Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) at 21:01, 15 December 2015 (→‎Proposed topic ban or WP:MRMPS (probation enforcement) for Charlotte135: close discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User attacking other editors; ongoing non-encyclopedic content

    Please take a look at the behavior of User:Jack DeMattos. He is a professional writer who's been on WP since June 1, 2015. I've tried to make him feel welcome and given him lots of room to match his flowery, editorial, magazine style writing to WP encyclopedic style, but he's not making much progress. Now he's begun to arbitrarily delete from articles all images another user has uploaded added and leave personal attacks in his edit summaries, like this: "Removed obviously bogus photo supposed to be Charles E. Bassett. This is yet another unfortunate example submitted by a serial purveyor of photo photos of Wild West figures. This person is single handedly turning Wipipedia into 'Wackypedia." His comment is really ironic, because his contributions are pretty much in the same category. Instances of comments like this in his edit summaries include this one, another, one more, and another.

    He's leaving his flowery footprints and non-sourced content all over the Old West articles. In the past week this has included Pat Garrett; Bill Tilghman; Bat Masterson; and Billy the Kid.

    Oon Friday 4 December he made big changes to Bill Tilghman and removed hatnotes about the article quality that he had not fixed, but added to; over the weekend he was hitting Billy the Kid; the latter article is quite a mess now. His references can't be authenticated by anyone because he doesn't leave proper citations. In some instances his refs aren't refs, but footnotes full of ancillary info not pertinent to the article, like references numbered 1, 3-8, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, and 31 in Bill Tilghman. Everyplace he goes, another editor needs to follow behind and clean up his contributions, if only someone had the time. You can see all his contributions here.

    Other editors have taken his behavior to the Admin noticeboard twice before (here and here), and he's promised to do better, but he really doesn't appear to be listening. The help he's been offered, his actions in return, and the warnings given, etc, are summarized in several posts on his Talk page. I don't feel like he's giving any heed to the praise, direction, encouragement OR warnings I've left on his talk page.

    I'm running out of patience and his contributions are becoming more of detriment than a help. I think it may be time for a short block to get his attention. Your input is most warmly welcomed. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 22:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief. Billy the Kid is nearly unreadable, and the Tilghman article is almost as bad. Thinking about reverting his changes completely. Not a big fan of MOS blocks, but if he's not getting the message, maybe it's time. This is damaging the encyclopedia. Katietalk 01:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack DeMattos has deleted photos that I and others have contributed to wiki without even asking if there is provenance or substantial evidence. He seems to believe that he is the only one that can contribute to the pages about the people he writes about. Some of the comments he made regarding photos from an important Old West collection: "Deleted bogus photo. Once again this has been submitted by a person with a track record with offering phony photos to Wikipedia articles.this is not, nor ever will be, one of them." Being a published historian does not automatically make one experienced at identifying historical people. True West, Jack Demattos and several other top published writers recently made a fool of themselves [at least that is what the majority believes] when they gave their negative opinions on the latest possible Billy the Kid photograph before the program about it aired on National Geographic. The show revealed fantastic evidence that gave the photo a very high percentage of being Billy and his friends. Since then, the owners and the filmmaker have established provenance for the photo and will be airing their findings soon in another program. The producer/owner of the film company has shown excited interest in the photos from this same collection that Jack has declared as bogus. Jack DeMattos should not be allowed to decide what is or isn't correct for the public's number one information resource. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the third time this same issue has been brought here. This user does not seem to be getting it. They have gotten a lot of advice but don't seem to be taking it. That sort of text is more suited to a cheap western paperback story than an encyclopedia. HighInBC 06:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which editor are you referring to, the OP or the subject of the complaint? BMK (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He means the subject of the complaint. DeMattos has been here several times for the same issues. Anyway, I did some emergency copy edits to Bill Tilghman and added two sources. I guess it's a little better now, though one of the sources I added should probably be replaced by a better one, as it's a primary source written by Tilghman's widow. It'll do for now, though. I don't want to follow this guy around and perform copy edits on all the articles he edits, but it seems like there should be some way to retain his expertise. I don't know. If he won't change, I guess maybe something does need to be done. I'd prefer some kind of mentorship or something, but I hear those often end disastrously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    DeMattos is still turning the Billy the Kid page into an expanded outline instead of an encyclopedia article, and he's obviously ignoring this discussion. Katietalk 22:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He replied to me about the ANI notice on his talk page. I asked him to bring his comments here. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's try one more time to get Jack DeMattos to comment here. He really, really should. Katietalk 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, since Jack Demattos is back editing and still didn't respond here, I'm going to take a crack at getting some prose back into one of these articles. They read like lists without bullets and numbering. Let's see how he reacts. Katietalk 20:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, he won't mind the cleanup, that's what I and others have been doing piece-meal for the past six months. I don't believe that will encourage Jack Demattos to try harder to adapt his writing to WP style. Part of the problem is that after I clean up an article he's edited, he returns to it and adds more content of the same style. I don't have time to endlessly police his writing. NinjaRobotPirate suggested a mentorship. That's effectively what I've been trying to do for the past six months, as you can see on Jack's talk page.
    If Jack doesn't improve his writing, I fear he's going to leave his boot prints all over WP, and the effect will be long-lasting. There are precious few editors still active at the American Old West wikiproject. I would like to see some stronger enforcement of MOS. Pinging others who have posted on his talk page: WikiDan61, Dennis Brown, Intothatdarkness — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 21:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw that you'd been trying that. Everyone familiar with DeMattos knows he's received copious amounts of advice and help. It's frustrating to see that he's still writing stuff like "Tilghman was never shy about blowing his own horn. Not content to write his memoirs, Tilghman filmed them in a movie that he directed,and starred in playing himself." I don't understand why he's ignoring all the advice given to him. If this were a living person, it'd be a BLP violation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also voice-over prose such as "At the age of seventy, Bill Tilghman was called on to perform his last service as a peace officer. In 1924, the man who had ridden in posses with Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson and Heck Thomas, now drove into the oil-rich boom town of Cromwell, Oklahoma in a Model T Ford."[1] which would be quite amusing if this wasn't an encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at his most recent edits to Bat Masterson and my eyes glazed over at the state of the article. Unless Jack comes and explains himself, I'd say a temporary block would be necessary. Writing the way he does with expectation that others clean up after him is disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I seem to recall SBHarris has an old-west interest. Perhaps he can help rein in this lawless scalawag. EEng (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm surprised that DeMattos is still stirring up problems months after my initial report at this board. He seems unwilling to conform his writing to Wikipedia's guidelines. The problem isn't the veracity of his edits: he is meticulous in his referencing. The problems are that he insists that every factoid that he can verify be included in the article, no matter how trivial or irrelevant; and that he insists on writing in the florid style that the readers of his populist wild-west books and articles seem to like. It might work for the paperback history market, but it's not encyclopedic. And apparently no amount of cajoling on the part of many other editors will convince him to change his style, leaving the job of cleanup to others. And has been pointed out here, there are not many editors involved in the subject area that he has chosen, so his problematic edits may go unnoticed for quite some time. I support the idea of a block (even if only temporary) to protect the project from his ongoing disruption. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 05:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • After seeing the damage done to Billy the Kid, which had been nominated as a GA, and noting that this is an ongoing issue, that Jack DeMattos has not responded here, despite continuing to edit, and being asked to, and his response on his talkpage which indicates that he clearly doesn't get it, I feel he has to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Someone who is willing to listen and learn, we can always help. Someone who is damaging articles, and refuses to listen, being adamant that he is right, is going to continue being a problem, destabilising articles, creating work for other editors, and wasting everyone's time when we discuss the matter over and over again. We either block him now, or we block him in three, six, twelve months time. Better we do it now, and save ourselves a lot of wasted effort. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest an indefinite block with the option to make an initial appeal after a month. Making the default situation that he has to commit to accepting he is in the wrong before being allowed to edit again. If we use a temporary block with an automatic return to editing, we are simply kicking the problem down the road. From what has been said above, and looking through his history, people have been telling him he is doing more harm than good for some months, but he doesn't accept it. Let us be sure he gets it, before we allow him to edit again. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would reluctantly support this. My changes stuck, perhaps because I didn't remove too much of his flowery, overly-detailed prose, but he called KrakatoaKatie's edits malicious vandalism on the talk page, then reverted Billy the Kid back to last version he edited. He further requested that Materialscientist block KrakatoaKatie as a vandal. He's obviously uninterested in collaboration, and I don't think he sees anything at all wrong with his behavior. In fact, he seems to see himself as an innocent victim of malicious trolls and vandals. I hope that we can get through to him eventually. Right now, he's blocked for 48 hours, but I think SilkTork is probably right that the drama will resume once his block ends. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a comment on his TP urging him to engage with the community here once the block ends. Despite the fact that his editing has been brought here twice before, this is his first block and it would be worth one more wave of the AGF flag before more drastic action is taken. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (I have reposted Blackmane's original message, as someone removed it.) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment on Talk:Historiography of the British Empire

    For two weeks I have been harassed daily by User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed. I've had enough: the allegations are all false but they come tumbling out: 1) Nov 24: "There is little or nothing to do with Historiography in this article. Instead we de facto have a partial and pos version of the main British Empire article. It needs radical pruning to get back to the subject or possibly deletion". Nov 24: Snowded alleged WP:OR and WP:OWN. Nov 24: Snowded wrote: "The material here does not match the title, it is a partial POV perspective on the British Empire. As such it is a coat rack article for material which would not survive scrutiny at British Empire." Nov 25: Wiki-Ed writes: "Snowded is correct, this is a coatrack article: it should be discussing the historiography of the British Empire; instead it seems to be an interpretation of the British Empire, thinly disguised as a (very partial) review of certain sources." etc etc, they never stop. I have repeatedly rejected and demonstrated their claims are false. They seem to believe I have a secret POV agenda, Which I deny. I've written a lot of books and articles and scholarly venues, but I've not published anything about the British Empire and have no secret agenda. I repeatedly demand proof or evidence, or even which section is at fault. They repeatedly refuse to answer--Dec 8: Rjensen: "Which paragraph demonstrates unacceptable POV?" Snowded: "Better to start with the overall structure, then look at individual paragraphs." This is sustained harassment by two editors who have never edited Historiography of the British Empire, which has been active since Oct 2008, and which overlaps very little with the article they try to protect British Empire. Other editors on the page have largely supported me, not these two. I request User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed by kept away from Talk:Historiography of the British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Several editors have expressed concern that Riensen is building an alternative article to the British Empire one under the guise of historiography. Hence the issue of the need to deal first with the whole structure not paragraph by paragraph within his structure. The comments he has made about the inadequacies of the British Empire article support the view that this may be a coatrack. When this started I asked Riensen for his authority for the structure and he quoted two sources, one of which is suitable. However he would not share the detailed contents so I have bought the book and said clearly on the talk page that I will check that against the structure and come back with a proposal for change later this week. That has resulted in a torrent of personal abuse and a refusal to simply wait and see. No one is harassing Rjensen, no changes have yet been made to the article. He daily (well hourly and more stridently as the day does on) launches at attacks on the talk page to which I have tried to respond politely. I for one am trying to engage him on the talk page but that is very difficult given his clearly expressed contempt for editors who do not share his academic qualifications. In respect of the quote where he says that he has " repeatedly rejected and demonstrated their claims are false" I invite third party review. He states that the claims areas false and asserts that he has included multiple views but he has yet to address the main objection namely that an article on historiography should be about that, not a collection of statements from historians organised into (his words) an eclectic structure. When there are concrete proposals for change on the talk page then he can respond and I expect we will have an RFC and possibly dispute resolution before this is over. For the moment the only possible community action is to ask Rjensen to stop his multiple personal attacks. This is not even a content dispute yet and the fact he has brought it here illustrates the problem :-) ----Snowded TALK 08:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowded has never made a substantive edit on this article (and very few on British Empire article). I believe he has not been familiar with the historiography of the British Empire or even the word itself. Instead he tags the article and says that as soon as he reads a book he will propose sweeping changes. In my opinion he is primarily motivated to protect the other article British Empire. It is not under threat, for there is little overlap and it reaches a very different audience. The historiography article was created in October 2008 & has caused no serious controversy until 2 weeks ago, when Snowded tagged it as POV WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. He says the problem is "structure" but has been unable to explain what he means. He says he will explain himself later but keeps the tags to delegitimize the article. On 12:53, 5 December 2015‎ Qexigator tried to remove them with the edit summary: "the tags have been sufficiently discussed to show that they are not correct, please do not needlessly or casually encourage disruption." Rjensen (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oexigator's removal of the tags was reverted twice by another experienced user namely User:Wee Curry Monster with the comment "discussions are ongoing and valid concerns remain - edit warring over tags you should know better)" The reason for the tags has been clearly explained, what will come later this week is a assessment of Rjensen's source and a proposal for a way forward. Not sure why he can't wait ----Snowded TALK 09:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a clear case of harassment. In view of the discussion complained of by Rjensen, I repeat here: "Let me remind anyone who has not read the whole of the discussion, or who has forgotten, an earlier comment (of mine) there that the discussion has been more about a particular revisionist point of view than improving the article, on the part of a commenter who asserted ...any humanities degree allows an intelligent commentary on the difference between a history and an article about theories/practices of history. But that depends on the quality or character of the teacher and of the graduand, and no academic degree ensures a balanced understanding of editing in general, editing a Wikipdia article, or editing an article such as this one. So far, I have seen (in the discusion) an unwarranted degree of aggression and inability to attempt to understand the validity of another editor's explanation for the content of the article as we now have it. The comment (by the harassing party): You are going to have to learn to work with editors who are not professional historians and show a little more respect if we are going to get anywhere would reflect very badly on its author if it were not simply risible. Qexigator (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see how anything you said above shows that this is a case of WP:HARASSMENT. LjL (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree I see no case for harassment. It sounds like criticism. Snowded also provided no diffs showing Riensen made any personal attacks. This should be worked out on the talk page. I agree this article is seriously problematic: This article should not be concerning history itself but historiography; see Historiography of the United States. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rjensen has made personal attacks, but it's more about the tone. However, since you asked, here are some examples: Snowded is 'ignorant' [2]; Snowded has 'pretty slim' writing experience [3]; Snowded's view is 'nonsense' [4]; Snowded is making 'false and incoherent statements' (plus some disparaging comments on expertise and motive) [5]. Snowded has received the majority of the attacks over the last week, but I've also been branded 'ignorant' [6] (different article but same topic) and lack a 'deep knowledge' [7]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Thank you for the link to the article on US historiography - that's a nice example of the approach we should be aiming for with the article in question. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. It needs to be strictly on the historiography or it's likely to be deleted as POV fork. Rjensen should probably be warned over the comments - calling people "ignorant" etc is neither helpful nor allowed. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is yet a case of harassment, but User:Snowded could focus more on the specific issues with the page and less on User:Rjensen's motivations - Snowded starting the talk page debate with claims that this is a coatrack, asserting that the whole page should be deleted, and quoting OR and OWN were not the most constructive approach. The page is, from a quick skim, about what it says it is (historians' takes on the British Empire), and changes to the content will require consulting sources and discussing how to best use them (do ask WikiProject History for help). Rjensen should avoid using words like "ignorant", but he has also faced personal comments. Fences&Windows 23:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is too much about history and historical criticism of the British Empire; neither of that is historiography. See other historiography articles like Historiography of the United States, Historiography of the French Revolution and Historiography of the Cold War. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to agree that the discussion may not have started off in the best way and to take my share of responsibility for that. But I have been trying since to move it forward - you will see a section talking about the need for some changes to the main article. But overall yes I think it is a coatrack article in the main I spent about three hours yesterday (as promised last week) going through Winks' Historiography of the British Empire to work through a possible structure and will post on that later in the week (although the other articles referenced may short circuit that a bit). Remember I didn't bring the matter here, Rjensen has done his best in the last week to tell me that I am "ignorant" etc. and I have made it clear that if that continues then it might be necessary to bring an ANI case. That seems to have been the trigger to a pre-emptive strike in trying to remove myself and Wiki-Ed from the article. ----Snowded TALK 06:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have Historiography of the British Empire on my watchlist and have become increasingly concerned that is being turned into a WP:COATRACK article reflecting the views of its principle author. The article is sourced but its an example of WP:SYN where the principle author selects principle sources that reflect their own POV, rather than trying to give a balanced view of the range of opinion in published literature. If I may observe that the principle authors seems to be approaching this as an academic paper rather than an article for an online encyclopedia. As such its becoming a candidate for deletion as a POV fork. In addition, RJensen is alternating between arguing from authority and personal abuse (diffs above). The intervention from Qexigator has also been unhelpful, first of all [8] accusing editors of picking a quarrel, removing tags when there was clearly an ongoing discussion [9],[10] and backing up a false claim here of harassment. I fear that unless the uncivil behaviours are nipped in the bud this will likely end at arbcom. WCMemail 23:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I too, having it on my watchlist, have read the course of the discussion differently, and see the above comment, and others like it, as one-sided veering to travesty. The incivility, as I see it, is largely aimed against the complaining party. Let us see some balance in responses. Qexigator (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rjensen responds: On the structure of the article I have said this repeatedly: the topics selected are those chosen by the RS, especially the three books on the historiography of the British Empire: two by Winks and one by Stockwell. As for the comparison with the article on the historiography of the United States. I wrote most of that article. There are multiple schools of thought on American history, and that article is structured by those schools. We do not have multiple schools of thought on the British Empire so it is impossible to use a schools structure and no RS has attempted to do so. Instead historians tackle separate topics, arranged by chronology, by regions, and by such themes as religion, gender, slavery, etc. The Historiography of the British Empire is therefore organized by chronology, geography, and themes. To quote from the preface to Winks Historiography vol 5 P xiv: "The organization of this volume is chronological, thematic, and regional. The opening chapters survey the historiography of the Empire from its origins through the period of the American revolution.... Thematic chapters in this part of the volume include those dealing with exploration and empire, science and medicine, gender, slavery and the slave trade, and missions and empire....The regional chapters include separate accounts of the historiography of the West Indies, (etc)." For context please see Winks at Winks (1999). The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume V: Historiography. p. 14. The "Historiography of the British Empire" article therefore is based on a standard structure used by the RS. As for my rhetoric, I never called anyone "ignorant". I stated: "Snowded now admits he never looked at the RS on historiography--all his comments are based on ignorance of the RS on historiography." As for "false": I made that allegation in rejecting his specific claims about my intentions. As for the coat rack allegation: this article is entirely about the historians of the British Empire and their ideas and debates. That is what historiography is all about. The events and dates and historic developments of the British Empire are "history": and are in the article on the British Empire. That history material is not duplicated here. There's very little overlap in text or in the footnotes. In my opinion, Snowded has repeatedly challenged my good faith by asserting that I have a secret POV. When challenged he is unable to identify that POV or find any POV statements anywhere in the article. Snowded has announced that his intention is to radically reduce or eliminate this article. see Nov 30 He has announced his strong POV ahead of time and has locked himself into a position where he cannot edit in good faith. Rjensen (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "three books on the historiography of the British Empire: two by Winks and one by Stockwell" - Really? An article built mostly on the opinions of a mere two authors is going to be a candidate for deletion on Synthesis grounds even if it is not a coatrack. There are hundreds of thousands of books that in some way deal with the history of the British Empire - are there really only three sources that deal with how those hundreds of thousands have addressed the subject? The placing of the Phillip Buckner opinion in the lede (and seeing it expressed as if it were a fact rather than an opinion) hints to me that this article has been written with a pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Winks edited two books of chapters that were were written by 61 different scholars; Stockwell added another 12 different scholars. The article is based on about 200 footnotes from these and other established scholars. Bruckner is explicitly not talking about his own opinions but the consensus of scholars. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is Buckner's OPINION that this is the consensus of scholars. We have three sentences in the lede containing extreme opinions derived from a single source, and with those opinions presented as if they were facts. This is not good. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia always goes with the RS--Bruckner's statement is based on extensive research not on his private opinion. Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were his PRIVATE opinion, there would be no source for it! It is his PUBLIC opinion: it is published in a publically available source. But it is still an OPINION, and it is a blatant case of undue weight to place one person's opinion, derived from a single source, and containing that sort of blanket claim, in a lede. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    when a well-established scholar reports his conclusions in a scholarly journal based on decades of research, we have a RS of the sort Wikipedia emphasizes. The Wiki rule about handling suspected POV is to provide an alternative RS. Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Very happy to admit I had not read Winks before this encounter (although I am enjoying it so thanks). I do however know the difference between historiography and history. I asked Rjensen for his primary source for the structure of the article and having been told, went out and bought it. Per multiple comments on the talk page and here I then promised to come back this week having done that with specific proposals. I did think that would be well received but it wasn't. Otherwise I'm also happy to confirm that everything I have read says that a lot of this material does not belong in an article on historiography; but if you check the talk page I have suggested (and will be more concrete in that suggestion later) that a lot of the material may belong in other articles that can be referenced. All of that seems to have been misinterpreted and I do think there is a ownership problem here. ----Snowded TALK 11:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE

    STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is basically a pusher of the POV of the viewpoint of the government of the People's Republic of China. Almost every edit done by this user is misleading, with misleading edit summaries (such as using the edit summary "ce" while censoring negative information about the PRC government or other related topics, subtle changes to the text that affects the meanings, removal of sourced content, etc. As an example, what is this?) Really, almost every single edit by this user is problematic; search the archives for previous discussion about this user. This has been a long-term issue; editors have been frustrated with this user's refusal to discuss or cooperate, or even left because of this user. Often when other editors revert POV-pushing edits by STSC, STSC reports these users to WP:AN3. STSC has been warned frequently in the past, and has a history of blocks and topic bans. I think that an indef block may be appropriate in this situation. Pinging Citobun, Signedzzz, and Ohconfucius, who are more familiar with this editor than I am. sst✈(discuss) 12:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I strongly agree with the above assessment. I'm away from the computer and my phone is nearly out of battery so I’ll keep it short for now and elaborate with diffs tomorrow. STSC is a long-term, relatively low-key political agenda editor whose activity here (for years) nearly exclusively serves to parrot the viewpoint of the Chinese government. My interest on Wikipedia mainly centres around Hong Kong and this is the context in which I have encountered STSC but I know he is active in every modern controversial Chinese subject - Falun Gong, military history, etc. He censors and edits disruptively which he conceals using deceptive edit summaries like the innocuous “c/e”. If challenged or reverted he begins revert warring to enforce his edit and bullies other users by frivolously spamming their talk pages with warning templates. When asked to defend a particular edit his reasoning generally doesn't hold water but he will revert and revert until other editors are worn out. I try hard now to avoid interacting with him/her.
    The only reason STSC hasn't been banned to date is that he is relatively low-key and does his work over a long period of time. But this type of agenda editing is most damaging to the encyclopedia as it is not blatant and hence not so easy to fight. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up. I guess we've been very luck here up to now in not having to deal with the Wumao. Life will never be the same again as our vigilance will have to be elevated. As I'm burnt out from conflicts over FLG orthodoxy, I'll leave the Falun Gong articles up to others. -- Ohc ¡digame! 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a few other examples of misconduct - a very small sample, relative to his PROLIFIC agenda editing on Hong Kong-related articles, not to speak of all his other China-related editing.

    I dunno, I could go on. I have spent an hour compiling this but I could go on all night. This is not at all a comprehensive view of his advocacy here, and I strongly request an admin take a serious look at his editing history. It speaks for itself. As you can see, when it comes to Hong Kong STSC's edits entirely centre around a number of themes: downplaying the reasons behind the 2014 pro-democracy protests; downplaying Hong Kong's heritage as a British colony; excessively promoting Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong; downplaying Hong Kong's autonomy under one country, two systems; promoting the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison; promoting Japanese war atrocities in Hong Kong; bullying others by accusing them of personal attacks when they question his editing; bullying others through frivolous and improper use of talk page warning templates; making misleading edit summaries on a serial basis despite being warned for this repeatedly.

    STSC is highly adept at working within the bounds of Wikipedia conventions, never pushing the envelope too far, but ultimately shows no respect for the concepts of impartiality and balance and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I am tired of seeing him undermine the impartiality of Hong Kong and China-related articles – his edit history speaks for itself. I am tired of him enforcing his political activism and political censorship through blunt force reverting and frivolous, bullying use of warning templates in mine and other's talk pages. It is really exhausting and I considered quitting Wikipedia back when he was censoring photos I had taken of the protests specifically for Wikipedia. Paging another potentially interested editor TheBlueCanoe. Citobun (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have much to add, other than to say that I agree with the assessments offered above. STSC is careful not to step too far out of bounds (i.e. constantly involved in edit wars, but no obvious 3RR violations), but the cumulative effect of the edits is clearly disruptive, and intended to advance some kind of quasi-nationalist agenda. I've also noted the user's tendency to try to provoke and needle his opponents, leave frivolous warning templates on others' pages, and use innocuous/misleading edit summaries to conceal clear POV edits([11][12][13][14][15]). Since one of the affected topic areas (Falun Gong) falls under discretionary sanctions, I've considered bringing this up in arbitration enforcement, but given the broader scope of problematic editing maybe this is the better forum to deal with it.TheBlueCanoe 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I've noticed that all commenters save the OP were notified of this complaint via ping, and I believe pinging like-minded editors in disputes could be construed as WP:CANVASSING. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know the stance of the editors I pinged; I only pinged editors who I see were involved with STSC in the past. Zanhe, I am rather surprised that you don't find STSC's edits disruptive. sst✈(discuss) 10:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said STSC's edits were or were not disruptive. I haven't had enough interaction with him to make a judgment (but I do recognize Ohconfucius and you as respectable, constructive editors). All I was trying to say is that it's better to present the evidence here and let uninvolved administrators judge its merit, instead of selectively notifying previously involved people. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No action, seriously? sst✈(discuss) 14:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be inclined to see a statement from STSC. Also, pinging is not considered appropriate notification as pings can sometimes fail.

    I was caught out once. A ping is only successful if you type in the username correctly and sign the post. If you go back and edit it to complete the ping, it won't work. However, I do see that you posted an ANI notification on their TP in any case. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, I don't know this user SSTflyer, I have never had any interaction with him. If there's any issue with me, he should have discussed with me in my Talk page. This is just a case of childish hate campaign to discredit another user on personal or political reasons, and it's a pack of lies, e.g. "STSC has a history of blocks and topic bans", etc. I have had opponents in content disputes when I tried to maintain a balanced view in articles, and it's not surprising some of them would want to join in this. There's nothing I need to defend the way I edit in my near 10 years on Wiki; that's why I just could not be bothered to reply to these ridiculous false accusations. STSC (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is typical. When faced with grievances over content, STSC throws around accusations of a "hate campaign" for "personal reasons" and otherwise avoids at all costs addressing valid concerns over his/her POV editing. I and others have attempted to reason with you on talk pages countless times and it goes nowhere – your enforce your POV and censorship in an uncompromising, bullying manner. Deleting photographs and well-sourced material from pages does not constitute "maintaining a balanced point of view" – it is politically-driven censorship. Citobun (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't lie, we had the 3rd opinion on the image deletion issue and the neutral user agreed to the deletion. On other issues you alone just could not accept other users who have different views from yours and you continue to hold grudges. STSC (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The outcome of that particular instance doesn't change the fact that you frequently censor images for political reasons. For example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. Accusing others of not accepting different political views is really pot calling the kettle black. I'm not the one blanking and censoring sourced material for political reasons. Citobun (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all censoring and there're good reasons for these edits. Why just brought them on here now if you disputed these edits? Up to now you still could not accept the 3rd opinion on the images in the Hong Kong articles, and it's rather sad you still harbour a long-term grudge against me based on the content disputes in 2014. STSC (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a question of a "long-term grudge", but rather your own long-term WP:ADVOCACY. Citobun (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You have jumped on every opportunity to use false accusations to discredit other editors. I've seen this all before. STSC (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The nice thing about Wikipedia is that our respective contributions are there for all to see and scrutinize. So call me a liar if you like but your editing history speaks for itself. Citobun (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The bad thing is you abusing the system to harass other user. Other content disputants like user Ohconfucius have moved on since the 2014 Hong Kong protests but you're still Wikihounding your opponent out of revenge. STSC (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not "Wikihounding"...stop throwing around false accusations. We have interacted perhaps one time since the protests a year ago. I contribute now because I was asked to. Citobun (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    {Non admin view} The problem, in my eyes, is STSC's edits do look to be more aligned towards the mainland Chinese POV, but on the flip side of it the editors that are raising the complaint have an obvious pro-HK POV. No one comes here with entirely clean hands in this dispute as it's a clash of ideologies. My heritage hails from both sides of the border that once separated China from HK but I was born and raised overseas. I nonetheless have held a strong interest in the politics of the region and in my view this dispute is a manifestation of those differences. For example, prior to STSC's pruning, the 2014 protests in HK article was heavily laden with images. Far more than I would have expected to see for what was essentially a singular event. Some of the other image removals, with the rationale that STSC used do seem reasonable, but as STSC has a pro-mainland POV their image removal makes it look politically motivated. I don't really see the need for action, at this time, against either party except a requirement that WP:DRN be used more frequently. Falun Gong is a very touchy article and is subject to Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Anything that is viewed as violating the sanctions should be referred to WP:AE. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I must thank user Blackmane for your fair comment on this. STSC (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an HK/mainland issue. My analysis of STSC's editing is skewed toward Hong Kong because that subject is a focus of my own editing and hence the context in which I have encountered him. The problem is that STSC is exclusively a pro-CCP activist editor. Meanwhile I have created articles such as 2015 Hong Kong heavy metal in drinking water incidents which reflects very badly on Hong Kong. Certainly everyone has a POV but I don't think mine is necessarily "pro HK", and more importantly I am not here for Wikipedia:Advocacy or to censor others.
    Nobody, STSC included, has really addressed the problematic issues above – misleading edit summaries, censorship of reliably referenced content, refusal to discuss, refusal to cooperate, bullying use of talk page warning templates, almost exclusively agenda editing – that together amount to disruptive editing. If anyone is inclined to characterise this dispute as merely a simple clash of ideologies I would suggest you compare our edit histories side by side and note the differences in editing behavior. Additionally please note that STSC is active in all other controversial China-related subjects, not just Hong Kong and Falun Gong. Citobun (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your POV is not necessarily "pro-HK" but certainly pro-British colonialism. Editors are free to choose their own topics to edit and that's none of your business. STSC (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No administrative issue here; there's a difference of opinion on emphasis which is quite subtle to outsiders. For example, a link to the article 2014 Hong Kong electoral reform without mentioning it as being "about universal suffrage" does not "censor" anything, since the linked article talks about suffrage in detail. Such a change to a summary on a different article falls within the realm of a copyedit and is not misleading.

    What I do think needs to change, though, is when STSC is complaining about a personal attack, he should reference where he is being personally attacked, by using a diff like this (which took 2 seconds to find, so there's probably tons more), where Citobun calls him a "agenda editor". Anyway, these diffs are stale. Stop stoking the fire of old bad feelings. Shrigley (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs I've listed are stale. But the agenda editing has continued, hence why the issue was brought here. Anyway, I am tired of bickering about this and don't really want to contribute further – but this has been a very prolonged issue and if it is not properly addressed I think it will keep reemerging. Citobun (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Citobun has the cheek to complain about "agenda editing" while he would invite Falun Gong editors to join him. That shows his hypocrisy and basically he's just trying to silence other editors who don't share his POV. STSC (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tanbircdq and Israeli politician articles

    I would like to bring to wider attention of other admins the edits of Tanbircdq (talk · contribs), whose actions I have come across at Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955). Tanbircdq has a quite clear agenda, adding quotes to articles on Israeli politicians in which they say bad things about the Palestinians. On many of these articles he has added the information several times after being reverted by a number of users; these include:

    Also of slight concern is the behaviour of Makeandtoss (talk · contribs), who has magically appeared at several of these articles to restore the content after Tanbircdq's edits have been removed (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here). I don't know this has happened, but it doesn't look good. I have pointed them towards WP:BALASPS, but this does not seem to have stopped the behaviour. Unfortunately what is happening does not fall under the current Arbcom sanctions for this topic area, but I think it needs some intervention. Cheers, Number 57 22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, I don't remember how I came across these articles, all I know that I reverted the removal of sourced content. I didn't see WP:BALASPS valid enough to remove the quotes. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given a very clear and detailed explanation on the talk page which I will not repeat again here. Number 57 has reverted the edit without adequately responding to the points raised on the talk page and taken the matter to ANI in order to get administrative action taken against me in what would appear to be an underhand way of censorship. In addition, Number 57 himself violated 1RR on the page with his edits here and here without initiating discussion of the matter on the talk page.
    What Number 57 has conveniently omitted to mention is that most of the "number of users" who have removed the content from those articles included sock puppet accounts, throwaway IP hoppers who are now prohibited from editing those articles because of ARBPIA3 decision after the high level of disruptive editing that was present.
    I would also like to point out Number 57's uncivilised personal attack of "Go away with your agenda please. Get consensus on talk if you insist on this nonsense." in the summary of his revert here.
    Nevertheless, I am interested to know what Wikipedia policy I am supposed to have actually violated here. Is the accusation of "editing articles with an agenda" an ad hominem term for someone adding sourced content when another thinks WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It would seem that Number 57 himself has an WP:OWN agenda to remove content that shows someone he favours in a "bad light" which (by using his words from the talk page) I believe "has no place on Wikipedia". Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis do you think I favour these politicians? As a Meretz supporter, I think most of them are repugnant; the difference is that I understand the concept of NPOV and that Wikipedia is not a place to badmouth your political opponents.
    Is anyone going to intervene here? Number 57 19:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not referring to all these politicians, just Yisrael Katz, and this was based on your comments on the talk page.
    Yes, I agree (not that I have any political opponents) which is why I object to your uncivilised personal attack.
    Yes, can someone please intervene about this WP:WIKIHOUNDING? This editor has clearly been stalking me for the past two months which I find very unpleasant and I would like it to stop. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the claim that this is hounding or that I have been stalking you for two months a barefaced lie. The first I saw of you was on the Katz article (and that is the only place I have reverted you). I got those diffs by going back through your editing history (it wasn't hard to find them). Number 57 21:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't all these articles under the editing restrictions/block of the Israel-Palestinian conflict arb case? If so, any party violating that ought to be handled in accord by an uninvolved admin. Anyone around? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said at the start, unfortunately the various Arb cases don't cover this kind of problem (which is why they've never solved the problems in the topic area)... Number 57 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My comment on this is that everyone in this area has a POV, that is unavoidable. Suppose, it was true that the agenda of Tanbircdq was to add bad stuff about Israeli politicians. They still have to make an argument on the talk page about whether the additions lead to a more balanced article, whether the stuff is WP:DUE etc., and others have to respond to that. Unless they are disruptively editing, edit-warring, trying to force their version without consensus etc. there is nothing to do here. I would remind people that the WP:ONUS for including content lies on the person adding the content, so Tanbircdq needs to demonstrate consensus, if they are reverted. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible legal threat

    Since i consider myself involved with this user, would some kind soul review talk page section with a view to determining if this is a legal threat or other violation of policy? I have not raised the matter with them directly as there has been recent friction and I don't think any query from me would be well received Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 22:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this some sort of punitive fishing expedition for nominating your closure for a DRV? I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but no need to lash out at me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You accused another editor of libel in a section header and I'm asking for an independant opinion on that. I don't see any harm in that myself. Spartaz Humbug! 22:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not accused another editor of libel, I documented their libel. Using a correct legal definition is not the same as making a legal threat. The only thing they have in commons is the word legal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not accused [sic] another editor of libel, I documented their libel.
    Ah, welcome to the latest episode of Question Begging Time. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no clear or inferred legal threat -- samtar whisper 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing the question here is because of the use of the word "libel" in a section header. However, I read it as a characterization of something, rather than as an implied threat to engage in legal action regarding the so-called "libel". If that's what we are talking about, then that is not an NLT violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, I'd second that reasoning -- samtar whisper 22:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the correct term for a lie in print form. If he said it to me in person, it would have been slander. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't. The correct NON-LEGAL term for a lie in print is "lie". You're invoking a legal term, with its implications of legal consequences due to damage. So either you don't know what you're talking about or you're trying to sail as close to the wind as you can. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, I was the target of the comment, and I did not take it as a legal threat in the sense meant by WP:NLT. BMK (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The claim that Beyond My Ken had made was that this "is the third time he's shown up at an article he's never edited before in order to revert one of my edits." The fact is that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) had edited every one of those articles before BMK did, per the revision statistics for G. W. Pabst (which RAN edited more than four years before BMK), Louis Comfort Tiffany (four-plus years before BMK) and List of mayors of New York City (a year-plus before BMK). I think it's clear that what RAN means is that BMK had been making a false statement in writing that was damaging to RAN's reputation, not that RAN had intended to take BMK to court and file a tort claim of libel. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG! You mean I was wrong!! How nice of you to come to AN/I (and RAN's talk page) and let me know.
    Of course, you did neglect to mention that RAN's last edit to Louis Comfort Tiffany before he reverted me was in April 2008 [16], two years before my first edit in July 2010 [17], so I wouldn't really have noticed him editing the article because he didn't while I was active on it. But, of course, he apparently decided he just had to come back and revert my edit after a 7 year absence; I guess there was nothing that happened on the article in 7 years that stirred his attention.
    And what about List of mayors of New York City? Yes, indeed, RAN has all of 4 edits on that article, 3 in 2008, and the revert of my edit that, again, brought him out of hibernation after 7 years. [18]. Since I made the first of my edits to that article in March 2010 [19] -- again, two years after his last edit -- there was no reason that I would know that he had edited it before me because he didn't edit it when I was.
    Alansohn, are you seeing a pattern here? Yes, you are correct that RAN had edited those articles before me, and I was incorrect in saying he hadn't, but the essence of what I said is true: RAN decided to revert my edits after 7 years of inactivity on those articles, so I was quite justified in describing his behavior as verging on harassment. I don't say that it is harassment yet, but it will be if he keeps on appearing to specifically revert edits of mine on articles which he may have edited in the distant past, but which he has been totally inactive on during the time I have been working on them. BMK (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if BMK didn't see it as a legal threat, RAN should not be throwing the word "libel" around. "Untrue" should be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As BMK made multiple false statements, the characterization is entirely accurate. BMK's story now is that he was indeed making false statements alleging that RAN had never edited the articles previously, but that he was justified in making these baseless accusations because there is some imaginary "essence of what I said is true" according to him. Thanks to Wikipedia's editing history feature, it's clear that RAN edited the articles because they were on his watchlist, he had edited them years before BMK and now the problem is that the edits were too long ago so that BMK now feels that he WP:OWNs these articles so naturally anyone else editing them is guilty of harassment. Bugs, when other editors make repeated false accusations about you and your edits, feel free to limit yourself to "untrue". Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't use legalistic terms like "libel" if someone states an untruth about me. And to take libel to court and win, one would have to prove harm. He alleges he was falsely accused of making edits at some point in time. How much would the jury award in a case like that? A shiny new 25 cent piece? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Use whatever term you want. "Lie". "Misrepresentation". "Prevarication". "Fib". Pick whatever term best matches the circumstances of BMK's out-and-out falsehood. Whatever works best for you. Just don't use "truth". Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CLAIM of falsehood. See begging the question.
    Of course, a better thing for RAN to do would be to simply grow the hell up instead of throwing around pseudo-legal terms he doesn't understand. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "honest mistake"? That at least has the benefit of being accurate. Reyk YO! 10:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have bought the "honest mistake" bit if it wasn't User:Beyond My Ken who was the one making the blatantly false claims. BMK is a regular here at ANI, and is fully aware of how to review edit histories for each article he claimed RAN had never edited; He's no noob. BMK's consistent inability to work with others and to edit war over the most trivial of issues -- size of a college seal, inclusion of a full name in an article lead, personal attacks like fuck "pleonasm", it's a perfectly underestandable sentence, etc. -- demonstrates the source of the problem. If only BMK had bothered to research his threats or to back off and apologize when his claims were proven false, we wouldn't be here. It's this pattern of belligerent and abusive behavior by BMK that brings us here. Alansohn (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting the impression that Alansohn doesn't like me, since he shows up any time my name comes up on the noticeboards to lay out his latest litany of my liabilities to the project, and to insist that the harshest possible sanctions be placed on me. It's probably just a coincidence that this started soon after I expressed the opinion here that Alansohn was the primary problem in the dispute between himself and Magnolia677. I'd be the last person to claim that I'm the perfect Wikipedian, but I'm not sure what his obsession about me has to do with whether what RAN said was a legal threat or not. BMK (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer Alansohn's specific and relevant allegation, I did not look up the history of those pages when I posted this comment on my talk page, I was going only on my experience of editing those articles without having run into RAN - as I outlined above. I did the detailed research only when I posted my comment above, following Alansohn's statement that I was lying, since I wanted to know how we could have two completely different takes on what had occurred. As seen above, the answer is that -- at least on two of the three articles -- we never overlapped, which is why I thought he had never edited them. That was, as I said, my error. As others have said, it was not a deliberate choice on my part to post something that was not accurate. BMK (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond My Ken, I'm sure that you acknowledge that there is a big difference between 1) someone following you and undoing your edits from article to article that they have never edited before and 2) someone who is editing articles that they have edited before that are on their watchlist which they edited well before you ever touched the articles. What you stated as fact -- "Today is the third time he's shown up at an article he's never edited before in order to revert one of my edits." -- makes a rather specific allegation that is factually false and has been proven so. You don't own any of these articles and your recollections are no substitute for backing up your assumptions with facts. Furthermore, you acknowledge that you did recall an editing overlap with RAN on at least one of these articles. No one expects you to be a "perfect Wikipedian" -- I'm certainly not and your history makes my opinion clear regarding your track record -- but at a minimum you need to exercise far greater care in making these kinds of inherently inflammatory personal attacks. I'm glad that I was able to identify the relevant policy and address the edit war at G. W. Pabst, as I had done not long ago at Triborough Bridge, but I hope that no outside intervention will be needed to resolve any of your edit wars in the future. A clear commitment on your part to avoid such edit warring and attacks will help alleviate community concerns here. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, Alansohn, there is no real difference between someone who has never edited an article before and then shows up to revert the edits of another user (who just happened to have recently reported his violations of an ArbCom sanction), and someone who has never found any reason to edit an article in 7 years, but nevertheless reappears to revert the edits of another user (who just happened to have recently reported his violations of an ArbCom sanction), none at all. It's a distinction without a difference. BMK (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK, do you really believe that "there is no real difference between someone who has never edited an article before and then shows up to revert the edits of another user"? Are you arguing that you WP:OWN every article you edit, and that any editor who edits any of your articles that's on their watchlist because they have edited in the past is necessarily harassing you? How recent do the other editor's edits have to be in order for them to be allowed to edit your articles? You've been involved with dozens upon dozens of edit wars and every one of those editors now has to avoid your edits of your articles? Please explain how your policy works. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alansohn, I cannot hold it in any longer, you have pierced my deepest and darkest Wikipedia secret. I must confess here and now, in front of the assembled multitudes of AN/I, that in my heart of hearts, I do believe that I am the sole owner of all the 30K+ articles that I have edited in my 10 1/2 years here, and that no one should be allowed to edit any of them except with my expressed approval ... in advance. Obviously, I am a very, very naughty person indeed, and should be sent to bed without my dessert. BMK (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and Alansohn, please do not ping me again, I'm following this thread and do not need you to call me to read it. I can come and read your tiresome comments all on my own, just like a big boy. BMK (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is incredible that Alansohn would accuse anyone else of OWNership for doing exactly he does. Talk about hypocrisy, coming from the number 1 owner on Wikipedia! Jacona (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    JaconaFrere, following an editor around maliciously from article to article, as you have consistently done with articles I edit across Wikipedia, is an example of WP:HOUNDING; I've provided you with a list on multiple occasions, as you've requested. If that were the case here, I might well agree with Beyond My Ken. What bothers BMK here is that other editors are editing articles on their watchlist, ones that he claims ownership over. There's the difference. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the very basis of your ownership. You claim I follow you from article to article because I occasionally edit New Jersey articles, not because there is any factual basis. Many of these have been on my watchlist, just as you say these other editors articles are. You are exactly the malefactor you claim BMK to be. Jacona (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, why stop at 30K? I've decided to claim ownership over all of the 5,027,940 articles on Wikipedia. Alansohn, you pinged me again. I believe I asked you not to do that. BMK (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind hypocritical for the Emperor of New Jersey to accuse others of having ownership issues... Reyk YO! 07:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a legal threat as there is no threat to take legal action. It hardly passes the 'intended to chill discussion' line either. However it *is* a personal attack to accuse another editor of libelling you. Libel has a strict definition which is not covered by BMK's actions. (Merely writing something that later turns out to be not 100% accurate is not libel as RAN knows perfectly well.) Given that BMK's above post quite clearly demonstrates a pattern of behaviour by RAN that is hardly good-faith editing and bordering on harrassment, I suggest an interaction ban with BMK. (I would suggest a 1-way ban, but they rarely work, and BMK has previously said he wants to not interact with RAN so this shouldnt be an issue for him) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a legal threat. Just as if an editor were to say "That admin is assaulting users with his mop", does not mean the editor is threatening to have the admin charged with assault. The section header "BMK libel" says to me that the content will focus on supposed lies posted by BMK about the editor. Not a threat. - theWOLFchild 18:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed: Interaction ban between RAN and BMK

    Support. As proposer. No comments on each other, no reverting each other on articles (with the usual BLP/vandalism exceptions) and so on. Given the diffs provided by BMK, RAN is clearly not editing with the best motives. Not to mention the blatant symantic wikilawyering which is a habit with RAN (anyone familiar with his history regarding pushing the boundaries of his existing sanctions should be aware this is a common road for him.) As 1-way bans dont work and BMK has indicated previously he does not want to interact further with RAN, this is the quickest and most efficient solution to the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support- RAN needs to leave BMK the hell alone. More generally, he needs to altogether stop pursuing people he's disagreed with. Reyk YO! 11:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support- shame it needs to come to this, but I think this would allow both editors to cool down, and focus on building an encyclopedia -- samtar whisper 16:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as 2-way, and with no opinion on my part as to who is more or less at fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The editors seem to have overlapping interests in the same sort of articles but seem to have some difficulty knowing whether the other party shares this interest. They are therefore likely to keep bumping into each and so must just learn to get along. Neither of them brought this matter here and it seems clear that talk of legal threats is an over-reaction . Further escalation would tend to make matters worse rather than better. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - BMK needs to leave RAN the hell alone. Carrite (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As one of the two subjects of the proposed interaction ban, I've been thinking about it since I first saw the proposal this morning. My first thought was that it was a good idea, that it would get RAN out of my life, which I really want. My second thought was that it really should be a one-way ban, but I changed my mind on that: a two-way ban would be an effective tool to help myself from commenting on RAN, so I accept that if there is to be an I-Ban, it should be mutual. I do, however, have some concerns.
      Almost anyone who is familiar with RAN's history, or especially with the ArbCom cast brought against him [20] and the various AE discussions it spawned, knows that RAN is a classic boundary-pusher. If RAN is told, for instance, not to create articles, he turns a redirect into an article and claims that this is not creating an article, so he has to be told again, specifically, not to do that. This kind of thing has happened over and over again with him, and his just keeps probing. So, how do you stop a boundary-pusher from pushing the boundaries of an I-Ban?
      As it stands now, the general way one deals with an I-Ban infraction, or multiple I-Ban infractions, is to bring the case to AN/I. AN/I is, as we all know, often not the best place to get a straight-forward evaluation of a problem, what with the dramah-mongering, the cliques, the long-held grudges, and the Alansohns of the world popping up to muddy the waters. Therefore, I suggest that someone, an individual, preferably an admin, be appointed to be sort of the "special master" for the I-Ban. This would be someone either RAN or I could go to with a complaint, who would investigate, and then come back with "Yes, you're right, I've done X about it" or "No, you're being oversensitive, that's not a violation of the ban." It would be nice if the special master's decision was final, so problems could be solved and not fester.
      So, those are my concerns. I'm generally in favor of the idea of a mutual interaction ban, but I would appreciate it if some thought could go into the problem I've outlined. BMK (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support One Way I-Ban - RAN should leave BMK alone. LavaBaron (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support two-way IBAN. BMK wants to leave RAN alone and RAN needs to leave BMK alone. Sounds like a 2-way IBAN. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempt to subvert the AfD process

    Legacypac (talk · contribs) has been, in my opinion, gaming the system by subverting the AfD process by adding redirects to articles after his AfD's were unsuccessful.

    I tried to discuss this on his talk page, but I did not feel his responses were adequate. I also asked if--in good faith--he would revert all the redirects he had added, and he will not.

    It started when Legacypac attempted to bulk-delete the articles of a number of beauty pageant contestants here. The result, closed by User:DGG, was "keep all for the time being; renominate separately".

    Following that, Legacypac followed a similar pattern to have several of the articles removed.

    For example, he nominated Ashleigh Lollie for deletion here. The result was "no consensus". So, he instead redirected the article here.

    He nominated Claira Hollingsworth for speedy deletion here. It was declined, so he instead added a redirect here.

    At Courtney Byrd, Legacypac added a speedy delete here, and it was declined. He then nominated this article for deletion here, but then, according to his edit summary, "no nomination page created for more than two hours", so he removed his AfD, and instead added a redirect here.

    This pattern continued for most of the other articles which were included in original bulk-delete AfD. Again, I have tried to discuss what appears to be a blatant attempt to subvert the AfD process, but Legacypac felt his actions were in compliance with policy. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no insight into the issue raised by Magnolia677 specifically, however, in a related matter - after Legacypac nominated Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition for deletion, and the AfD failed, he immediately executed a BOLD merge of the entire article to a different article, sans discussion [21]. As the topic was under Discretionary Sanctions few people wanted to unmerge it, appeals to Legacypac to unmerge it himself were rebuffed [22], an attempt to unmerge it by Mhhossein was immediately reverted by Legacypac [23], and an admin ultimately had to be brought in to execute the unmerge [24]. As the article was in the DYK queue at the time, this created a tremendous amount of hassle. LavaBaron (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a strong argument that these college co-eds fail WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:15MOF and there is lots of precedent for deletion. There is a strong argument that the User:DGG close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_Guthrie covering 42 titles was against consensus. I count 16 editors seeking Delete or Redirect for all (or nearly all) the articles on the list vs 2 or maybe 3 who wanted to keep (generally without a policy based reason). Subsequently some of the 42 were sent individually to AfD as test cases. So far 6 were completely deleted Natasha_Martinez, Lizzy_Olsen, Brooke_Fletcher, Brittany_McGowan Elizabeth_Cardillo, Haley_Denise_Laundrie. Others like Ylianna Guerra have be turned into redirects to the appropriate contest page. We still have quite a few like Taylor Even which reads in its entirety "Taylor Even was crowned Miss Iowa USA 2015. She represented Iowa at Miss USA 2015 but Unplaced." that have not been sent to AfD or redirected. Obviously stuff like this is exactly what WP:NOPAGE addresses.

    To bad the editor who started this thread as not addressed the issue of WP:NOPAGE, raised in the redirections and on my talk page, but I suppose they have no answer. Instead that editor reversed my redirects without a policy based rational, so I've sent the articles to AfD where I expect they will be deleted like their sister articles. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As for LavaBaron's completely off topic complaint about something that happened months ago, Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition is an awful misleading POV title covering a hard to understand segment of a larger topic Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Thanks for the reminder to work on cleaning up that mess. Legacypac (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) I closed the first AfD because the nomination was against the meaning of WP:Deletion policy. Had I not done so, any close at all would probably have been overturned at Deletion Review, with the instruction to list separately. I advised renominating individually a few at a time; Instead, the individual nominations were nonetheless placed all together in one batch at a single time. I commented at that time "renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources."
    (2)I commented at the separate nominations that "personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career" . I personally do not like these articles., which I thing generally contrary to the spirit of an encycopedia. I think we should have a guideline not to have them. But we don't, and the way to decide is therefore to decide individual cases by AfD. As LegacyPak correctly notes, there were various results from these discussions.
    (3)A non-consensus close could reasonably be followed by a discussion about redirection or merging. Doing it without consensus is trying to substitute a different close. We can have a different close--but it requires some sort of discussion, either DRV or another AfD or a discussion on merging or redirecting. Doing so without discussion in a case like this seems to be effectually replacing the community opinion by one's own. (that I happen to share that opinion is irrelevant here.). I think the appropriate way to deal with that would be to revert,the redirection, and then discuss it. This does not require coming here, or any admin action. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    TThanks DGG. It turns out we do have a policy WP:NOPAGE that was never considered before and avoids the question of notability. It's being used successfully to redirect super old people articles now. If someone disagrees with redirect they (as the OP has done) revert and discuss how NOPAGE does not apply. Coming here is not the answer. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As the editor who originally introduced the NOPAGE concept to the cleanup of the longevity walled garden, let me say this. I considered that, in principle, merges based on NOPAGE can be done boldly. But where there's a reasonable chance of controversy, such a merge should only follow a talk-page discussion. (And in the case of longevity, I felt, with the concurrence of others, that the additional transparency of AfD would be even better -- healthier for the community -- given the high emotions associated for so long with that topic.) Either way, a bold merge soon after an AfD that ended Keep is like a "bold" merge soon after a merge discussion that ended No merge -- it's not bold, it contrary to recent consensus. A new discussion -- wherever -- is needed. EEng (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You expressed your opinion that it was an "awful POV misleading title" in the AfD you made and the community decided that was not the case. Your singular opinion does not override the community consensus, particularly for an article under Discretionary Sanctions. And immediately slapping a third and fourth Merge proposal on that article in response to this observation in ANI, as you have just done, along with the intervention "thanks for the reminder," comes across as a little bit of a middle-finger in response to this observation. LavaBaron (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If an AfD is closed as keep (or even no consensus), it must not be redirected or merged. Either of those actions would be in violation of the close. If those actions have been done, the actions should be immediately reverted now. And Legacypac needs to agree he understands he cannot do that in the future. The only cause post-AfD to redirect an article is if the close was redirect. The only cause post-AfD to merge an article is if the close was merge. Alternatively, after a failed AfD the article in question can undergo the specific detailed process (all of the very precise steps) of WP:MERGEPROP. If Legacypac does not understand and agree to these policies, he needs to undergo a topic ban on creating AfDs (and possibly also on redirecting or merging). Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC); edited 05:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: I don't think that that's entirely true. Just because there is a decision to keep the content of an article doesn't mean that the content has to be kept in that article. Also, if something is closed as no consensus, that usually doesn't preclude further discussion about the article's merits. pbp 13:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely correct. And if a discussion took place after the No Consensus result at AFD, and the consensus there was to redirect or merge? No one would blink. The concern here, I think, is that Legacypac didn't start such a discussion, but relied on BOLD in a situation where it was inappropriate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Purplebackpack89, to repeat, for an article to be merged after a keep or no consensus AfD close, one would have to follow all of the very precise steps at WP:MERGEPROP. There couldn't be merely a very informal quick ad-hoc discussion and agreement to merge; any such informally discussed (or undiscussed) merge would have to be immediately reverted as violating the AfD close. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Comment: I just want to say Legacypac is a valuable contributor at AfD and has done a tremendous job cleaning up the Neverending Neelix Nightmare® – He's probably spent 100 hours on this in the last month going through all the ridiculous redirects and walled garden articles. I cannot rain enough barnstars on his wall. I hope this is taken into account and a topic ban is not pursued. I'm sure he just needs more clarity on what to do with no-consensus outcomes since there seems to be some gray area per DGG. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting a title citing NOPAGE that has never been to AfD is fine (I've done that a few times). Since this complaint started on my talk page I've been sending similar articles to AfD instead and I fully expect an ANi thread complaining that I'm clogging up AfDs with articles that should have been BOLDly redirected citing NOPAGE. Now, if anyone has an issue with a SPECIFIC page I've redirected, please reverse the redirect so I can AfD it next. That already happened on the two listed above that were part of a group AfD. The third article mentioned was just a technical decline Prod, which should not shelter the article from being turned into a redirect months later. Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dealing with material where there is a possibly unreasonable concentration of interest is difficult--WP is very susceptible to people doing this, and I doubt we will ever find a good balance between disposing of problems quickly & definitively and doing so with full fair consideration of each possibility/ When I deal with such analogous groups of material, I usually do not get everything right--it can be very hard to predict what consensus is going to be. Legacypac is doing at least as well as I do in similar situations. All that can be asked of someone is that they reconsider what they are doing if it is questioned, and I try to be objective enough to do so, and I think he is also. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Legacypac: I'm not weighing in on the substance of this thread at this time. However, flagging for future reference that the term "co-eds" referring to female college students is outmoded and may be perceived as demeaning and therefore should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a quick look at all of these articles is concerning to me. There is excessive personal detail including educational information, dates of birth, parents names etc. These are not well known people, and even if the information can be found, we shouldn't be further disseminating it as per WP:NPF. Without a lot of this filler information the articles would be very bare indeed (which to me indicates the lack of notability). All of these articles need reviewing, both for notability and content. Polequant (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Legacypac's behavior of late is indeed questionable. He started this MFD[25] where two of his reasons were blatantly wrong. One- that there was no member in the WikiProject when in the same nomination he acknowledged a member. Second- That there were no edits to the page since its last nomination (Less than a year ago also by Legacypac. I'll let others judge whether this second nomination by the same editor was proper or not.) when there obviously was. Lastly he BLP Prod WP:Lexy Schenk when her article did have reference from a WP:RS in it. As seen here[26]...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Subverting AfD by using AfD

    LOL I added an appropriate subsection heading for Ejgreen77 who has NEVER voted against deleting or redirecting a pageant winner page, including voting keep on many pages that were deleted, which strongly suggests bias. I, on the other hand can tell the difference between a BIO about someone that has done something other then win one contest and a bio about a school teacher, future stay at home mom, or univ. student that got in a looks contest to win some scholarships. See Caroline McGowan for example where they just voted to keep an article that links http://dorkychickinlipstick.com/ and calls the subject an actress that has no acting credits to speak of. And to keep Allison Cook (Miss Oregon) "Cook entered her first pageant after learning they could help pay for her college education."Cook entered her first pageant after learning they could help pay for her college education.[2] She sought alternatives after concussion injuries forced her to leave the Oregon Tech basketball and volleyball teams. On April 28, 2012, Cook won the Miss City of Sunshine 2012 title and more than $6,500 in scholarship prizes" and she studies radiology. And to keep Ali Wallace which is a formula cut and paste of the others replacing name, school, major, parent, hair and eye color. Pretty girl who enjoyed 15 minutes of fame and went back to obscurity. Heck recently people were seriously trying to delete a bio I started Candy Carson and she has actually done some notable things and was portrayed next to Cuba Gooding, Jr. in a movie, plus married to Ben Carson. Legacypac (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness there are a few editors who mass nominate beauty pageant/pageant winners for deletion. It's not just Legacypac. There needs to be a notability guideline established by experts in this area. Personally I feel anyone who wins the mainstream national title of any country, whether it's Miss USA, Miss Canada or Miss Armenia, should be notable. State winners aka Miss Oregon are not so clear and we need some kind of guideline. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, check out this link that Legacypac included in his AfD nomination. Let me put it this way, If I were to include such a link in an AfD nomination, I would fully expect to get a topic ban, if not an out-and-out block. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: The problem is that it's very difficult to establish any kind of notability guideline, simply because third-party media coverage of pageants varies wildly from country-to-country (with the US having, by far, the most). Miss South Carolina undoubtedly gets 100 times as much media coverage as Miss Swaziland does, yet there will be some that will say keep one and not the other, because one is a national pageant and one is a sub-national pageant. Other people will argue the other way, saying that one meets WP:GNG and the other doesn't. In general, I think that GNG probably needs to be the objective standard that everything on Wikipedia is held up to. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what's wrong with that link. John Oliver has a hugely popular show and there's nothing inappropriate in the video - there is valid criticism of pageants and their objectification of women's appearances. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But, it's the kind of editorial content that is totally inappropriate and off-topic in an AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't use AfD - get dragged to ANi. Use AfD get dragged to ANi. Can't beat the fans of a dying, widely criticized industry.

    My criteria is if they win beyond winning a state title or go on to any sort of notable career the article can stay. If the only info beyond trival stuff is that they won a contest, redirect to the contest page. Legacypac (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose: Heaven forbid, somebody who actually wants to get rid of poorly-sourced, non-notable articles. pbp 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban on "beauty pageant-related material" would completely miss the point: the problem is not specifically to do with "beauty pageant-related material": it is to do with trying to undermine the outcomes of discussions and consultations whenever those outcomes are contrary to what Legacypac would like. Legacypac needs to realise that if he or she starts a deletion discussion, he or she must then accept the outcome of that discussion: it is not OK to say, in effect, "Let's have a discussion on whether this should be deleted, so that if the answer is 'yes' then I will accept that decision, and it will be deleted, while if the answer is 'no' then I can ignore that decision, and find another way of effectively deleting it."
    • Legacypac, if you continue to do what you have been doing, you are likely to be blocked. I also suggest you may find it helpful to read WP:FORUMSHOP, which is not exactly about what you have been doing, but it is essentially the same. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - ridiculous. AfD is a group process and it can be worked out. Further clarification is needed in some gray areas. Legacypac is not being purposely disruptive and understands the compromise needed. IMO AfD is probably the least rewarding yet one of the most vital areas on Wikipedia, and the editors who nevertheless spend time there trying to weed out non-notable articles need support, not constant criticism. A topic ban for Legacypac would harm the project - and I say that as someone who recommended keep on the Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition article. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: "Legacypac is not being purposely disruptive and understands the compromise needed." I'm curious what exactly you see that lead you to state this. Personally, I see nothing to suggest this (in fact, very much the opposite). FYI, this is not Legacypac's first go-round at this, there was a similar mass-AfD dust-up in February 2015, so Legacypac knows perfectly well that at least 50% of these AfD's he's opened are going to close as "keep." Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as far as his motivations go, please see his comment immediately above about a "dying, widely criticized industry." Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why there is so little RS coverage today. As a child I remember most Queens getting local and regional press. Now they have do/say something extraordinary [27] to get even a name check. It is usually a big struggle to find sources outside official pageant sites (and that is kept up only for a year), local person wins award, Facebook and blogs. It is different if they get on a big TV show or something, then we treat them like any other actor. Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that's true in Canada, but in the US, state-level pageants are a big deal, and get plenty of RS coverage in third-party news sources here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then a Google search like this for the state closest to me right now [28] should find more then 253 results (all news results for all time for both the annual event and all girls that ever went to the "Miss Washington USA" pageant, not just winners). It is barely noise level. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these state winners, IMHO, don't meet GNG. I've fought to keep articles on pageants and national pageant winners from around the world (which is why I know Legacypac is not the only who noms them for AfD). But I really don't think most state winners make the cut. Just being Miss New Hampshire is not really enough IMO unless there is significant coverage in some other area. Nominating state winners is good cleanup IMHO. And again, there needs to be a guideline. Pageants are competitions after all and equivalent sport guidelines exist on notability, so why not make one for pageants? —МандичкаYO 😜 14:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: Please see my comment immediately above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and Expand On review of the individual cases, and not just the method of editing but the tone used by Legacypac in interacting with other editors who come to him expressing concern or question, there seems to be a dangerous sense of ownership and unwillingness to work in a collaborative spirit. Really, had I chosen to make it an issue at the time, he could have been blocked under discretionary sanctions for the stunt he pulled above vis a vis the Syria article; I only didn't because I try to avoid the mess that is those topics and only came across it via DYK. LavaBaron (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After I proposed AfD [29] (which closed with advise to discuss merge at talk and good support for a merge in the AfD) I propose merge to talk on Oct 28. Only LavaBaron responded Oppose with no clear policy reason. I completed a merge on Nov 1 (based on insufficient opposition at talk and recent support in AfD, but was reverted. Then on Nov 5 another editor proposed Delete at AfD [30] but that closed no consensus with people suggesting merge again. Now I started a more formal merge discussion and you take offense? That is not forum shopping its following process. Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban but suggest the editor avoid making personal comments about others - such comments are uniformly disregarded by closers at AfD, and tend to make some feel that the poster is more invested in deleting stuff he/she does not like than in finding out what the consensus of the general community evinced on the AfD page is. Collect (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - No topic ban. He does need to watch how he interacts with others and remember to discuss content, not users. If he demonstrates incivility or personal attacks, he can definitely be blocked on those grounds. However, he is following the proper process and using AFD for what it's designed to discuss. The lack of understanding of a subject matter is a learning opportunity, and certainly not a reason in itself to propose a ban. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: But, over the past year he has sent literally dozens of pageant-related bio articles to AfD, and only a small handful of them have either ended up as "delete" or "merge/redirect" closes, with the vast majority of them closing as either "keep" or "no consensus." And yet, he continues to send more. At what point is the process simply being abused? Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Ejgreen77 - I completely acknowledge your response; I agree that the AFD process can be prone to abuse by anyone who wants to push an agenda or disrupt the process with excessive nominations of articles (especially if the articles clearly do not meet the criterion for nominating it for deletion). I'm trying to find some edits, any edits, that demonstrate that this person has an unambiguous viewpoint or agenda against this topic subject. So far, I'm not finding any. I want to assume good faith here - I think that the user should be warned about his nominations of articles, and that continued nomination of articles that clearly should not be deleted can result in blocking, as doing so is disruptive. After blocks have proven ineffective, I'd be much more open to a conversation about banning. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason for bringing this to ANI was not because this editor was nominating these articles for deletion. It was because--after being unsuccessful at getting these articles deleted through AfD--he then added a redirect. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i recall there is a way to check the % of deletes on nominations and %of time that an editor's vote meets consensus. I think I saw it in RFA. It would be bad to have a 100% delete on noms - that would suggest you are only sending snow deletes to AfD/RfD and not using the appropriate alternitives. I work hard at cleanup and I've sent literally Thousands of articles and redirects into successful deletion or redirection. I'm sure that stats will bear that out. I went through all the Oregon pagent template and only nomed the ones with no claim to fame outside one event, You can see even in the last 36 hours I made changes, maintenance tagged, proposed merges etc to many pageant articles I did not AfD. On the flip side I bet Ejgreen77 has Never voted to delete or redirect Any pageant article, and I've seen them comment on plenty. Therefore the editor pushing for a topic ban on me should be Boomeranged for they are the one with the demonstratable bias. This editor should serious show a single past delete vote in this topic or face a topic ban themselves for making false statements against me here.
    Given that I have a long-standing personal policy against voting "delete" in any AfD debates, pageant related or otherwise, it's not terribly surprising. Not that I haven't seen plenty of articles that I thought should have been deleted, but in those cases, I simply abstain from voting. But, if you're looking for examples, I already gave one further down the page of a pageant article that I think is questionable. And, right off the top of my head, here's a pageant-related article that's right up your alley. It was sent to AfD and somehow closed as "keep," I thought it probably should have been deleted. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the XFD classic damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't problem. If a bunch of similar items have similar problems and you nominate just one, the community yells about why are you targeting that one; you nominate them all and the community demands each be nominated and judged individually. So here, an editor does the latter and the discussion basically invites individual nominations, which the editor does, and now someone wants to ban the editor. Really??? Moreover, we have editors who seem to want a litmus test as suggested above on how close ones RFA !votes match consensus, as if whether an editor's view matching consensus in one place has bearing on the value of that editor's view anywhere. That sort of marginalization is particularly distasteful given the current political discourse in the US and ought to be rejected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Oshwah: and any other users who think that Legacypac is acting in good faith here, check out some of the whoppers that were told (multiple times!) in this nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. To my regret, I have occasionally dipped a toe into the AFDs re: these archaic swimsuit contests, once I attempted to assess claims of notability for Miss Dairy Association - or something of the sort; I even once chased down a notability quesiton for contestants in a language of which I have only passable reading knowledge. I am persuaded of several truths, among them is the fact that there is less notability than appears to most pageant titles; that the notability outside the USA is even less; and that the devotees of these pageants are devoted to them and to putting pages up and keeping pages up for every pageant and every winner. It may not be quite as bad as WP:PLAGUE, but the tone at AFD can be remarkably similar. I now avoid pageant AFDs like the plague, and think we owe a vote of thanks to Legacypac for attempting to bring some standards to this difficult arena.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are pageant winners notable?

    Moved content discussion to here. No comment on previous sections. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

    Thinking of what other annual contests exist, I searched the biggest Rodeo in Canada List_of_Calgary_Stampede_Rodeo_Champions. There is just one article on one winner - a two sentence stub J.B. Mauney. No dozens of articles on each event with succession boxes and who their parents are, what they studied, where they went to school blah blah blah. I can't think of any contests, outside politics) that we give SO much coverage too, and we avoid most of the trivia in the politician articles. The trivia goes into the pageant articles because, without it, you have nothing that does not fit on a list. If we applied the same standards to pageant winners as we apply to other topic areas, this debate would not even be happening. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1.) WP:OTHERSTUFF 2.) Lack of editor interest in one particular area should not preclude other editors from developing articles in a completely unrelated field. 3.) At the end of the day, it's all about WP:GNG; if you think that individual rodeo cowboys have sufficient third-party coverage to warrant articles, by all means, go ahead and create them. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Largely not, no. In most cases there is no coverage of them outside the context of the pageant. Pageantcruft is a plague on Wikipedia and has been for a long time. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All pageant winners? No, of course not, but the state-level winners for the two major national pageants (Miss America and Miss USA)? Based on the extensive ongoing coverage by reliable sources, clearly yes. (Other contests that receive as much or more attention on Wikipedia include reality television competitions, sports at all levels, literary prizes, academic prizes, literary prizes, the Oscars, the Emmys, the Tonys, and so on.) - Dravecky (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Like the 111 Google News hits for "Miss Oregon USA" or the 58 hits in books (covering all winners over the years and the contest itself and not all RS of course)? Is that "extensive ongoing coverage by reliable sources"? All that coverage barely justifies the Miss Oregon USA article. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to try to trivialize this too much, but from what I've seen of pageant winners, WP:BLP1E readily applies, in that the only event they are connected to is winning the pageant, meaning that most winners are not notable (although we can certainly use lists and tables to document then) Obviously, if they have done more before and/or after that is of note, then normal notability rules apply (as such with Caitlin Upton. And this is not to suggest that anyone winning an aware is not notable per BLP1E, but it is due to the nature of what pageants are: the participants are not being ranked on past merit but the there-and-now, as opposed to other awards like Nobels, Oscars, etc. where it is based on past merit that usually can be documented to a great degree, so BLP1E would not apply. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. the majority of them have no actual claim to notability and are never heard of again. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NTEMP covers the fact that once notability is achieved, it does not need to be sustained. And, as far as the whole BLP1E thing goes, please see this excellent comment, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Ironically, one of the articles currently sitting at AfD, Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon) concerns a contestant who won a state-level title, then was forced to resign it less than three weeks later. On that particular article I do believe there are legitimate BLP1E concerns, due to the extremely short nature of her time as a titleholder. Thus there are no news stories of her making public appearances as Miss Oregon, no "preparing for Miss America" articles, and no subsequent appearance at the national pageant. So, on that particular article there are some legitimate BLP1E concerns, IMHO. But, your average state titleholder who won her state title, made numerous public appearances throughout the year, and represented her state on the nationally televised national pageant? No, no BLP1E concerns, there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is begged if notability was met to begin with in terms of NTEMP. And BLP1E still applies to a pageant winner that would have media appearances after the fact but otherwise nothing notable. Classic example: JetBlue flight attendant incident is not about the person involved as that is basically how BLP1E is applied. Similarly for pageants, it is rarely the winner but the event itself as a whole. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think ANI is the best place to debate notability. But as I said before, national winners are notable IMO as they receive significant coverage for the year and go on to compete in Miss World or whatever. Significant coverage is significant coverage - there is no requirement that anyone actually accomplish anything. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significant coverage is significant coverage - there is no requirement that anyone actually accomplish anything." I agree completely, but like I said earlier, most of these US state-level winners will get 100 times as much third-party media coverage as, say, most of the people who competed in Miss Earth 2015. Heck, in some of these cases (Miss Congo (RDC), Miss Moldova, Miss Swaziland, Miss Kyrgyzstan, etc.) I'm not really all that certain that the national pageant itself is particularly notable - never mind the individual winners. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd actually be surprised - in some of these smaller countries, a larger percentage of the population knows about "Miss (Country)." It's a lot bigger deal for anyone to be competing and representing their country abroad, and they get a lot of attention not only when they win their pageant but when they go to Miss Universe and other pageants. I on the other hand have no idea who Miss America is this year, but that's because American culture is overloaded with celebrities who are world famous. Angola naturally is different. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course BLP1E applies. And as I commented above, the level of personal detail on these pages is grossly excessive. (And in the one AfD I commented on, the highest profile source doesn't even mention the person in question, and went on about the person's educational history and other trivia that is completely unencyclopedic. And the article was written by an admin. They should really know better.) Polequant (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And here we have that same admin reinserting dates of birth, parents occupations etc. Seriously? Polequant (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Neutralhomer barracking at a RFC

    Following discussion with an Admin relating to the notability policy of a AfD, it was agreed that I should open a RFC to gain consensus. After some thought I decided to open a discussion at WikiProject Radio Stations which seemed the most relevant venue for discussion. As directed at WP:RFC I attempted to formulate a question about the issue which was neutral and invited discussion from editors with different views. User:Neutralhomer has been increasingly abusive in this discussion to me, including insisting that I have to reply to him rather than go to bed (which is nonsense, there is no time limit on a discussion), [that I am acting in bad faith], am timewasting, [be disregarded as I have only been editing for less than a year] and writing [messages on my talkpage] about "stirring hornets nests".

    The fact is that I am interested in a discussion about the notability issue of community radio stations. That is not, in my opinion, a time wasting activity - because this issue matters to me. I understand that User:Neutralhomer feels strongly that WP:NMEDIA applies only to radio stations in the USA, but as shown by extensive comments by other editors, I am not alone in thinking that a broadcast license by a national regulator should be a sign of notability. I should certainly not be castigated for attempting to follow WP:RFC and I should not have to put up with this kind of bullying. JMWt (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I and others have tried to get JMWt to understand that "community radio stations" do not exist in the US, they are only in Canada, the UK and Australia. So, NMEDIA rules don't cover them. When NMEDIA was created and later updated, it was created to be vague enough to be used all over, but primarily in the US and Canada. Reason being, the people who work on radio station pages are typically from the US and Canada. We didn't have any knowledge of British communications rules when NMEDIA was written.
    I suggested to JMWt that he create UK-based rules (under NMEDIAUK) so that there isn't any overlap. But JMWt couldn't accept that. He also couldn't accept that US, Canadian and UK radio stations are completely different.
    This has gone on and on for hours and the RfC isn't going anywhere. I requested it be closed and the discussion moved to JMWt's talk page. That seemed to irritate JMWt even more than he already was.
    There is a clear case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT going on with JMWt. No matter how I explain the rules, no matter how anyone else explains them, he just doesn't get it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am entitled to open a discussion about the notability of community radio stations worldwide even if (you think) I am wrong about WP:NMEDIA. WP:NOTGETTINGIT does not imply that I have to agree with your conclusions and that a RFC is concluded within 24 hours when you say it is. JMWt (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec x 2) It really does look as though people are trying to explain a very simple concept to JMWt, but JMWt is just not comprehending. People, Neutralhomer in particular, are so sick having to explain the same thing over and over and over and over and over that he's become frustrated. This is now being held against him. As someone who has previously had this happen to him, I sympathise more with Neutralhomer than with Mr Fingers-in-ears-LALALALALALA. Reyk YO! 10:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is pretty clear that I'm talking about the bullying not the disagreement about WP:NMEDIA. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If saying "you swatted the hornet's nest, you don't get to run off to bed" or "you've been here less than a year and it is showing bad" is bullying, then I apologize. That doesn't change the fact that you still don't understand that NMEDIA doesn't cover "Community Radio Stations" because NMEDIA was written, however vaugely, for US and Canadian radio stations. Again, because we didn't have knowledge of UK rules and regs.
    I, again, invite you to work with the community and create rules for UK stations as NMEDIAUK, ones that will cover the "Community Radio Stations" found in the UK. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm sorry you feel you were bullied" apology not accepted. I've been very clear from the start that I'm talking about how to assess the notability of all small community radio stations on wikipedia. Once again, I deplore your attitude when I am clearly trying to clear up a source of disagreement over notability. JMWt (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What you still aren't getting is while you are trying to "assess the notability" of community radio stations, you are doing so with rules that don't cover them. You are trying to lump all radio stations into those notability "assessment". I deplore having to repeat myself and I have done so now several times. Several times you just haven't gotten it. I'm hoping you do soon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly we disagree. That is not for this discussion, but your attitude. Which has still not changed markedly. JMWt (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dude, my attitude has nothing to do with your understanding of the matter. Numerous people have written large swaths of information and you either barely acknowledge it or completely ignore it and keep right on going. It's kinda hard to have a discussion of any kind when the other person isn't getting it. Reyk, help me out here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutralhomer Communiuty radio actually does exist in the United States , please | see this organization . KoshVorlon 12:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    KoshVorlon: These are almost solely Public Radio formatted stations. Some, like WDVX and WMMT, are Americana and Roots music. But others like WEAA and WTJU are public radio stations airing varying degrees of NPR-type programming.
    What I was meaning is the FCC does not have a category for "Community Radio Stations" like OFCOM in the UK does. The closest thing we have is low-power FM (or LPFM). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just leave this here: Local Community Radio Act. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That brought about changes in LPFMs, but did not create them. LPFMs in the US have been around since 2001. LPFM was started with the "Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 2000". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I know. The point is that community radio is clearly a thing in the US and acknowledged as such on the legislative level. That the official category of license does not have the word "community" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But this seems like a tangent and gets at the actual substance of the dispute, which does not require ANI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe me, if there was a "community radio" category in the US, I think it would be alot easier. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @JMWt: frankly your attitude sucks, and you should read WP:BOOMERANG. Now climb down off your high horse and listen to people who have been here a long time and are trying to explain things to you with, I must say, commendable patience. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your attitude sucks" and "climb off your high horse" is how we help people resolve behavioural disputes now, is it? It seems to me people should let the RFC proceed and stop patronising JMWt. Fences&Windows 00:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin, JzG is exempt from the civility policy, arbitration hearings, and any other normal process that non-admin peons face on a daily basis. Please check the sooper sekrit policy on IRC for details. You have been warned. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just telling it like it is. JMWt has chosen to come here with a vexatious complaint and in doing so has drawn attention to the fact that JMWt, not those about who he complains, is the primary problem. JMWt refuses to accept explanation or consensus, and comes tot he admin board to complain about those who are patiently explaining the problem. This happens all the time, and the essay WP:BOOMERANG explains typical consequences. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: - see, I'm not as wet-behind-the-ears as you seem to think I am. I happen to know a) WP:WHATISCONSENSUS, b) WP:CCC, c) that WP:BIAS is a known thing, d) that there are standards of WP:CIV, e) that nobody "WP:OWN"s essays, never mind prior consensus or policies. But most of all, I am entitled to operate without WP:HA, particularly where I am engaged in WP's own procedure for trying to reach WP:CON on something which is obviously a contentious issue across many AfD. You can say WP:IDONTLIKEIT all you like. As an WP:ADMIN your comments are clearly uncalled for, and you should know better than to attack the person rather than the issue - which I notice you have not bothered to engage with in the forum where it is clearly correct to discuss it. Any further personal attacks from you will be escalated. Furthermore if you can't see the above complaint as a problem outwith of the discussion at hand, then you shouldn't be an WP:ADMIN never mind adding comments to this page. JMWt (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry I am missing it. What is wrong with having a RfC? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: there is nothing wrong with having an RfC. The problem here is that a single user does not like the views I hold, the fact that I've started an RfC, the fact that I've put the discussion on that particular WikiProject talkpage, the suggestion by me that the notability of radio stations in other countries around the world should be judged on the same basis as those (he says) are only to be covered by WP:NMEDIA, the fact that I've only been editing for 12 months, the fact that I dare suggest that there is no consensus here, or the fact that other people might actually think that WP:NMEDIA can and should apply to radio stations outwith of his jurisdiction. Which all would be absolutely fine if he was able to communicate these points in a way that is not a personal attack. And then, when challenged, makes it out that the bullying I've illustrated in my complaint above is just my impression of what was said. It wasn't. By any objective standard, that was bullying. JMWt (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue's not the RfC. The issue is one editor who can't or won't comprehend what people are saying no matter how simple, is acting overly offended at everything, won't accept any kind of conciliatory gesture, and is doing a lot of screechy litigious posturing. Reyk YO! 13:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sorry, I am entitled to disagree with someone else's understanding of a consensus (expressed in an essay, not a policy) no matter how much they want to insist that their way is the only way to look at it - and I note that others in the discussion have strongly disagreed with the WP:NMEDIA understanding being expressed here as consensus and as WP:NOTGETTINGIT. No, there is a real disagreement and there is a discussion about how to resolve that disagreement in policy. I am entitled to be involved in a RfC which is civil and engages on the question rather than in personal abuse. If you don't get that, maybe you shouldn't be writing on this page either. JMWt (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    NH tries to apologise for expressing frustration and you scream "apology not accepted" in boldface. I stand by my description of you as unforgiving, litigious, and quarrelsome. You're not here to participate in consensus building- you'd at least try to understand other peoples' views if you were- you're just here to yell at everyone and get your way by threatening to "escalate" your feigned outrage to some other venue. This is not a good attitude to have around here. Reyk YO! 14:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was a non-apology couched in terms that were made to make it sound like I was imagining abuse and then using this as a forum to repeat endlessly the same point he was making before. I don't want a faux apology, sorry. Now as to your other points, they're obviously garbage given that there are various editors who do not agree with the understanding of WP:NMEDIA that was so forcefully used as an accusation that I was WP:NOTGETTINGIT, even to the extent of resorting to personal abuse - and also given that I've never posted on this board about anything before. I don't care if you think it is vexacious, I don't care if you have a description of me or whatever else you bring up that is totally unrelated. I want someone to recognise this as what it was: abuse. JMWt (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The reason nobody is "recognising this as abuse" is that it isn't abuse. It's just the usual frustration at having to repeatedly explain something to someone who isn't listening. Abuse would be if someone said "You are an asshat" or something along those lines. It's clear at this point that you will not succeed in convincing anyone that you are a victim of misbehaviour, or get anyone to take any sort of action against NeutralHomer. It is time to stop beating this dead horse. Reyk YO! 14:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately you are not the one making the decision, then, because you've already shown that you are unable to do so fairly. JMWt (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had walked away from this thread (and the RfC) due to a migraine from repeating myself ad naseum, but I feel the need to come back and address the above.
    JMWt, don't try to guess what I was thinking when I apologized. It was a real apology, not a "non-apology". I don't appreciate having someone try and read my mind and guess what I was thinking.
    If I was being abusive, believe me, there would be a crapload of admins jumpin' all over me. As Reyk kindly put it, you are "quarrelsome" and "not here to participate in consensus building". Plus, as JzG said you aren't "listen[ing] to people who have been here a long time and are trying to explain things to you". Several users, myself included, have had, as JzG put it, "commendable patience", toward you in having to explain things over and over and over and over.
    So, what you may think is "abuse" is actually pure-and-simple frustration. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK fine, so make an apology here without reservation and admit that it is possible to have different opinions on the validity of WP:NMEDIA without constantly pushing that I'm WP:NOTGETTINGIT - which is about consensus. I totally understand your position on WP:NMEDIA, I don't need you to keep repeating it. JMWt (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologized once, you didn't accept it, I'm not doing it again because you ordered me to. As for NMEDIA, and I can't believe I have to repeat this again, your understand and lumping together of two seperate countries, two seperate platforms, doesn't make sense. Ask for consensus on something that has consensus, doesn't make sense. You are trying to find consensus in British radio in rules that are admittedly (and admitted by others at WPRS) of having a North American bias (again because we didn't have anyone to write them from the UK). So, no, you don't understand my position, and unfortunately, yes, I do have to keep repeating it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Right, that's your understanding and other views are available. That's the whole point of the RFC. If you bothered to look at the discussion, you'd see that all of your points on this have been comprehensively answered. And not by me. As you are unable to comprehend that someone could possibly have a different view to you, and further that you need to keep repeating your view as accepted fact, then I can't do anything but believe your apology was fake. You don't want to apologise, you just want to continue with the same behaviour. JMWt (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You only get one apology, that's how the real world works. You don't shoot down one and then demand another. Doesn't work that way. As for the "comprehensively answered" points, no they haven't. It's just your perfered view. You're projecting your problems back onto me and I don't have time for it. I have articles to create and update, the real reason we are here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Why would you think I give a toss what you think of me? If you come to ANI it's on you to convince people that your complaint is merited. Instead, multiple editors have given you advice that it's ridiculous and that you should drop it. You have elected not to pay any attention, which I am coming to understand is your primary defining characteristic. Fine. You want to yell that you're the innocent victim, and that you'll go on yelling until people see it your way, you can go right ahead. But don't be surprised if, like me, people find themselves sympathising more with NH when you stamp your feet and tremble with rage. Reyk YO! 14:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you here and what are you actually adding to this discussion? Someone insisting that a RFC should be closed within 24 because someone else doesn't agree with their opinion, and resorting to something they admit is abusive, is something you want to encourage is it? JMWt (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have considered your repeated assertions that I shouldn't post at ANI. It is my determination that they are erroneous. They are therefore disregarded. I will, however, stop posting in this thread because you are wasting my time. Reyk YO! 14:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Good. JMWt (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I never admitted to being abusive. I said "If I was being abusive". Don't put words in my mouth again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have it both ways: either you were being abusive and are now apologising for it, or you weren't and aren't. JMWt (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is a classic sign of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I apologized, you swatted it down, you don't get another one because you demand it. Not the way the real world works. You also don't misquote someone when what I said it right up there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let the RfC run. People need to stop personalizing things. You all do not need to agree. An independent admin will close it eventually following it running for at least a week. You do not get to close down RfC just because you disagree with the question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban or WP:MRMPS (probation enforcement) for Charlotte135

    TOPIC BANNED
    I think a consensus has been reached in favor of a topic ban at this point. Per this discussion, Charlotte135 (talk · contribs) is topic banned from the subject of domestic violence for three months. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Every now and then, we get men's rights editors or those with similar views POV-pushing gender symmetry content or a gender symmetry angle onto the domestic violence articles. This is why the Domestic violence article is under Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. There have also been cases where such editors impersonated women to more easily push their viewpoint. Gender symmetry is the controversial viewpoint that women commit as much domestic violence as men, or more domestic violence than men. Charlotte135 (talk · contribs), a relatively new account, showed up to the Domestic violence article making a series of dubious and problematic edits, and has since mainly only been focused on the domestic violence areas of Wikipedia. Charlotte135 has denied being a men's right's editor, but Charlotte135 has nonetheless edited the Domestic violence article and the Intimate partner violence article in ways that push the gender symmetry viewpoint, usually with a faulty understanding of the WP:Neutral policy, even when pointed to the WP:Due weight and WP:Valid aspects of that policy. When others try to explain the problems to Charlotte135, Charlotte135 makes it seem like those people are being non-neutral and/or have an agenda, and often doesn't seem to be actually hearing what they are stating. For example, Charlotte135 has mischaracterized me and my intentions so badly that I find it difficult to discuss anything with Charlotte135, and have resorted to leaving notes for a response instead of replying directly; in fact, I will ignore any claims by Charlotte135 in this thread because of that very aspect. Charlotte135's editing and arguments have drained me and a number of others, and the matter only seems to be getting worse. I don't see what there is left for me to do in this case but propose a topic ban or MRMPS restriction with regard to Charlotte135 editing domestic violence articles. At one point, I thought about asking SlimVirgin to help, but she has enough on her plate to deal with. Below is a collapsed point-by-point retelling of what has occurred:

    The issues at hand
    • Charlotte135 showed up in the "Claim about male self overestimating" section of the Domestic violence article, supporting a misrepresentation of sources and a gender symmetry viewpoint (a source used for the material was reporting on a men's rights group piece). Johnuniq made a rebuttal, stating, "A fluffy media report about claims made 'by the men's rights campaign group Parity' does not satisfy WP:RS for edits which seek to overturn conventional (and sourced) understanding of a topic." Kaldari stepped in to help with some of the dispute.
    • With this edit, Charlotte135 removed "though women are more likely to be injured 'largely because men are stronger on average than women'", despite this being well-supported in literature on domestic violence. I noted this in a discussion with Charlotte135, and stated that it was my belief that Charlotte135 removed the material on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis. Charlotte135 argued the matter, with a misguided understanding of what being neutral means on Wikipedia.
    • In the "Domestic violence affects both genders and children" section, there is much of the same from Charlotte135. Johnuniq stated, "Editors should agree to play the game and be civil (as has occurred), but let's not beat around the bush: your account has under forty edits and is just over two weeks old, and your edits in this topic focus on men's rights activism—see WP:MRMPS. Such activism has not taken over this article in the past and is unlikely to be successful in the future." Charlotte135 denied being a men's rights editor, and later took issue with the "domestic violence disproportionately affects women" material in the lead, suggesting that this needs to be balanced with material on men. The lead already had, and still has, material on men being victims of domestic violence, but not material on being as victimized (or close to as victimized) as women; this is because the literature generally does not state that.
    • Charlotte135 and I reverted each other over this bit, which stated, "A 2010 review article entitled 'Are Men the More Belligerent Sex?' in Scientific American indicated that rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." I reverted Charlotte135 because the text made it seem like it was Scientific American reviewing the literature, when it was actually commenting on a researcher's analysis, an analysis based on the highly criticized conflict tactics scale. I also reverted because the content was WP:Undue weight (not generally supported by the domestic violence literature), and did not use good WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Charlotte135 continued to argue for the text. This resulted in a WP:RfC, which closed with WP:Consensus being against the addition...per WP:REDFLAG.
    • As seen with this section and the discussion immediately following it (just scroll down), Charlotte135 added to the lead "On the other hand, a meta-analyses conducted by Archer (2000) concluded that women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently, after examining 82 studies that found gender symmetry." I reverted per the material not being WP:Lead material and per it being WP:Undue weight. After much discussion, that material was left out of the lead. But by this point, I couldn't be bothered to directly respond to Charlotte135, since Charlotte135 repeatedly misrepresents me and my intentions and doesn't seem to ever truly listen.
    • In the "Info/study removed" section, Charlotte135's gender symmetry POV-pushing editing continued, with Gandydancer taking objection this time. Kaldari stepped in again to help.
    • In the "For NPOV sake" discussion, Charlotte135 was again arguing that the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." sentence in the lead needed to be balanced with gender symmetry material. Gandydancer took the time to try to explain to Charlotte135 why Charlotte135's proposed text was problematic, but it didn't seem like Charlotte135 was truly listening. In fact, Charlotte135 kept repeating, even after Fyddlestix stepped in to explain. It got to the point that Gandydancer stated, "I've reached the end of my comments here as well. I have no desire to RE:HASH this over and over again. Using the reviews that she offers, it seems that Charlotte wants to cherry pick the statement that the percentage of male/female violence is equal and just leave it at that, but not include, for example, that male physical violence is more likely to include punching and choking while females slap and scratch and that female physical violence is often used as a defense against male violence, which is also included in the reviews. I assume that Charlotte will now throw hooks out to try and drag me back into this discussion, as she has proven that she does so well, but I'm done here."
    • In the "Multicultural differences / age differences in the research" discussion and the one immediately following it (just scroll down), Charlotte135 went after the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." sentence again, this time arguing from an adolescent perspective, citing a U.S.-centric source that stated, "Among adolescents, where many preventative and educative interventions, in Western countries are currently aimed, research consistently shows that females perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than males." I noted, "To state that the vast majority of available sources say that female adolescents perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than male adolescents is not entirely inaccurate, since a lot of scholarly sources state that this demographic, which is mostly made up of white adolescents in the United States (because of the limited way this topic has been studied), perpetrate equal rates of IPV, and note the severe limitations of this research." I ended up having to fix the text that Charlotte135 added because it was added in a biased and misleading way, and editors agreed that I fixed the problematic addition.
    • In the "WP:Alternative name policy and separating terminology on an arbitrary basis" discussion, I took issue with the way that Charlotte135 presented the alternative names in the lead, since the literature generally does not separate the terms in that way. To me, Charlotte135 distinguishing domestic violence from intimate partner violence, when the literature generally cites them as the same thing, seemed to be Charlotte135 attempting to combat the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence." sentence again.
    • In this section at the Intimate partner violence talk page, Charlotte135 took issue with Michael P. Johnson's typology. Note that Johnson is one of the scholars who disputes gender symmetry, and he is therefore a target of men's rights editors. I noted in the discussion, "Michael P. Johnson's typology on intimate partner violence is the most cited typology on intimate partner violence; scholars consistently support that typology, to the point that it is not simply Johnson's typology anymore. It is not simply a theory; it is a typology that has been repeatedly validated by research." I noted that his typology is given the weight it is given because, as this reliable source states, "Two typologies in particular have received considerable attention across various disciplines: Holzworth-Munroe and Stuart's (1994) male batterer typology and Johnson's (2008) intimate partner violence typology." Charlotte135 took to calling me a big fan of Johnson's, with the implication that I am POV-pushing and with the assertion that I am desperate to keep the Johnson material in the article.
    • Charlotte135 then made this edit, which I reverted, at the Domestic violence article, stating, "flyer22reborn it is just johnson mostly. your edit changes context entirely", when it's actually the case that there are different researchers reporting similarly to Johnson in that section. After that, Charlotte135 made this edit with the derogatory edit summary "Why are you Flyer22reborn trying to edit war and parade your hero Michael Johnson's controversial POV and his personal theories." CFCF came along and reverted Charlotte135 here and here. Charlotte135 then added this "citation needed" tag, stating, "citation needed for a big call," even though the "others" who have identified those types of violence are shown in the references in that section.
    • Lastly, after I declared that I was done with the Domestic violence and Intimate partner violence articles, partly to test Charlotte135, Charlotte135 made this edit to the Intimate partner violence article, which removed "this is generally perpetrated by men against women," even though that bit is supported by sources in the article. Like I noted to Charlotte135, "That the most extreme forms of intimate partner violence are perpetrated by men against women is well-supported in the literature." This is also true in the case of adolescent males and females.

    Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support topic ban or some restriction

    • Support limited time topic ban of some sort (3 months?). I reviewed Charlotte135's contributions to Talk:Domestic violence and in addition to finding tendentious POV pushing and TLDR (from both sides), I came away with a strong impression that Charlotte135 is not a new editor. Though a "Duck block" would be an easy fix, I don't think it would be a "long term" solution, as the user would just show up under another username. Besides, I don't think they've yet done anything that merits an indef block. Charlotte135 claims they are not a SPA, so a short topic ban from domestic violence should not be a big deal. ~Awilley (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. This editor is engaging in disruptive, WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior and is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Overwhelming percentage of edits are to a single article, and most of that is tl;dr POV-pushing at talk. Montanabw(talk) 09:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic ban. SPA working in a POV fashion in a contentious topic area is enough for me to support a topic ban and reexamine that after SPA has demonstrated adequate neutrality for six months in unrelated areas.--MONGO 20:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, at least temporarily, due to POV. I think that a six-month ban on Domestic violence is long enough. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I was tempted to just use the General Sanctions and topic ban them myself as an admin. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It is hilarious that he has not been handed the dunce cap by an admin yet. I am quite sure that is a SPA pops up at gamergate with the opposing POV they will be slapped with a permban in less than a minute. Even if we ignore that he is a SPA his general editing patterns warrant a ban. So I am literally scratching my head here why he hasn't been given time to cool off yet. My recommendation is 3 months complete ban from topic/s, with 3 months suspended so he can test the waters. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for this rel. new SPA with POV editing pattern. suspiciously to me, well versed in wiki arguments, policies etc , as if this was editor was not new at all....? checkuser needed? --Wuerzele (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban Per my comments quoted in the OP, the account is obviously a returned user pushing a barrow. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban - Anyone that takes the time to review the talk page can plainly see that this editor is determined to include in the article what s/he calls "significant viewpoints" that claim to suggest that "There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men," generally adding something like, "I have asked the question here so as to avoid any possibility of edit warring and to discuss in a civil, respectful manner. Thanks." In the first place, there is no significant viewpoint suggesting that to be a fact and when it is factual it is comparing a slap to punching, etc., as though they are equal. To try this tactic once is understandable, but it never ends and no amount of discussion does anything at all to discourage her/him, even to the point that s/he has reused copy/paste sections of her old arguments for new discussions. If s/he is not banned from this article s/he will eventually wear everyone down and s/he will then be able to shape the article to fit their own POV. Gandydancer (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the evidence, I support per Johnuniq.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic ban. Editing is definitely disruptive, and the POV-pushing is obvious. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When I looked at the literature I was quite surprised to find, particularly in Western countries, that converse to the message we all see on TV, that is women are the ones who experience all or most of the violence in the home, there was a lot more to it, than editors like Gandydancer, Flyer22reborn, Montanabw and many others would like readers of Wikipedia to know. Unlike other editors though that may or may not be from men's rights groups, I actually took the facts to the talk page, and appropriate dispute resolution pages, as we all should. Shouldn't we? However it opened me up to this current witch hunt. Ah well.

    However in my search through the body of scientific knowledge on this topic, (I am a scientist after all), and it did not take much I must say, I discovered this critical review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this critical review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this critical review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract (which are all quality secondary sources, all from reputable journals, all meet MEDRS guidelines and review approximately 150-200 primary sources) all very strongly supporting the so called minority viewpoint.

    In fact, when I dug further into the scientific literature, I found this bibliography examining 275 scholarly investigations with an aggregate sample size exceeding 365,000 http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

    Other editors may find these reviews and hundreds of research studies of some interest too, as confronting as the science on the topic is, as it makes for an interesting and eye opening read! My eyes were opened and I just thought hey, maybe these reliable sources should be represented here for NPOV and due weight, not censored.

    Disturbingly though, while this witch hunt goes on and on, much to the pleasure of Flyer22reborn and her colleagues, editors are quietly continuing to quickly delete significant sections of the intimate partner violence section, basically in an attempt to convey to readers that men are the only perpetrators of IPV and women the victims. As anyone here can obviously see that is just not what the science says! Is this what Wikipedia represents? I'm a woman, but I'm also a scientist, and it is clear that the frantic additions to support a topic ban above, is about this censorship and agenda on Wikipedia and it appears.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose topic ban or some restriction

    • What? No. Also this weird use of MRA as a slur is dumb. Shall I try to topic ban people editing from a Feminist POV? Arkon (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comments below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban for now. This is a content dispute, and both parties have engaged in suboptimal POV editing. Minor4th 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- Per Minor4th. I see a content dispute, kicked off by Charlotte adding a sourced statement to an article, but there has not been a convincing case made that anyone is disrupting anything. Reyk YO! 12:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely Oppose- This is a content dispute involving one old and one new editor. It didn't need to be brought here.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Cebr1979 is one of my WP:Hounding stalkers; I was anticipating him showing up in this thread. He is the main reason I told Gandydancer I didn't want to discuss this topic at my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a stalker. Flyer22 Reborn is a liar who makes false claims about me in order to discredit me without ever giving any proof to her claims. I'd love to see some.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know you Cebr1979. But thanks for calling it as you see it. Could an administrator please talk to Flyer22reborn here? They should not be jumping in here and attacking or trying to discredit each and every good faith editor that dares to oppose a topic ban for a purely content dispute? Can I add my comments about editors above that support it? I wouldn't. And I don't think other editors would either. And Flyer22reborn knows better. It is classic bullying behavior by Flyer22reborn. Just Stop It Flyer22reborn!Charlotte135 (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutral

    Discussion

    • Comment - I'm currently reviewing everything stated here, as well as Charlotte135's contribution history. Looking at Charlotte135's contribs page, I will state that this is definitely a single purpose account focused primarily on domestic abuse and gender topics. Most, if not nearly all of this user's edits are made in articles that fall under this subject matter. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, it seems clear that "single purpose" is an appropriate label for the account, not that that is automatically a bad thing. A lot of the edits seem designed to push a specific agenda that seems to largely align to MRA, but I want to hear a response from Charlotte135 before making a firm decision either way. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • CommentI have edited well over 35 different topics ranging from menstruation through to the ebola virus. Admittedly most of these relate to women and women's health although that is a very, very wide net and is far from a single purpose account. However I have noticed most editors seem to edit within a specific scope, much more specific in many cases than I have. Mine has been pretty broad. Some editors only edit articles about horses for instance. Every single edit I have made to every single article page has added some value to the article, however minor. How the heck are my 35 plus articles edits in any way indicative of a specific agenda? My agenda is to help build a better Wikipedia. Could Lankiveil please provide some diffs for the other 30 or 40 articles I have edited and provide any evidence at all as to how any of these edits could be seen as biased in any way? Furthermore I am a woman and a scientist Flyer22reborn, I can assure you of that last time I checked. I am not aligned in any way, whatsoever, to any men's rights groups, ever, nor have I any interest whatsoever, in any such nonsense. And what the heck is MRA!! I completely reject any such assertion and is an obvious attempt to discredit me by associating me with such groups. I have a lot more to say on this too. But first things first and I'll wait for Lankiveil response. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Charlotte135, I really think that you should focus on the information that Flyer22 Reborn has presented right now and respond to it. This is the initial information that we are looking at, and I think that your response is drifting away from the issues that are actually presented here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments above are completely on topic. My editing is clearly spanned over 35 different articles so I am confused as to how that possibly constitutes being a SPA?? I have never ever edited mens rights type articles, or violence against men articles, or violence against women articles, or any similar articles. Check my contributtions. I am a woman Flyer22reborn and not pretending to be a woman. How offensive. And I am a scientist Flyer22reborn, I can assure you of that last time I checked. I am not aligned in any way, whatsoever, to any men's rights groups, ever, nor have I any interest whatsoever, in any such nonsense. And what the heck is MRA!! I completely reject any such assertion and is an obvious attempt to discredit me by associating me with such groups. Utter nonsense. This report is baseless. However all articles, without exception, do need to report what the body of scientific knowledge states, and where possible and ideally in medically related content, we need to rely on high quality metaanalyses published in international scientific journals and that comply with MEDRS. And for the 100000th friggin time now Flyer22reborn, and any others worried about this, I once again stress this clear point. I completely agree with this statement in the DV article "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence." This appears to be the only threat that Flyer22reborn is concerned with and the reason they posted this here. What more can I say. But yes, please anyone be my guest in looking at the 35 or more articles I have edited and the positive contribution that has made to Wikipedia based on policy. How is that not relevant? What is this?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the point of not understanding due weight, no evidence has been presented to support that statement? I believe I have a pretty good grasp of that policy by now, thank you very much. And before Flyer22reborn posted this here, I had again offered an an opportunity to mediate and to reach a resolution to their concerns. In that way, someone entirely neutral and does not hold such passionate and strong POV on this topic of domestic violence could guide the editing based solely and wholly on policy and what reliable sources say, not emotion. They could then decide if edits were applying due weight. Here is that offer for peaceful resolution that was aggressively rejected, once again, by Flyer22reborn. So that was a good option instead of posting here and accusing me of all sorts of baseless crud, frankly.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over your edit summary, on most of those articles you have edited, you have made 1 or 2 edits while you have edited Domestic violence 75 times so that is where your focus has been.
    What Oshwah is asking you to do is rather than offering reassurances that you are editing positively, could you address some of the examples provided by Flyer22Reborn? Most decisions on ANI are determined by the weight of the evidence presented and, right now, Flyer22Reborn has presented a very detailed and compelling group of edits with explanations...you need to provide a better defense than saying that saying the report is baseless. While you're not on trial here, you should try to rebut Flyer22Reborn's convincing argument with more than simply saying you reject her assertions. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz is correct; we need to focus on the information submitted here, and I want to listen to your response regarding it. The goal of an ANI discussion is to review the information presented and make a logical and objective decision based off of that information. But we need to keep the discussion towards what's relevant in order to be able to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not correct, Oshwah (nor is it what Liz said). We need to focus on whatever information is brought up by anyone. @Charlotte135: has a right to defend herself and can't be told that only "information submitted here" can be brought up. She can bring up whatever she wants and it all has to be looked at the same way/just as equally as anything brought up about her by anyone else.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just struggling to see what policy I have breached. On your point of how many times I edited domestic violence, I can only look at others for examples. One example is Flyer22reborn, who has edited the domestic violence article and mensrights articles over 500 times, probably more. However all of their other article editing over the past few months at least, has been one or two edits using Wikipedia:STiki? My edits to the DV and other articles are good and have added value. I have complied with policies, have restrained myself from edit warring, put up with Flyer22reborn's constant abuse. I contribute neutrally to all articles, as I do in my own scientific career, and have no agenda, and nothing Flyer22reborn presented above, and none of my editing, proves otherwise. So again, and with my other comments above, I ask, what have I done wrong or different to other constructive editors?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never edited any of the men's rights articles Flyer22reborn and others have been edit warring over. And my edits on the domestic violence article are constructive. All articles Flyer22reborn edits to any significant degree are gender equality type articles. Not me. So why am I being accused of doing so?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was involved in a tiny part of this whole mess (see below).
    Some general remarks about POV
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Let's make a couple of points clear. Firstly, even if Charlotte135 was a men's right editor, it would not make any difference. Editors are allowed to have a POV. Secondly, suppose every single edit they make advances a POV, that in itself says nothing at all. To see this, suppose a particular article is slightly to the "top" of some "ideal" NPOV state. If some editor's edits have the effect of moving it slightly down, it will move to the "ideal" state, which is a good thing, even if every single edit they did was in one direction.

    Firstly, one needs to concentrate on disruption. I see a lot of diffs in Flyer22's report, but I fail to see what exactly is disruptive about them. There has been a lack of WP:DR pursued by both people. I notice that when Flyer22 opened an RfC, that particular dispute was settled, and Charlotte135 did not challenge it. Similarly, when Kaldari stepped into a dispute and supported Flyer22's position, Charlotte135 did not challenge it. Secondly, I was very briefly involved in an WP:RSN discussion of a source. I will not attempt to summarize it here, but what Charlotte135 is saying, over and over again on the talkpage is that there are some sources which talk about the balance of some forms of domestic violence. Those sources should be presented in the article: not as the dominant viewpoint, but a significant viewpoint. That is certainly a defensible position (whether it is right or wrong cannot be decided here). Thirdly, both Flyer22 and Charlotte135 should stop with WP:TLDR. Fourthly, both editors have cast aspersions on one another, but Flyer22 has done by far the bulk of them, repeatedly ascribing political motives to Charlotte135's edits. Even if they were true, that is irrelevant. To sum up, I do not see enough disruption here. I would oppose any topic ban for Charlotte135, but would suggest they use WP:DR much more than as usual. Open an RfC, make WP:drafts and ask people to comment, use WP:3O, use WP:DRN etc. I see that Charlotte135 has offered mediation, perhaps that could be pursued. I do however see that Charlotte135 has made a LOT of edits to the talkpage; they seem to have become somewhat obsessed with the subject. One option could be to take a break from the article for a few days. Wikipedia is very big. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Account less than two months old and minor wikignoming edits to a few other articles aside, most of this editor's work has been tl;dr discussions at a single article, disruptive in nature and tone. These comments are disruptive to improvement of the article. Flyer22reborn is being baited and targeted by yet another POV-pushing editor who is trying to insert a "men's rights" POV into articles on domestic violence and it in't appropriate to do so. Montanabw(talk) 09:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Kingsindian, the statement "but Flyer22 has done by far the bulk of them, repeatedly ascribing political motives to Charlotte135's edits." is incorrect, as are other things you state on these topics. You seem to enable and/or defend Charlotte135 and editors who push the viewpoint Charlotte135 is clearly pushing, so I was expecting you to show up here. If I'm wrong about your motives, I apologize. But to me, if you really cared nothing about the domestic violence topics, as you seemed to indicate at WP:RSN and the WP:MEDRS talk page, you would not still be concerning yourself with these matters. I will not be responding to you further in this section. I also expected Arkon to show up here, given his history. Despite his notion of topic banning feminist editors, feminism and men's rights are nowhere close to being on the same acceptance level, for reasons made explicitly clear in the Men's rights movement article and by various WP:Reliable sources commenting on the men's rights movement. Article probation exists with regard men's rights editors and their POV-pushing for reasons that have been well-documented at this site. So, yes, it very much matters whether or not an editor is a men's rights editor when they are editing gender topics here at Wikipedia. As noted at the Men's rights movement article, marital rape is one of the men's rights concerns. And marital rape is another topic Charlotte13 is interested in. Whether or not Charlotte13 is a men's rights editor, Charlotte13's editing has a men's rights lean to it, and others have stated as much; I clearly am not the only one who has stated so.
    And for the record, Charlotte135's statements that "One example is Flyer22reborn, who has edited the domestic violence article and mensrights articles over 500 times, probably more." and "All articles Flyer22reborn edits to any significant degree are gender equality type articles." are false (as anyone significantly familiar with my editing history knows; sexology and medical topics are more so my area of editing), and is the type of false commentary I was speaking of when it comes to Charlotte135 commenting on me. Charlotte135 comments falsely on various things, not just me, and has a severe case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Almost any time I make an edit Charlotte135 disagrees with, Charlotte135 is quick to make some sort of claim about me being desperate to keep some POV in the article and acts like I am violating some editing principle, as is also clear by the discussion at Talk:Intimate partner violence. After I noted there the literature with regard to the typologies on intimate partner violence (which is not the same thing as general types of intimate partner violence), Charlotte135 jumped right to stating, "You are also obviously a very big personal fan of Michael Johnson who has very controversial POV he has." And all of that is exactly why I stated I would be ignoring claims made by Charlotte135 in this section. I cannot work with Charlotte135, and I'd be surprised if any others can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only had difficulty here on Wikipedia with you Flyer22reborn. I have respected other editors, as they have not personally attacked me and my motives right from the beginning. No-one appreciates that. Not withstanding that, I have made two different attempts to have dispute resolution as recommended by a couple of editors and administrators. I too thought it would help resolve the issue you had and stop the circular discussion we were having and your personal attacks. You bluntly refused, and were very rude about it in fact. I am a woman by the way and don't appreciate it. I even posted the Archer metaanalyses at the reliable sources noticeboard as another editor suggested.
    Again, I took this editors suggestion and posted it here at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198 and this was how I opened that posting. Rhoark actually stated: "This is the most slam-dunk obviously reliable source I've seen anyone bother to bring to the noticeboard. Psychological Bulletin is quite venerable, and the article shows 156 citations on PubMed.[49] A random spot check of the text of those articles shows it is being used at face value, not criticized. Rhoark (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)" But again, you came storming in, like you have done here, and shot Rhoark's objective assessment down in flames. It just seems like you believe you are always right, and know everything about everything. No matter what. Point is, I certainly can work with other editors on the article and, even with you, if you would just stop attacking me, but I do again suggest we seek mediation now to iron out our differences?Charlotte135 (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flyer22 Reborn: Unfortunately, you seem unable to discuss this topic without scattering WP:ASPERSIONS like confetti, based on no evidence at all. Apparently I "enabled" men's rights activists for giving my good faith input at WP:RSN and WP:MEDRS. I guess no good deed goes unpunished. You might want to think about the possibility that you have become jaded after encountering too many sockpuppets and POV pushers in this area. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're losing it again. Perhaps it's time for a Flyer Reborn Reborn? Arkon (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignoring any other claims made about me in this Discussion, especially those by editors who have a history of pushing a certain POV at gender topics, a POV at odds with the general literature on those topics and therefore at odds with the WP:Due weight policy, I will repeat what I stated moments ago at Talk:Intimate partner violence: "Thank you [...]. That is what I was stating; it had absolutely nothing to do with being 'a very big personal fan of Michael Johnson.' There is nothing wrong with including the term intimate terrorism in the lead. There is nothing wrong with including 'this is generally perpetrated by men against women' with regard to the most controlling forms of intimate partner violence in the lead. I can't work with an editor who repeatedly acts like I am pushing some horrid POV by simply adhering to the WP:Due weight policy or some other Wikipedia policy or guideline. It irritates me to no end when an editor thinks that I or someone else is POV-pushing by simply following the WP:Neutral policy accurately. We have far too many editors at this site who do not understand that policy, which has been noted more than once at that policy's talk page; too many get tripped up on the word neutral when Wikipedia's definition of neutral is not at all the same as the definition of neutral in common discourse. I cannot work with an editor whose understanding of the literature is lacking and who does not seem to listen when told what the literature states, but instead goes on and on about some POV I or someone else is supposedly pushing, sometimes including poor sources to counter what I or that other person is stating. Working with an editor who is not as informed is fine, but not when that editor does not listen and repeatedly harps on an imaginary bias. If the literature is biased, we still go by the literature, as noted at WP:BIASED SOURCES." The issue with Charlotte135 is not simply a content dispute, and no one should have to put with the type of editing Charlotte135 engages in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Given Flyer's continuous focus on due weight, and noting the excellent points that Kingsindian made above, I thought I should paste exactly what I actually said on the topic of NPOV, and leave it at that. here it is Please note that I said: they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. Here is the full comment I made in black and white.
    "We are left with this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract. All secondary. All from reputable journals. They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. However they are far from fringe! In the second paragraph can we say something like most sources say that a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse. However some other sources (insert the three accepted reviews above) say....." and leave it at that as other editors have suggested? Sound reasonable?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)"[reply]
    How the heck is that POV pushing Flyer22reborn?Charlotte135 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Charlotte135: Let me give you a small tip. The purpose of this board is for the community to investigate the behaviour of the parties. Therefore, as Liz mentioned above, you should address the community, not Flyer22. Focus on rebutting the points Flyer22 made in the opening statement. I see your last statement is addressing one of the points Flyer22 made, which is good. But please don't bicker with Flyer22 here, nobody is interested in that. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Flyer22reborn's attacks on every editor that disagrees with them, or points something out, makes it hard not to respond. But, fair enough, point taken from my end, and thank you for pointing that out in a decent manner.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The issue at hand here isn't Flyer22reborn's edits, but Charlotte135's. The charge is that Charlotte135 is a contentious editor, and I think that Flyer22reborn and others have made a good case for it. Plus, I haven't seen any substantial defense by Charlotte135, just denials and attacks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Last comment here, as I really don't believe I have been disruptive and no one has presented any evidence, only accusations from Flyer22reborn. If you look at my actual edits on the domestic violence article they are good and I stand by them. Most have nothing to do with gender and I really do wonder why there is so much focus on gender to the detriment of all other aspects involved in domestic violence internationally. The edits I made recently to the intimate partner violence. Here they all are. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] added WHO definition And I simply replaced the sentence Flyer22reborn is talking about with the WHO definition and the standard types of intimate partner violence. I left the gender based stuff, that women experience more IPV, that Flyer22reborn's is concerned with, in the body of the article, untouched. Finally if someone like Kaldari wanted to revert any of these edits and briefly discuss why, I would respect that and certainly wouldn't edit war over it. I'm not sure what more I can sayCharlotte135 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the evidence? Anyone? Any evidence at all? How am I disruptive, based on my editing? Diffs? Any evidence at all? Isn't this just a content dispute? How have i evidenced being labelled a SPA? Evidence? Any diffs? Evidence please? Surely presenting some evidence would be straight forward?Charlotte135 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The rant above pretty much is what the editors at the articles in question have been dealing with all along. This editor is pretty much here to be disruptive as far as I can see. Montanabw(talk) 05:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone left a message on my talk page, though I have no idea why. May I suggest to Charlotte135 that they give it a rest? Let other people comment. You said "last comment" earlier; I suggest you follow your own advice. And you are still bickering with Flyer22. Keep calm and watch the thread unfold from a distance. Reply only if you are asked directly, and have something new to add. By the way, I don't see anything disruptive in the above "rant", just some boring rehashing of earlier remarks. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Sir Joseph

    I ask the admin to review the recent edit warring and misbehavior of Sir Joseph. He has displayed an extreme bias and major POV in recent edits. He has also engaged in edit warring on Hanukkah page and Menachem M. Schneerson, constantly removing properly sourced information with claims of original research. Further Sir Joseph has removed any record of my warning to him from his talk page. From taking a look at Sir Joseph's talk page, I noticed this is not the first time. TM (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I ask you to close this ASAP. As you can see from the MMM page, I commented in the RFC that the claim that the Rebbe had a hand in founding the US Department of Education needs evidence. No such evidence was provided. On the Hanuka page, this user is pushing a Chabad POV. If you query ARBCOM, this was done in the past, CHABAD is known for being POV warriors, whether intentionally or not, but saying a holiday celebrated for thousands of years is due to one Rabbi is certainly POV and should certainly not be in the lead, and should certainly not be pushed with a POV book.Finally, I can revert my talk page, after all, it's my talk page. I would ask the admins to ask this user to read up on Wikipolicy and to read up on what constitutes bias and POV. This is a waste of everyone's time. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you guys don't mind, would you please warn him for vandalizing my talk page? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph did not just comment as he says here, but rather, deleted properly sourced information both on Menachem M. Schneerson and Hanukkah. There were two sources on Menachem M. Schneerson supporting the information that Sir Joseph deleted. I suggested he take a look at them before deleting. I suggested he take a look at them before deleting. I have not yet put that information back since, unlike Sir Joseph, I do not want to engage in edit warring. Instead, I encourage the admin to review the talk page discussion there carefully. On Hanukkah as well, Sir Joseph has engaged in edit warring and deleted properly sourced information. In addition, the admin may want to have a look at User talk:Prepstarr25 who has inserted himself into Sir Joseph's edit warring and who it now seems Sir Joseph - after his subsequent comment on his talk page - is teaming up with. Fact are facts, even when we don't like them. TM (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told you yesterday, tell me which page in the book does it say that the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US DOE. You can't come in with the preposterous claim and then when I ask for evidence just say it's in the book. It's not. You are a POV pusher. I suggest you view the Chabad Arbcom case. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told you, book title, authors and pages numbers are all sourced. Have a look. Don't just delete. Also, your recent Hanukkah edit warring has proved once again that you will delete any information, even when properly sourced, that you don't like. TM (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not once did you mention a page number in the MMM article. I am still waiting. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually, facts brought here are backed up by specific diffs. Care to show them? From what I can see, for example, there is either no clear-cut edit warring on Hanukkah, or if two reverts count, then you reverted three times. LjL (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He also warned me for reverting my own talk page, accused me of being a sockpuppet or being involved with a sockpuppet, this is the general behavior of someone not realizing that you can't push your way to your POV. If the Rebbe helped found the US DOE, there should be evidence of that. Show it and I'll gladly accept it.Sir Joseph (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets not confuse the facts. There was properly sourced information on Menachem M. Schneerson. Sir Joseph removed it and stated its false backing up his claims with original research and totally disregarding two published sources. He continuously claims, falsely, that no page numbers are provided. As I have said before, take a look at the sources on the page and see for yourself. Now with regard to Hanukkah. There was information in the lede supported by several published sources, including books, news-articles and academic papers. Sir Joseph has just deleted it for no reason. If Sir Joseph has an issue, it should be raised on the talk pages, and credible counter sources should be provided. According to Wikipedia guidelines, one cannot just delete credibly sourced information, just because one does not like it. Initially after Sir Joseph deleted it, I added additional sources to strengthen the claim. But Sir Joseph deleted these as well. In this case Sir Joseph has exposed himself as not liking chabad and therefore deleting relevant information even though it has been properly sources in full accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I can not replace the information at this point since I do not want to engage in edit wars, but I do ask the Admin to please look carefully at the history, the talk pages and all the sources provided (both re the role of MMS in DOE and the publicity of Hanukkah) and make the fair and balanced derision. TM (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So? Which page number? You keep saying it's in the book, so which page number says the Rebbe had a hand in the founding of the US Department of Education? A claim like that would not be hard to find. If it were my book, it would be on the jacket, the TOC, the header, it would be on the ad copy. Please let me know what page number. Don't just say that you saw it and put it, you need to bring proof for this ludicrous claim.Sir Joseph (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the Chanukka article, you added sources after I reverted. In addition, even those new sources, are not sources that belong in a lead of an article. If you want to include something like that, it belongs in the body not in the lead, otherwise it is extreme POV pushing. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Sir Joseph, to me the claim you removed ("honoring his role in establishing the Department of Education as an independent cabinet-level department") seems to be backed by the given source, i.e.:
    Sue Fishkoff (22 April 2009). The Rebbe's Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-307-56614-0. by the late 1970s he was pushinig the Rebbe's first Washington campaign-the creation of a department of education, separate from the existing Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
    Firstly, that source just says he campaigned for that, not that he had a hand in the founding of the DOE, as is claimed. Secondly, the book is not a RS. It is biased to the Chabad POV. He is claiming, not that the Rebbe was campaigning or wanting a DOE but that he had a hand in the founding of the DOE, that would result in lots more than a mention in a Chabad biography. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Continue reading the book and you will see that it speaks of Congress honor to him for his role in it's establishment. But seriously, now that you have been proven that it is published your claiming that the book is bias?? TM (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bias does not mean bad, but a book like that can't be used to push a pro-Chabad POV since it's a pro-Chabad bias book. Like I said a million times, if you are asserting that the rebbe had a hand in the founding of the DOE, that would be in a dozen newspapers and Congressional Records. You said the book says the book says Congress honors him, so that would be in the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record would be a WP:RS. And again, you keep mentioning, keep reading, but you don't mention pages, you need to specify where your proof is. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can not engage in original research to disprove what is written in two separate books. Fishkoff page 191-2. Telushkin page 161. Yo are now also making a sweeping claim Fishkoff is a pro-Chabad bias book. What next? TM (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, The Rebbe's Army is a pro-Chabad book, and I did a keyword search and found no mention of the rebbe helping to found the US DOE. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to sum up: first you claim it didn't happen, then you claim it's not documented, then you claim its not in the book, then you claim the page does not exists, then you claim that the book is not a valid source. Between this and your edits on the Hanukkah page, you have exposed yourself as having an agenda. I ask the admin to review this carefully. TM (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, this board doesn't really care about the content dispute, and you have WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of the sources. However, you claimed that the page number relevant to the claim was not given, but I think I showed it was given. So let's stay focused. I haven't even seen a single diff in this discussion being given as evidence for anything yet (except below, where a different dispute was apparently merged together with this one). LjL (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So can we 1) close this and 2) comment on the below users conduct? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not yet look at Sir Joseph's (SJ's) edits on Hanukkah and Menachem M. Schneerson or any other articles (except Israel), thus I cannot comment on his behavior there.

    SJ appears to have recently edit warred on Israel. SJ, together with user: WarKosign, appears to have edit-warred against four different editors. Nishidani added content to improve the adherence to WP:V and WP:RS. SJ almost instantly reverted Nishidani, restoring content that violates V & RS. Zero000 reverted SJ's edit. WarKosign reverted back to the version violating V & RS. Johnmcintyre1959 reverted WarKosign, and WarKosign reverted back again. I reverted WarKosign's edit, and SJ reverted back again to the version violating V & RS.

    I explained all of the above to SJ on his user talk page. Furthermore, I also explained to SJ on his user talk page that 'stability' of content is a relatively weak requirement and is not a valid reason to retain content that violates the infinitely stronger requirement to adhere to core WP content policies. I also wrote that 'stability' is not a valid reason to edit war (nothing is) - and in fact SJ's (and WarKosign's) repeated reverts are exactly what caused the content of Israel to be unstable.

    SJ's best response would have been to take full responsibility for his behavior, acknowledge he has edit-warred, reassure the community he will not edit war again, and reassure fellow editors he understands 'stability' is not a valid reason to violate core policies. Instead, SJ appears to have wikilawyered, which is one of the worst ways he could have possibly responded, because it implies that SJ seems to be highly likely to repeat his disruptive behavior. IjonTichy (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If, as you say you have no idea what you're doing here, why are you commenting? Can you stop stalking me? Reverting something is not edit warring. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SJ's last comment is further evidence he refuses to take the ample opportunities provided to him here, and on his talk page, to reassure the community he intends to play by WP's rules. Instead he used these opportunities to continue to display his BATTLEGROUND approach. -- IjonTichy (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the person who posted a comment on WP:AN that has nothing to do with the WP:AN. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @IjonTichyIjonTichy: One revert on 30 November, and one on 2 December... you call that edit warring? LjL (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, edit warring can take place even without violating the 1RR restriction. On WP it is very important to follow the letter of the PAG, but it is even more important to abide by their spirit. IjonTichy (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can comment only on one case, Israel. There Sir Joseph followed WP:BRD and reverted an edit that he disagreed with, restoring a long-standing stable version. Several editors including IjonTichyIjonTichy attempted forcing the new version. Eventually edit warring stopped and we began discussing on the talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy did not contribute to the discussion, while Sir Joseph did. It seems that a new consensus has been reached, and it agrees with edit in question, but it was still wrong for IjonTichyIjonTichy to push it against existing consensus instead of discussing. In this it's clear that IjonTichyIjonTichy's behavior was more disruptive than Sir Joseph's. “WarKosign” 19:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it can, but two reverts in the span of 3 days, with talk page discussion, is quite obviously not edit warring. LjL (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obviously edit warring, because it is not only two reverts, it's SJ and WarKosign together reverting four editors on the same content (content that obviously violated V and RS). And by the way it's not 3 days, it's only two days (about 3 hours longer than 2 days). IjonTichy (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then under the same token, the other four editors are edit warring too (especially those who did not take part in any talk page discussion). Perhaps the page should be full-protected. LjL (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks a whole lot more like a content dispute than anything else. Take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Ani is not for content disputes. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only a content dispute. Both Sir Joseph and WarKosign clearly edit warred with Nishidani,   Johnmcintyre1959,   Zero0000 and myself, to force a version of Israel that violated V and RS. Moreover, they refuse to take responsibility for their disruptive behavior, and they continue to refuse to acknowledge that 'stability,' which they used as their edit summaries, is a weak requirement that does not justify violating the massively more important core requirements of V and RS. (In fact WarKosign just used the lame 'stability' excuse again above.) Additionally, they seem to conveniently believe that their participating in a talk page discussion gives them permission to edit war with editors who also participate in the discussion as well as to edit war with editors who have not participated in the article talk page discussion. So both Sir Joseph and WarKosign also appear to be clueless.
    Instead of reassuring the community they will abide by the PAG in the future, Sir Joseph and WarKosign are engaging in ad-hominem attacks (both of them have now accused me of disruptive behavior after I made only a single edit to the article to revert their repeated violation of V & RS), they display battleground behavior and are Wikilawyering. Instead of sending a signal to the community that they will stop disrupting the project, it appears they are sending a strong signal that it is highly likely they will continue to behave disruptively. IjonTichy (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence or lack there of shows a content dispute. Two diffs that show Sir Joseph reverting don't really show anything and they don't hold up your narrative.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not understand your vendetta or stalking against me, it is seriously troubling. Please stop. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SJ and WarKosign appear to be playing the role of innocent victims who have done nothing wrong, despite the ample evidence presented above (including SJ's and WK's own endless wikilawyering). They carelessly, thoughtlessly throw around words like 'consensus,' and empty accusations like 'stalking' and 'vendetta' without appearing to really understand what these words mean on WP and when and where these are, or are not, appropriate to use on WP. (For example WarKosign appears to be saying above that if his views are clearly in the minority then obviously the consensus is in his favor and this gives him the right to edit war.) SJ and WK are either grossly underestimating the intelligence of the community, and/or SJ and WK truly believe they are entirely blameless.
    It increasingly seems like a bad idea for the community to allow SJ and WK to continue to edit in a highly complex, difficult, highly contentious area such as the Palestine-Israel-Arab (PIA) area, as the likelihood of their continuing to disrupt the project is very high. For example, editors may like to take a look at SJ's massive wasting of the community's time in his stubborn pursuit of his petty, ridiculous vendetta against Nableezy. -- IjonTichy (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you paranoid? I haven't edited the Israel article in over a week, which is when you put a notice on my talk page, so you're the one stalking me. I don't think I've seen WarKosign since that one time, that I used the TALK PAGE. You are seriously bordering on the criminally stalking and I am asking you to stop. And I am asking an admin to please look into this and take action against this user, this stalking is unacceptable. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Hanukkah protected 3 days. Issues related to Palestine-Israel arbitration should use arbitration enforcement instead. --slakr\ talk / 02:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AE deals with content about ARBCOM, not general content and stalking issues, as far as I'm concerned. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad; reverted the {{resolved}}, in case more discussion is needed for the issue of harassment. --slakr\ talk / 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph continues to play the role of a victim. He continues to wikilawyer, including but not limited to his ridiculous, nonsensical, vacuous accusation of 'stalking.' He has called for the community to waste their time to look into his various fatuous, empty accusations against TzviMichelsohn, Nableezy, and myself, to distract the community from Sir Joseph's disruptive editing, wikilawyering, and ad-hominem attacks. Again and again, SJ seems to grossly underestimate the intelligence of the community. Or perhaps SJ truly believes he is being victimized by anyone who points out his crimes and misdemeanors on WP, a behavior which is probably even more worrisome than if SJ was only playing the victim. Either way, SJ has not yet given a single assurance to the community he intends to stop disrupting the project, so it is extremely likely that this noticeboard, as well as other noticeboards, will have to deal again with his disruptive behavior in the not-too-distant future. IjonTichy (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You've provided two diffs that show two reversions on their part. Before we try get assurances from someone that a problem is resolved it's best that we can verify a problem actually exists. Crimes and misdemeanors? That sounds like a little bit of wikilawyering to me. Alot of what I just read did. You've got a narrative and maybe we can get James Earl Jones to voice it in Wikipedia the movie. If this is however not creative fiction, (in the voice of Clara Peller) Where's the diffs?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've provided four diffs in total, that show SJ reverting two different editors, and WK reverting two different editors, i.e SJ and WK edit warring against four different editors. Each time SJ and WK reverted, they restored the article to the version containing a violation of V & RS. As I said above we don't only count reverts - following the letter of the PAG while violating the spirit of policies is a form of gaming the system and is disruptive. (SJ and WK also used the misleading edit summary of 'stability' while they were repeatedly violating the stability of the article - they were not concerned with stability but rather with removing content that they just did not like.) The article is 1RR restricted in order to discourage precisely the type of edit warring (and wikilawyering, ad-hominem attacks and other wasting of editors' time) undertaken by SJ & WK.
    IjonTichy (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:1RR restrictions were not broken, not even close (two reverts in the span of "more than two days" is a far cry from two in 24 hours), so they don't play a role. This board doesn't look at content disputes, but if "stability" might not be a great term, preserving the status quo on the article while a discussion is (or should be) taking place on the talk page is the accepted method. I suggest you drop the stick on this editor, who doesn't appear to have broken any rules. LjL (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not playing a role, perhaps you are? I'm not looking at a content dispute either, but a behavior problem. 'Stability' is not "not a great term," it is an extremely weak reasoning to revert four different editors who are trying to improve adherence to the infinitely stronger reasoning of adhering to WP policies. SJ and WK clearly violated the spirit/intention of WP PAG.

    17:42, 30 November 2015‎ Nishidani added content to improve the adherence to V and RS.

    Six minutes later, on 17:48, 30 November 2015‎ Sir Joseph reverts Nishidani, restoring the version violating V & RS.

    Seven hours later, on 00:46, 1 December 2015‎ Zero0000 reverts back to the version improving V & RS.

    Seven hours later, 07:27, 1 December 2015‎ WarKosign reverts to the version violating V & RS.

    One-and-a-half hours later, on 19:02, 1 December 2015‎ Johnmcintyre1959 reverts to the version improving V & RS.

    Thirteen hours later, on 07:59, 2 December 2015‎ WarKosign reverts to version violating V & RS.

    Twelve hours later, on 19:53, 2 December 2015‎ IjonTichyIjonTichy reverts to the version improving V & RS.

    Fourty minutes later, 20:34, 2 December 2015‎ Sir Joseph reverts back to the version violating V & RS.

    IjonTichy (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    And yet you didn't report me to WP:AE at that point in time? Why is that? Two, it's your interpretation that those edits are adherence and restoring and violation of V & RS. You're really grasping at straws here considering it's 12/15 and you're WP:ATTACK and bound for a WP:BOOMERANG. By you not reporting me to AE, you were being complicit in my egregious and horrible violations. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Perhaps I am" playing a role? Please do explain your allegation. (I said that the 1RR restrictions don't play a role, myself, not that you don't play a role, obviously, in case that's what you somehow read.) LjL (talk)
    Apologies, I read your comment far too quickly, i mistakenly believed you were saying I'm playing some sort of role here (i.e that I'm pretending to say one thing when I mean to say another thing or something like that).
    SJ and WK clearly, un-ambiguously were gaming the system while edit warring in violation of the intention, if not the letter, of the PAG.IjonTichy (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dodgyness

    Is something underhanded going on here? What begins life as a good, legitimate redirect is hijacked and moved elsewhere promotional SPA, Zestmind (talk · contribs). Current subject is Barbara Khozam, previously named Barbara Nyland. There is no sign of any connection to the name Barbara Rhodes. It's that unconnected name that was hijacked. Is this a bad faithed attempt to avoid new page patrol as is being seen lately? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Duffbeerforme: If it is then it will fail: when a redirect is converted into an article, it is added to the New Pages feed as an unpatrolled page, in the same way as a new page. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption at Ivo Andrić

    At the article Ivo Andrić and Talk:Ivo Andrić, 72.66.12.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) along with 65.220.39.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 178.221.37.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (apparently the same user) performs a sustained campaign of disruption, concerning the writer's ethnicity (what else?). First they opened a malformed RFC (at Talk:Ivo Andrić#Name, Family asking for editors to comment that Andrić was not born in a Croat family, appealing to sources that they never cite. They continue to troll the article's talk page, my talk page, and 23 editor's talk page.

    72.66.12.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been warned about WP:ARBMAC by Joy back in November. On Serbian Wikipedia, sr:Korisnik:72.66.12.17 aka sr:Korisnik:Djura aka sr:Korisnik:Milos zankov was indefblocked for the same kind of POV-pushing and disruption . I don't have doubts it is the same person. They were brought into connection with Asdisis, banned long-term vandal at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis/Archive, with a similar modus operandi, but the link was not proven without doubt (and it is hardly relevant, because they are disruptive in themselves). No such user (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, look, there's only warring of some sort in the user contributions. And Curzio Malaparte, and Miroslav Filipović and Tesla and List of Croats... Is this yet another in an endless line of sockpuppets of User:Velebit?
    Any uninvolved admin has my full blessing to engage in blocking, because the assumption of good faith is well spent. If I were to do the block, I would undoubtedly run the risk of WP:INVOLVED allegations. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But, history comes to the rescue. User:Milos zankov is an already indefinitely blocked sock puppet of User:Michelle Ridomi.
    If nobody offers new exculpatory evidence RSN, I will extend the block to this IP based on an assumption that the admins at the Serbian Wikipedia were correct in correlating all these accounts already. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy: Another sock of sr:Korisnik:Djura is sr:Корисник:Purger~srwiki. On English wiki, Purger (talk · contribs) is tagged as sock of Velebit (talk · contribs). I'm only vaguely familiar with Velebit's MO. Now, it's all circumstantial, but I'm positive that 72.66.12.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Djura, judging on same "it's only in printed references" stunt at sr:Разговор:Анте Старчевић/Архива 2#Све из почетка. The two IPs in my report geolocate to Washington DC metro area -- does that ring any bell? I'm now pretty convinced it's Velebit, judging on the common Purger link. No such user (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanjagenije: have you encountered this one before? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, stop this farce! I see the pattern of this administrator -Joy [shallot] (talk) who created the scapegoat called Velebit in order to propagate Croatian POV in Wikipedia. Pay attention to a few notes from
      • There is no evidence of sock puppetry, try dispute resolution. A request for comment may be the most suitable option as the main problem identified is civility and not avoidance of scrutiny. Peter E. James (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what action you would like us to take here. The account appears to have been abandoned. The first two IPs have not been used in some time. The other IPs don't appear to overlap in editing dates. So, while this may in fact be the same person, they simply appear to be editing while logged out, which is permitted. TNXMan 15:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I am at a complete loss for this one: The IPs are obviously not connected (and one hasn't edited since April), the Aries no Mur account hasn't edited since 2013 (and it's completely unclear why anyone would think it is connected to the IPs), and this particular SPI file seems to be a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. Also, please refrain from tagging IP pages; in 2014, IP addresses are so rarely dedicated (they tend to be reassigned regularly) so the next person who gets assigned that IP address is going to be treated like a sockpuppet instead of a potential new editor. Declining CU because there's really nothing to check. Risker (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
      • My comment: It is a high time to stop this farce of administering the scapegoat Velebit - a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. Moreover the 'history expert' Joy [shallot] (talk) is a college dropout. The No such user (talk) is just a Joy [shallot] (talk) proxy a team mate which can be easily figured out by the blocks coming from the same admin.--65.220.39.97 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To start with, I semi-protected the article for a week. Concerning Croatian origin, any body wants to take the Tito-era edition of Andric and see what would be written in the preface? It would be a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a RfC open. Go there if you want to discuss issues with this article.--65.220.39.97 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fringe Material, canvassing & admin abuse of process

    On 20 October Insider introduced the claim that the ARA Libertad (Q-2) is featured on Russian Currency [39]. The source [40] (Translation: [41]) does not back up this claim.

    Кстати, именно пользователи Рунета разрыли и еще одну нестыковку на “полотне” достоинством в 500 целковых. По их версии, стоящий на приколе около Архангельского морского вокзала парусник никогда и близко не приближался к России. И уж тем более к Архангельску. Посчитав количество мачт и местоположение рубки, парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад”. В изображении иностранного корабля на российской банкноте начали выискивать едва ли не намек на экономические “сношения” двух стран.

    — Не нужно искать тайного смысла там, где его нет, — говорит Игорь Крылков. — На фотографии, с которой я срисовывал порт, стоял современный пароход. Но в последний момент в Центробанке сказали, что с общей идеей банкноты пароход не стыкуется. Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал. Откуда мне было знать, что в Архангельск он не заходил?

    В желании найти тайный знак или как минимум ляп на “картинах” Крылкова народ доходил до смешного. Так, изображенной на 50-рублевой банкноте “даме” приписали портретное сходство с зампредом ЦБ Татьяной Парамоновой.
    By the way, the Russian Internet users break and another inconsistency in the "canvas" in denominations of 500 rubles. According to them, standing on a moored near Arkhangelsk Sea Commercial Port sailboat never comes close to Russia. And even more so to Arkhangelsk. Considering the number of masts and location of the cabin, was identified as an Argentine sailing ship "Libertad". In the image of a foreign ship on the Russian bill began to seek out almost a hint of economic "relations" between the two countries.

    - No need to look for hidden meaning where there is none, - says Igor Krylkov. - The photograph, which I was drawing the port was a modern ship. But at the last moment in the Central Bank said that the general idea of ​​the steamer does not fit the bill. I immediately found a photo with the sailboat and redraw. How could I know that in Arkhangelsk, he did not come?

    The desire to find a secret sign or at least gaffe on "pictures" Krylkova people reached ridiculous. For example, shown in 50-ruble banknote "lady" was credited with a portrait likeness with deputy chairman Tatiana Paramonova.

    The source doesn't state it is this ship merely that this claim is based on Internet rumours of secret signs and gaffes that the original author dismisses as ridiculous. Noting this to be unreliably sourced and WP:FRINGE material I removed it. Insider has insisted it is included, partially quoting the source out of context. I have attempted to engage on the talk page but the discussion seems to be going round in circles, with semantic arguments eg [42] that we must use exactly what the source says. I also took this to WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 200#Ship on a banknote), the discussion there went nowhere instead he resorted to trying to analyse photographs to prove the point.

    After tagging the material for WP:FRINGE and waiting a week for better sourcing I removed it today. Insider has immediately reverted [43] and canvassed on the talk page for other users (apparently admins) to come to his aid [44]. In a breach of WP:TPG the comments are in Russian.

    Alex Bakharev, Ezhiki, Ymblanter, прошу вас как администраторов английской Википедии, и знающих русский язык, как родной, прокомментировать эту тему. Чьё понимание текста интервью корректное? А то 7 дней, никаких комментариев со стороны оппонента, только продолжение удаления текста.
    Alex Bakharev, Ezhiki, Ymblanter, I beg you as administrators of the English Wikipedia, and speak Russian as a mother, to comment on the subject. Whose understanding of the text of the interview correct? And then 7 days, no comments from the opponent, only to continue the removal of text.

    He hasn't even tried to engage properly in talk. In response to another user agreeing with me and removing the material Insider continues to claim the author confirmed the story and it isn't just Internet rumour [45].

    Ymblanter has responded to that call, reverting [46],[47] and threatening to block me on my talk page [48]. His allegation that I had reverted 3 times today is untrue, I reverted once and had given no indication that I intended to do so again. Point of fact, I didn't, I immediately went to the talk page. That intervention appears to me to be an abuse of admin privilege. He is now threatening users who disagree on the talk page [49]. Fringe material such as Internet rumour and conjecture is not suitable content for wikipedia, its sad that an admin would intervene to force its incorporation into this article. WCMemail 17:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, WCM was edit-warring in Arkhangelsk, had to shut up at the talk page since consensus was clearly against him, and now tokk their problems to another article. The editing history is just their, everybody can check whether they have any understanding of Wikipedia policies concerning edit warring. Note that Insider and I are native Russian speakers.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And obvioously I was not going to block WCM myself, just to take them to 3RRN, where they would blocked by another admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that they did not notify me about this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say that this discussion troubles me. In particular "I will first get you blocked, and then see whether I need to revert" goes deeply against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's neither cordial nor likely to improve the encyclopaedia, but rather high-handed, and arguably baiting ("come on, try me! I'll get you blocked! See if I don't"). The whole debate seems to deeply out of proportion to the obscure question to begin with - even if the ship is on the bank note (rather unlikely) and if this were reliably sourced (as far as I can tell, it's not), it would still be debatable if this is relevant for the article - it might or might not be useful, but it's a marginal improvement, if any. This should certainly not lead to threats and warnings. Let me also point out that neither of you seem to be able to count reverts. Curry, you have two reverts - per "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors". The first removal counts. Ymblanter, Curry has two reverts (btw, exactly as many as you now have), but WP:3RR forbids "more than three reverts". "More than three" is four or more, although, of course, multiple reverts are rarely a good idea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed, reverting and keeping it to exactly 3RR to avoid blocking is usually considered to be disruptive. Concerning the discussion on my talk page, this was certainly not the best of my edits today, I overreacted when the user instead of stopping reverting and discussing the issue beyond the "fringe theory" mantra decided to explain to me that they can revert as long as they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Totally agree with Stephan. Ymblanter's behavior has been highly inappropriate. I was borderline about the abusiveness until reading Ymblanter's comment here. Why? Because the baiting and aggressive behavior that Stephan points out is actually being continued in this AN/I report: aggressive ("had to shut up"), threatening ("where they would blocked by another admin"), and even outright childish ("they did not notify me about this thread"). This is unacceptable.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing childish about wanting to be notified of this thread. It is both a reasonable expectation and a requirement. HighInBC 18:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought what was unacceptable was not notifying people of discussions about them here. It says so right at the top of this page. LjL (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if a nominator does not notify a person about an AN/I discussion, there is always another user who either points it out to the nominator or performs the notification themselves. It's childish to attempt to use the lack of notification as evidence of misbehavior. It's all the more childish that an administrator complains about not being notified of a discussion in the administrator's noticeboard. Moreover, instead of apologizing or (at least) disengaging, the admin makes a comment about "disappearing" from English WP ([50]), twice ([51]). Is there not a maturity check in the admin process?--MarshalN20 Talk 18:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think anything else is required of me in this thread, but I was expecting someone to react on the appropriateness of the maturity comment. Nobody did. Fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Ymblanter's claim I did not notify him of this thread, [52] I notified him well in advance of my intention to resort to ANI. Close on 10 hrs in advance and I had the courtesy to ping him to let him know I filed it. WCMemail 02:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Uninvolved ANI drama watcherTo be frank Ymblanter may have been a teeny tiny bit high handed here, but then again I personally think you should give admins a wide, wide berth seeing all the hassle they have to go through on a daily basis, therefore, Ymblanter should not be blamed. However continuing with the same degree of frankness I can say that the edit war is so, so childish. If you are not a native speaker, just let the native speakers do their bit. If machine translation was as good as it seems we wont need a Russian wikipedia, just click russian on any article and the machine translates it for you. Seeing that such shenanigans are not going on we should just let the experts do their stuff, you don't see me barging into turkish wiki with a bunch of machine translated material in my hand demanding that they accept the "new facts" that I have "uncovered". Good drama anyway, proves that ANI is on par with any soap opera on the Tv. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the English wikipedia so your analogy is utterly irrelevant. I'm not trying to create content either. The fact is the source doesn't back up the claim made, Insider has canvassed to get his mates to strong arm his edit into the article. Ymblanter has abused his admin privileges to intimidate other editors. This is fringe material at best and it's ridiculous the lengths they ate going to force this into the article. And for your information another Russian speaker confirmed that the source doesn't support claim made. WCMemail 11:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I never abused my admin privileges, since I never take any admin action in relation to this article, nor ever promised to take any. It is unfortunate you are repeating all this bullshit all over again. Concerning the Russian text, I read it, and the claim is backed up there. Since I am a Russian speaker and you are not, I do not see how your opinion on the text you can not possibly understand can be of any value.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody around interested in warning WSM that personal attacks are unwelcome on Wikipedia [53]?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are being to thin-skinned in this conflict. Try to de-escalate, not escalate. I've left a corresponding message here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Well, I got more shit thrown on me in these two days than in the rest of the year together.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting ridiculous, arguing from authority that because I'm not a native Russian speaker I can't comment. Well [54], Ezhiki has already commented that the source doesn't back this claim and they are a native Russian speaker. You also claimed that at Talk:Arkhangelsk#500 Ruble Note I was forced to shut up at the talk page, bullshit, I had a perfectly amicable discussion and from the outset was prepared to compromise. I also did not edit war on that article, nor have I edit warred at this article or even come close to 3 reverts. I never gave you any indication that I had any intention to revert again and indicated I would use the talk page [55]. Yet you're still bandying around accustions of edit warring, which is of itself an unwarranted personal attack. This [56] is a direct threat to block me on the basis of a blatantly false accusation of 3 reverts. So here we have an admin abusing their admin priveliges to force dubious material into an article, asserting that no one else is permitted to comment, threatening to block on the basis of a false allegation and continuing to fling mud at an editor with gay abandon to cover up the fact they were acting in a completely inappropriate manner. Stop the personal attacks via false allegations and stop misrepresenting what the source says. WCMemail 13:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, stopping these false accusations would be a very good start to de-escalate the conflict. WCMemail 13:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In the diff you mentioned Ezhiki said that the MK diff is insufficient to support the claim, not that the MK article says it is wrong. This is exactly the same thing I myself written on the Libertad talk page before the shitstorm started. This is a weak claim (since it is only one article, and it only sites the artist, and the artist himself kind of confirms but does not expand much), but nevertheless it is a valid claim, and the discussion on the talk page should be about whether this statement supported by this valid claim should be in the article and if it should then what wording should be used, not about that I am a liar, that I abuse my admin privileges or that the claim is made up.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, I still fail to see how edit-warring in an article can be an entirely appropriate reaction. This is not, and indeed we have a policy on edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you stop making false accusations of edit warring, they're unwarranted and completely inappropriate. Again your threat to block [57] was an abuse of admin privelige. And we've gone from the "source validates the claim, respect my authority" to the source "kind of confirms"; "kind of" is not good enough. Removal of unsourced or inadequately sourced material is directed by WP:V "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I have repeatedly asked for a reliable source and waited patiently for one to be provided, ignoring a series of personal attacks from yourself and Insider. Yet all along your response has been to claim the source is adequate, demanding we respect your superior language skills, yet plainly by your own admission now the source isn't up to it as I've said all along. WCMemail 13:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid I need to stop at this point. You are obviously unable or unwilling to understand what I write.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be sure that we are all on the same page (especially the two of you ;-): I've seen two quite different claims. (a): The ship on the banknote is ARA Libertad (Q-2) (a statement about the banknote(s)). and (b): There are internet rumours according to which the ship on the banknote is ARA Libertad (Q-2) (a claim about the existence of these rumours). Can you make clear which source you think does or does not support which of the two different claims? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only one source I know of, this is the MK article. It says that (a) there were interet rumours it is Libertad; (b) the artist confirmed that it is indeed Libertad, since he was just has taken a nice ship from a photo, not knowing the ship has never been to Arkhangelsk. To be precise, the artist does not say "Libertad" in the two sentences which are quoted, he says "this ship", but the context of the article makes it clear it is Libertad (or at least unless the quote is misplaced). Furthermore, this is a reliable source, however, (i) there is only one source saying it is Libertad, one other RS (the Central Bank of Russia) just calling it "ship", and a number of sources, none of which is reliable, saying this is Sedov; (ii) MK is a tabloid, and does not have the same credibility as academic sources; (iii) it is up to discussion whether this info, even though backed by a RS, needs to be in the article at all, and if it is, where and how it should be presented. I do not have strong opinions on (iii); in Arkhangelsk, the implemented solution (not calling the ship Sedov and not calling it Libertad) is perfectly fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Again this is misrepresenting the source, the artist doesn't confirm it is the Libertad. Based on the vague reply by the artist they are inferring he does but he does not explicitly. He then goes on to rubbish the idea of secret signs or gaffes. The source doesn't support the claim to an acceptable standard for wikipedia. Ymblanter admits as much above with his kind of remarks above. The only thing the source is good for is asserting there are Internet rumours and we don't as a rule include fringe material of this nature in articles. WCMemail 16:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to reply to this, but whatever I do now would cause another shitstorm. I would rather shut up and see what others have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wee Curry Monster, yes, the artist does basically confirm it is the Libertad. It was put on the 500 ruble note in the 1990s in artwork that featured the port of Arkhangelsk. MK says the ship has been identified as the Libertad and people wonder if its appearance on there stems from some economic goodwill between the two countries. The artist said there is no hidden meaning to be read, and what really happened was that he was originally using a steamer in his draft but the Central Bank disliked that idea, so he substituted a sailing ship instead. He says he drew the ship based on a photograph and says he had no idea it was a vessel that had never been to Arkhangelsk. Considering this must be the biggest gaffe of his career, he seems to be the most reliable source possible on how this all happened. If it had not been the Libertad, the artist would have responded much differently, for example, saying it was not the Libertad after all or was based on the Sedov or some other ship. He most certainly would not have referred to it as a "ship that had never been to Arkhangelsk" if there was any doubt that it could have been. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a ridiculously long discussion about something that is not clear and on which Wikipedia must not make a conclusion. I'm surprised that Ymblanter claiming to be a native speaker can't help us here. That said, while my Russian, once fairly fluent, these days is a little rusty , I read Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал the same as the Google translation: I immediately found a photo with the sailboat and redraw, and therein lies the ambiguity: Крылкова does not state that 'the' photo is one of the Libertad. Our Wikpedia must report what might be according to sources, the 3r (if there was one) is stale already so let's now pour some oil on these waters and let the ship sail away in peace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The important detail is in the following line where he says, "How could I have known it (the ship in the photo) hadn't been to Arkhangelsk?" This is clear in context that he is discussing the Libertad, which has never been to Arkhangelsk. Any other ship could potentially have been to Arkhangelsk. The Libertad on the other hand has been ruled out as having ever been there. This is WP:IAR common sense here. At best it's "citation needed" but this certainly does NOT fall under WP:FRINGE. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I added additional sources. This info has been published by currency museums in Moscow and the Crimea, and by a Saint Petersburg collectibles journal that has been around 20 years[58]. This is just not WP:FRINGE. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Wikimandia for adding additional sources, I first looked for additional sources myself unsuccessfully before I tagged the material. I'm afraid that I agree with Kudpung that the MK source is neither reliable enough or explicit to make the conclusion originally made. WCMemail 11:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive, edit warring editor

    Damianmx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Has little more than 100 edits on Wikipedia, virtually sole purpose (apart from a few edits) being to edit war,[59]-[60]-[61]-[62]-[63]-[64]-[65], ignoring the voice of the majority,[66] removing content wherever he can,[67]-[68]- and making further disruptive edits conform his agenda. Just as of some seconds ago, additionally, I reverted a blatantly disruptive edit by an IP, after which User Damianmx instantly hopped in and reverted my edit loaded with a WP:BATTLEGROUND summary, accusing me of "pov-pushing" even though the article clearly states its part of the definition, and the IP his edit was clearly disruptive.

    The user is clearly not here to built this encyclopedia conform the expected standards. Though me and User:Jaqeli have warned him on numerous occassions to cease his activities, and left him a warning on his page as well,[69] he simply does not listen and continues to edit war and make disruptive edits.

    I also don't believe he's a new user either, for someone with little more than 100 edits having such a stance and behavioural editorial pattern, which includes the copy-pasting of material from peoples' user pages/contributions list (content from prior to his registration here, which is a mere 5 days ago), in order to fuel his arguments. The only useful action appropriate here, as he ignores litteraly everything and continues to be a disruptive nuisance to the community and Wikipedia's content, is moderator intervention.

    Edit; Literally, as of some seconds ago he reverted another user again who reverted his disruptive edits, conform his WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:WAR standards. [70] - LouisAragon (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I just noticed, he violated WP:3RR as well. [71]-[72]-[73]-[74]. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin comment:I have notified the editor whom you are reporting about. Please note that it is necessary to notify the editor whom you are reporting. Thanks Ayub407talk 17:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is evident from Louis's edit history and multiple talk-page entries that his work on wikipedia is narrowly focused on promoting Iran/Persia by arbitrarily inserting items related to this topic into various articles. Recent examples of this manic behavior: [75] [76] [77] Louis' Iran/Persia promotion is often done at the expense of article readability and creation of multiple run-on sentences that are bloated with WP:UNDUE Persia information. Here's a prime example of a Persia-bloated run-on sentence favored by Louis:

    To ensure its survival as a Christian kingdom being threatened for centuries by their Safavid, Afsharid, and Qajar Iranian suzerains, the eastern-Georgian kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti, being the most dominant Georgian power at that time, led by Heraclius II found itself able to abjure any dependence on Persia or any other power by signing the Treaty of Georgievsk in 1783...

    None of the Persia-focused narrative was discussed either by Louis or user Jaqeli prior to when they were originally inserted. These items are promotional in nature and unwarranted in articles of limited scope, particularly as there are separate history pages specifically dedicated to these topics. When I provided my reasoning regarding above edits with Louis and user Jaqeli, they failed to furnish reasonable explanations for the current text and limited their responses to condescending remarks about me being an unestablished user. This is not surprising considering that Louis has a history of personal attacks, about which he has been warned. Having two like-minded users (Louis and Jaqeli) bullying one editor (Me) does not establish a consensus, particularly as they are unwilling to provide clear reasoning beyond "I just don't like it", "You're a POV-pusher", "You're an inexperienced user and you should just stop"--Damianmx (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Its interesting why a user who's blatantly and visibly edit warring, ignoring the voice of the majority/the discussion on a talk page, as well as disruptively editing (as well as violating 3RR; see above) is distorting visible facts here once again. Its not in your profit, believe me. Me and Jaqeli extensively and appropriately explained on the talk page of the Georgians article for why that content should remain. Everyone can read it back. You however ignored all that, and simply continued your habit of edit-warring, which resulted even in a blatant 3RR violation as of today. For a "new user" who registed not more than 5 days ago to have that much violating/unjustified editorial experience and habits on his/her curriculum, as well as a very intriguing knowledge about numerous WP's, it only justifies our doubts (supported by the extensive evidence) that you're clearly not here with an honest and legit reason to edit. For that much being a disruption to Wikipedia's integrity, community, and content. This user claims to be "new here", but already copy-pastes content from other people's talk page from events that took place prior to his registration on Wiki, in a futile attempt to boost his dishonest arguments. Very, very intriguing. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, regarding the diffs Damianmx gave in order to distort reality (even though I'm absolutely not obliged giving responses to that, as its from a happening prior to his registration on Wiki and already dealt with), and an attempt to switch the channel from his eminemt violations (incl. 3RR, etc etc.);
    - I dropped 8 top sources written by numerous historians right after this edit. (Of course he wont link that diff here.)
    - This edit was a reversion of pretty clear disruption which had included the blanketing of content that was not included in his/her edit summary, the removal of core categories, nor did it include any counter-sourcing.
    - And regarding the last attempt; All of Eastern Armenia (which includes Yerevan) was under the Persian sway until 1722,(Armenian historian George Bournoutian, Eastern Armenia in the last decades of Persian rule, 1807-1828, Undena Publications, 1982, ISBN 978-0890031230, page 8]). The guy in question in the article, was born in 1710, in Yerevan,(The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the eighteenth century to modern times. Vol. 3, Wayne State University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0814332214 page 49) which is thus during the Persian rule, and thus, the category, (Category:Persian Armenians) was completely justified. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the report! This user has been variously informed and warned on his damaging performances, but there have been no betterments. He has also violated the three-revert rule today.
    –Rye-96 (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rye-96, it is very sweet of you to vouch for Louis but, unfortunately, as a fellow Iran/Persia promoter, who has been subject to multiple controversies and edit wars, you are not in a position to pass judgement on the quality my performance or to provide unbiased opinion in this matter. Did Louis call on you to write this comment? If so, it would not be surprising, considering that he was encouraging other users to come to this board, all the while he did not even bother to inform me, as he is required. That says something doesn't it? --Damianmx (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That "other user" (Jaqeli) whom you erraneously label, is unfortunately involved in your mess as well. I simply left him a note to comment here as he surely has something to say too, given that he's also strongly dissatisfied with your disruptive/edit warring editorial pattern on the Georgian-related pages, and given that he is simply directly involved in this. Furthermore, he's mentioned here in the discussion, so it was a must. User Ayub was simply ahead of me and dropped the notification on your page just a few minutes ahead, and I thanked him for that. It was minutes prior to me leaving a notification on involved user Jaqeli's page furthermore.[78]-[79]. Baseless and failed allegation of canvassing and personal attacks here, now against User:Rye-96 as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Damianmx: What do you mean "Iran/Persia promoter"? That's a strange phraseology, dear. What is it about Iran that you believe I've been trying to promote? All my efforts have been about improvement for the articles relevant to my knowledge and study, and removal of the nationalism and religionism which has been unfortunately not rare in West Asian and Caucasian topics.
    I think you are exaggerating by using the word multiple, but I do agree that I've had my own wrong experiences where I have always faced the outcomes and I've been guided.
    Although I didn't come here to side with anyone, I don't see any problem with cooperating with the Wikipedia community to solve a problem. We're all here to improve the contents provided in the encyclopedia; that's what it is all about.
    –Rye-96 (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that I was involved in the beginning of the dispute and therefore I am not going to take any action, but some resolution is needed--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism Report

    Hi. This is to inform you that User talk:Phelicia2550 has been recreating deleted pages about his WP:No one cares about your garage band. I highly recommend his account to be blocked indefinitely since his vandalisms have started since October 2015. Thank you.

    Alvin the Almighty (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed link. ansh666 10:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've left a message on their talk page explaining guidelines. It's likely that they're here to promote a person, but I do think that it's out of line to write things like "You still do not understand anything from the previous lessons", "You are NOT allowed to create any articles about Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band", and "There will be no further warnings and i will keep an eye on you." This is likely why Phelicia interpreted your comments as you disliking the articles for personal reasons, as your comments did come across as a little rude. The basic rule of thumb when dealing with newbies is to assume that they can very likely be intimidated by the big policy pages and won't necessarily see everything - there have been many threads about this in various different places on Wikipedia. This means that if they keep doing the same thing and there hasn't really been any true discussion over the problems with a page, then you should try explaining the problems in more depth. It might just be that they genuinely didn't understand the guidelines. Sometimes someone can see something as a sign of notability when it really isn't, such as the claims of Martone's music playing on MTV when it was actually uploaded to their artists website. If you explained things more and they still continue after that point, then that's when you start getting more harsh/blunt with them. I have amended my initial message to make sure that they're aware that further mainspace creation does run the risk of ending with a block if they continue to try to create the articles in the mainspace from here on out, though. Basically, it's a WP:LASTCHANCE scenario. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Alvin. Don't speak as if you were God the Almighty herself. First, the existence of God the Almighty is controversial. Second, 'God is Almighty; but Alvin is Almighty; therefore... ' looks like a broken syllogism. From your user page, moreover, I don't see that your expertise about 'music bands' goes far beyond my own expertise about 'butterflies'. A more welcoming attitude would be more efficient than such a firephylia eruption: creating a page, even about a weak topic, cannot be described as vandalism! Pldx1 (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments, but it is my element that god is imaginary.Alvin the Almighty (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Civility, please. The criterion for inclusion of bands in Wikipedia is at WP:BAND, and is rather clear-cut, because this problem comes up frequently. In 2009, there were five million bands on Myspace[80]. Few were notable enough for Wikipedia. Too many wanted in. That's perhaps why the language in "Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band", which dates from that period, is a bit harsh. I'd suggest referring new editors to WP:BAND instead. Also, this isn't properly a vandalism issue; it's a promotion/conflict of interest issue. It could have been brought up at WP:COIN, where we deal with the almost-famous on a daily basis. As I wrote in an essay at Wikipedia:Hints on dealing with conflict of interest problems, "If the fame thing isn't working out, Wikipedia can't help you get there." John Nagle (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.165.204.5 harassing many users

    BLOCKED
    User:86.165.204.5 has been blocked for a week by Ks0stm. The IP editor is receiving feedback about his actions on his talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [81]: All anti gay attacks on random users. TF { Contribs } 18:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems extremely similar to 86.165.204.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was reported above. clpo13(talk) 18:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We need this IP indef'd ASAP. TF { Contribs } 18:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked them one week. Indef on an IP is generally not a good idea. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ks0stm: Thanks! Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone going to help clean up then? TF { Contribs } 18:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am deleting the pages, but help from fellow admins would be appreciated, I had originally other plans for the evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Nuke strikes again. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: I've emailed Oversight, if that helps. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 18:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, now done.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While the comments are not appropriate, they don't rise to the level of requiring oversight. We are limited to only oversighting the content listed here. Mike V • Talk 19:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the IP explained why he was doing what he was doing. I could use some more opinions about the issue the IP is raising on their talk page (User talk:86.165.204.5). I can kinda see the IP's points about how the userbox he mentions could potentially cause issues for LGBT users, but like I said there, my gut is that there's no policy issue. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The template in question is {{User:UBX/onemanonewoman}}, which is about as civil a way to oppose gay marriage as possible. This is a silly an issue as, say, a Republican editor taking offense at someone using {{Template:Democrat Wikipedians}}. clpo13(talk) 19:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That was what I was thinking too. To me it's just a hazard of the internet (and life) that you'll come across people who don't share your opinion, but I thought I'd just give it a sanity check before I finalized that as my conclusion. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I consider myself a part of the LGBT and I am a huge supporter of same-sex marriages. I don't find this template offensive. We all agree to disagree. We have opinions that differ from the other. Big deal. If it bothers, you shouldn't be here or just ignore it. The IP should be indef'd if they continue such behavior. That's not a way to compromise. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revdel Needed

    Edits revdel'd by Biblioworm. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Edits [82], [83], [84], [85] need to be revdel'd as they all still have the User:PizzazzPicasso personal attacks on them. TF { Contribs } 19:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Biblioworm 19:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Long-term edit warring and personal attacks by User:Spshu

    Spshu has engaged in edit wars several times over a few years, and has been blocked five times for the same offense, just on different pages:

    Not too long after the current block took effect, Spshu left an unblock request on his talk page that seems little more than a thinly-veiled personal attack directed at me. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. He has also shown retaliatory, even uncivil, behavior in the links presented above and on his talk page - some good examples are as follows:

    I then took up, with KrakatoaKatie, why she didn't indef him if he had been edit warring for a long time, and she told me to bring it here, so I did. We cannot have such a toxic editor on Wikipedia.

    Thus, I am proposing a block/ban on Spshu for long-term edit warring and incivility, based on all the above evidence. If any of you support such a block/ban, or oppose it, please reply. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 19:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like some community input about this block. Electricburst1996 urged me to indef Spshu and I declined. His behavior on his talk page, however, has me reconsidering. Katietalk 20:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't give input on the bock itself but, as far as this conversation goes, Electricburst1996 starting a conversation about someone during a time when he or she knows Spshu is unable to take part in that conversation, is just plain childish. My recommendation would be to table/shelve this whole talk until he is able to come defend himself. I'm surprised the admins involved here (Liz, Katie), never stopped to consider that.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read what Liz said just below this, you will find that she did in fact stop to consider it. LjL
    You mean where she responded by saying she wouldn't respond and then continued to respond after saying she wouldn't? Ya, I read that. Not much of a consideration.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general rule, I don't like giving an indefinite block to an editor while they are on a temporary block and can't respond to this complaint. It's due to expire soon so I will look for his response to these statements.
    Electricburst1996, please provide some diffs/links in your complaint so we don't have to search for the comments Spshu made. It's usually important to see the context of the remarks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: Links provided. Click on the comments for the source of them. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was looking at what seems to at least be the latest incidents between these two users, that on Laff (TV network). The page history shows that they had both been edit warring, but that it started with Spshu removing unsourced material, and Electricburst1996 reinstating it based on the fact that "no one" (else!) had expressed any concern. The edit war later continued, with further reinstatement of content on the ground that "other TV articles are as unsourced". Spshu correctly brought up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In any case, i was always my understanding of policy that challenged unsourced material should not be reinstated without a source once it is removed. So, even though perhaps one use and not the other technically went over WP:3RR during this incident, I do not see Spshu acting any more inappropriately than Electricburst1996 at all; quite the contrary. LjL (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @LjL: Thanks for bringing up the other side of the issue, but this is not about the most recent incident; rather, it's about a string of similar incidents over a long period of time. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 22:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Electricburst1996: Per policy, anyone can bring up anything in an ANI thread and you are not allowed to say that the thread is only about something else. I would like to know your response to what LjL has brought up. Why did you put the unsourced material back and why did you then edit war regarding it? Please explain.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it removed an entire section. I was trying to find a firsthand source that supported the entire section, but I had no luck. I guess it was my own hubris... ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya... I'm gonna go remove the unsourced section (the entire unsourced section) and, if you ever find a source, you can put it back at that time.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, good! I see you found one... and from October! So it would have been there when you were edit warring saying you were looking for one when clearly you really weren't or you would have found it at that time. This whole thing just keeps getting more and more phoney.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to this getting "more and more phoney..." Good God, Electricburst1996! Like... WOW!!!!!Cebr1979 (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    In looking at it, this entire thing was handled incorrectly by not only Electricburst1996 but, also by Katie. Electricburst never should have reverted in the first place (he or she had no right to... ever). User:Spshu attempted a talk page discussion which Electricburst then deleted. Katie then blocked the guy before he ever had a chance to defend himself over at the 3RR board, even though everything I just said was right there waiting for her to see... y'know... if she'd taken the time to look, which she clearly didn't. I'm not saying "two wrongs make a right" (and Spshu was definitely in the wrong with the edit warring) but, at least he tried to do things properly (and was right to delete the unsourced info in the first place). Electricburst has done nothing but cause problems since this issue started (and is still doing it by starting a conversation here about an editor he or she knows can't defend themselves in)! Katie, I recommend you re-think this block you were too quick to instate. It's not making me trust your qualifications/ability to be an administrator.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC) :Spshu will be able to step in sometime tomorrow. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's kind of the point, the discussion was timed so that he would not be able to defend himself, that he will be unblocked at a later time is a very weak cop out. This report is nothing more than the latest in a plethora of examples that your behavior has been unacceptable, and looks like WP:GAMING, pure and simple. I can't see any reason why you should not be blocked for disruptive behavior and edit-warring per the evidence that you yourself have provided. - Aoidh (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow..., indeed, @Electricburst1996: you must certainly have a very good explanation for deleting the discussion that was started on the article's talk page without even an edit summary?! Because that sort of thing is outright unacceptable. At this point I don't really care about the rather long and confusing list of not-clearly-abusive diffs that you posted, but your behavior during this latest incident with Spshu raises very deep concerns. LjL (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted it because I interpreted it as a personal attack against me, rather than an attempt to discuss the content of the page. And as for the list of diffs, I was trying to demonstrate any warnings and discussions levied against the user in question. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Electricburst1996: Hmm, please help me understand this better... Exactly what part(s) of this post by Spshu did you consider a "personal attack against [yourself]"?Cebr1979 (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was copied verbatim from a warning he left me on my talk page, and the message is specifically directed at me. It's more about that than anything else. Nowhere in that message does it indicate that the user wants to improve the page in any way, shape or form, and all in all, the article talk page is just the wrong forum for the kind of message he left. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's the right forum, as it's an article-related issue and complaint, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was a very legitimate concern with your edit that restored unsourced material. In any case, you removed the message from both the article talk page and your own user talk page (at least, this latter you are allowed to do). This is not a tenable defense. LjL (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya! And then Katie chose to block Spshu (and is now considering an indef block for him as well) but, chose to do nothing with Electricburst1996?! I'm hoping Katie has "a very good explanation" for that!!!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, what I can see from Spshu's talk page and follows-up to his unblock requests is that there is probably some language barrier. But the editor has been around for a decade, with the first several years seeing no blocks. From that to an indef... something must have happened, and I'm not altogether sure it's all the editor's fault. LjL (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he has been blocked five times for the same offense so far... ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Electricburst1996: You also have a history of being blocked in the past for edit warring.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is all you have you say after being asked for a good explanation to your removal of talk page comments (thus hiding the fact that the other party had tried to discuss the matter)? At this point, I definitely think you should have a good WP:BOOMERANG coming towards you. LjL (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking the same.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, both editors should have been blocked for violating WP:3RR. clpo13(talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments. I agree now that an indef is inappropriate, and the original block has now expired. Spshu had been blocked twice before for 72 hours for edit warring and 3RR violations. What about an IBAN for Spshu and Electricburst1996? Would that help fix this behavioral problem or possibly make the situation worse? Katietalk 00:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I think at this point Electricburst1996's behavior should be investigated in further detail before an action is decided (and, hey, I did my part), because there are signs of maliciousness, such as the mentioned deleting of article talk page comments. You engage in an edit war and you remove the comments that the other party makes on the article talk page to try to discuss the issue? That's as unacceptable as any behavior on Wikipedia can get, and not possibly done in good faith. Aoidh above also mentions the possible existence of other serious past issues with Electricburst1996 so maybe they want to provide some evidence of that. LjL (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that borders on libel. Most of my edits have been in good faith and are relatively constructive. If you want to investigate, just do yourself a favor and go through my contributions history. All of my contribs from before 2014 are from when I was relatively new to the site, then I forgot about the account for a while. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't "border on libel" to state the obvious, i.e. that removing article talk page comments like that is utterly unacceptable and should be sanctioned. If you think I'm libeling you, make a report against me. LjL (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was, the part suggesting there are serious past issues with me borders on libel. I should have clarified that. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Well, that's not something I've claimed, though, it just seems like Aoidh's claim above. I don't presently know whether it's true or not, but given the current circumstances, their claim should be investigated. LjL (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There really isn'y any such thing as "libel" here at the ANI board, Electricburst1996. This is the second time now (1) that I'm showing you the policies regarding this page. I suggest you read that thoroughly (and quickly).Cebr1979 (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If Spshu's block has expired, then he's done his time and his debt is repaid, as far as I'm concerned. Any further action would just be continuing the childishness of it all. If (Hopefully: When) Electricburst1996 gets a boomerang out of all this, that can be dealt with at that time. In the name of fairness, however, Spshu should be issued an apology by you, Katie. You were wrong to block him without giving him a chance to defend himself first (he should have at least been able to say something) and, above all else, you should have looked into the matter before acting.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an IBAN would help greatly. But how do IBANs work on a technical level? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, the two of you wouldn't be allowed to talk to or about each other. Have you two ever encountered each other prior to this incident, though? If not, an IBAN is premature and unwarranted.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is a flare-up at The Disney Afternoon over the Disney-Kellogg Alliance name, which I felt shouldn't be included. I think between that and this, there is sufficient grounds for an IBAN. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not sufficient grounds for an IBAN, those are examples of two people with opposing views sharing similar interests. In my experience, Electricburst1996, when an editor is quick to jump on the IBAN bandwagon it's because they're thinking something along the lines of, "Yippee! That sounds great! Then if I get there first, he can't revert me no matter what!" which is not the purpose of an IBAN. Once Spshu does join this thread (and hopefully he does), there will most likely be a boomerang for you, which will be supported by many. My advice to you is throw in the towel now and back away.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If he does join, the argument will probably heat up to the extent where I just can't do it anymore. Might as well give up while I still can... ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe that's best for you to attempt (I say "attempt" because it's probably already too late but, for you, I do believe that it's in your best interest to at least give backing away a try).Cebr1979 (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BOOMERANG for User:Electricburst1996

    I was prepared to let this go and let Spshu do it himself (if he ever decides to return after his bogus block) but, today Electricburst1996 has just picked up right where he or she left off yesterday (albeit, on a different page). I think the indef block Electricburst1996 tried to get for Spshu is warranted for Electricburst1996 (complete with the revoked talk page access he or she requested). Electricburst1996 just doesn't wanna seem to leave this guy alone!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • support as proposer and per everything stated above in this very conversation.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the boomerang. According to my research, Electricburst1996 did the following in order:
    1. edit warred [86] [87] [88] [89] over 3RR, at least as much as the user who got blocked, Spshu
    2. removed the discussion that Spshu had tried to start about the issue from the article's talk page (as well as from his own talk page, which he is allowed to do, but which dismisses any argument about removing it from the former because it was "too personal")
    3. asked an admin to change Spshu's block for edit warring into indefinite, and insisted about it on being requested to take it to ANI
    4. also asked the admin to revoke Spshu's talk page access (potentially silencing him completely), while the ANI report had already been filed
    5. meanwhile, claimed in this ANI report that Spshu could defend himself after his block was over, despite the two attempts to prevent that described above
    6. confessed to the admin involved that he didn't "think everything through" at this report
    I am having a lot of difficulty attributing good faith to this series of events. Given the editor claims to be autistic and some commentators below seem more familiar with those issues than me, I'm open to some kind of mentorship or "soft" boomerang, but I really do not think it should simply be brushed off. LjL (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, the reason I removed the discussion from the article's talk page was because I felt that it was too personal for that namespace. In no way, shape, or form did the editor bring up any problems with the page, nor did he bring up any solutions to those problems. All he did was post the exact same message he left on my talk page (which was where he posted it first) verbatim. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The original post is right here and it did do everything you're saying it didn't.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It brought up very valid concerns with your edits on that article, so it was appropriate to post on the article's talk page, and quite possibly on your own, but you deleted it from both. And then you brought him to ANI while he was blocked, to get him more blocked, even though there was recent glaring misbehavior from your side. LjL (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, LjL, but, even after you explained all of that to Electricburst1996 yesterday, he or she still went back to the Talk:Laff (TV network) page today and acted like your explanation had never happened. For me, that was the "seal of the deal" regarding this boomerang (and that's not even getting into this attempt to pass off the blame EB'96 made after that)... *Although, in fairness, I will state that EB'96 removing it from his or her own talk page is perfectly fine and Spshu should NOT have put it back.*Cebr1979 (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I guess I'll just do a WP:VANISH... I guess this incident outweighs all my constructive contributions up to this point... ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 01:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I should come forward and say this now... I am holding myself 100% responsible for this whole ordeal. I shouldn't have done what I had done, and at the time, I simply had no idea any of this would happen. I learned the consequences of my actions the hard way. I'm sorry for dragging all of you into a bloated mess that developed from what could have been easily resolved in a matter of minutes had I not acted out the way I did, and I will also leave Spshu alone from here on in. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 04:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Maybe not an indefinite block, but the editor's actions do not contribute to a collaborative editing environment and is a net negative for Wikipedia. Their comment, "I guess this incident outweighs all my constructive contributions up to this point" sums up the need for the block perfectly. Any editor that feels they are permitted this type of behavior simply because they have made useful contributions previously is not one that needs to be an editor. While I don't see a need for an indefinite block, the need to reduce likely future problems from this editor suggests a block is needed here, given that the behavior continued after it was pointed out that the behavior was inappropriate. I'm not buying the whole "oh now that there's a block discussion about me I'm suddenly sorry I'll stop" comment they made above, given that they said something similar here and instead of ceasing, just continued elsewhere. - Aoidh (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blaming the administrator that blocked Spshu for their actions only reinforce the need for a block, because they clearly don't get it. - Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made my apology based on what was left on my talk page here. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I will say this, as someone familiar with autism and asperger's syndrome, this is classic behavior. It's the theatrics. It's as if they are in a play, and they can't let go of the character they have created for themselves. Obviously, they made a mistake, and they should have the appropriate response for said action. What would help more, though, is for a more experienced editor to take them under their wing, and explain with no ambiguity what is and is not allowed for given situations. Ambiguity is an autistic person's mortal enemy. Give them an inch, and they will hang themselves with it. Being as blunt and clear as possible is the most beneficial way to deal with someone on the spectrum. I only hope Electric can see that their behavior, and clinging to this martyr mentality will only further hurt him, not help. As I said on their talk page, accept that you screwed up, drop the sword, and learn from it. Anything else won't fly. --Tarage (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where did autism and asperger's syndrome come from?Cebr1979 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can see my behavior now. That's why I apologized in the first place. But to see that someone here didn't view it as a sincere apology... that's a bit disheartening. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a sincere apology. You only made it because of a deal between us (a deal you've since broken because you just. can't. stop!).Cebr1979 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly (or fortunately, think about thoughtcrime) it's hard to see people's motives in their minds. The thing is, from my point of view at least, that you seem to have machinated something against the other user by doing things like removing their comments to make it seem like they didn't try discussing, and attempting to get administrators to silence them so they couldn't denounce what was going on here. Now you're apologizing, but it's difficult to tell whether that's another step in your "thinking everything through" (your words) or a genuine apology. I understand it's disheartening. LjL (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me explain my motives for removing the other user's comments... I removed it from the article's talk page because I felt that it was too personally charged, and I removed the exact same message from my talk page because I felt it was too harshly worded. I tried to get KrakatoaKatie to silence him because of his unblock request, which I viewed not as a legitimate request, but a personal attack against me, despite some legitimate complaints - why don't you read his request and decide for yourself? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read it, and I see it not as a personal attack but as analyzing your actions and trying to explain why they weren't appropriate - something quite understandable, as we're now here doing the same, as it's not often something that works in unblock requests (as it didn't). I have of course also read the things you removed from both talk pages, and they were a neutral request to cease inappropriate editing while citing the relevant policies; nothing wrong with that. If that's "too harshly worded" I'm afraid that's your issue, because it, quite plainly, isn't. LjL (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User Alec Smithson

    I believe it's time to ask for review of my interactions with Alec Smithson, who has repeatedly accused me of vandalism, personal attacks, and stalking (diff diff diff diff diff diff, plenty more on request). If there's merit in his accusations, this stops here, read no further, I accept … well, whatever it is that I need to accept.

    But if not: I started looking at some this editor's contributions after this note was left on my talk page (on the same day that Alec Smithson was indeffed on it.wp – his previous blocks on that wikipedia were for socking and copyright violation).

    I found, as time went on:

    In general, cleaning up and verifying his contributions has been a massive timesink for numerous editors; I'm not sure that the project has gained anything from his presence here. Stalk toy shows that the French, Italian, German, Latin, Dutch and Swedish Wikipedias have all decided they're better off without him. Is it time for us to follow suit? This may also be relevant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The apparent unwillingness to acknowledge copyright and attribution problems (which I see extends to other language Wikipedias) alone is enough to show this user is a problem. Given the amount of time and good faith spent attempting to assist this user with policies and contributing in grammatically correct English, I'm beginning to think that it's time to apply WP:CIR. clpo13(talk) 20:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking at his talk page, I'm not sure his language skills are up to par for the English Wikipedia. There was a lot of comments I could not make sense of. But he hasn't edited since you posted the ANI notice on his talk page and I'd like to hear his response to your complaint, to see if he acknowledges making mistakes. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Justlettersandnumbers, it is true I have some grammatical improprieties at times, but the lyrics are then always in the correct time in the form. I always reported the facts of historical and documented with sources wherever possible. I have not deleted traces but correct situations once reported. I have always acted in good faith in the interest of history, truth and knowledge. Often I found myself in front of some people who knew nothing of the known facts, as they did not know who he was as a designer Castiglioni ... and yet not even write the reasons obliterated my speech without any real reason and without considering that this was done with sources.

    A user Justlettersandnumbers in particular I was always attacked and attacked you can see that it's always him, disputing and deleting my integrations although sources without even write comments of the reasons he did so without ever opening a discussion and this for me is his vandalism subsidiaries. He took advantage of the situation to its greater ability to use the vehicle wikipedia and I admit my weakness grammar, trying to speculate on any fact to create prejudices against me of the whole community. This person specializes in goats and other skills, and of course in his objections. It never opened a discussion, and with speeches tautological always tried to make me look bad unfairly without depth. You can see that my actions sometimes weak in English grammar are always well written and very hard with good compositions and sources of structure. NEVER EVER I REPEAT Justlettersand Numbers has opened discussions, I ask you to look at an example Lierna Castle opened against me a copyright violation but it was only a translation but not identical free, one-page wikipedia other language I tried to fix it in time completely changing but without success. Check LIERNA CASTLE. That made the page is not usable for a long time and now only partially. Also, the quote here the has made only out of spite to put me always in a bad light by creating prejudice against me by the whole community. I have always worked with form errors that I corrected in time in good faith and with good will but not concealing adoperandomi to correct errors if there were warnings. Pernso that personal attacks, creations of bias for personal reasons, never open discussions, delete entries with sources several times without even comment on the reason and create prejudices is not in the regulations of wikipedia. --Alec Smithson (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I also wonder who is open a signal officer on how to intervene with Justlettersandnumbers cancellations arbitrary and unjustified unkind to Justlettersand, against those who create texts. If you check the way he acted, not only with me, also often it intervenes with presumption of facts of which he knows nothing, as the Italian design when he specializes on goats, making him lose a lot of time with the obvious and he made clear and important research in his free will by losing all knowledge.

    not a nice way to enhance the energy, the commitment and knowledge of the editors that Justlettersandnumbers. 

    --Alec Smithson (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On copyright: despite the protestations above, the content posted without attribution at Lierna Castle by Alec Smithson with this edit on 21 October 2015 is (with minimal changes) a Google translation of it:Castello di Lierna. Alec Smithson has never edited that page, so is not the author of the content. He also posted a French translation of it here, equally without attribution. Copying Wikipedia content without attribution is a form of copyright violation (see, for example, this discussion). The editor had already been advised of this here, here and here, so I blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP. The editor still did not provide attribution. Since another editor was trying in good faith to work on the page, I finally provided the attribution myself yesterday and removed the copyvio template. However, all other substantive edits of this editor should ideally be checked for similar problems; that I'm already aware of, Battle of the Three Mountains contains some copying from it:Battaglia dei Tre Monti, and Fernando Carcupino started out as a Google translation of it:Fernando Carcupino. Neither page on it.wp was written by Alec Smithson, neither page here carries attribution.
    On dubious or deceptive edits: (1) Smithson re-adds Carlo Bazzi to Art collection of Fondazione Cariplo even though he has already been told that it holds none of his work; (2) the two references in Fernando Carcupino are copied from Brera Academy, where I added them with this edit; neither of them has any mention of, or conceivable relevance to, Carcupino. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I entirely second the concerns raised about the competence and conduct of Alec Smithson and of his proliferating contributions to English Wikipedia. Whether he writes everything in Italian and then uploads inadequate machine-translations to articles and discussion pages, such as this one, or his rambling reflects a chaotic thought process I can't discern: the point is that his editing in English, when not copyvio'd, is at best consistently and substantially below the minimum standard for valuable contribution to this encyclopedia and, at worst, simply incomprehensible. His work is not improving. He continues to assert that the problem is primarily his critic, not his contributions, so he is unlikely to improve: acknowledging imperfect English while contesting or ignoring objections to the repeated exaggeration, fabrication and/or manipulation of facts and misuse of sources to conceal lack of verification and original research reflects a commitment to behavior that flouts the principles and standards of Wikipedia. On other wikis and here he has made it clear: he won't stop unless stopped. I've challenged his edits as spuriously sourced repeatedly, and expressed my view that he should no longer be allowed to contribute to the project here. FactStraight (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat on my talk page

    BLOCKED
    Sheik Way-El blocked by Ks0stm for legal threats. Liz Read! Talk!

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

    At User talk:Doug Weller#Moorish Science Temple of America bias wikipedia scholarship User:Sheik Way-El writes, after a long creed complaining about the article Moorish Science Temple of America "I can keep going and going with the blatant misinformation within this article. If these things are not changed, if you cannot find citations for slanderous statements like "Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork.", we will be suing this platform for false light as this article makes those interested in our organization not want to join. You have 72 hours to bring your citations or we will commence with a lawsuit in the appropriate venue. Peace." Doug Weller (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked them indef. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Re the preceding section, "Legal threat on my talk page"

    Copyright violation removed. No admin action needed at this time. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There's a little more to this than meets the eye. User:Sheik Way-El was clearly out of line with a legal threat, but he has a point. The article says they "face east when praying, regard Friday as their holy day, and call their god Allah and their leader Prophet. But the similarities to mainstream Islam end there. Moorish-Americans drink alcohol and eat pork. They don't pray five times a day or travel to Mecca, and their religious book deals more with Jesus than Muhammad.". Two points. (1) That quote in its entirety is a verbatim copyvio from a story from eight years ago. (2) Members of the Moorish Science Temple are Moslems, so the Quran forbids alcohol and pork (haram). Our article would need some serious sourcing to say they defy the Quran. I am removing the copyvio. Moriori (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you're going to remove the source and then say it's unsourced??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I said "I am removing the copyvio." Moriori (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And who is this "our" you refer to? John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been here on our wikipedia for more than 12 years and have rarely received such an insult. For the record, I am not moslem and don't contribute to islam/moslem articles. Moriori (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, whoa, let's all try to calm down. The action taken is legit – a copyright violation was removed and the source was challenged. If there are problems, we can discuss them rationally at the talk page or at a content noticeboard, like WP:RSN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the article where the copyright violation occurred?? —МандичкаYO 😜 02:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here. Moriori (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is the source invalid? Is it just because "Muslims don't do that?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's two strikes Bugs. (1) I never mentioned I would remove "the source and then say it's unsourced" and (2) I never mentioned the word "invalid". You should try facts Bugs, or is our encyclopedia just a game for you? Moriori (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Shut the hell up already Bugs, your drunk and bigoted again. Get off ANI, go do something productive.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this is about a "content dispute." This needs to be discussed on the talk page for the article. There are no admin actions that can be taken until discussion there is over. Since this has devolved into a slanging match would someone please close this thread MarnetteD|Talk 05:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Well, there is the accusation of copyvio still and the legal threat which is conditionally withdrawn. I'm kicking myself for not doing what I planned to do which was to attribute the quote. I may be being stupid though but how is a sourced quote copyvio? What was very wrong is the lack of attribution which I now see was suggesting Drew might have said it. The source is [90] and of course there is the question of whether that's a reliable source, which needs to be settled elsewhere.
    I'd like a fuller explanation of how that's copyvio. I thought I understood our policy.
    The legal threat is withdrawn but the reason given is that the quote's been removed. I'm not convinced that further editing won't result in another legal threat. As an aside, I've noted that some of the blocked editor's points need examining. Doug Weller (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasnt a copyvio, it was just a poorly written quote. Instead of paraphrasing the Chicago Reader article it quoted it and made it ambiguous whether it was a quote by Drew rather than by Paghdiwala the author of the piece. Not every failure to do a quote right is a copyrights violation. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Maunus

    I demand an interaction ban from the user Maunus, so that he is never allowed to refer to me again -- until or unless he apologizes, recants and disavows his vicious and bogus personal attack: "your [sic] drunk and bigoted again." First, I do not drink. Never have. And the "bigoted" claim is absurd. The guy who claims to be an authority on what Muslims "don't do" reminded me of EgyptAir Flight 990, wherein the pilot crashed his passenger plane into the sea, and in which the Egyptian government said it couldn't be suicide because "Muslims don't do that." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lol. A bigot and a hypocrite then. I demand that Baseball Bugs gets a Ban from ever posting to ANI the rest of his life. I predict it will lower drama levels with 13,9% over a nine year period. I do apologize for calling him drunk, apparently his antics are not chemically induced so he cant claim that excuse.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And again with the "bigot" lie. I called the claimant on his original research about what Muslims "don't do." I would say the same thing about any such claims, regardless of what group it referred to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were drunk I would have liked you more.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pathetic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But its true.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're saying that your best friends are substance abusers, you need to look yourself in the mirror instead of issuing unprovoked attacks against others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @·maunus and Baseball Bugs are you two by any chance, like MARRIED? and can you continue this ........lover tiff...at my talk page? I do not want to miss the drama but you guys seem to be engaging in Personal attacks which may lead to you being banned, me missing the drama and my popcorn going cold. So help save my popcorn please. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pretty sure personal attacks are ok if theyre consensual.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to line through your comments, or do I have to do it for you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously though Bugs, whenever you feel the urge to "call out a claimant" on ANI, then try to read what the person in question actually wrote, and then if you still feel the urge to call them out, don't. It will make life so much better for everyone, except perhaps the popcorn vendors.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Line through your comments. Please. You can accuse me of getting facts wrong. You have no right to accuse me of being a drunkard and a bigot. That's about as low as it gets. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I can go a lot lower than that. Dont strike through my comments. People can read them and lol anyways, so there is no point. Just try to curb your ANI addiction, the first step is to admit you have a problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you could invent additional lies about me or any other user you don't like for unknown reasons. Meanwhile, try to curb your addiction to making unprovoked personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Members of the Moorish Science Temple are Moslems [sic], so the Quran forbids alcohol and pork (haram). Our article would need some serious sourcing to say they defy the Quran." If that isn't original research, I don't know what is. And if the source is not invalid, then what's wrong with it, beyond the complainant not agreeing with it? Get your own facts straight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Requiring a better source for a claim can never be original research. A news paper article is not a particularly reliable source for controversial claims about a religious community, whose members have already taken exception to the claim. And Moriori did not use the argument that muslims dont eat pork, to remove the source and the claim - he argued that it was a copyrights violation. You jumped directly into a discussion that you did not fully understand with a confrontational and agressive stance in exactly the same way that has landed you ANI topic bans and admonishments in the past.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Part 1 of his complaint was to argue it was a copyright violation. Part 2 was an original-research argument that "Moslems" [sic] don't do certain things - so, by implication, the source must be false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that a religious community systematically violate one of their own doctrines does require a strong source. Moslem is perfectly fine spelling in a good portion of the English speaking world and does not require a [sic].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you google the subject, you will discover that "Muslim" is preferred and that "Moslem" is practically obsolete - especially with the typical English pronunciation "MAHZ-lum", which relates to a different and highly offensive word in Arabic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Although they have their own religious text, they do seem to follow Muslim proscriptions for their diet, and there was a court case concerning prison diets that should be mentioned in the article.[91]

    And we seem to have a COI issue and a need to prove identity for this editor, who uses the word "we" and has the same name as the leader of one of the branches of this religion.[92] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He's made it clear he won't make legal threats in the future so I've unblocked him and put a COI notice on his talk page. I'm not sure if we need to have him submit identification to OTRS. This seems to be no longer about Maunus, Baseball Bugs, do you want to add a new section heading? Doug Weller (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Huldra and Terrible towel7

    I just blocked Huldra (talk · contribs) and Terrible towel7 (talk · contribs) for flagrant edit warring on As'ad AbuKhalil. I see that the article is under arbitration remedies and sanctions, but I'm pretty lost about what steps need to be taken now that I've done that. Could another administrator more familiar with arbitration enforcement stuff please pick up from here or advise me on what I need to do? Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to unblock Huldra immediately and apologize. If you're not "familiar" with their various relevant rules, don't go off half-cocked. You need to read this, at minimum: WP:ARBPIA3 Dan Murphy (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblock yes, apologize .. for what? Arbcom passed both this rule and this other rule without modifying the first rule to take into account the second. Someone should file a WP:ARCA to get it sorted. NE Ent 00:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_ARBPIA filed. NE Ent 01:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm what? The first rule clearly says that while reverting IPs is exempt from 1RR, IT IS STILL SUBJECT to the "regular" edit warring rules , and explicitly mentions 3RR in that context. SO even if the first rule was not amended to reflect that the same restriction now applies to edits with less than 500 edits, it obviously still requires compliance with 3RR (for IPs as well as editors with les sthan 500 edist) - Huldra reverted 10 times and violated 3RR - why did you unblock her? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After doing a search on Terrible towel7's edit history to verify no discretionary sanctions alert is present, I placed the {{ds/alert}} template on their talk page. NE Ent 00:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's right there on the top of the page Huldra was editing (same one the sockpuppet was editing) and all the Arbpia tagged pages, smart guy. ks whatever clearly didn't read it and just likes his blockination fix.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, of course. It couldn't just be a mistake. No, "ks whatever" is clearly on a power trip. clpo13(talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's Ks0stm. But regardless, I unblocked them with a full explanation. My two pieces of advice: WP:AE is better than revert warring, and someone should update {{ARBPIA}}. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also expanded upon the source of this at the clarification request filed by NE Ent. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've expressed my thoughts at ANEW. Huldra's block was very bad, there was a WP:3RRBLP issue and it was declared as such in the first revert. 10-year clean block log: tainted for a single-purpose likely sock who was adding material that may look highly libelous. LjL (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ^^That is extremely unfortunate. Do admins have a way of purging block logs, I wonder?Cebr1979 (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the unblocking. I have edited in one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia for over 10 years, without ever getting blocked. That was until Ks0stm came along and ruined my clean block-log. And giving an obvious sock reason to triumph. I´m so furious right now that smoke is coming out my ears (so it feels). Is there any way to clean that block-log? And a dozen WP:TROUT to User:Ks0stm Huldra (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's technically possible to RevDel them, though obscuring block log entries may be unpalatable to some. - Alison ❤ 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Alison thanks, palatable or not, who should I ask? The problem is that each and every "new editor" in the I/P area who comes along *will* use this against me. Guaranteed. It´s a .....rough neighbourhood. Huldra (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be happy to do it myself if there's a precedent for it. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • In my opinion (but I have no idea if policies agree with me or not), I think the "precedent" is the fact you issued a block in error and now your error needs to/should be corrected. If it's possible to be done (from a technical standpoint, I have no idea), it should be.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know if there's precedents, and I can understand wanting to ensure that it's accepted first, but I personally also think it should be done. LjL (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:CRD is why I say if there's precedent. So far as I'm aware, I'm not allowed to RevDel block logs. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Though I did ask here. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    why would you revdel it? You need to reblock her. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if a reblock is necessary, but an unblock was unwarranted. Regardless if she violated 1RR, which she admittedly did not, she did violate 3RR and should have been blocked for that, and she should have reported the user to editwar or 3rr, her reverting was a violation of 3RR. The ARBPIA ruling of allowing autorevert of those not allowed to comment do now overrule the 3RR rule. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't do both at once. I unblocked because the restriction against new users, which can be enforced "by reverts", was enacted after the 1RR restriction. I therefore think it a more reasonable assumption that the new user restriction supersedes the 1RR restriction. I'm not changing it again unless instructed to at the C&A request. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    She was reported for violating 3RR, which is what she violated. She is allowed to violated the 1RR ARBCOM in enforcing the ARBCOM new user restriction, UP TO 3RR, once she reverts three times, then regular Wikipedia policy kicks in and she correctly was blocked by you. It says as such at ARBPIA and ARBCOM. She should have reported the other user instead of continuing to revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REVDEL#Log redaction is the pertinent section. This can only be done with ARBCOM approval. So you asked in the right place. -- GB fan 02:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is hindsight but there should be an edit filter, like at Gamergate controversy, that prevents editors who don't meet the editing restrictions from editing the article. Relying on multiple reverts like this can make the situation confusing unless the admin is up-to-date on developments in the sanctions in this subject area. Is there a reason an edit filter can't be created on the most editing articles? Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit was a terrible BLP violation, and this edit summary a gross misrepresentation. I don't see how that does not trump everything else. That this went on for a couple of hours reflects poorly on us admins. Drmies (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. The article / admin ratio here is 7948.227008149. Admins don't protect articles, editors protect articles -- admins are here to help/protect editors. As much as Huldra was trying to do the right thing -- and as much as the block was quite unfortunate -- they served up a series of seven reverts marked minor; if you're not reverting obvious vandalism you put something in the edit summary, and going mano a mano with another editor is pointless - you come here or WP:BLP/N or the talk page of you favorite admin and get help. NE Ent 10:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, NE Ent, you're wrong, or you misunderstand me. Huldra did make the claim in her first revert (well, BLP, bop, hardbop...), and when I say "reflects poorly on us" I am not making a comment about rules or notifications or whatever. Plus, she asked for protection, and reported at AIV which is not inappropriate: willful BLP violations are pretty much "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". One can quibble and say she should have done all kinds of other things, and that's what you're doing. BLPN is a noticeboard and not necessarily a cruising ground for administrators, and her favorite admin was probably napping on the job and had their phone on silent (sorry Huldra).

      What I mean, Ent, is that an admin should notice these things going by on Recent changes, for instance; surely I'm not the only one out of us 1700 or whatever admins who looks at that occasionally. And when an admin sees something like that, they should do something. That this wasn't done means that no one was watching and/or no one was paying attention. I think an admin's job is also to watch and to defend the project and its good-faith editors. That doesn't mean that Huldra's sevenfold revert was not pointless (though it sounds very biblical), but certainly we should have paid more attention. I'm not talking about paperwork or whatever; I'm talking about initiative and obligation. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, @Drmies: the only potential "mistake" I can see Huldra as having done is making many reverts when she could have contacted an admin or reported the matter and waited; but it's a mistake that was in no way a breach of rules, it was only a mistake in the sense that it could have caused an admin who wasn't looking at the matter very attentively to block her (which is what happened). So, do you think it would be possible, as suggested, to revdel the block of a very established editor's otherwise clear blocklog? It's obviously important to the editor to have a clean log. LjL (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's above my pay grade, Ljl. What I can do is make a suggestion: if one finds themselves in a situation like Huldra's, use ALL-CAPS in an edit summary to say "HEY ADMINS WAKE UP AND BLOCK PLEASE" or something like that. It's terrible manners, and it looks awful in the article history (so maybe use it in the edit summary on the user's talk page), but sometimes it helps. Drmies (talk)
    A simple "BLP" (on every revert) most likely will suffice, and is less typing. NE Ent 17:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @LjL, apparently only Arbcom can authorise such a RevDel. The discussion is here: Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (1RR). Begoon talk 23:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for WP:NOTBURO. Well, I think it would be a nice gesture for the blocking admin, Ks0stm, to approach ArbCom and make that request. LjL (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @LjL: I did yesterday. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool! LjL (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're wrong, Drmies. Per WP:Administrators. "Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers who go through a community review process. They are not acting as employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools." (emphasis mine). According to this page, there were 3,104,256 edits in November, or 103,475 per day; given the expectation of administrator activity is minimal, the concept that every edit is screened by an admin isn't feasible, nor is it expected there is 24/7 coverage of the forums WP:AIV et. al. you refer to. (Incidentally, {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} = 859). In order words, admins are only expected to a) not act like total jerks b) not repeatedly or blatantly screw things up. Putting real life ahead of trying to solve all the problems of wikipedia, or making a good faith error as occurred here, is not a cause for collective self-flagellation. NE Ent 17:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheesh Ent. I am sorry I didn't see this happening, and I am sorry that I wasn't there to help a bona fide editor out and prevent a double block, one half of which was unwarranted. You don't have to tell me that admins are volunteers--I happen to be an admin and a volunteer, and I'm not advocating self-flagellation; I'm rather advocating that we pay more attention. You can point at all the statistics you want, but I only have to point at the article history to see that no one noticed it in time. And this is not the first time that the right action is not performed soon enough. I don't know what or who you are trying to defend. Maybe you should run for admin and take on this volunteer job, and then we have admins+1 to help us help editors make edits. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The reversion was of an editor who should not have been editing the page in the first place. WP:ARBPIA3 is totally clear on this point. The block of Huldra by Ks0stm was unwarranted. This wikilawyering about WP:3RR is totally disgusting, by the way. WP:ARBPIA3 General Prohibition remedy says: This prohibition may be enforced by reverts.... There is no ambiguity here about Huldra's actions falling within the remedy. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the ambiguity was the intersections of their actions and the other remedy, which is why it's being discussed at WP:ARCA now. NE Ent 10:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no ambiguity. The General Prohibitions remedy obviously supersedes the older one. Ks0stm simply didn't know about the WP:ARBPIA3 remedy and the old template text wasn't updated. It is ok: WP:AGF. I was not referring to Ks0stm in the "wikilawyering" comment. I hope it gets cleared up at WP:ARCA to prevent similar snafus in the future. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also no ambiguity that the actions fall under WP:3RRBLP. You are allowed to make multiple reverts over a BLP violation (and certainly such as seemingly egregious one). There is no need to have a lengthy debate about this. Of course, the fact that the other editor was a sock etcetera just makes the case stronger. LjL (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify; I was in no doubt that this was a BLP-violation, in addition to an ARBPIA3 violation. After my second revert, I asked for semi page-protection here, 23.36. Unfortunately, that was not acted upon until 00.44. (It should be 110% uncontroversial to semi a BLP in the ARBPIA-area; last time I asked for that, I did it 21.22…and the article, Marwan Barghouti, was protected 11 minutes later.) I was named in the 3RR report at 00.02…then blocked at 00.05 (without ever being notified of the 3RR report ) Frankly, I cannot recall anyone being blocked so quickly after a 3RR report.

    If admins here had reacted as quickly to the page-protection, as they did to the 3RR, we would never have had this problem: that would have stopped Terrible towel7 ‎editing the article. (Yes: he is *that* “new” an editor.) And yeah; I should have been clearer that it was a BLP (I´m a horrble speler). And I was late in reporting it to WP:AIV (there were several edit-conflicts there). However, this could also have been avoided *if* all the “steps” in 3RR had been followed: the reported editor is supposed to be notified. I never was. If I had been, I would have explained the situation. There is a reason why the set-up on 3RR is as it is.

    If I should ask for anything, it would be more admin eyes on WP:RPP, and note that ARBPIA3 gives you the right to indefinite semi-protect any article under ARBPIA (not only BLPs). (Oh, and I wish for a clear block log for Christmas…but that is for arb.com to decide) Huldra (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Flyer22reborn personally atacking and calling editor "stalker," with no evidence

    CLOSED
    Keep the discussion together at #Proposed topic ban or WP:MRMPS (probation enforcement) for Charlotte135 (above). (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 11:03 pm, Today (UTC−7)

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

    I am formally reporting Flyer22reborn here for this attack on a good faith editor. this is the personal attack they made on Cebr1979. There appears to be no reason for it. And it obviously upset this editor and would upset any editor. And Flyer22reborn ignored Kingsindian's comments after Kingsindian wrote this comment here. Flyer22reborn then attacked Kingsindian, because they also opposed a topic ban, and Kingsindian, obviously also offended by Flyer22reborn's attack with this comment. I was hesitant to report this but someone had to.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. This hostile behavior needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, with respect, this is an entirely separate case opened here Montanabw, and solely involves Flyer22reborn's personal attacks as outlined above on the 2 editors that Flyer22reborn attacked. Flyer22reborn's attacks on these editors need to be properly addressed here. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for notifying me of this, Drcrazy. Yep, what Charlotte135 says is true: Flyer22 (with or without a "rebirth") does make baseless accusations against other editors and seems to believe that her excuse of "I'm collecting proof and will get to it at a later date" is acceptable. It's not. She needs to show her proof or shut the Hell up!Cebr1979 (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • If Charlotte135 is concerned about personal attacks she might want to note Cebr1979 calling Flyer22reborn a liar and delusional and a liar and drama queen. From the little I've seen calling it WP:Stalking is probably appropriate. Concur with Montanabw that a speedy close is in order to resume the discussion above. ~Awilley (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already linked to all of that myself, Awilley. Those are not personal attacks, they are truth and facts... and you should already know that even with the "little" you've seen.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • They also aren't proof of "stalking" (which you linked to so, I would have assumed/thought/expected you'd have read the definition of).Cebr1979 (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would advise Charlotte135 to read Wikipedia:ANI_advice. After they finish reading it, they should read it again. We were all newbies once, so I am willing to cut them some slack. This thread should be speedily closed. It is doing nobody any good. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I already closed this once and it was reverted by Charlotte135. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Awilley if myself, Tarage and Cebr1979 believe that Flyer22reborn's attacks need to be addressed that's enough to keep this open. If you believe what you say above open a new case, but this case is about Flyer22reborn, noone and nothing else! No grounds to close the thread before Flyer22reborn's behaviour is addressed. This is not a content dispute which woulod have no place here Awilley. You should know better too.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte135 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't get to say that, Charlotte. As I've already pointed out on a thread about you, when it comes to this board, anyone can say anything about anyone in any thread.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)this case is about Flyer22reborn, noone and nothing else! That's not the way it works; anyone's conduct can be discussed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    However I will read this Wikipedia:ANI_advice as suggested by Kingsindian. However the attack on this editor was completely out of hand and does need to be addressed just as any other editor here regardless of experience.Charlotte135 (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    anyone's conduct can be discussed. Fair enough point JJMC89 regarding anyone's behaviour. Point taken.Charlotte135 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bizarre editing behavior

    Hey folks, I wanted some other perspectives on the recent editing behavior of Palashvai (talk · contribs). The content is not very comprehensible; it may simply be poor translations, but I am a little concerned the content is not being generated by an actual person at all:

    It's not dramatically disruptive or anything, but I am looking to check with others to see if this kind of editing behavior has come up before. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've asked for help here at WP:INDIA. It's possible that they might just be someone who only speaks Hindi. I figure that if a fluent speaker from India WP can't get anything out of them, then we can progress from there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main edit that concerns me though, is this edit that was pretty promotional in tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but aren't edits like this one clear enough? Promotional, lack of competence, NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP-hopping nationalistic editor making repeat nonsense edits, ignores warnings

    An editor using Time Warner Cable from Kansas City with an IPv6 range spanning 2606:6000:CA80:1600:6C4F:5798:F69E:15D1 (talk · contribs), 2606:6000:CA80:1600:FDC7:2453:4039:9A46 (talk · contribs), 2606:6000:CA80:1600:C069:5243:8337:D7F6 (talk · contribs), 2606:6000:CA80:1600:18EE:158F:4ABB:AA2A (talk · contribs) and 2606:6000:CA80:1600:DDEC:EA13:C2D6:3D9C (talk · contribs) has been causing problems on a variety of China and Taiwan-related articles.

    • On Fujian Province, Republic of China, he keeps making partisan edits which replace standard terms with euphemisms and political slogans. For example, these edits turn "Chinese province" into "province of the Communist regime", "PRC" into "Communist bandits", and replaces well-recognised, standard romanisations with nonsense ones. He does the same thing here and here in spite of warnings suggesting that he refrain from edit warring, and that he start a discussion on the talk page if he had any specific disagreements with the article content. In an edit summary, he calls the article "Communist bullshit".
    • On Names of China, he writes that calling China the Bandit-occupied area is what "intelligent people" call China, that China is "illegally claimed" by communists, and that the name of China is "Jhonghwá Jénmín Gòngfeikwó" (which literally means "Chinese people's bandit country").
    • On articles such as Shanxi (Chinese province), Jincheng (Chinese prefecture), Weng Wenhao (Chinese politician), Chiang Kai-shek (former dictator of China), Chiang Kai Shek College (Filipino school), Shilin District (Taiwanese district), Taipei American School (Taiwanese school), Guningtou War Museum (Taiwanese museum), Nanjing Road (road in Shanghai), Jin-Zuan Night Market (Taiwanese night market), Cianjhen District (Taiwanese district), Port of Kaohsiung (Taiwanese harbour), Star Ferry (company operating in Hong Kong), Chenpi (Chinese cooking ingredient), Xinhui District (Chinese district), Schive Chi (Taiwanese politician), Chen Cheng (Chinese general), Chen Li-an (Taiwanese politician), Frederick Chien (Taiwanese politician), and Buxiban (Chinese cram schools), this editor replaces standard romanisations with non-standard ones without proper community consensus. Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style at WP:MOSZH, Hanyu pinyin is the standardised form of Chinese romanisation used throughout Wikipedia articles since it is the official romanisation form used in China, Taiwan and Singapore; this editor either replaces the romanisations with Chinese postal romanization used in the 1900s, Tongyong Pinyin which was an experimental system that is now defunct and archaic, or complete nonsense romanisations that don't follow any kind of system.

    Is it reasonable for me to ask for an IPv6 range ban? I considered requesting for Fujian Province, Republic of China to be protected at WP:RFPP, however I then realised that page protection would be ineffective at stemming the range of damage this user may have on other China and Taiwan-topic articles throughout Wikipedia. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting User:FreeatlastChitchat

    The user is of a nonconstructive background who has experienced being blocked. The note at the very beginning of of his talk page is also suggesting how he himself evaluates his own edits. His edits seems like edit warring for which he has been warned by other users (Human3015, Sakimonk, Code16) multiple times (refer to his talk page). He tends to remove well sourced materials without building up a consensus and has received warnings for this behavior by users Septate and Sakimonk. I would evaluate the user as a disruptive editor considering a series of his edits over time which forms a pattern that seriously disrupts the project. Mhhossein (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: He Violated civility by accusing me for "blatant lying" and calling other users "a bunch of POV pushers. Per WP:POVPUSH, "calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously."

    • Comments by the Accused(FreeatLastchitchat)

    First of all pinging other editors who share your POV to your drama is highly unrecommended because then I cannot assume good faith about you. Secondly there has never been a single time when my edits were removed by consensus. Let me bold that up for you NOT A SINGLE TIME. you can see from multiple discussions ACROSS MULTIPLE TALK PAGES that after uninvolved editors have their say more than 90% of my edits go through and I always accept the opinion of uninvolved editors who, coincidentally, agree with me for the most part. It is quite true that some editors are mightily pissed off at my edits but I cannot help that, I am not your babysitter, and this is wikipedia not your personal diary. Other editors who join this discussion can take a look at my most recent foray into this field here at Hadith and criticism of hadith talk pages. I made some suggestions which pissed of Code16. He was unwilling to accept them until @Drmies: and @HyperGaruda: stepped in. Uninvolved editors will also be pleased to notice the blatant lying which Mhosseain has resorted to in this complaint as it is plain from viewing the edits that are called removals by Mohesein, that I merely moved the material from one section to another. The article had more bytes after I was done editing than it had before. I actually added to the article. True, I may have removed some duplicate sentences but that is always done to trim down.
    Uninvolved editors will also see from this discussion that once again, I have listed my concerns 9/10 out of which have been agreed upon by another editor. I then edited the article accordingly.
    The only "disruption" I am guilty of is that of deleting hagiography and blatant POV statements, which of course rub some people the wrong way. My page is full of warnings because that is the only thing these POV pushers are able to do, that ofc and start this kind of ANI drama. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This seems to be a content dispute. I see not much evidence of disruption, though there has been some edit-warring on Mawlid. There has been plenty of discussion on the talk pages, some of it heated, as is normal in contentious areas. Removal of content is fine per WP:BOLD, but more WP:DR should be pursued if one's bold edits are reversed. I see FreeatlastChitchat's edits as mostly constructive. It is still good to tread carefully in contentious areas to not step on too many toes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsindian perhaps you can give your opinion on the Mawlid TP. I am kinda pulling out my hair that even when I haev thoroughly discussed my edits an anon IP is removing them. He also removed a simple merger which was through an AFD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, those editors whom I don't know don't share my POV, they are users who just figured out your disruptive editing. Secondly, please stop accusing users for pushing POV. As you know, this behavior is taken seriously and insisting on it may lead to penalties such as block. Finally, regradless of your edits, the problem stems from your disruptive behavior. Unfortunately, you accuse users for being POV pushers and for being just pissed off when they object your behavior. You have mistaken "deleting hagiography" for deleting well sourced materials. Mhhossein (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsindian: Calling others "a bunch of POV pushers" is not deemed constructive, is it? Of course no one objects constructive discussions, but we should not forget that being bold requires being able to involve constructive discussions and being able to handle heated ones. Mhhossein (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsindian: What about accusing me for "blatant lying"? Is it constructive enough? Mhhossein (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would help more if you avoided throwing such an unrelated material here, which is welcomed in its right place. The fact is that you are missing the point that "Mahdi in Quran" is discussed by reliable sources in depth and your surprise is strange! Please, if you find it necessary, continue the discussion on the discussion page of the article or on the related AFD discussion. Btw, here you can find what a real "ad hominem comment" is.Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me point out something that's really damning about FreeatlastChitchat: in addition to getting into edit wars on the page, which he should know better than because he's been blocked for it in the past, he went against policy by creating a new AfD 5 days after the one closed for Rape Jihad. In addition, for whatever reason, he recreated an old AfD about the article to make it look like the most recent decision was to delete it. Propose a ban given that he's already had a topic ban for Islam related articles until he demonstrates that he can drop the WP:STICK. --DawnDusk (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

    And another user who is pissed off because I got his most favorite page not only deleted but also salted, actually he is so pissed off that he does not care for etiquette or morals he has decided to shamelessly LIE about me. I would like DawnDusk to show the public exactly when I was topic banned. UNInvolved editors will be happy to see that once again DAWNDUSK has actually proven my point. A bunch of POV pushers wanted to keep rape jihad on wiki. It was an atrocious imbecility masquerading as an article. I tried to get it deleted, and pruned it. The POV pushers ganged up on me and I was banned for one week, not topic banned as he says. During that time the uninvolved decision was that the material that I was trying to remove was so bad that it should not only be removed, it must be kept off Wikipedia for a long long time. Hence the Salt. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me, I misspoke as I was copy/pasting a previous comment I made about you. You know why that is? This isn't exactly your first time here at ANI. I hardly log in anymore due to outside obligations, but I do find it funny that on the rare occasion I do and come to ANI, you are of course the newest addition at the bottom. However, the fact is that you did receive a ban for atrocious violation of policy (and no matter how many times I ask, you never explain why you falsified an AfD). You have never been able to drop the stick. I don't know why, but that is a certain constant about you. If you are allowed to go with a temporary punishment once more, it will be a matter of time (again) until you wind up back here for being excessively combative (e.g., calling me an imbecile) or edit warring (a personal favorite of yours). --DawnDusk (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty damning when you violate guidelines so consistently that you must include a warning on your talkpage (one that so beautifully captures the aggression and stick-carrying of yours that gets you into trouble, too!): "So if you are here cuz you are pissed off at me, relax, chill, have a glass of water and pour your heart out to me before going to ANI/SPI/Any other admin place where you can cry." --DawnDusk (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The behaviour and language of FreeatlastChitchat is abusive and offensive. I don't know how someone can tolerate a person whose reply begins with this line?:

    And another user who is pissed off

    Septate (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm he isss pissed off at me, why else would he comment like this. Just when did "pissed off" enter the realm of abusive and offensive? I hear it like a hundred times a day. the offensive and abusive slang would be 'piss off. Pissed off only means "very angry". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Septate. And Free, no. I'm not pissed off. I never have been at you (User:Dfrr is the only one who can do that to me) and have always approached you with sincerity. You entirely missed the point Septate was trying to make. If you have so many people lobbying for your ban because of your past transgressions that you must begin replies with "another user who is pissed off," it is a telling circumstance in favor of your removal from the encyclopedia. And for what it's worth, "pissed off" isn't very polite when you're trying to defend yourself either. --DawnDusk (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What past transgressions exactly are you talking about. I think you did not read my first comment. let me put it here for you there has never been a single time when my edits were removed by consensus. NOT A SINGLE TIME. You can see from multiple discussions ACROSS MULTIPLE TALK PAGES that after uninvolved editors have their say more than 90% of my edits go through and I always accept the opinion of uninvolved editors who, coincidentally, agree with me for the most part.. I hope that helps. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although FreeatlastChitchat is not always the gentlest of editors, most of the time he has a good eye for spotting weakly sourced POV content and acting accordingly. Considering that FC's edits are often related to contentious subjects, the cleanups (akin to a milder version of WP:Blow it up and start over) frequently lead to disputes with editors who feel that their beliefs are attacked. In the end, FC's edits are usually accepted -maybe slightly modified- because they are justified WikiPolicy, no matter how many feelings are hurt. I hope that FC will be allowed to continue editing, because frankly, he's one of the few who actually has the guts to tackle problems in contentious areas.
      I do would like to advise FC to adhere to WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, instead of waiting for someone to cross the WP:3RR line; to actually reach concensus with everyone (read: wait for everybody to say OK/agreed) before (re-)applying the edits; and to use less... um... "vulgar" slang. This of course also applies to the offended editors, who often jump straight to accusations of attacking their beliefs, rather than first explaining why the status quo should be maintained. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well this is fun. I looked at the first couple of diffs which supposedly evidence Freeatlast's removal of sources etc. and I don't see it. From run-ins on talk page we've had, they seem to be pretty well versed in Wikipedia policy and their edits improve articles. I will say this, and I agree with HyperGaruda, it would be good if they dropped the salty language. There's "pissed off" and "hissy fit" and "Go cry me a river" and whatnot all over the place (see Talk:Mawlid#Deletion_of_POV_and_other_unsourced_controversial.), and the effect of coming out so strong in one's first sentence is that a. the next sentences are easily overlooked and b. one's audience is automatically antagonized. No, really, HyperGaruda hits the nail on the head--well said. So, should we ban or topic-ban an editor for the occasional forceful term? No. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why HyperGaruda is talking about beliefs being attacked or feelings being hurt! How could you find a single mention of "belief" and such things here? you've missed the point, I think. Is HG trying to say that there's no problem with FC's behavioral pattern? At least his awkward AFD mass nominations signals his bad faith to me. Drmies would better take a look at ([99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104] and etc). Although some parts of his edits are OK, he is damaging the project by deleting reliable and well sourced parts and by being disruptive and uncivil. Mhhossein (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mhhossein, Drmies can't look at a list of diffs, some of which really fat diffs, and see what you want them to see unless you tell them what to see. On Ali, I see that part of the revert by Freeatlast involved undoing this edit, in which the references added are very poorly formatted and the reliability of the sources impossible, or at least very difficult, to ascertain. What I did see in that same revert is that some of the obviously reliable sources were not removed but simply moved. Nor do I see, in the edits I looked at, incivility or disruption. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, So Drmies can't (maybe shouldn't) judge FreeatlastChitchat's behavior by considering just two or three diffs. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhhossein, that's one way of putting it--unfortunately, while it's not a bad rhetorical move, it does not help your case since I'm the only admin, I think, who's weighed in. Your job here, as the plaintiff, is to convince me that this and that behavior warrants censure. Now, basically I said "you're not giving me the evidence for disruptive behavior"; if you then say "so you can't judge", you're taking out the one admin who took the time to read what up til now is a complaint without merit. It's not even a double-edged sword since you're only cutting your own finger.

    Still, it is more truthful to say "in the diffs presented without further explanation, no evidence was found of disruption warranting administrative intervention". If you want to convince an admin that action is warranted you'll need to do a much better job of making your case. In the meantime, all you're getting is two people (me and HyperGaruda) telling Freeatlast that they should be more careful, much more careful, with their choice of words. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Freeatlastchitchat nominated many articles for deletion that is notable, but doesn't suit his POV. Drmies believes most of the time he has a good eye for spotting weakly sourced POV content and acting accordingly. If this is true, then there are some AFDs which were speedy keep. And nominating should be considered as disruptive as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pratapgarh, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kolhapur, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pavan Khind, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Sinhagad. You might claim these are months old. Not for these Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public image of Narendra Modi. The Avengers 18:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • So they didn't win their argument on two AfDs. What's your point? In none of them was the nominator chastised by a closing admin, and one of them was closed as "no consensus". Do you want me to block or ban an editor for nominating two articles and not winning their case? Drmies (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies: This is not actually my case or anyone's, this is the project's case. So, there must be something beyond personal issues. I reckon you were running short of time when you said you could not check the list. Anyway, The Avengers is trying to say another point to which I mentioned. FreeatlastChitchat's mass AFD nomination is just a part of that behavioral pattern I said at the very beginning. As an admin, you must know that "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time" and "Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one 24 hour period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act." Mhhossein (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mhhossein, it is your case. You brought it here, and you are not giving me the evidence to think anything specific. You can't say "the evidence is in these diffs" if the diffs are huge and complex and all you offer is "he's removing valid sources". How am I supposed to a. find where these sources are removed? b. judge whether the sources weren't poor to begin with? I know very well what you say about edit warring; I have blocked many an editor for longterm edit-warring. You simply haven't proven that this is the case here, and with that I conclude my contributions to this thread. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we close this one please. The complainant has not provided any specific evidence of disruptive behaviour. The first of his/her diffs[105], he/she claimed was evidence of FreeatlastChitchat deleting well-sourced material. But the diff shows that the complainant must have misunderstood. The cited information from Kitab ul Mola and The Economist was retained and moved to a section marked "Mut'ah as a form of prostitution"; FreeatlastChitchat added more well-sourced material to that section.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, I provided more diffs 16:41, 14 December 2015. I'm not talking about merely an edit warring, I'm talking about a disruptive behavioral pattern which includes edit warring, being uncivil, drive by tagging, mass AFD nominations and etc. Mhhossein (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein which new diff have you provided? Can you point me towards it. Did you edit your original or make a new comment, I cannot find it! I would really like to see how naughty I have been and I may even have an excuse for my naughtiness. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At your request, diffs are provided here. Mhhossein (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein Those have already been replied to by Drmies, I thought that was quite clear. Perhaps you should read the entire discussion again. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reply here about those diffs. Mhhossein (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reply is given right after your comment with the diffs. If you do not understand English as Toddy1 pointed out to me earlier, and are using a translating service such as google translate. then copy paste the text, one sentence at a time. Instead of asking for a complete translate. the translation will be easier for you to understand. go from full stop to full stop. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FreeatlastChitchat:English is my second language (Toddy1 might have mistaken me for another user!) and you don't need to make fun of others even if they don't know English. Anyway, if you follow the thread you'll see that you've not provided the explanations (pay attention to 16:41, 14 December 2015 comment). Mhhossein (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Drmies: This SPI against the reporter by Freeatlastchitchat should be included in this ANI. Closing administrators are supposed to close AFDs. Why will they rebuke Freeatlast for nominating well sourced articles for deletion which doesn't suit his POV as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public image of Narendra Modi. The Avengers 05:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    first the diffs, then the AFD's now an SPI? The avengers you are a complete lol person to be frank. 100% lol. Who in the name of all that is holy will ask for a topic ban for starting an SPI? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the 100th time, your disruptive behavior is not limited to one or two areas. Your edits make a pattern which shows how disruptive you are. As I quoted before, "one act, by itself, may not violate policy, but when part of a series of acts they constitute a pattern that does violate policy. Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one 24 hour period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act." Your awkward AFD nominations (you nominated some clearly notable subjects which ended with "speedy keep" or "keep" and this adds to your bad faith.) Moreover, you fail to respect the civility and tend to accuse others for "POV pushing" and "blatant lying". Your language retards reaching consensus when it comes to discussions (here's an example). You've been warned for committing edit warring (per your talk page). You failed to explain why you have removed those sourced materials (the diffs I provided). Mhhossein (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AND FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME Uninvolved admins and uninvolved editors have said that my editing is fine. the only thing it hurts is the feelings of some people who are overly connected to some Wikipedia pages. who think that some page is their page and it should not be nominated, or who think that a page belongs to their religion so they, by default, have its propriety rights. As for my statement that you lied, well it is true. you did lie. Right at the start of this ANI thread. You said I had removed a source, while it was the other way around, I had actually added more sources. so yes, I called you a liar, because you lied. What am I supposed to call you? Actually, what would you call ME if I lie like this?
    Furthermore it is clear here that you are beating a dead/decomposed horse. I edit in contentious areas, so I am used to disgruntled editors like yourself trying their best to get me off wikipedia so that they can put hagiography/pov back into their beloved articles. There is literally nothing new that you added to accusations which have been already made against me. I don't delete warning from my Talk page so people like you can see them, read them, and then realize that Wikipedia is not some primary school where you go to the principal with the excuse that someone has hurt your feelings and he should be punished. This is an encyclopedia edited by mature(mostly) editors. So try to be mature when you edit. there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to get angry just because the article you love is being trimmed. It takes me MORE time to delete things than it takes for you to write them. Read that again, it takes me MORE TIME to delete. Because I have to not only read the entire source, I have to look at the context, that perhaps an editor picked something from a few lines back or a few lines after. this takes more time. So what you are accusing me is highly laughable. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling a user as lol person is a personal attack. I won't take the bait by a pov pusher. Comment on the discussion, not on character. Maybe this ANI was necessary to take your mask off. The Avengers 06:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, no its not a Personal attack. it means "Laugh out loud" and is used to call a person "funny". another example is calling some one a riot. Dude! If you do not understand English there is a dictionary just a right click away. Select lol, right click, search with google. I thought lol was in common use these day? Almost everyone knows what it means to be frank, you cannot blame me for assuming that now. Well you did blame me, but any way. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kingsindian and Drmies: FreeatlastChitchat's rudeness is far from WP:Civility. He/she clearly blames the other editors who have different viewpoints. Even you can find it in the above discussion (for example "blatant lying" to Mhhossein). He/she mocks the others instead of using rational discussion ( [106]) and (Go cry me a river. Can you please stop behaving like a child for a minute here? [107]). How can you tolerate such a manner!--Seyyed(t-c) 08:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sa.vakilian: In your diff [here, FC is basically just disagreeing that wikishia.net is a WP:RS, in rather colourful language. The second diff is similar. They have already been advised to dial down their language; this is an international project and people often misunderstand. I do not appreciate FC calling editors liars on WP:ANI, but unfortunately, on WP:ANI personal attacks and nasty behaviour is the norm, especially when one has been accused. One needs a bit of a thick skin when working in contentious topics. I see their edits on articles as mostly constructive and I do not see enough disruption to support any sort of sanction other than the advice already given. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsindian: He had been so disruptive that you did not recognize how he was awkwardly calling this book unreliable and I just provided wikishia as a link to introduce the author to him, not as a source! Please note that he has very little knowledge about Islamic sources and he acts based on his own speculations without knowing the authors and their expertise (take a look at this). Mhhossein (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsindian: Unfortunately, I think he/she has not understood what the wikipedia is. He/she judges about the issues based on his/her personal beliefs and condemn those who disagree with him/her. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. " (Wikipedia:NOT) Of course, he/she does not add something but attempt to delete whatever he/she dislikes even if it has reliable source. I can not understand why you justify his/her action like removing a reliable source in this edition[108][109]!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 13:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sa.vakilian: I have no idea what you mean by "justify his/her action" based on a diff I have never seen before. I limited my remarks to the diffs presented by Mhhossein and you earlier. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to comb through FC's entire contribution history. At a glance, the diff you mention above removed a lot of unreliable sources, like this one, which is a self-published source. The Cambridge University Press source should not have been removed, it seems to me. Perhaps you can ask FreeatlastChitchat as to why they removed it (perhaps it was a mistake?), on the article talk page. This kind of thing is a content dispute, and WP:ANI does not deal with content disputes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A note for the closing admin: A mistake (which Kingsindian guesses to be the cause) happens once! if a user tends to repeat the same behavior such as mass removing of contents including well sourced ones and tends to use improper language and has received numerous warnings, the only remaining option is ANI. As an example, besides the diff by seyyed pay attention to the following:
    1. Here he removed a whole section of "Baha'i view" which was supported by a baha'i source (the best possible source to describe the view of A group is to use sources related to A group). Of course it was better if the section was tagged asking for independent sources. Anyway, mass removing was not the solution.
    2. Here he removed sources such as Irannica and Britannica.
    3. Here he removed Peshawar Nights and he'd better asked for another source beside the current one, not removing the whole material. In this diff, he has also removed "Doctrines of Shiʻi Islam : a compendium of Imami beliefs and practices" by Ayatollah Jafar Sobhani.
    4. He has little information about guidelines for editing Islam-related articles. Here a group are trying to make FreeatlastChitchat understand that Nafasul Mahmoom is not self published. Same thing happened here.
    5. I'd like to add "drive by tagging" by Fc to the this list. [110], [111]. Can you find explanations about those tagging on related talk pages?
    6. Accusing other users of pushing POV here. Some more clues are found in this thread calling users a "bunch of POV pushers" and "blatant liars".
    7. His language is really annoying. For example, here he retarded reaching a consensus by his so called "colorful language". Although in the same discussion I enjoyed discussing with HyperGaruda.
    I would call the above a "pattern of disruptive" behavior which should be stopped. He does not have to edit the articles with which he is not familiar. Mhhossein (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Checkingfax WP:NPA and other policy violations

    A sockpuppet investigation is not a personal attack. All discussion belongs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBUSHIstory, not here at AN/I.
    -- Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Policy WP:NPA says a personal attack includes "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki". Without warning, from out of the blue, User:Checkingfax accused me of violating WP:SP, which is a "serious accusation", and supplied no evidence, no diff or link, saying only "Donald Trump disruption mostly".

    I had no history of disruptive editing at Donald Trump or anywhere else, none at all. No editor ever complained about any of my edits in any talk page, edit summary, or anywhere, not even remotely. I never had any confrontation or dispute with any editor - all talk page discussions were civil and led to consensus. I never reverted any editor's edit, even once. I first proposed all of my edits on talk pages, waited for consensus before making the edits, supported the edits with reliable sources, and all of my edits remain unchanged in the articles, even in controversial articles like Donald Trump. So no editor ever had any problem with any of my edits being disruptive - quote the opposite, all other editors appear to agree with my edits.

    When I asked Checkingfax to provide evidence for the serious WP:SP accusation, to provide at least one diff that supported an allegation of WP:SP through "Donald Trump disruption mostly", Checkingfax ignored me, and provided no evidence.[112]

    Despite this, I continued to try to assume good faith on the part of Checkingfax, i.e., that he/she had a problem with at least one edit I made, which might be interpreted as "Donald Trump disruption mostly". So I spent many hours reviewing each and every edit I ever made, and all talk pages and edit summaries by others that occurred at anywhere near the time of my edits, trying to find any evidence of "Donald Trump disruption mostly", so I could respond to the accusation at the SP accusation page. I found nothing. I then spent more hours reading the contribution history of the two editors who I was accused of being a WP:SP for, trying to find any similarity of any of my edits with theirs. I found nothing. Their editing style, interaction style with other editors at talk pages, edit summaries, language style, and especially edit content substance and implicit application of WP:WEIGHT is not even remotely similar to my own.

    The only possible response I could make to the evidence-free (and talk page dispute-free) accusations was this response I made.

    Before making a serious accusation of being disruptive in the style of two banned editors, Checkingfax (or some editor) should have first said something on some talk page or edit summary, that some edit of mine appeared to be disruptive.

    Checkingfax appears to be a very experienced editor, who knows what evidence is, so the failure to provide evidence with the accusation is a clear violation of the quoted section of WP:NPA - "serious accusations require serious evidence", and possibly other Wikipedia behavioral policies and guidelines that I am not familiar with.

    When I asked Checkingfax for clarification and evidence, and Checkingfax ignored me, this showed that Chekingfax's violation WP:NPA's "serious accusations require serious evidence", was an intentional violation, which should be addressed with some kind of sanction against Checkingfax, so that it never recurs. MBUSHIstory (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Checkingfax WP:Harrassment violations

    An accidental duplicate posting caused by an automated editing tool, quickly rectified, is not harassment. These issues do not belong at ANI. If you continue to file thee issues here, you will be subject to WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    • WP:Harrassment says, “Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place.] Checkingfax never once made any direct communication suggesting that any of my edits were even remotely disruptive, or remotely similar to edits of the two editors Checkingfax accused me of being an SP for.
    • Checkingfax started a pattern of harassment by putting the same, evidence-free, accusation on my talk page TWICE. [113]
    • Placing an accusation of being a WP:SP on a talk page may not be harassment, but putting the SAME accusation on the talk page TWOCE is the beginning of a pattern of harrassment.
    • After seeing that the SP accusation was made without any evidence, assuming Checkingfax's accusation was made in good faith, I asked Checkingfax for at least one diff, or any shred of evidence, for the SP accusations.
    • Instead of providing evidence, even a single diff, Checkingfax instead responded by tarnishing my userpage by adding TWO more IDENTICAL WP:SP accusations, the SAME evidence-free accusations already made TWICE on my talk page. [114]
    • Adding the same (evidence-free) accusations to my userpage, which Checkingfax already made two times on my talk page, and as the only response to my request for evidence of Checkingfax’s serious SP accusations, is pure harassment. There is no other possible interpretation.
    • Checkingfax is a very experienced editor who knows that the appropriate response for a request for evidence of an SP accusation, is not to ignore therequest, and instead tarnish the accused editor's userpage. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    German admin deletes everything that doesnt correspond to his political opinion, his german sites are contrary to english ones and express extreme right arguments

    I have published 3 books about Room 40. I have put them into the bibliography of the englisch and german wiki years ago. Now a german admin User:Otberg deleted these and any other of my contributions systematically (see RMS Lusitania) from all german sites. His justification: everything is unscientific.

    I send him links, where my books were cited. I told him, that they were for years on the wiki and are still in the english one.

    He argued, that the german wiki is more scientific than the english wiki ....

    Now he started to delete systematically everything I have ever contributed from to the english wiki. Damnatio memoriae - for me this is vandalism.

    As I can see in the history of Otberg, he constantly has problems with other peoples opinion, specially if this relates to german history. I can only assume, that he disliked from a personal political standpoint (extrem-rightism) my latest thesis to the Lusitania case. His german Lusitania site points to arguments, which are contrary to the ones in the english page, i.e. that the sinking of Lusitania was justified because she was no passenger ship, but an axiliary cruiser. This was and still is the argument of the german extreme right.

    Has the german Lusitania wiki page fallen in the hands of extreme rightists censors and am I the helpless(?) victim of thought control?

    best regards, AchimKoerver

    @AchimKoerver: On English Wikipedia, you are required to post a notification to a user's talk page when you raise an issue about them at this noticeboard. I have done that for you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • As far as I can see, on the Room 40 article, the two 'references' removed were not actually referencing anything - none of the prose in the article were sourced to them. They may have value in as part of a further reading section. Any Milhist types still lurking around who want to take a look at Otbergs recent edits? My eyebrows tend to raise when someone removes a reference to a published work with 'original research'. Granted the editor above is the author, but if its a published by a reputable (non vanity) publisher, then it hardly qualifies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the same, but I can't find any info on the publisher. They appear to be quite obscure. As for accusations that the editor is trying to scrub articles to align with their extreme views, I personally don't see any evidence of this, just the usual editorial quibbling, but I didn't look very hard. AchimKoerver, can you link to any specific edits that expose this behaviour? I'll also post a note at WP:MILHIST, which is fairly active. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These are definitely R/S. They are cited by several books from even a brief google books search. I'm a MILHIST member, and it looks to be a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have reverted with an ed summ. Suggest engaging this editor on T/P as next step if he reverts Irondome (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AchimKoerver, if you are a published author, you should know that the words "German" and "English" are capitalized. In terms of your own writings and your own website, you need to read WP:COI. You should not be posting your own publications or websites on Wikipedia, although you can request on the article's talk page that they be used or mentioned. Perhaps you did not know that when you added the items (and in fact, you did not use the account you are posting from now to add them -- perhaps you added them as an IP?). But now you know. In terms of Otberg, he should not be deleting information as "unreliable" or "original research" when it clearly isn't. If he has a legitimate reason to remove items, he needs to state that clearly. My view is that since the items and sites in question were apparently not used to write the wiki articles, they can be removed at will as COI (not as unreliable), unless there is community or specialist agreement that they merit inclusion as Further Reading or External Links. In terms of German Wikipedia, we have no influence on other wikis here; only English Wikipedia. You will have to make your case there for that Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    The Author again, Achim Koerver. I have published the following books:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/3902433760

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/3902433779

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/3902433795

    and another one about Lusitania with new documents and facts in German, and next year in English: http://www.amazon.de/dp/3902433809 and http://www.amazon.de/dp/3902433817

    I have provided the wiki reader a link to my homepage with photos, documents and original sources from British and German military archives.

    http://www.germannavalwarfare.info/index.html

    All this had been done some years before, and nobody ever complained.

    Otberg deleted first systematically EVERYTHING from me last week in German wiki, now he does the same since 36 hours in the English wiki. Damnatio memoriae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.83.126 (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The books of Achim Koerver, who is working as a IT-consulent, are publised not by a regular publishing company, but by the consulting company of his personal friend. No one of his books is listed in a scientific library in Austria, the country of the publisher. Most of all: the books are not used in scientific works. That's why they are no reliable sources and original research. Achim Koerver used wikipedia for advertising his books, his publisher is banned for that at german wikipedia. Otberg (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Irondome, these books need to be cited before they can be listed among the Works Cited. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's more, LIS Reinisch is a business consultancy firm (or something like that). They are not an academic publisher, and I note that you can buy a copy of Volume 1 on Lulu--had to replace "lulu" with "XXXX" to get it through the filter. Moreover, I do not find evidence of these books being cited (maybe I'm not searching very good); what I do find is that the books are also listed in articles such as SM U-20 (Germany)--added by Koerver. I do think that Otberg has a point here about bookspamming. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The books of Koerver are not listed at the LOC [115] or the BL: [116]. Guess why? --Otberg (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    mmmm. Blunder. An over-hasty search. All forum stuff and self -referencing on google books. I could have sworn I located 2 good ref uses in other works earlier today. Very odd. Irondome (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I mistaken the LoC requires the publisher to submit a copy before it'll be listed? If it's not a U.S. book, there's no certainty that happens.
    As for bookspam, I'd agree. The reliability of something not from a reputable publisher calls this in question; it makes it little more than self-published, & that fails RS. (Not to say I haven't seen self-published sources being used as cites...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    @AchimKoerver: in self-defense, again: Should I be amused or astonished, that my books, listed above and provided with an international ISBN-number and listed since years at amazon and with a link from here - don't seem to be a proof that they are really "existing"? What does this tell about the seriousness of anybody denying their existence?

    Only to proof, that me, my editor and my books are really existing objects in this world.

    My editor is an old friend of mine, who runs - like me - a properly registered company. He is - like me - engaged in a broad business spectre, mainly very well paid IT-business and under others book writing and publishing. Our common intention in this - by nature ridicously unprofible business - is not to get "millionaires", but to be able as book-lovers to publish facts, that would very presumably not find friends in "profit-oriented big industry" editors. The price for this is naturally to get under general suspicion to be some funky "Self-publishers" only being interested in advertising their latest conspiracy thesis to become "millionaires" ...

    What I cannot grasp any more in this discussion:

    Why have my contributions in wiki been listed for years, only to be "purged" from one day to another by the lonely decision of a single person as "unscientific"? How could I become victim of a single wiki admin, who seems not to react rationally any more, deleting systematically since the last 3 days any traces of me from German and English wiki?

    If I would use expressions like "damnatio memoriae" or "purge" or "extermination" - whould it be too far away from characterizing this single person's out-raged behaviour?

    An arbitrary proposal from my side : couldn't you get a natural German speaking admin to check out the conversations I have had with otberg in the last weeks, to get more facts for "fact-finding" ??? Me personally I am convicend to have tried to keep the discussions at a constructive level, while otberg justified his very high handed personal actions by the "more scientific demand" of the German wiki compared to the english one. Very strange, I found. Havent we already had that some time before? Germany over the rest of the world ?????

    Nobody here to check and defend scientific books against autocratic individual censorship? Do they or do they not present a gain for wiki readers? best regards, Hans Joachim Koerver

    • Dear Mr. Koerver, I would not treat a page like this as a Rolodex. No one is disputing the existence of you and your books. The damnatio memoriae comparison isn't very apt (I mean, literally, the references are still in the history...), and that it's just one single editor trying to blot you from these articles isn't true either; I counted three or four editors by now who have removed those references. Now, "scientific books"--that remains to be seen. You are welcome to present the matter at WP:RSN; this board here judges conduct, and the conduct of your opponent has not been found to be lacking. I strongly advise you, though, that when you make your case at the RSN board for the reliability and notability of those books, that you come armed with such things as book reviews from academic journals, to bolster your case. Mere existence is not enough. I also suggest you find a better answer for the Lulu availability of your book; contrary to your assertion, many academic publishers are not in it for the big bucks. Alles gute, Drmies (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably time to close this thread. If anyone wants yet another opinion, DGG could be pinged, but I think we have a reasonable consensus of experienced editors who feel that mention of these books and websites on English Wikipedia is both COI and non-notable. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns about behaviour at WP:CIVILITY talk page

    Disagreement against a proposal isn't bullying and while the discussions are not ideal, there's no indication that it's risen to the level of uncivility to warrant blocks or warnings. If the intention was to spread awareness of the discussion there, that's been accomplished but all parties should be aware that changing policy on its own is very unlikely to occur in contrast to a proposal or essay first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In an ironic twist, some editors have been engaging in uncivil dialogue at the talk page about civility policy. I am finding it impossible to discuss proposed content changes to the policy with this obstructionism and other forms of bullying tactics going on there and i seek resolution here to open that space back up for civil on-topic dialogue.

    The two editors mainly involved are EEng and Johnuniq.

    Myself and another editor have been working on the idea of defining the concept of bullying behavior in the WP:CIVILITY policy. There has been a pattern of difficult dialogue by several editors so far, and now it has gotten completely out of hand and toxic and is obstructing any progress.

    I tried to right the dialogue and get on topic, here pinging those with concerns and showing that i heard their concerns, and addressing them directly and clearly.


    Some evidence:

    • Dialogue started going downhill into mocking of my language and showing an WP:IDHT stance, with I still don't see anything like text that could be added to the policy whereas the dialogue above was proposing just such text to be discussed.
    • Johnuniq presents ad hominem aspersions designed to ruin my ability to discuss this topic by attempting to reputationally damage me in that dialogue, i.e. poisoning the well. (Incidentally, this shows the great harm that can be done with careless comments like that incorrect comment by Seraphimblade in the recent ArbCom case. It provides more ammo with which to shoot the messenger.
    • EEng joined in (ganging/mobbing behavior) presented multiple diffs in attempt at character assassination to reputationally and emotionally undermine me to exclude me from being able to hold this dialogue.
    • Johnuniq restoring content that i had hatted because it was off topic and designed to undermine me reputationally, i.e. poisoning the well and profiling and going ad hominem.
    • EEng writing to advise me that i not partake in the dialogue on that topic here because of EEng's characterization of me (which is wrong and profiling).
    • EEng writing this and reverting it back when another editor, Burninthruthesky, removed it as a personal attack here.


    These editors have proven themselves unwilling to partake in civil dialogue on this topic and are ruining my ability to do so, and ruining the editing environment for anyone else who might want to take part in that discussion, being generally obstructionist and attempting to block progress in any way possible, including attempting to emotionally and reputationally harm me so that i will stop discussing it. The space needs to be held open, however that can be done. I suggest those editors have proven themselves unfit for discussion on that page and need to be blocked from it for some time to allow good dialogue to happen on the topic at hand.

    Nobody has infinite time. This is obstruction to real discussion on the content. The editors' behavior has been pointed out to them and they pointedly refused to take heed of clear warnings, and even taunted "raise it with ANI" and made it clear that they will not stop this sort of behavior, and do not see it as wrong, thereby wasting the community's time with needless conflict. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Facepalm. Barely a day or two has passed since the closing of the GMO ArbCom case, and now this. I've read the entire discussion at WT:Civility, and I think that EEng and Johnuniq are correct on the merits, and for the most part were quite willing to listen, when one looks at the discussion in context, so we have some borderline boomerang issues here. At the same time, I very much appreciate that SageRad is coming at this as a result of what happened at ArbCom, because he perceives that he was "bullied" by the editors who ultimately got him topic-banned, and he is trying in good faith to try to make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for editors who disagree with consensus at a given page. I'm sympathetic to that intention, but Wikipedia just isn't good at legislating civility, so he will be happier if he lowers his expectations – and I'll ask EEng and Johnuniq to please go an extra mile in this instance to refrain from humor in responding to SageRad, in a spirit of, well, civility. Nobody needs administrative action here. It's just a matter of advice. SageRad, please drop the stick on this one, because it will simply be too difficult to arrive at actual language for the policy page. And everyone else, please cut SageRad a little extra slack for the time being. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wise and calming words as usual from Le Poisson de Trypto, though I note for the record that I removed humor from my communication toolbag on this topic as soon as Iridescent pointed out how impotent it was in this context [117]; everything I've said since has been 100% serious and face-value. As for SageRad's complaint in chief, the further development of this thread already budding below will, I'm sure, speak eloquently. EEng (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Humor was not the issue in this case. It's the actual substance of your dialogue there, EEng, which profiled me and cast aspersions to damage my reputation in that conversation to poison the well and attempt to undermine my ability to hold dialogue there on that topic. As you say, let's allow dialogue to elucidate what's going on, by getting multiple perspectives on this with good dialogue working things out, i hope. SageRad (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm changing my user name to Le Poisson de Trypto, although I think I ate that in a restaurant once. (And that was humor!) Sage, I've gotten to know both you and EEng, and you are both good people. I hope that you will both come to be able to work together happily in the near future. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, Tryptofish, when i face a railroading obstructionist behavior and bring it to "proper channels" like this, i get your comment beginning with "Facepalm"? Do you honestly think it's ok for me to trying to discuss content and then for a pair of editors to say "you are not able to discuss this because of X from your history"? Do you think that's okay there? Do you think that's not a violation of "focus on content" and "no personal attacks" and "assume good faith" and all the rest of the guidelines and policies and good practices of Wikipedia? I'd like to hear reckonings by others here. Trypto, how can i edit on Wikipedia now if my username is going to be tainted with a reputation (undeserved) from the ArbCom case judgment, including unfounded aspersions from an arbitrator? How is it wrong to want a clear editing environment, where we can discuss content? Do you think it's fine to poison the well? Do you think those editor's were not poisoning the well there? Please explain more. I value your opinions though i do not always agree, clearly. What those editors have done in that dialogue is not humor. It's ad hominem painting of me in a certain light, designed to undermine my ability to be an equal participant in dialogue there. You see that differently? You think i ought to give up on expecting civility? You think i should just accept that bullying behaviors will happen and that the power structure will never address them? Seems to be the import of what you said above. Correct me if i'm wrong. SageRad (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I better explain that my "facepalm" wasn't so much a criticism of you, as my feeling of dismay to see a new dispute erupting so soon. It is my considered opinion that neither EEng nor Johnuniq will (or should!) be blocked as a result of this discussion. It just does not rise to that level. There is, however, some risk that an administrator will look at this, look at ArbCom, and decide to block you as a boomerang. Believe it or not, my hope is that that will not happen. Now to answer your specific questions. You were not really discussing "content", but rather policy. The other editors were right that what you proposed was way too wordy to put on the policy page. And they started off saying things like they thought it was a good idea to add something about bullying, but that you needed to make it succinct. There's nothing "railroading" about that. Your response did not fix what they asked you to fix, and when you started saying things like "it takes a village", you left yourself open to them responding with humor – and I've now asked them to back off from that. I don't think that they were really poisoning the well, so much as becoming impatient with your failure to present a succinct proposal (and such a proposal may be impossible, given the complexity of the topic), and then they noticed your past history and correctly surmised your motivation. I agree with the final ArbCom decision about you, although it was poorly worded and arrived at clumsily. I repeat: I think that what you proposed was in good faith, and was directed towards a worthwhile goal. But Wikipedia does not guarantee that you can always succeed. And civility is the third rail, unfortunately. My advice is to drop it. You aren't going to be able to fix WP:CIVIL. If someone treats you disrespectfully, find something else to edit. If they really harass you repeatedly, then bring it to ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Trypto, thanks, but it is not a satisfying answer to me. For one thing, i don't think they correctly surmised my motivation, not how they presented it anyway. Secondly, when you write If someone treats you disrespectfully, find something else to edit. it sounds like you're saying "bullying happens" and endorsing it, by saying that when harassing behaviors occur then you just have to go elsewhere, which is essentially saying "bullying wins, that's a fact". SageRad (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Howdy SageRad. 3 or 4 times now, I've had my past brought up directly or indirectly, when engaged in content dispute. My way (perhaps the only way) is to ignore such things & continue forward. Otherwise, I'd end up getting piled on again. One's gotta keep cool, particularly when one feels cornered. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but is there no remedy and are policies only selectively enforced here in Wikipedia? How is it determined who gets sanctions and who does not? Do we not care to make the talk pages good spaces for dialogue? I will continue on, but wanted to use the "proper channels". SageRad (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It all comes down to how much editor support (if any) an editor has. If one has a lot of support? one will see less sanctions or at least one will see their sanctioned blocks being overturned or reduced. However, if one has little to no support? then sanctions will be adopted quicker & their sanctioned blocks won't be overturned or reduced. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    GoodDay, i agree that is the realpolitik of how it seems to work, but that is not how we want it to work in principle, is it? Ideally it is not about having a gang to support you so much as just wanting good editing environment with civil dialogue, isn't it? That opens the door to ganging/mobbing behavior being successful, which seems to be the case in Wikipedia, which makes good editors stay away from many topics, and the ultimate result is that a lot of content gets determined by bullying, and bullies get to determine what the human species sees when they go to Wikipedia to learn about something. That's not the world i want to live in. SageRad (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it's not a nice enviroment. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) SageRad, I'm going to reply here to both these comments, and to your reply to me above (because this discussion is getting too many edit conflicts). Your question to me above is a good one. I hate bullying, and I'm no fan of letting it pass. But I don't quite see this as having been bullying. Now, I've been editing Wikipedia for too many years, recently made my 40,000th edit (but who's counting). I need to remind myself that you are a relatively new editor, and that you've had a difficult introduction to Wikipedia. When I was a new editor, I felt the way that you do now – and I need to remember that. (Just fyi, if you think of a certain administrator whom some people wanted made a party to the GMO case, but wasn't, you might be interested to know that, many years ago, I went to the ArbCom requests for clarification page to ask about a civility issue that was bothering me then, and that same administrator (who probably does not even remember it) said then that I was a troll and I should be site banned (nothing came of it). Believe me, time passes!) It's understandable that you are feeling beaten up, and I get that. But the way you are handling it won't work. Maybe it should, but it won't. So let me make you this Standing OfferTM. From now on, any time that anyone does something to you that feels like bullying to you, try not to reply to them, but instead, please come to my user talk page and tell me about it. And I'll act on it for you. I promise. And in a surprisingly short time, you will come to find that you really don't need me for that any more. But that's a serious offer from me, for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tryptofish, i really appreciate your humanity here on Wikipedia, while i don't always see things the same way as you (a basic fact about being different human beings and inevitable), i appreciate your civility through everything that i have seen of you. You are able to express a different point of view without resorting to attacks and i appreciate that. I may sometime take up your offer. It's an offer i've made to another editor who was newer than me, and it helped that editor to feel better about Wikipedia too. People looking out for each other is very important. We can disagree on content but still discuss things in a civil way. My motto has become "The world is a battleground on some topics. Wikipedia should describe the battleground, not become another battle site." Yes, time passes, and yes, i've been through a rough landing in my arrival at Wikipedia, but i still wish to use my experience on a "meta level" to see if i can help address underlying issues that might have helped me out earlier if bad behaviors could have been nipped in the bud, so to speak. I think if we can work to define bad behaviors more clearly, and be able to address them through good means, then we'd be able to stay on the rails better, and slow down earlier before going off the rails and falling off the cliff. I think that if some people are looking out for others, and calling out bad behaviors in dialogue more often, that it could change the culture in general to be more civil. Content would benefit from more civil dialogue. Sometimes we need a lot of dialogue. The world is complex. It's impossible to have nuanced dialogue when every other comment is an aspersion or strawman or other sort of attempt to undermine the speaker rather than to address content. That's largely the source of my frustration in my past time here, and how i got riled up and then topic banned out of frustration... I had such hopes that Wikipedia was a site where reason and evidence would rule over power plays, and got quite a rude awakening. Still, it is fascinating and teaches me so much about human nature and the world. SageRad (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    • I have had no involvement with the GMO case, but after my involvement in the previous thread at CIVILITY, which also wound up at ANI, I had decided to stay out of this one.
    I am somewhat surprised (especially given the topic of discussion) by EEng's defence of this comment. He also raised it here as an example of misuse of the {{RPA}} template. The Oxford online dictionary defines sanctimonious as a derogatory term. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. I don't see any ambiguity here. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • SageRad made a good faith proposal, and received four reasonable good faith replies which indicated zero support for their suggestion. Rather than accept a clear consensus, they continued "I hear you all clearly, Johnuniq, Pablo X, Arnoutf and EEng. ..." and added a wall of text indicated it is they, not the other editors, who are engaging in WP:IDHT. Continuing to pursue a point given a clear consensus is another form of bullying. At this point, the best outcome is everyone goes on their way and either let the thread slip quietly into the archive or an uninvolved editor can close it. A possible outcome, which will become likely if SageRad chooses not to accept that part of being in a collaborative environment is accepting the consensus even if one doesn't personally agree with it, is additional sanctions for SageRad. NE Ent 17:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have supported the proposals, had there been a more collegial atmosphere. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See also the earlier comment from ClemRutter. Burninthruthesky (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) +1 what NE Ent said. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, i had received some support for the proposal in talk page section above the linked one. There are editors who support this proposal. There is not a clear consensus against it. Consensus is not yet determined. This is a proposal that has some support and some objections. Secondly, receiving objections from several users is okay, and then i told them that i heard them clearly in the diff i provided above, and pinged them, and addressed their concerns very clearly and directly. This is what dialogue is for isn't it? Not for me to say "ok, then forget about it..." but rather to say "i hear you and here's some response..." There was no "wall of text" -- there was actual response, thought through. Took a few paragraphs to express it. If that's too long for you, maybe you're not interested in the actual content. So to all your points, i think you're wrong here if you look at the evidence again. And lastly, your call for more sanctions against me for bringing this up is really to the point of blaming the victim which is a real dynamic that i want to name in the civility policy as it happens (like right now) and makes people reluctant to address behaviors directly. But i am not stopping in the face of this chilling or intimidation. I'm holding my head up and holding this dialogue. SageRad (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, you are in danger of making a wall of text here, and it will not help you, nor does insisting that it is "chilling or intimidation" help you. I hope that you will soon agree to closing this ANI thread, because I hope that it will be closed soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather not close yet, it's been an hour or so... let's give some time for other inputs. I'd like to be free to speak without watching the clock too much. I think i've been concise, not built a "wall of text". I wish to see what other input or remedy may be suggested by the community's wisdom. And yes, the dialogue at WP:CIVIL talk page was clearly intended to have a chilling effect, that was stated pretty clearly and directly by the editors in question themselves. SageRad (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SageRad, I think I just need to point out that it is extremely difficult to change an existing policy page, no matter what the subject is. It can take several RfCs that last months and solicit feedback from several areas like the Village Pump. Plus, the whole matter of civility has been an ongoing subject of disagreement, there is a conflict over defining what civil and uncivil means as well as how important it is to enforce it in relation to other editing conduct. Finally, even if you could find agreement over the right wording to rephrase the policy, you still need the cooperation of administrators who will be willing to enforce it and many admins are leery of issuing sanctions or blocks over civility issues because they are considered controversial because civility is so ill-defined.
    What I'm really trying to say to you is that any editor attempting to do what you want to do has a mountain to climb. It's not a simple matter of proposing an edit, getting a few editors to agree and making the edit. Most editors take policy changes very seriously, there is a reluctance to change them without significant debate and you have to make sure that admins are open to enforcing whatever proposal you want to make. Do not underestimate the amount of time and effort it might take to make policy changes. The opposition you faced is just the initial opposition you will face if you choose to pursue this and I believe that Tryptofish's advice to drop it was intended to spare you from the conflict that you will continue to face. You should be prepared for it. Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Liz. You just explained that better than I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I find the fact that i can post here a series of diffs showing clear violation of basic norms of civility and non-harassment and other policies, and there is absolutely no action or sanctions against editors who flagrantly violated policies and created a toxic editing environment, and primarily blowback against me for bringing up, shows that there is a broken environment at Wikipedia. If it's not in the policies, then it's in the lack of implementation or biased implementation.

    This ANI case has pretty much told the editors in question "Go ahead! Engage in personal attacks! Make good dialogue very difficult! We endorse you in that project!"

    We might as well not have guidelines or arbitrators or admins. I'd be better off personally, given the track record. SageRad (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it concerning that almost every editor that has replied to you has said the opposite of "Go ahead! Engage in personal attacks! Make good dialogue very difficult! We endorse you in that project!" And yet that is what you choose to take away from this discussion. Tiderolls 20:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify. Nobody has said that bad behavior is good, but nobody has stepped up to do anything effective about it, and on the contrary i've gotten the general sense that few with power to do anything care much about things like this. That's giving a green light to such behaviors. Does that clarify what i meant? SageRad (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Is the Original Poster (User:SageRad) requesting administrative action, such as warnings or blocks, against other editors? If the original poster only wants to change the wording of the civility policy with regard to bullying, that discussion is ongoing at the civility talk page. If the original poster is requesting sanctions against particular editors, I would ask that they identify which editors they think should be sanctioned. I agree that the discussion there is, ironically, often lapsing into incivility. My suggestion is that this thread be closed as a request for more administrative eyes at the civility talk page with regard to the discussion of bullying. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Concerning the substantive matter of the civility policy and bullying, this noticeboard isn't the place for that discussion. So, does User:SageRad want to request specific admin actions here against specific other editors, or is this a request for more admin eyes at the civility talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert McClenon, in brief, i didn't even get the sense that admins or anyone really thought the behavior there was even a problem. I understand the difference between this board and the talk page for the civility policy. I am not seeking to have that discussion here. I came here to try to open up that space at the talk page there to be civil for discussion there. I found the environment where a couple of editors, who i did name here in the original post, had essentially told me i'm not worthy of participating in dialogue there, and attempted to poison the well against me. I had hoped that someone of admin status would see this here on ANI and at the very least warn those editors that it's not acceptable to go so ad hominem and to profile an editor and then tell them they're not worthy of being part of that discussion. It's such a mess, in the wake of the ArbCom case in which one of the arbitrators cast an aspersion upon me in the very result of the case and that was cited in the civility talk page, as i noted above.

    In brief, i said my piece in my original post here, and i hoped that someone would tell those two in no uncertain terms to just knock it off! -- that simple. It's created a huge difficulty in just having a discussion there, and it's wasted so much of my time already. I'm just trying to have a good dialogue without being railroaded and painted by someone based on their assumption about my motivation. And seeing if the mechanisms of Wikipedia actually work as advertised. Thank you for your question. SageRad (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ((((( ADDED AFTER THE CLOSING: Well, there you go, a nice biased closing that dismissed the behavior issues that i brought forth here and closed without anything happening as a result, except to look the other way while people act badly and make dialogue spaces toxic. That's exactly the nature of the problem here. This is a fucking farce. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC) )))))[reply]

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

    Socionics

    User:Sounderk deletes critics from the article about fringe theory of socionics: 1 (Russian Academy of Natural Sciences is a famous pseudscientific society in Russia), 2, 3. If you check contributions, it is clear that he/she is an one-purpose-account, presumably from International institute of socionics (fringe organisation developing socionics in Ukraine)—as the references to «hundreds and thousands of scientific papers on socionics» (published mainly by this institution) and to «outdated critics» (connected to very rare discussions of the socionics in respectable scientific journals, especially by psychologists) are very typical for people from this organization. You can check it in the discussion about socionics in Russian WP (sorry, in Russian). --Melirius (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The first edit is deleting the words "highly controversial". That's not deleting any critics of anything. I'm not bothering with the rest here. I don't see anything at the talk page so I'm personally saying go to the talk page and discuss it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard might be able to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    new user Hassan Rebell mass nominating articles for deletion on Kurds

    I'm very suspicious when an account's very first edit is to nominate an article for deletion. Since creating his account <48 hours ago, Hassan Rebell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated 12 articles for deletion, all Kurds. It does not appear he is researching them, but is slapping the same description on them "non-notable, vanity article" or "non-notable academic" etc. I discovered this when seeing he nominated someone who is hugely notable. This seems very suspicious and possible SPI, but I don't know the names of banned editors with anti-Kurd bias who match this behavior or I would file SPI. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a notice on the user's page that a discussion referring to them was on-going here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just want to say I also left a message as required - we both left one within seconds as they have identical time stamps. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Great minds think alikeRickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And it appears they have been blocked per this diff [118]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Obviously not a new user, and obviously not here to help. Feel free to speedy close the AfDs. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the speedy action. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've certainly had a funny feeling about the mass nomination and have said as much -- netting me a civility warning from him. I'd noticed he seemed to be working in concert to remove restore PROD tags from articles that had been tagged by the Swiss IPs, that he had said he had no connection to. I thought he had pretty much admitted to being User:Srednuas Lenoroc, or at least implied he was, stating that he had started editing under the new username because the old one was too similar to that of another editor, which I assumed to be the identically named blocked editor User:Lrednuas Senoroc. Anyway, if I understand all this correctly, should User:Srednuas Lenoroc not be blocked, too? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: you may be looking for Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#IP-jumping_editor_with_an_anti-Kurdish_bias. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm yes this is probably the same one. Since Hassan Rebell is already blocked, is it worth taking any other action? Would an IP block be appropriate? I don't know how those work. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've been confused by this whole thing from the outset. I've asked the blocking admin for his input, on his talk page. I'm not even sure why Hassan's been blocked because I don't think he sought to conceal the change of ID, though again, I always felt this mass nomination was disruptive and suspect, and always thought it would end in a block, sooner or later. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He was blocked per WP:NOTHERE, which seems pretty clear based on his contributions. I don't buy his story in his unblock request that he was merely an IP editor before. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I strongly agree with you on the WP:NOTHERE part. Thing is, there's never really been a SPI opened and my attempt failed miserably. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Srsly? We don't need an SPI. This is a bog-standard nationalist POV-pusher. WP:RBI works well enough. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, my latest effort Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc seems to be quite beside the point. Given the range of ID and usernames, I thought it might be useful to at least make the association clear on the blocked users' pages. thx, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have absolutely nothing to do with this other person's activities with WP therefore why is it that my user name should be blocked? The only thing that can be associated with this other person is that they decided to create problems and disturb my peaceful editing of WP. Has any one bothered to track the locations of the IP's? I do not know the location of the other so cannot say any thing about that but to block my editing merely because of the trouble caused by the other person is absolutely ridiculous. Any one that should think that we are the same is just plain bonkers.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When did "User:Lrednuas Senoroc" admit to being me? I really have not been paying attention to this matter because as "User:Lrednuas Senoroc" was not me I had absolutely nothing to add to the discussion except to say that the other user is not me. As far as I can tell, the two have not even edited in the same manner. I would not know how to nominate an article, let alone a series of them, for deletion. In fact, the majority of my edits have concerned the grammar of "on" versus "in", spelling and somewhat more complex editing with articles concerning India as they are generally in English but the expressions/punctuation/capitalization can be creative although understandable with intent. Somehow that is suppose to make clear that I am the same person as "User:Lrednuas Senoroc"? This is getting way too confusing for my level of English/American so someone is just going to have to explain to me just how is it that we are thought to be the same person? We are not and have never been. I still have no objection to the other user name being used but certainly not if it is for disruptive activities.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Could "User Shawn in Montreal" explain just "I thought he had pretty much admitted to being User:Srednuas Lenoroc, or at least implied he was, stating that he (User:Srednuas Lenoroc) had started editing under the NEW username because the old one was too similar to that of another editor". Is "User Shawn in Montreal" aware that "User:Lrednuas Senoroc" seems to have been registered after my own? In fact I was not even aware that there was a "similar" user name until I was told on the "Talk Page of Srednuas Lenoroc". At that time I never had a concern about this other user because as far as I knew there was no trouble happening. Now I am being associated with the actions of "User:Lrednuas Senoroc" therefor my account should be blocked? That seems a rather daft reaction.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not you, it's User:Lrednuas Senoroc who's named at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc and he admitted to being someone else entirely, User:Hassan Rebell. Not you. You're not involved. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If this does not concern me then I should not be issued notifications. Your statement stills stands in the record that "I thought he had pretty much admitted to being User:Srednuas Lenoroc". And you are asking that my account be blocked. So you tell me how does that not concern me. You have yet to say otherwise. The two are not the same, have never been and as far as I am concerned never will be. I just assume that my user name never be associated with this other person. Yet, who is the one calling for my account to be blocked? If it had never been mentioned then I never would have had reason to come to this page. I am not out to pick a fight with any one; just be let be. That does not seem to be possible. Remember, it was your statement that once again brought my user name to the attention of this matter.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, sorry, if it was me, it was a typing error. What can I say? The names are baffling alike. The guy who stole your username. User:Hassan Rebell, has been blocked again. That's hopefully some comfort. And you are clearly not cited in my [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Need an admin to revert a move

    Dealt with.

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

    Need an admin to revert an out-of-process move at User:Melinda Hill. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melinda Hill where user Dkendr didn't wait for a deletion discussion to close before improperly moving an article to User: space. Thanks. As far as I can tell User:Melinda Hill is not a registered account. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ivanvector, it is  Done. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Softlavender closed two ANI sections in error, Request to reopen them

    Even more resolved. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Softlavender closed [119] this] ANI report, and this ANI report prematurely. She made errors in the reasons stated for closing each. My ANI reports on User:Checkingfax should be reopened, so I can respond to the reasons for prematurely closing them. The ANI on Checkingfax's NPA and Harrassment violations can be combined and investigated as a whole. I would simply start a new ANI, but I want consensus to do so, and I don't want to have Softlavender immediately close it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBUSHIstory (talk • contribs)

    Complaints at ANI can be closed by non-admins (I used to do so before my RfA) but it usually occurs after a resolution in the discussion has been reached. If you think that a discussion has been closed prematurely, that can be addressed. But it is fruitless to demand another editor apologize...you might feel entitled to one but there is no way to oblige a person to apologize and it is not sanctionable conduct.
    You are also more likely to get a response here, MBUSHIstory, if you cut down this wall of text to just the basics of the situation. The more succinct a request is, the more likely is that you will get a reply. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I refactred the section, keeping the nutshell essentials in this top section, and made the less important stuff in small print in the subsection below. Paring down a wall of text will take me a while (it even seems like a wall of text to me, and I wrote it!). MBUSHIstory (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBUSHIstory: While it may not have been proper for Softlavender to close the ANI sections, I believe you need to step away from ledge a bit. The original SPI investigation may have been spurious, and you may have felt insulted by it, but it really isn't a personal attack. It is a use of the processes provided by Wikipedia to protect the project from potential abuse. If the SPI case was filed in error, than it would be quickly closed and done -- no harm no foul. By raising the issue at ANI, you have just fanned the flames of a drama that needn't be dramatic. I recommend that you just let the matter lie, and go on with your editing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I am posting a resolved tag at the top. MBUSHIstory (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Great. I wasted 10 minutes looking at this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Other issues - Softlavender's false statements and bullying when I pointed out her ANI closing errors

    Softlavender responded to my pointing out her erroneous closings by bullying me with implied threats, deleting my evidence that the sections were closed in error, and writing false statements about me. Softlavender should remove the false things she wrote about me. Her bullying should be investigated.

    History - User:Checkingfax requested an SPI and notified me on my talk page [120]. Checkinguser accused me of being an SP of two other blocked editors without any evidence, writing “Donald Trump disruption mostly” as the only information in the SPI request.[121] I have never been involved in any uncivil discussion with any editor, proposed my edits on talk pages and got consensus before making them, and no editor ever altered or objected to any of my edits. So, assuming Checkingfax had a good faith reason for requesting the SPI, I asked Checkinguser to provide evidence.[122] Checkinguser is an experienced editor who knows what evidence is in an SPI, yet refused to provide a single diff, link, or any evidence at all for the accusation. Instead of providing evidence, Checkinguser tarnished my userpage[123], by repeating the SPI accusations he/she had already made that tarnished my talk page. Without my asking, User:Softlavender reverted Checkingfax's response to my request for evidence, with the edit summary "No need to tarnish the editor's userpage. An SPI suffices, and if it has merit, will be checked. AGF and DBTN".[124]

    • I requested an ANI against Checkingfax for NPA[125] because WP:SPI says “you need good reason to suspect sock puppetry. Evidence is required... You must provide this evidence in a clear way”, and Checkinguser made the accusations without any evidence or even a reason. ‎Softlavender closed the ANI with the comment “A sockpuppet investigation is not a personal attack. All discussion belongs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBUSHIstory, not here at AN/I.”[126] I responded that I did not say an SPI request was a personal attack. I said an SPI request with no evidence or reason stated, violated NPA. Furthermore, I requested the ANI be reopened because an SPI investigation only investigates behavior of the accusing editor insofar as it is relevant to whether or not an SP violation occurred. But misbehavior by the accusing editor is only sanctioned through an ANI.
    Softlavender responded by writing – "The editor opened an WP:SPI about you. (2) That is not a personal attack as you claim."[127]
    Then I responded by writing – “WP:SPI says, in big letters and in boldface, "Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sock puppetry. 1.Evidence is required... You must provide this evidence in a clear way..." The editor who made the SPI request is very experienced. He/she knows what evidence is, and if they mistakenly forgot to provide it, I repeatedly made requests for it. An SP investigation only investigates the behavior of the accused, and does not investigate policy violations of the accuser, which are referred to be reported at ANI, which I did. A request for an SP investigation that is made without evidence, especially one that is intentionally made without any evidence, violates the "accusations... that lack evidence" clause of WP:NPA, which is only investigated as to sanctions on the behavior of the accuser, at ANI. So the ANI section on requesting sanctions for NPA violations was closed in error.[128]
    • I requested an ANI for WP:harassment because Checkinguser did not respond to my request for evidence by communicating with me and providing evidence for the accusations. Instead of communicating with me with evidence, Checkinguser responded by tarnishing my userpage with a repetition of the allegations already made on my talkpage. WP:Harrassment says, “Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target… where no direct communication takes place.” Softlavender closed the ANI by writing “An accidental duplicate posting caused by an automated editing tool, quickly rectified, is not harassment. These issues do not belong at ANI.” Softlavender appeared to have only responded to my complaint that Checkinguser posted the same SPI notice on my talkpage two different times, which I accept as being some accident of some automated tool that was used. But I requested that the ANI be reopened because Checkuser’s tarnishing of my userpage, as the only response to my request for evidence, was intentional, and was not accidental or automated in any way. Furthermore, Checkusesr’s intentional tarnishing of my userpage was in no way part of the SPI.
    ‎Softlavender responded by writing – “you are claiming that your ANI filing referred to your userpage (not talk page), which it clearly did not.”[129]
    I responded by writing My ANI filing clearly did refer to my userpage. I wrote[130] (boldface added), "Instead of providing evidence, even a single diff, Checkingfax instead responded by tarnishing my userpage by adding TWO more IDENTICAL WP:SP accusations, the SAME evidence-free accusations already made TWICE on my talk page.[131] My claim refers to edits made on my userpage, and the cited link is to the edit made on my userpage. So the ANI section on harassment was closed in error.[132]

    So in each case, Softlavender closed each ANI in (good faith) error. Instead of reopening my ANIs, or at least providing other reasons to keep them closed, Softlavender deleted the entire discussion, whereby my diffs showing Softlander made errors became hidden from others, leaving the ANI page with the appearance that I was the one who was in error. Checkingfax’s false and evidence-free accusation remained tarnishing my talk page.[133] I wrote 4 short bullet points with diffs about what was being done to me, on my own talk page.[134] Softlavender responded by attacking me with a Bullying series of false statements about me and about events. I listed which statements were false, and asked for Softlavender to take them back and apologize. Softlavender did not respond.

    ‎* Soflavender’s false accusations posted on my talk page include –

    1 – Softlavender falsely wrote “Your ‘evidence’ was posted on my talk page, and was misleading. [135]
    Writing “evidence” in scare quotes, falsely implies that there was never any real evidence. The evidence was not misleading. As cited above, Softlander wrote “you are claiming that your ANI filing referred to your userpage (not talk page), which it clearly did not”, to which I replied by supplying links that I specifically referred to the userpage, as in the above cited links. This is not defective evidence warranting phony scarequotes, and is in no way misleading.
    2 - Softlavender falsely wrote, “I replied to you in great detail, some of which was correcting your misstatements.” [136]
    Softlavender never corrected anything I wrote, nor did I make any misstatements.
    3 - Softlavender falsely wrote, “I told you that if you posted further on my talk page I would delete both of the threads you posted there”. [137]
    Softlavender did not tell me that if I posted further on her talk page, she would delete both of the threads.[138]
    • Softlander’s bullying - When I reported harrassment on my userpage, Softlavender threatened me with - “If you continue to file thee issues here, you will be subject to WP:BOOMERANG.”[139] Boomerang says – “If you are involved in a dispute with someone, try to discuss matters with the other person via their talk page.” When I tried to discuss the lack of evidence for an SP accusation, Checkingfax ingorned the request and harrassed me on my userpage. When I tried to discuss that my harrassment ANI was closed in error, at Softllander’s talk page, and I demonstrated that Softlavender made errors resulting in my ANI being closed, she deleted the entire discussion.
    Boomerang says, “There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report… the behavior of a returning boomerang… it can come back to injure the thrower.” An editor who has reported WP:harrassment or WP:NPA should NEVER be threatened that they might be injured with baseless sanctions against the reporter, and it should never be implied that the reporting editor is the one truly at fault, without any evidence that the reporting editor is at fault for anything, or that the editor reporting has committed far worse infractions, without any evidence that the editor reporting has committed a worse infraction, or any infraction at all.
    Making such threats and baseless implied accusations that if I persist in reporting, I will be found to be the one truly at fault, that I will be otherwise injured with a return of sanctions against me, or that some worse infraction will be dug up to accuse me of and be found against me, based on no evidence of my ever doing anything wrong, or doing anything other than complaining about an SP accusation without any evidence, and harassment for pointing this out, is not only disruptive and uncivil, it is bullying.

    Softlavender should specifically apologize for each false accusation and for each false statement she made about me. Softlavender’s false statements and false accusations should be removed wherever they occur, and her erroneous closing of my two ANI sections should be undone. Checkingfax should be investigated for misbehaving as I reported. MBUSHIstory (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this in small font? It's difficult to read. You realize making it smaller doesn't make it shorter, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've turned it back into normal size font. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a nonsense. MBUSHIstory should step back before the boomerang arrives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.112.158 (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Possible outing

    (non-admin closure) Outer blocked and outing deleted. Eteethan(talk) 07:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I suspect that we may need a revdel of this apparent/attempted outing. The editor targeted has requested that the info be removed but I'm not sure they know how/where to request a revdel. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For context: this is part of a longer-term pattern of various IPs and SPAs whom others have suspected of having a COI on Ariel Fernandez trying to get unflattering info removed from the article. See this SPI for the latest round of accusations. Both Molevol1234 and Spinrade have accused each other of either being the article subject or some other "real life" person, the whole thing could probably use some admin attention. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Floquenbeam is on the case, which means that I'm making dinner (we divide our labor). This is indeed a messy affair. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate that you were trying to help, @Fyddlestix:, but next time please don't bring outing issues to ANI, the most widely-read page we have. I've revdel'd the edits in question, let me know by email if there are more I missed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rgr that floquenbeam, my bad! Is there a place such reports should go or is it best to just contact an individual admin about it? Fyddlestix (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. We're cross-posting, I just left a note on your talk page. But for posterity, I'll copy it here. Problems with suspected outing are best dealt with by emailing the Oversighter mailing list. This is easily done using Special:EmailUser/Oversight if you have email set up. They'll know whether or not to oversight, revdel, or do nothing. In my experience, they're pretty fast, and several orders of magnitude less visible than ANI. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done, F-beam. FYI, it's taco bake tonight. I'm on it. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spinrade. Nobody told me it's taco nite! I'll bring a copy of The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. DMacks (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I once tried to use the proper channels of mailing the Oversight committee and found them unhelpful and unwilling to get involved in upholding WP policy concerning outing. I quoted the exact parts of WP Outing policies that applied and they dismissed it. If I remember correctly, I emailed them and heard nothing back for almost a week. I then had to go to the Oversight article talk page and post a concern. It was only then that I received an email response. Clearly posting here yielded much quicker results.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very odd, Every time I've needed to contact the folks at Oversight they've responded quickly, made the requested changes or explained clearly why they couldn't, and were unfailingly polite throughout. BMK (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugggggh. This dispute has been annoying me so much and I am glad it is over. Eteethan(talk) 03:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disgraceful and demeaning comment

    (non-admin closure) To paraphrase G. Stein, there is no "there" here.
    Note to Magnolia677, the noticeboards are for serious problem. They are not intended as a place where you bring everything that happens to you which you dislike, at least not without first discussing it with the other editors involved. My advice would be to stop ANIing, and concentrate your efforts on editing the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Kudpung (talk · contribs) left a disgraceful comment here in which he made reference to "plebeian drama boards".

    I left two messages on his talk page, per WP:ADMINABUSE, inquiring about what he was refering to when he wrote "plebeian drama boards", but user:Kudpung has not responded, choosing instead to deflect and provide a smart aleck response.

    In my short three years on Wikipedia I've witnessed some whoppers of incivility, but for an administrator to refer to the hard working volunteers on Wikipedia as "plebeians" should gain some award.

    Urban Dictionary defines "plebeian" as "of low social standing, riff-raff, loser", while Webster's Dictionary defines it as "one of the common people".

    The Internet is rich with articles about how Wikipedia is desperately trying to retain its editors and attract new ones. At the same time, one of the leaders of this volunteer organization posts a comment about his low regard for the common editor...the plebe.

    I've created 226 articles on Wikipedia, and I am proud to have contributed my time and effort to this project. I've had the honor of collaborating with some of the most intelligent people I've ever encountered... and here is one of Wikipedia's own leaders--who hasn't created an article since 2013--speaking of the rank-and-file in such hurtful terms. As if we're beneath him.

    Let me remind you of two of the duties of an administrator, per WP:ADMINCOND: "administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others," and "administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another".

    This administrator's demeaning and hurtful comment falls far short of the expectations placed upon him, and a glance at his talk page shows he is not a bit concerned about this. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think one should include, in their citation, the smiley face right after the comments. Also, Kudpung was not, of course, referring to all Wikipedia editors or to any in particular (or singling out editors over admins), but their comment was--I think--intended for those who come here only to stir up drama. There's a few of those threads here right now. Let me hasten to add that many comments here on ANI are indeed made by editors of good faith, and that the last year or two we have seen a lot less dramah here than we did before--but I can only base that on unscientific observation. Whether it's getting worse again, I leave that up to the impartial reader. Now, let's not read everything too literally. If we did, I might conclude that a. if (as Magnolia perhaps thinks that Kudpung suggested) ANI contributors are plebs and b. if I have to leave the board and someone has to replace me then c. I (Drmies) am plebeian as well.

      But one might also read the word itself differently, and look at Plebs for a different definition--which is probably what the lexicographer had in mind. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where people who don't know how to interpret a term like "plebeian drama boards" should use suitable academic references for clarification (any good dictionary would do). Urban Dictionary is a wonderful resource for many strange terms encountered on the internet, but it is not the right tool to understand a conversation between consenting academics. The OP badly misunderstands the situation and has not accounted for the fact that 766 people watch User talk:Drmies so it is unlikely that an egregious problem would be unnoticed. I agree with the close, but will post my edit conflict anyway. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page has been deleted/merged into another page for someone's private agenda need help

    MOVED BACK
    Bold move reverted, discussion can continue on article talk page NE Ent 12:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The page Semitic people has been moved to the page Semitic cultures. The editor has also made major deletions to information which changes impressions given which were given by the article. Can someone who is an administrator please check the history of these edits and revert the page to as it should be, a separate page. I am not good enough as an editor to do this myself, I do not know how to do it. The reason this is important is that some Jewish lobby groups who take it on themselves to remove information and edit information on Wikipedia to show the Zionist movement in a better light over time are removing information in an effort to use Wikipedia as a tool for their own personal agendas, which is prohibited. The topic of "Semitic people" is a controversial one as the term "Semitic" applies to all Arab people, not just Jewish people, however some right wing Jewish activists are attempting to erase reference to this and claim the term, "Semitic" purely as their own which is incorrect. The whole page of "Semitic people" has now been moved today into simply "Semitic cultures" and information has been changed to remove some things and put more emphasis on the Jewish DNA connection, when in fact it is a connection to the entire region and all those historically from the region and needs to reflect this. As this topic is so sensitive and as it is so prone to abuse, I am requesting that an administrator please revert the page to where it was, and that further edits of this size and magnitude be discussed thoroughly before they are made. Thankyou. Taurusthecat (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this is a somewhat contentious area of editing, and since the move was not discussed beforehand, I have taken the liberty of moving it back. If the moving editor still wishes to move it, he or she should start an RM discussion on the article's talk page. BMK (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the contentious edits? I understand the need to be NPOV, but Taurasthecat's rant above is without merit. Have you looked at the page in question? The history and edit summaries are well sourced and FunkMonk either added or removed well sourced information. I don't know why that is called being biased. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Taurusthecat: Even though you did not mention the name of the editor who moved the article, you are still required to notify them when you open an AN/I discussion about them. I will do so for you shortly. BMK (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou BMK. I notice the page is still redirecting to the other one, this needs fixing also. Sorry for not knowing too much on here, I don't edit a lot. Taurusthecat (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that's fixed now. BMK (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sidebar BMK (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Don't thank me yet.) OK, I'm very confused and need admin help. I thought I had reverted the move mentioned above, but when I checked, only the talk page had moved. When I try to do move the article again, there was a pink notification box on it saying that FunkMonk (the editor in question) "moved protection settings from Semitic people to Semitic cultures" and that only registered users could move the article. This despite the fact that FunkMonk's user rights are listed as autopatrolled and pending changes reviewer, neither of which should enable him to move protection settings. As a registered user (obviously), when I attempted to move the article back, I got an error message saying that it couldn't be moved because the target was the same as the source. So... what's going on, here? How did an editor with fairly low-level user rights protect an article (or did he?), and why can't the article be moved back to its original location pending an RM discussion? BMK (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Nevermind. I don't know why the first move didn't take (although it told me it did), but I know think that in my second try I filled out the form incorrectly, so that's on me. I've been able to move it now. BMK (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @BMK I checked the logs and saw that, so did not wade into the waters which appeared murky to me. Funkmonk does not even appear to be interested in Semitic history with his major contributions being in dinosaurs etc. It was actually EdJohnston who did that , the logs are here. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. The protection notice clearly said "FunkMonk" or "Funkmonk", and the move log entry which shows up on my watchlist lists that editor as having made the move. Curiouser and curiouser. BMK (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FreeatlastChitchat: Looking at the link you sent me, I see that the first line now says "00:05, 15 December 2015 Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) moved protection settings from Semitic cultures to Semitic people (Semitic cultures moved to Semitic people: Restore; undiscussed move)", so I assume that whenever a protected page is moved, such a log entry is created (something I wasn't aware of). Does that mean if I was to try and move it now, it would identify me in the protection warning? Let me see ... Nope, no protection warning at all. BMK (talk)
    Now I have a protection log entry. When I looked at the Protect Log just now, these were the first 4 entries:
    • 00:05, 15 December 2015 Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) moved protection settings from Semitic cultures to Semitic people (Semitic cultures moved to Semitic people: Restore; undiscussed move)
    • 23:55, 14 December 2015 Doc James (talk | contribs) protected Ovarian cancer [Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 23:55, 21 December 2015) (Persistent vandalism) (hist)
    • 22:49, 14 December 2015 Elockid (talk | contribs) protected Mudar Zahran [Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 22:49, 28 December 2015) [Move=Allow only administrators] (expires 22:49, 28 December 2015) (Edit warring / content dispute) (hist)
    • 21:31, 14 December 2015 FunkMonk (talk | contribs) moved protection settings from Semitic people to Semitic cultures (Semitic people moved to Semitic cultures: There is no "Semitic people", just a bunch of cultures united by a language family.)
      So either this has been going on all along, or there's something funky happening. Either way, it's not relevant to the OPs complaint, and the article is moved back now, awaiting an RM discussion if FunkMonk desires it. BMK (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Why is this at AN/I? This is a content dispute. This should be discussed at the talk page. Looking at the talk page, I see Funkmonk at the talk page several time, but I don't see Taurusthecat at all. 2) If talk page is not working out, the go to DRN or mediation but WP:ANI is not the place for content disputes. 3) It seems to me at least that the only one not assuming good faith is Taurusthecat. I'm not sure why Taurusthecat is automatically judging Funkmonk based on Funkmonk's wanting to change the name of the article. As he pointed out in the talk page, he wanted it to be similar to other culture articles on Wikipedia. If you disagree, then utilize the talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are the diffs to the major deletions as you put it? You are assuming bad faith. I read the article, I read the few minor changes the user put in and I read your antisemitic charge above. If you claim he is abusing Wikipedia polices, you need to provide the diifs that show it. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a formal move discussion at Talk:Semitic people/Archive 2#Rename in February, 2013. The result was to move Semitic to Semitic people. That discussion mentioned some of the same issues that are occurring now. The page at Semitic used to be a redirect to Semitic people but has recently been converted by User:FunkMonk to a DAB page. Personally, I see some value to keeping it as a DAB page. BMK's proposal that FunkMonk should open a new move discussion seems logical. FunkMonk's changes were OK per WP:BRD but there is clearly some opposition, so it is time for a proper discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but the talk page of the article is the appropriate place to discuss it, not here, and two, I don't think bringing in religion and other motives are AGF and I find it distasteful. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was moved without discussion which is an abuse of Wikipedia policy which is why I brought it up here. There needs to be comprehensive discussion on an extremely sensitive subject such as this (evidenced by how many focus groups are following the page which was moved) if such a major change is to occur. This topic is often a target for abuse and needs to be closely monitored. The comments I made above were not a rant or anti-Semitic, they were just drawing attention to the reasons this topic is sensitive and how it is abused by some interest groups seeking to further personal agendas. This is in direct and explicit contravention of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. I agree with you that people's religion should not be relevant to edits they make or discussions on Wikipedia talk pages, however as religious affiliations are the actual cause behind those who are seeking to alter what was an entirely factual article and change the overall take home for the reader in an effort to minimize the Arabic connection to the Semitic subject and promote the Jewish one, it was necessary for me to bring this up. Promoting one view over another either directly (by actual content) or indirectly (by burying content or omitting content) is not permitted. I will not be entering into any further comments regarding this issue and expect that any further changes/moves/deletions to this article/page will be extensively discussed on the talk page for the article before they are made in line with Wikipedia standards. Taurusthecat (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, so FunkMonk was not violating or abusing Wikipedia policy when he made the move, but I do think you're correct that because it is a contentious and sensitive subject area, he should have known that a move without discussion was likely to be reverted, and simply assumed that would be the case and opened a discussion instead. BMK (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the talk page, and notify editors before making threads about them. The article was renamed to a more accurate and less POV title, not "deleted". It has been a mess of unsourced POV for years, and there has long been a consensus that something needed to be done about it (read the talk page archives). So I did just that. What I have done reflects the fact that there is no Indo-European people article either. Language family does not make a "people", yes, there are Semitic speaking cultures, but not a "people". Furthermore, there was no "major deletion" of anything. I removed a list[140] of various groups not even mentioned in the source used, curiously inserted by the editor[141] who started this thread, who seems to have no other contributions to the article. The article haphazardly used DNA studies that hardly even mention the term "Semitic" in some sort of synthesis soup to support a POV. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive behavior

    166 troll
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Can someone delete User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz/Thomas J. Walsh (Alberta lawyer). It needs to be over sighted as well to protect the wildly offensive conduct. Editors should really learn to leave other people's user space alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.57.47 (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

    Recently created "White student unions" article

    (non-admin closure) The article in question has been looked at, the reporter has been asked to kindly report to the appropriate noticeboard the next time he finds something to report. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm not sure if the recently created White student unions article is a candidate for the deletion process or not. It may not meet the deletion criteria because some of the sources are reliable, such as one from The Independent newspaper. But many of the references for the article are poorly sourced YouTube videos and the numerous cite errors at the moment are a complete mess on the page.

    I have placed a cleanup template at the top of the White student unions article as it requires a huge clean-up. It may not meet the deletion criteria, but this is a very poorly created article in my view which requires a complete rewrite and a lot of work on it. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I deleted a gigantic section that was nothing but dozens of quotes from various wordpress blogs etc about why white student unions are needed. Since they exist at a few dozen universities, and have been covered in RS, it's doubtful the article would be deleted. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, maybe the article was awful but does everything have to come to ANI now??? EEng (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course not, but considering this article was questionable/bordering on advocacy and created by a new account with no other edits, it didn't hurt to bring it to ANI. No harm done. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng please don't bite him lol. @User talk:Wikimandia I have taken out the source misrepresentation and the tabloid crap. My nuking has left like 4 lines in the "article". Dare I call it that? feel free to nominate if you cannot improve. @Kind Tennis Fan as the name suggests this noticeboard is for Incidents. Like someone doing something or something happening, so this request is kinda out of place here. Next time you want something like this done, feel free to ping me on your Talk page or the TP of the article in question. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, didn't mean to bite. It's just we need some way to better divert routine stuff to more appropriate boards. Every report here siphons off 10 hours of editor time if even 1/10 of the 6000+ watchers spends 1 minute each reading it. EEng (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments and for the removal of a large amount of content from the article. In future I won't post concerns about another very poor article on here. I will do it through the other routes that you have said. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Problematic admin actions

    The place to review deletion actions is Deletion review. HighInBC 16:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:RHaworth is being problematic, holding an article, Nextiva Inc., hostage over his personal issue.
    He assumed bad faith on my part and claimed I had "gamed the system" by moving an article to the correct title [142]. Any attempt to game the system in the manor alleged should be pointless. Any admin considering deleting should at the very least look at the pages history. A quick glance would have revealed the second afd. It appears RHaworth feels he was tricked into deletion but if anyone was played here it was he that played himself.
    His restoration of that page [143] was questionable. If it's worthy of a G4 it should be deleted. This was recreated spam from an undeclared shill who posted at Nextiva Inc. to separate this from the previous afd. That's the only gaming that went on, without that it would have been tagged g4 earlier. Restoring this panders to those that choose to use Wikipedia for advertising.
    RHaworth then moved the page away from the preferred location (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)) and in a heavy-handed misuse of admin tools protected against any further moves to enforce this error. (See his removal of a link to that naming convention below).
    A reasonable request to reconsider the articles restoration was side stepped [144].
    He then resorted to standover tactics, stating that he will only do the right thing if I comply with his demand [145]. A tactic enforced by his misuse of his tools.
    In the act of making that unacceptable demand he edited my talk page comment and removed the Old AfD multi tag.
    (As i side note one wonders why User:Kagundu came back after such a long break to so vehemently and disingenuously defend this spam.) duffbeerforme (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva Inc. was closed by another admin. The place to disupte the finding is WP:Deletion review, not here. NE Ent 12:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Duffbeerforme is right in his reading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), there's only one Nextiva, so the page should be located at Nextiva, not Nextiva Inc, and RHaworth's comment | on Nextiva's talk page is a bit concerning, stating he'd move it I shall be happy to do this move if duffbeerforme will assure us that they will not promptly try and get the page deleted on the strength of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (his exact words ). This needs to be moved back to Nextiva. KoshVorlon 12:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're right about the name. But it's also clear that Duffbeerforme is obviously eager to see this article deleted. Dropping a CSD during an AFD that they started? Trying shenanigans with the name, just to give more weight to an old AFD? The name should ultimately be Nextiva, but there is no deadline - and no reason to move it until this dispute is settled. Now, a no consensus result can be renominated - but if you're concerned that there was a consensus, WP:DRV is thataway. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ...You moved the article [146] and then a minute later CSd'd it [147] ... If that's not wasting time and being disruptive then I don't know what is!, I'm no mind reader but I'd say RHaworth was a little bit hacked off at the fact you moved the article and then proceeded to CSD it.... –Davey2010Talk 12:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone take a look at the previously deleted Nextiva article and say if it is substantially different from the new Nextiva Inc article? I read the above as - article previously deleted at AFD is recreated at new name, moved to correct name and nominated for speedy as a recreation of a previously deleted article. Regardless of if its at Nextiva or Nextiva Inc, why does CSD G4 not apply? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever similarity exists between the original and current versions of the article, there's since been a second AFD that did not end in delete. That trumps the first AFD, and the G4 deletion relied on the consensus of delete from that first AFD. An article that was deleted at AFD and then recreated and kept later on can't be G4'ed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The original seems very much like a promotional piece, albiet a mild one. It has sections for Awards, Corporate partnerships, and an Environments Protection foundation thing that it apparently started. The current article is far shorter but much closer to neutral - and I get why there was no strong push for deletion at the last afd. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Duffbeerforme, time to drop the WP:STICK, please, before it gets carefully shaped and comes right back at you. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Carol (film)

    The Carol (film) article needs to be monitored by one or more Admins. There is 'fast and furious' multiple editing taking place where content is being deleted, rewritten, moved around. The citation of an interview, for example, had the name of the journalist author deleted from it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pyxis Solitary, are you talking about the edits done by Lapadite77? I see where they're trying to re-organize the article, so they might have removed the content by accident and be editing in genuine good faith. Have you discussed this on their user talk or on the article's talk page? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not going to involve myself in a discussion with anyone engaging in frenetic editing. Not going to go back further than this: On December 14 that user made 20 successive edits to the article. I don't know who is behind IP address 50.30.160.70 but the one-word "Accolades" explanation for those particular edits kinda make me think it's the same person. Accidental deletions? Deliberate deletions? Ignorant deletions? No one can keep track of the big picture when you have a barrage of edits being made. This movie is earning significant awards and nominations and it's predicted that the film and its two leading actresses will be Academy Awards nominees. When a Wikipedia article becomes the focus of intense editing, someone at the top of the Wikipedia editing ladder needs to keep an eye on it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's as may be - and you'll probably get a few admins to watchlist the article just by mentioning it here. But not being sure what they are doing isn't grounds for any sort of admin action - especially when you haven't asked them about it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pyxis Solitary: "I am not going to involve myself in a discussion with anyone engaging in frenetic editing." Why not? There are only a relative handful of admins at Wikipedia. Much of the work of keeping the project in order falls to all of the conscientious editors. If you see an editor engaged in problematic activity, communicate with them about it. A simple question, or a suggestion that maybe they should be using the edit preview feature rather than saving multiple little edits, could go really far in turning a newbie into a journeyman editor. It probably took more effort for you to bring the matter here than it would have to raise the issue to the editor directly. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was made aware of this because of Tokyogirl79 notification. I've left a message on Pyxis_Solitary's talk page. I've nothing more to say on this absurd non-report beyond what I said there. Thanks to the other editors for informing Pyxis_Solitary of WP:ASG and WP:DISCUSSION. Pyxis_Solitary should pay attention to what has been said here and what other editors have said on their talk page. Cheers. Lapadite (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Austrian Empire

    Could I get a few more editors experienced in Austrian-Hungarian history to look at the edit war that has erupted in Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)? I have full-protected both articles after extensive reverting by a number of people - there is a lively discussion on the talk page but it's being plagued by personal attacks thrown around, which makes it difficult for me to call a consensus. Note: I haven't pinged anybody to this discussion as I'm commenting on the overall conduct rather than any specific editor - please advise if I should Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Essentially Von Hebel is correct. Franz formally incorporated the Kingdom of Hungary into the Austrian Empire when Lazlo states he did (its a bit more complicated than that but Hebel's last post on the Kingdom of Hungary talkpage provides the most accurate explanation.) From what I can see the other parties are mis-construing the sources due to the sentence/syntax when translated. In context however Lazlo is unambiguous. The 'personal attacks' seem to be linked to this mis-understanding of the sources, which unfortunately is a common occurance when dealing with non-english RS'. There also seems to be a whiff of pro-Hungarian nationalism - including the KoH as part of the AE lessens it in some manner etc. If you want to call a consensus, you either need more eyes to interpret the source, or no-consensus it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of topic ban

    Immortale has been topic banned from articles about the Aspartame controversy [148]. He/She just posted on the talk page of that article [149]. I don't see any lifting of the topic ban on their user talk page. Perhaps I am mistaken. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's unclear from the wording whether the topic ban includes talk pages, or just the article. Can this be clarified? Either way, the ban is over two years old, and I see nothing disruptive about that talk page comment. Reyk YO! 15:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the talk page issue. However if the ban was intended to apply to talk pages,; as people in the discussion said as did the ban summary, an indef ban means they are banned until the ban is lifted. Perhaps two years is enough time that the community is likely to lift a ban if asked (although for a topic ban rather than a sitewide community ban this is far more difficult if they've displayed no editing in other areas since the ban). But two years definitely doesn't mean they should resume editing without their ban being lifted. If people wanted a finite topic ban, they would have said so. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My immediate instinct is to remind Immortale of the fact that the ban is still in place, advise on how to appeal the ban, but clarify that topic bans do indeed also apply to Talk pages. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat of violence on my talk page

    TonySpraks has made a threat of violence in the most recent post on my talk page Would someone else give the user a formal notice? I want no further contact. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor was blocked by HighInBC -- samtar whisper 16:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the account indef and removed e-mail and talk page access. I have personally received similar threats before and thankfully they were all hot air. The foundation at the time gave me contact information to pass onto the police, if you want to pursue this you may wish to contact them. I am not sure what the correct way to do this is, perhaps someone else can provide that info. HighInBC 16:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not knowing how "serious" the threats were, if Cullen328 would like to pursue a similar course of action, perhaps the emergency contact would be the most prompt and effective method? -- samtar whisper 16:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron seems to have given good advice below. HighInBC 16:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to get around to rev' del'n but @Jayron32: got to it before me. HighInBC 16:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have rev deleted all posts as well, (you beat me to the block) and emailed the foundation as described at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Thanks for alerting us to this. This is usually hot air, but having myself in the past been contacted at my home phone number and had my wife and children threatened by name related to things which have happened on Wikipedia, we should ALWAYS take such threats seriously, and report up to the foundation. If this persists, please continue to pass this to the emergency@wikimedia.org email address. --Jayron32 16:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to all. I request full protection of the page that caused the dispute, Steve Comisar, and please consider adding it to your watch lists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have watchlisted it, but will hold off on full protection yet. If this user returns under multiple guises, and makes the page uneditable because of their disruption, we can protect it then. Right now, I am comfortable leaving it open, but watching it. --Jayron32 16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given a 48 hour block to an IP address associated with this editor. Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am concerned that after removing mentions of Steve Comisar being an actor on the reasoning that IMDB is not considered a reliable source and the subject is not notable as an actor, now Cullen328 (previously subjected to threats seemingly about this subject) reinstated such information without much of an explanation. LjL (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I was in error in saying the other day that there was no IMDb page for Comisar. The previous URL was dead, LjL. I reinstated the current URL as an external link, not a reference, which is common practice. I continue to object to language implying that Comisar is anywhere near as notable as an actor as he is as a career criminal. However, he has had some bit parts. I stand by my edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted your edits (before seeing this, to be honest). I hope you understand I'm by no means trying to edit war with you, but am merely concerned that after these events, your edits might not genuinely reflect your actual thoughts. LjL (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no chance of an edit war because I never go there, LjL. My comment immediately above reflects my thinking precisely. I am not intimidated by goons such as Comisar's buddy. This article has been problematic for the 4-1/2 years I have been watching it. Please improve it as you see fit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked sock editing

    Will I go to hell if I report this here instead of at WP:SPI? In this edit, a new user admits to being a sockpuppet of a "globally locked" user. Also, glaring personal attack / incivility.

    LjL (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a sock of Starship9000, whose cross-wiki abuse led to a global block. I'd appreciate an indef as a sock and a global block on top of that. GABHello! 20:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=695404790"