822).svg.

He and I discussed if the map is wrong or not, and towards the end of the discussion, that user started referring to me with extreme rudeness and childish insults, as you can see here in my talk page, breaking the policy of civility.

This user had a history of hostility towards me, and not wanting to measure our positions, as you can see here. As you notice, that user only considers one point of view, his own poin of view, and he does not allow a decent and consistent debate on differences of ideas.--Shadowxfox (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as personal attacks go, that is... as mild as they come. I think you need some thicker skin. --Tarage (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is nothing to this. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Just a quick block needed

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

---

Could someone quickly block this new single-purpose disruptive account? Its destroying numerous articles, using fake edit summaries, adding unsourced material, in the typical fashion thats always done on the targeted articles (changing "Persian" in "Turkish" and/or "Azerbaijani" as well as "Azerbaijanifying" everything). Most likely another sock that one can see bunny-hopping by every few weeks on the same targeted articles. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No admin awake at this time? :) - LouisAragon (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking now, but you'll have to excuse me as I'm not familiar with this editor. Can you point out explicitly some of the problematic edits and why they're a problem? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC).

No problem. He's changing names, distorting history, making unsourced changes, all with fake edit summaries, in a similar fashion as the already 100 blocked socks and reverted edits by single-purpose accounts just like him on the same article, and articles directly related to it.[253]-[254]-[255]-[256]. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC) He just violated 3RR numerous times as well, but I'm not gonna report him there as well. He should be summarily blocked by whichever admin is available, as he's a disruptive single-purpose account clearly not meant to be here.

Yes, he needs to go. Apart from the blatent nationalism, and removal of all mentions of Persia, he seems to think Safavid is a place not a Persian dynasty. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It really looks like a total circus show now, but still not a block... - LouisAragon (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Whoever they are, they're not new. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

a problem

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

---

There appears to be a virus in a link at the bottom of the article on Sally Grossman, Albert Grossman's wife. It looks like an "official site" link to the recording label Bear (something) -- don't click on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.8.220 (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see any External, or clickable, links on the page other than the ISBN - are you sure you are looking at this on en.wikipedia.org, and not a mirror site? - Arjayay (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The link on her page to the wp article on Bearsville Records -- then on that article (not on hers -- my error) -- way at the bottom it says "official site". That's it. Don't click on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.8.220 (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So it's actually not the Sally Grossman article, it's the Bearsville Records article where the bad link is to be found. It looks like it's been there since May, but I do get a "malicious content" warning if I click it (my Mac is properly protected). I've replaced it with the real Bearsville Records link, and I'll check all the edits done by the editor who added it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

All checked and no more occurrences. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

• There's 4 more links to that site.[257] I may try to fix but it would be great if someone else beat me to it. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Got them all. Given the "TR-i ("Todd Rundgren interactive")" thing mentioned at Todd Rundgren it seems like it might once have been genuine, but it's anyone's guess what's happened to it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Just looking around, Todd Rundgren's Facebook shows it as his URL, so it may well have been hacked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Flickrwashing

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

---

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

I recently questioned the copyright on File:Anand Jon Alexander with Tim Gunn and Sanjana Jon.jpg, which was sourced to Anand Jon's website. After I tagged it as "no evidence of permission" for a claimed public domain release, the uploader, Indiahawk, changed the source for the image to this Flickr page. The Flickr account was created today and is almost certainly an impostor account - only two uploads, both from Anand Jon's website, with no followers, etc. The license at Flickr initially was PD Mark 1.0 - when I questioned this at WP:PUF, the license at Flickr was changed to {{cc-by-2.0}} and Indiahawk simultaneously changed the license here from {{PD-author}} to {{attribution}}.

Pretty sure that Indiahawk must be a sock or perhaps a paid editor, as their first edit was to create a one-line userpage, and then launched immediately into a series of minor edits before making this massive edit to make the BLP of Anand Jon sound much more positive. Perhaps this is Jon himself, but if so he could have just released the photo under a free license himself. Plus Jon is apparently incarcerated. Kelly ^hi! 13:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indef, image gone. Max Semenik (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Zacharyw34

This user did two edits on 20 november and anything else: first edit was to remove Strasbourg airport from the List of airports in France, second edit was to remove Strasbourg from the List of communes in France with over 20,000 inhabitants. I reported him here because his edits are too old for WP:AIV and, sleeper or not, users strarting with this purposes could return (IMHO, by experience) only to continue their work. I would also underline a pair of things: 1) I disovered this vandalisms (2 weeks later) casually. 2) the removal of Strasbourg from this lists is not a minor damage for that pages. Ex.: a reader searching for main French city will see that the #7 is vanished.

Reasons for this removal? Unexplained. Maybe a sort of Anti-Strasbourg sentiment, casual vandalisms for fun, a way as another to damage the reliability of Wikipedia. In any case NOTHERE and vandalisms difficult to detect. For this reasons, I request the indef ban tout court, just to avoid another user to wacth if/when will return to vandalize. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I'd say it's possible that it's just testing idiocy. The editor was warned today (weeks later) so I don't see what's gained by compounding a block absent some further action. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown is vandalizing pages and pov pushing

User:SheriffIsInTown should be blocked not only because he is disruptive and an extreme pov pusher but because, after being warned, [258] continues to remove vital sourced information from Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani's article. [259], [260] He claims that Ghani, who was born in Afghanistan and lived in America as a U.S. citizen, is a Pakistani. [261] SheriffIsInTown is simply insulting the Afghan President and spreading Pakistani propaganda. There is no record or any source that even mentions the Afghan President residing in Pakistan, he only visited that country like how Obama and other world leaders do. That doesn't make them Pakistanis.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is completely wrong accusation, the information which I removed is unsourced, I asked Krzyhorse22 to add the sources to pertinent information but instead of doing that he is reporting me here. This matter could have been easily resolved if he would have added the sources. Moreover, I never claimed that Ashraf Ghani is Pakistani. Krzyhorse22 removed "Category:Afghan expatriates in Pakistan" from the page which I restored providing a url in the summary line which says he holds Pakistani identity card. Many Afghans lived in Pakistan when they fleed the war in their country and it is possible that he lived there as well but that does not make him Pakistani and never did I say that. Instead of following the policies Krzyhorse22 is unnecessarily harassing me. He can add back the removed information if he can add pertinent sources to corresponding content. Sheriff (report) 03:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

He removes large amount of properly sourced and vital content from Afghan President's article and says "[t]his is completely wrong accusation[.]" All the sources clearly explain that Ghani lived in Lebanon and the United States but SheriffIsInTown doesn't accept this, instead he believes Ghani lived in Pakistan. Paki identity card is ONLY issued to Pakistanis. Therefore, we're dealing with a disruptive pov pusher who is spreading propaganda and destroying articles of notable individuals, and falsely accuses others of harassing him.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you know the word "Paki" is derogatory and you snuck that one in to push your own POV. I don't see any "vandalism", but rather two competing points of view that could and SHOULD be taken to the talk pages. I for one am sick of people using these boards as a way to circumvent discussions and take out petty squabbles. That's my take, and I'll now leave it to the admins.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Look and pay close attention at the above diff again, he completely removed sections with properly sourced content from the article of a world leader. That is vandalism. Paki used for a person may be derogatory but I used it for a piece of document. This proves you're uneducated, and you're defending a vandal. Don't feel bad but if you have nothing useful or inteligent to say, don't say anything. Let admins deal with this issue.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This has escalated to the point where Krzyhorse22 needs to either strike his last comments or be sanctioned. MySweetSatan (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You just created this account,[262] likely a sock.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I went back to check why he is claiming that I removed sourced information and found out that in his subsequent edits he did add one source (Brittanica) which somehow I did not notice when I reverted him. I added all that information back for which there was a source. I did not check whether the source actually supports the content in the page or whether Brittanica can be considered a reliable source.

His comments above show his hatred for Pakistanis in general and then he claims that I am a Pakistani POV pusher but actually he has shown by his comments that he is an Afghani POV pusher if someone needs to be blocked is him and not me.

He kept insisting addition of "Mohammad" to Afghan president's name citing a WP:PRIMARY source while 23 reliable sources in the article mentioned his name as Ashraf Ghani without "Muhammad" his WP:COMMONNAME but he kept his attitude of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT and recreated the redirect when it was speedily deleted upon my request to facilitate the move from Mohammad Ashraf Ghani to Ashraf Ghani. Then another example of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT was when he moved Hamid Karzai International Airport to Kabul International Airport while article itself mentioned that the name was changed in October 2014, the move was reverted by me. It seems like all of this upsetted him enough to look for an opportunity to report and punish me. What he does not understamd is that as Wikipedia editors, our edits can get challenged by other editors because they are here to contribute as well and difference of opinion exists. Then, he also wikihounded me to Muhammad Ali Jinnah and reverted one of my edits there which was reverted by FreeatlastChitchat supporting my edit.

There are also issues of WP:OWNERSHIP, to me it seems like that he thinks he owns all Afghanistan related articles and think that no other editor especially a Pakistani editor has a right to edit them or challenge his edits on those articles.

All of my edits are based on valid reasoning and policy enforcement but some of them may seem like Pakistani POV edits to another editor but they are actually not and I have valid policy based reasoning for those edits. Sheriff (report) 14:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

First of, SheriffIsInTown seems to know very well all the policies of Wikipedia but yet he vandalizes the article of the current Afghan President, i.e., removes properly sourced entire sections, especially the President's birth information and early education. I think he's doing this to provoke me into an edit war, which I often avoid. Second, the Afghan President in his own website says his full name is Mohammad Ashraf Ghani,[263] it is you who keeps removing the "Mohammad" by showing the I don't care attitude. The third point is that you keep adding "Category:Afghan expatriates in Pakistan" to Ashraf Ghani's article, where is your proof that he lived in Pakistan? About the airport, I was the first editor in 2014 to rename Kabul International Airport to Hamid Karzai International Airport. My recent rename was my misunderstanding but why is that a big deal to you? Why are you excessively focusing on my every edit? You completely removed the alternative name "Kabul International Airport", which has been the name for 70+ years. You should learn to understand that the whole world is watching these pages, so when you vandalize an article many will come to fix your vandalism.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Block both Completely uninvolved in this conflict, but checking the diffs shows that both the reporter and reportee have violated several policies and may not be here for the right reasons. I'd suggest two short blocks to give both a chance to cool down. Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jeppiz, please cite the policies which were violated by me and when? Sheriff (report) 15:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support block of Krzyhorse22 Personal attacks and ethnic slurs don't belong on Wikipedia. MySweetSatan (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed several copyright violations from Ashraf Ghani, finding the originals in his official biography. Several more sentences seem barely paraphrased, but I have to run - could someone check? Likewise, I've not checked where in all the abovementioned warring this material was introduced. NebY (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

My comment shows hatred for vandals, not for Pakistanis. The name MySweetSatan (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for trolling. [264] It was created yesterday, 100% defending SheriffIsInTown and aggressively pursuing to get me wrongly blocked. The name was uniquely made like SheriffIsInTown, an indication that it may be a sock.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas is being combative and uncivil

Viriditas was combative after his unilateral name change was reverted on 2015 San Bernardino shooting. He said: "Disagree all you want. Within the last day, all RS have taken to calling it "attacks", and the shooting narrative has since been dropped. I've changed the article title accordingly." followed by "Let's recap for those who can't keep up: consensus to move to a new article title is established. Since there is only one option for a neutral title supported by naming convention and reliable sources ("2015 San Bernardino attacks"), I moved the article accordingly. It was then absurdly reverted for no reason. What exactly do we have to discuss when there is only one logical option for moving an article to a title supported by both our naming conventions and all of the current RS that have been published? Are you unaware that RS are now calling this an attack and not a shooting? What exactly is it that you feel the need to discuss? Do you need personal attention of some kind?" followed by "There is no such rule or requirement, and since consensus for a move has been established above and there is only one logical target for a new title based on naming conventions and RS, a request for move is unnecessary. Do you oppose a move to a title currently reflected by our best sources? Why? Sources are no longer calling it a shooting, they have been calling it an attack for the last 12 hours. Please get on board." In a seperate thread he stated to me: "It is too soon and in poor taste to use the victims as the butt of your unfunny tu quoque attempts at humor. If you persist in what appears to me to be disruption, I will file a request for arbitration enforcement.", which I pervieved as a threat to attempt to censor me from participating in the editing of 2015 San Bernardino shooting and Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting pages. I attempted to resolve the conflict via Viriditas' talk page by suggesting that we avoid each other for the time being, but he continued to be combative. He made another comment: "Step right up and claim the "inept" description for your argument: the terrorists attacked the workplace and then attacked the police. Are you done?". ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas has removed my ANI notification from his talk page. Should I re-add, or leave well enough alone? ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Leave it; removal is considered acknowledgement. NE Ent 03:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

He as also added a further comment: "How can Park's comment up above not be considered a blatant example of trolling? We are way, way past the point of not talking about the faith of the terrorists, yet he still persists.". ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

SPI requested. The majority of the comments ParkH. Davis identifies with were made by IPs.[265] It's a bit odd that he appears to claim by inference that I was responding to him. Nevertheless, all of the comments were taken out of context, as the link I have provided shows. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Park is fresh off a 24hr edit warring block [266] for his 6RR whitewashing religion of islaic terrorists, but seems to have learned little from it for he continues to be disruptive. This is retaliation against one of the filers. Legacypac (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that he also levied a serious personal attack on me during his block when he accused me of "spread[ing] ... anti-muslim propaganda."[267]. I suppose that explains why I spent time encouraging a user to expand content on muslim attitudes towards terrorism in the article, opinions that explicitly condemns Islamophobia and presents the Muslim POV on the attacks.[268] Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I long ago lost my mind-reading ability, so I can't speak to the OP's motive for opening this. But I have no reason to retaliate against Viriditas for anything, and I agree that they have been a very disruptive force at this article. I was close to opening this myself, but couldn't summon the energy to assemble the airtight case required to have even the slightest hope of any temporary relief at all. It's there on the talk page for anyone who wants to check it out. If someone wants to demand out-of-context diffs, forget I posted this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, you cannot provide a single, unambiguous diff showing any semblance of disruption from my account in this article. Not one. However, I want to thank you for sticking to your registered account for this report instead of using your IP as you have been doing for a while now. Now all we have to do is find out who has been disrupting the talk page with the newest set of IPs. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Good ole time-tested, bad-faith ANI defensive strategy. If you can't defend your own behavior, throw up smoke by pointing fingers at others. If there is anyone who can't see through this, this should clear things up. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Where's the diff of my alleged disruption you promised? Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Where's the diff of me promising that? I already explained, quite clearly I thought, why I'm not producing diffs. If that means the disruption continues, so be it. I'll just move on and let others deal with you and the consequences to that article. I'm done responding to you, but I'll respond to a ping from anyone else. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas made this comment at User talk:Legacypac#Merge request: "Some joker named "Mandruss" has now appointed himself the official defender of all things ParkH. Davis, after I called him out for making fun of dead people. Just where do these weird people come from and why does there seem to be so many of them? I recently moved the article to "2015 San Bernardino attacks" due to consensus for a move on the talk page, and I was instantly reverted by another joker named "WWGB" who bizarrely told me to find consensus! Meanwhile, every RS has changed the narrative in the last 12 hours from shootings to attacks, but these jokers don't seem to be able to read, let alone understand basic English." Viriditas is continuing to be uncivil towards me and other editors. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And? Are you still alleging that I am spreading anti-Muslim propaganda for noting the religion of the terrorists? Are you still making fun of the victims of the terrorist attacks on the talk page by claiming we should talk about their favorite colors? Are you still trolling the talk page, claiming that the religion of the terrorists is irrelevant to their actions? Should I not refer to you as a "joker"? What then? Who in their right mind thinks it is acceptable to make light of the recent victims of a terrorist attack and to repeatedly remove any mention of "Muslim" from the article? Something is wrong here, but it isn't me. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - this is silly and needs to be closed. Minor4th 05:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I am fine with this being closed. It seems as if things have cooled down. I will, for the foreseeable future, continue to avoid interaction with Viriditas. ParkH.Davis (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support close per Park's agreement. The main content dispute from last night's thread is now resolved since the San Bernardino incident is now being reported as a likely terror attack by many sources. There is an open RM discussion on the talk page, though the proposed target is "San Bernardino shooting" rather than "2015 San Bernardino attack". I'd ask Viriditas to be more careful about synthesizing conclusions. I don't support keeping sourced relevant info out of the article, but there are a lot of gaps in the available documentation and we shouldn't be the ones to fill them in. We should include whatever info and sourced interpretation we have available, and leave further interpreting up to the readers. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support close and temporary 1RR limit for both editors until they fully cool down. MySweetSatan (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't there a rule against altering other editor's comments? I'm deleting it as base trolling. MySweetSatan (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

MySweetSatan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your point being? MySweetSatan (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support close - Time to move on. Jusdafax 13:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Champak bora

The user apparently created a sock of Ritu sarma913 with repeatedly creating Non notable pages. In addition, the sock removing the A7 template despite being tagged. So called up the admin noticeboard to lookup to these sockmasters D'SuperHero (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment this IP address removed the speedy deletion tag and i'm completely sure this IP is of the sock of CB. Please admins ping. D'SuperHero (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition the sockmaster did wrote his biography whereas Wikipedia strongly discourages of autobio writing D'SuperHero (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Large sock cluster

The problem is evident looking at the edit history of Silver nanoparticle. There are multiple accounts named "Nano(something)" (e.g. Nanomsg) making large-scale edits to a number of articles, also including Colloidal gold, Gold Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy) and Photothermal therapy. Some of the edits are okay; other contain dubious health information. Either way having a bunch of what look like computer-generated accounts acting in consort is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nanoadm. Twenty accounts so far. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a college class project. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, class project at University of Pittsburgh. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest forwarding this on to the WMF. Jusdafax 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's just ask Eryk (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed) and see if they know anything about this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's related, but I remember back in March there was at least one - and maybe two - unregistered classes editing gold nanoparticle articles. I remember we contacted one prof (not at Pitt), but I do feel like there were other edits that looked like classes whose origins we couldn't track down. Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Rhododendrites was the one who solved the mystery then. He may remember more. I'll keep digging, see if I made any other notes. Guettarda/Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): I remember it well, but that was at a school on the west coast, not UPitt (being vague because it seems like referencing a very specific class at a specific university without their prior knowledge is fuzzy WP:OUTING territory). I spoke to the professor on the phone in March and we exchanged several emails. He was very interested to work with us (Wiki Ed) next time around, but as I'm not managing the classroom program now I'd have to check with Helaine (Wiki Ed) regarding whether or not she's been in touch with him this term. I've forwarded the March email thread and a summary to her so she can follow up. That doesn't help in the immediate, of course... --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking a bit more, I'm skeptical it's the same class. The website for the previous class has not been updated and there are indeed multiple IPs working on these articles which geolocate to UPitt. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the SPI was declined and closed by Mike V so that's a dead issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat by 82.132.213.175

Notifying the IP's talk page of this discussion. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Let it go. It's on an experienced administrators' page and "sailing close to" is very different than sailing on to (especially if you're sailing on the downwind side of something.) NE Ent 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NE Ent - it's good to run into you again :D -- Yeah, I was questioning if making this ANI thread was the right thing to do or not. If it's skating pretty close to the edge, but isn't falling over, I'll humbly accept my ten lashings for the unnecessary thread and call it good - especially given the fact that it was left on an admin's talk page. I must be a lot more tired than I think I am. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats. We don't "let it go" when it comes to legal threats. It is a legal threat even wrapped in words like "sailing very close to". It was clearly meant to intimidate. You were 100% correct to report this here, thank you. HighInBC 15:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It definitely qualifies, and targeting an admin is not the smartest thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

In the legal threat, the editor identifed that they have a COI with some sources on articles relating to aviation. Can anyone identify the possible individual or is this just more smoke? —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

After some digging, the block appeared to happen over a spat of vandalism at Badger and Clan Gunn from the same IP range. —Farix (t | c) 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

More Flickrwashing

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

After File:Samantha Katz biography photo 2015.jpg was deleted as missing evidence of permission, user apparently created an impostor Flickr account, uploaded the file there with a public domain mark (not a valid license anyway) and re-uploaded file here as File:Samantha Katz Bio Photo.jpg, sourcing it to bogus Flickr account. Kelly ^hi! 15:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the photo and warned the user. I will watch. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue on high traffic page

On the recently high profile Chan Zuckerberg Initiative page, an anonymous IP who then registered for an account (Special:Contributions/Peco_Wikau, and likely Special:Contributions/Kiri_Chafr in addition) is inserting several paragraphs of what appears to be borderline original research compiled through several sources, including op-eds and personal blogs. Another editor yesterday removed the contentious content in two edits 1. 2. The editor in question then proceeded to re-insert the content. I noticed the problem today and have now removed the content several times by citing it as a BLP violation and the 3RR exemption; it has been repeatedly inserted by the editor.

While several issues with these edits (including the sourcing and verifiability) can be addressed on the talk page later, at this moment I am strongly concerned with the possible BLP violation in the content involved, namely the use of the label tax avoidance to describe Zuckerberg's initiative. The article on tax avoidance describes the action as "widely viewed as unethical" as carried out by an individual; furthermore, my belief after reviewing this issue is that the description would be widely seen as incorrect as a legal term to describe the issue concerned, and thus potentially libelous. Since this directly relates to a notable recent action by a living person, I believe WP:BLP applies here, and I am requesting for administrator review immediately. Preferably, the page could be protected while we discuss the possible BLP violation with the new editor, who I believe has good intentions. Thanks. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like coatracking of a political argument. Unless he's doing something illegal (which I don't think anyone is claiming), that critique applies to Congress, not Zuckerberg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. I would have argued for a rewrite of that material in any case, but at this moment I'm most strongly concerned about the BLP issue, which I think is severe enough to merit administrator intervention. I've attempted to convince him to hold off on reverting the material back until I can discuss the BLP issue with him, but so far no luck. 50.153.133.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted his changes once, and now he's edit warring to keep them in. I'll revert him one more time, then another admin needs to get involved. Katie^talk 16:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin go in and revert the potential BLP material for the final time, which is still on that page? I don't want to revert again as the editor might perceive this as an edit war and go crazy after the block expires. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Just reverted the material. It's blatant coatracking for sure. GAB^Hello! 16:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of user Eightball

I would like to point to the conduct of user Eightball in the following discussion: [269]. I do have quite a thick skin, but calling two editors "liars" and "incompetent" because they point to statements given in sources is unacceptable to me. Thank you for your attention. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 has thankfully pointed out to me that this was not the only attack by Eightball on another user in the past 24 hours, see here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have left a clear warning, I noticed it was right after another fresh warning for personal attacks. Any more nastiness and I think a short block would be called for. HighInBC 18:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Also I left the required notification that there is a discussion about them here. HighInBC 18:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, this is my first time here, I was not aware that I should have left something, I thought pinging them would be sufficient. Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the behavior they displayed today form part of a wider pattern. They consistently revert to aggression when others disagree with them. Here, here and here (Some diffs of Eightball's comments in that discussion.) are some links to the discussions from the last twelve months in which Eightball took part. Tvx1 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And it continues: [270] Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Disagree" is an odd word for "be objectively correct and continually baffled as to why you people bend over backwards to maintain an incorrect and outdated wiki," but OK... Eightball (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You can disagree without resorting to statements like this. Personal attacks are never warranted. clpo13_(talk) 19:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I try my hardest to assume good faith but these people are doing their best to break that assumption. I have long passed my breaking point here. I'd love to hear them just once admit that they can't logically support any of their positions. It's so, so obvious, but they just won't back down, and it's infuriating. Eightball (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

HighInBC, Another personal attack was posted, despite this report and the subsequent warning. Tvx1 22:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Supdiop

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

---

I am requesting for the community discussion for the unblock of Supdiop. I have 8000 edits on wikipedia. I created many articles and reverted thousands of vandalism edits. I sincerely apologize for the actions. I want to continue my wikipedia career by creating articles, reverting vandalism and reviewing articles. Please give me a chance. I learned the lesson for my actions and I won't let it happen again. Please consider my request. - 188.42.233.34 (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the correct venue for this request, since Supdiop wasn't blocked by the community. Appeals should be sent through Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. clpo13_(talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I tried by appealing from UTRS, but they denied it. That's why I am asking for the community discussion for the unblock. Please don't close it. - 188.42.253.70 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

CENSORSHIP OF FACTS

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

---

I was unfairly blocked from editing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_shooting I added a reference from (https://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/fbi-will-investigate-san-bernardino-shootings-as-terrorist-act) to Islamic terrorism and was unjustly blocked from posting the truth? I will make sure this goes viral since I'm being censored from posting facts with a .gov reference supporting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PizzazzPicasso (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It won't go viral. Sorry. 208.54.45.207 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PizzazzPicasso - Your block log is clean.... what account or IP were you using when the block occurred? ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You were told you would be blocked if you made another personal attack on an editor, not based on your content contribution. This dispute is about your conduct, not your source. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The user has not yet been blocked, and I doubt they understand what it means.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not posting it here, but PizzazzPicasso just posted personal information to Titusfox's talk page. I'm pushing for a block just on this evidence alone. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for linking to that outing attempt. That was just idiotic on my part. The attempt merits an indef, combined with persistent personal attacks and cries of "censorship." GAB^Hello! 21:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. PizzazzPicasso's block should be extended to indefinite. Not cool at all. He can take his abuse somewhere else. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Where did that FB link got to? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

titusfox - I'm getting in touch with the Oversight team to have it suppressed. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll go Clean Up Checkingfax's Page. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gives Titusfox a hug. Sorry man, being outed is not a good feeling. It's been rev del'd and will most certainly be suppressed. There's nothing you need to worry about :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Already clean: I happened by and saw the personal attack, so I removed it. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you remove the Sinebot Summary as it also has the topic title? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesnotcontain any sensitive info, this is why I did not remove the summary. Anyway, I contacted the oversight, they will do whatever is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I note that I've temporarily blocked the account. Should they return and repeat this behaviour, they will probably be blocked again, if not before. Content discussions belong on the article's talk page. I'll remind everyone to think about what they're repeating when they edit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

PizzazzPicasso has continued to post that outing link so I have revoked his talk page access. It's a very limited block, I believe it is just 31 hours so it might have to be lengthened tomorrow if abuse continues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone see what was outed on that link? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I Really would like to know, as I don't have 100% free internet access. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Titusfox: It was a link to a social media network. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I know it linked to Facebook as stated earlier, but what was on the page? I can't check due to my computer being locked down by a glitch on the Windows 10 Preview (I'm still using it!). TF ^{{ Contribs }} 21:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This information won't be posted on-wiki. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Mike V has indefinitely blocked PizzazzPicasso as an oversight action. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User:PizzazzPicasso Harassing me and another editor

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

---

• User Talk:Checkingfax
• User Talk:titusfox

Can Someone deal with this please? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 20:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• He has now decided to bring it here as well. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 20:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Admin attacking User:Oiyarbepsy for protecting new users

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

---

User:Oiyarbepsy keeps on getting attacked and insulted for trying to protect hate and terrifying nastiness against new users. Look at the attempts to protect user drafts at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G6_for_default_Article_Wizard_text and the complete ignorance shown by other editors as to why it's is utterly hateful towards yell, insult and destroy the good work of editors here. We need more eyes and votes to protect people from ripping to shred the hard work of alll editors and not subject them to admin bullying. How does unilaterally without notice deleting thousands of articles off the encyclopedia help anyone? 166.176.59.231 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any attacks or insults. Ricky81682 is suggesting deleting pages like this, that is, pages with no content other than an AfC template. That's hardly destroying the "hard work" of editors. If Oiyarbepsy disagrees with the proposal, that's their right, just as it's Ricky's right to question them on their reasoning. clpo13_(talk) 23:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I also notified both Oiyarbepsy and Ricky81682 about this discussion as required. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Oiyarbepsy did agree that deleting those kinds of pages should be considered hateful for what it's worth. I think I'm the one being attacked but whatever. I'm asking for a proposal to add to CSD. If it's rejected, then we're back to today's status quo which is probably me just flooding MFD every single day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting unnecessary stuff helps everyone because the growth of online [271] data is that it's literally incomprehensible and unreadable by any individual. Wikipedia has value not only of because what it has, but because of what it doesn't. See apoptosis for the biological equivalent. NE Ent 23:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is another example of the deletionist lunacy that has driven editors off this project for years. We should be encouraging new editors not terrorizing them by having all their stuff deleted from beneath them. They was a legitimate alternative provided, move all these pages into separate categories so we would have "Blank drafts from November 2009, blank drafts from December 2009, etc. 166.171.120.75 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And editors can support either proposal. Getting upset and running to AN/I isn't productive. clpo13_(talk) 23:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

it is when you want admins to stop the rampant mass genocide of tens of thousands of articles from users. The collective hundreds of thousands of hours of work creating this project could all be thrown away in an instant. Everyone here would agree that they would accept the full 46,000 old drafts out there rather than one possible, plausible article be deleted. How do you know that the singular 'blank' draft some editor started in 2009 couldn't have them return after a decade of inactivity and create our newest featured article? The risk is just too great . 166.176.59.146 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

While I do appreciate a well done troll, you're totally overplaying "indignant," -- perhaps you'd like to move on now? NE Ent 00:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Your the IP editor on a campaign to harass Ricky81682 about his clean up efforts. Using terms like "mass genocide" does tend to make editors not take your remarks very seriously. By the way Ricky81682 is mainly tagging articles. Others are deleting them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought that IP address looked familiar. I suppose it's just a coincidence that Ricky81682 is heavily involved in the topic this editor is banned from. clpo13_(talk) 00:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm like super-deletionist man here. AFD is for article that have made it, I'm killing them before they start so it's going to anger quite a few people, I'm aware of it. I still think this character is related to the Koch mess not the WOP anger I caused. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• As an aside, I'd appreciate it is someone offered an opinion as to how long should a user be inactive to be considered inactive for their drafts. I've been opposed on all sorts of grounds because the editor "appears to have stopped editing" language is too vague. I mean, there's an argument at MFD over a nine year old single edit userspace copy of the "good version" of Super Mario 64 being opposed as premature so I really hope it isn't literally we have to wait a decade. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

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