Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tristessa de St Ange (talk | contribs) at 18:42, 22 December 2015 (→‎Reporting User:FreeatlastChitchat). 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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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: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([1][2][3][4][5]). 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]
    Actually, you're the one who has been throwing false accusations around on here. STSC (talk) 03:12, 16 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 any topic to edit and that's none of your business. STSC (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested in Hong Kong history. I am not pro-British colonialism. Citobun (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I should have said... You're very much 'pro-British colonialism in Hong Kong', of course. STSC (talk) 02:43, 16 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 and SSTflyer are just trying to silence other editors who don't share their POV. STSC (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know anything about Falun Gong nor do I know who you would consider a "Falun Gong editor". Citobun (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I must congratulate you on that. STSC (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that everyone here forgets the use of misleading edit summaries by STSC. No matter the POV, the edit summary "ce" should not be used when any meaning of the text has been changed. sst✈(discuss) 15:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Action should be taken against user SSTflyer for abusing the ANI process to silence other editors who do not share his POV. His trick is to start an ANI with a pack of lies and then ping a selection of past content disputants to do his dirty work. The Wikipedia community must not accept this kind of disgraceful hate campaign with political motive. STSC (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one accusing other editors of being "pro-colonialism"142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my response to Citobun accusing me of pro-CCP; I'm absolutely not. STSC (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting User:FreeatlastChitchat

    I am closing this discussion as no administrative action required, as ongoing emnity between the various parties involved in what appears to be a "clash of personalities" is not a productive means of dispute resolution and cannot result in a consensus. WP:AN/I is simply not the venue for this type of dispute as there does not appear to be an active issue requiring administrative intervention at the present time.

    However, this is not to be taken as an endorsement of the editing behaviour of the user who is the subject of this discussion. There are major civility issues with FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs)'s mode of dialogue with other Wikipedia administrators, as evidenced by his posts here in this discussion and by his talk page contributions elsewhere. FreeatlastChitchat is reminded of WP:CIVIL and asked to treat other Wikipedia contributors with respect and dignity. Should the subject of this complaint continue to engage poorly with other users, it is suggested that this matter be brought to WP:3O or, finally, WP:RFC/U. --Tristessa (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

    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 ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] 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[13], 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 ( [14]) and (Go cry me a river. Can you please stop behaving like a child for a minute here? [15]). 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[16][17]!!!--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 group A is to use sources related to group A). 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. [18], [19]. 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]

    @Kingsindian: seeing that my edit at Hadith of Fatima Tablet has been questioned in what appears to be a mistake on my part I would like to explain that edit as I carefully scrutinized the source before removing it. I will let you and other uninvolved editors decide what should have been done. So here goes. The article Hadith of Fatima tablet should give information about a Hadith i.e. something connected to the Islamic Prophet Muhammad SAW because its very title says that it is a hadith. The very word "Hadith" means that it is something that the Prophet SAW did, said or was connected to. Now if you look at the article you will find that it is a WP:COATRACK and full of unreliable sources and I was pruning /trimming it down. When I came to this source I took the time to read what it says. The source in question is reliable beyond a doubt, however there are some things which anyone can see

    1. It makes no mention of any "Hadith" or tradition. Sourcing such a claim to this book is WP:OR
    2. It mentions the Fatima Tablet as being given to Fatima, not to the Prophet SAW, thereby making it almost impossible that this incident can be called a hadith and calling it a hadith and sourcing it to this source is WP:OR
    3. It does not mention the Prophet Muhammad SAW at all, rather it says that a companion was discussing the tablet with Fatima RA, which is pure source misrepresentation.
    4. It does not contain the sentence which it is supposed to be the source of i.e. the sentence"This hadith nominated to the names of twelve Imams as successors of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.". Rather it says "was a tablet containing the names of the twelve imams of the ahl-al-bayt or house of the prophet". The difference is subtle verbally but it changes everything in the meaning. First of all the source does not say that the "hadith" or the tablet "nominates" anyone. It just says that "it contains". Which means that it is just a list and holds no importance as a nomination. Secondly it never states that the tablet "names the imams as successors to Prophet Muhammad SAW". This all can come under misrepresentation or WP:OR. I'll AGF and assume OR

    So seeing that the one single sentence taken from the book has almost nothing to do with the Hadith of Fatima tablet I removed it. To be frank I must have accidentally unwatched the article and my edit seems to have been reverted so I am heading over to talkpage to have fun, you can join me for some good old fashioned BRD if you wish. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @FreeatlastChitchat: Regarding constructive style, it is clear that you should discuss about such cases on the talk page before removing them. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly why I say FreeatlastChitchat is acting based on his little (or wrong) information. "In Shiʿism, however, in addition to Hadith about the Prophet those about the Imams are authoritative as well"[20] So this case which is narrated from Ja'far al-Sadiq, the sixth Imam of shia, is certainly regarded as Hadith. So, why did you think it was WP:COATRACK when it was focusing on the very Hadith of Fatima tablet?
    1. The source is exactly mentioning that the Fatima's Tablet contains the name of the twelve Imams and is copied by Jabir ibn Abdullah (he was one of the narrators). (what part of it is WP:OR?)
    2. The incident was certainly a Hadith from the Shia view point! The only meaning you've found about Hadith is the definition by Sunni Muslims which is not the whole fact.
    3. The source does not have to mention Muhammad. The source is directly talking about the Tablet! What else do you want? You should not have removed it. You should have at most altered the text.
    4. That "It does not contain the sentence which it is supposed to be the source of i.e. the sentence"This hadith nominated to the names of twelve Imams as successors of Muhammad, prophet of Islam." is not a justification to remove such a reliable source! You should have at most altered the text and opened a discussion on the talk page!
    Even if the text contained WP:OR you should not have removed such a directly related and reliable source! This was just one of FreeatlastChitchat's disruptive behavior and I mentioned some other diffs which need more investigations. His contributions is full of such awkward mass deletions and it's not clear how many reliable sources he has removed besides the unreliable ones. Mhhossein (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    His "block log" is also noteworthy. Mhhossein (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another distruptive behavior by him calling others's comment "imbecilic". Mhhossein (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Classic WP:STICK issues you have displayed. I will not be contributing any further to this discussion unless pinged here by an admin or an uninvolved editor. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the "imbecilic" comment, I generally agree with the thrust of the comment (that the person to whom it was addressed did not justify their !vote properly), and it was not strictly speaking a personal attack since it referred to the comment rather than the commenter. But I advise FreeatlastChitchat to keep their smart-ass/sarcastic comments to themselves. Not everyone is as understanding as me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment was clearly uncivil. Anyway, this was just a tiny part of his disruptive behavioral pattern (one should follow the thread to get the point). Mhhossein (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: You might want to read the essay WP:ANI Advice. Have some pity on me: I am not paid for this stuff, I am just a bystander. You need to bring a coherent case, all the diffs in one place. I will not be looking at each comment in this already very long thread. At this point, I can only hope that some uninvolved admin will look at this thread and decide what to do here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsindian: Thanks. I thought it may make the thread lengthier and editors may think I'm just repeating the stuff! Mhhossein (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies: He was unblocked by saying: "from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing." He is still unable to communicate with others in a civil manner. Besides he is responsible for tending to remove sourced materials. Mhhossein (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]
    While I am not an expert on this subject matter, I will state for the record that I agree with Ritchie333's full protection of the articles (if that helps at all). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User Only in death does duty end, I have to heavily oppose your early statement! I urge you to read the further discussion since Hebel's explanation and argumentation was disproved more times since then. I have to oppose also in the name of "other parties", becase we support to really insert uncut the source that Hebel does not support, he want's to spare the most important word from it. We have no problem with the interpretation - moreover Hungarian history experts joined the discussion - if you state that "Laszlo is unambigous", then you cannot tell Hebel has right...I have to also reject the charge of "pro-Hungarian nationalism", this is mostly used against the Hungarians or against everyone who does not support those obvious bias' that we notice. The editors participated in the discussion has zero influence on nationality or any nationalistic aim, just the pure historical facts and accuracy are concerned, that are so many times enquestioned and attacked regarding Hungary. The article was pretty good and stable for so many years, now 90% of the top important Hungary related content and section was deleted, and the citation does not represent the true content and meaning of the source that is on the edge of the debate!
    I urge Administrator's also with lawyer/jurisdiction or concrete mathematics/inference theory relation to join and read the correspondent talk pages since we cannot put blindly deficient citations losing their real meaning or to avoid average thinking and just to put and alter anything so long we clearly do not cross some technical rules of editing, I mention this since also the validity of my inference was attacked, alhough it should be obvious, not even a University Degree is neccesary to understand that! Good faith and the struggle for factuality and valid content cannot be compromised! Also please check my advice for consensus, since it contains the claimed deletion of a sentence and the the corresponding source's quotation unaltered, next to the former content that does not contradict anything. Moreover a new addition - not our edit - was also worked in those version. It is a pretty generous offer since non of our advices, not even a sub-part was accepted, that is not proving me the real sought for consensus!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Basically the Kingdom of Hungary, was caught up in a personal union that became an informal composite monarchy, the Habsburg Monarchy. It officially became a part of the Empire of Austria in 1804 when the former informal composite monarchy was reorganized in an Imperial State comprising many lands that kept the privileges they had enjoyed before. We can have different opinions about how much those privileges were worth under Habsburg rule, but still they were there especially for Hungary that, when it concerned matters Hungarian, was theoretically ruled by it's King and Diet rather than by the overarching Emperor. It has occurred to me since a couple of years that some people are in denial of the fact that Hungary was included in that Imperial State from 1804 to 1848. While Imperial institutions had nothing to say about matters Hungarian, the very idea that Hungary was not a fully sovereign state in that period seems to be so obnoxious to some, that they are looking for rationalizations about how the country was not a part of the overarching Imperial state. But basically, those are not in the books. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hebel, why you think the administrators or other participants does not read the corresponding talk pages? Hungary DID NOT BECAME OFFICIALLY the part of the Austrian Empire, as even the source you are pushing is proving that. You ruined all the related articles with your fixa idea, but you could not present any proof, moreover, you systematically remove all other contents proving the divison and you play with words and hinder important information! What you call "theoretically" is just your POW, the are the legal status and laws that only counts! Also "what is in the books" is just a groundless claim, as "seeking for rationalization". Hungarians are fed up of corruption attempts of their history. Since the source speaks about a strictly FORMAL inclusion by an ASSUMPTION, at the same time it clearly stated not any legal terms or affiliations were changed, Article X remained as well in action thus Hungary remained, as it was a Regnum Independens, a separate country. The fact the King of Hungary also rendered the Emperor of Austria title, did not change anything. I have demonsrated more times your argumentation being illogic, contradictive, unfair, non-factual. About sovereignity, de facto sovereignity is always differs from de jure sovereignity, as it is also today. Many countries had a ruler from a foreign House, or by changed titles, but it did not necessarily affected them. You have no chance to distract the Administrators, you will see!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    I've made another proposal at the talkpage of Austrian Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editing at Firearms policy in the United Kingdom

    Twobells added some text to the lede of this article. The text was reverted on the grounds of WP:SYN. Twobells rejects that and asserts that his edits are (a) sourced and (b) uncontroversial. His idea of an impartial RfC statement could use some work. I think this user needs a warning and potentially may at some point need to be separated from this article. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you could do better explaining why this is more than a content dispute. HighInBC 16:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Twobells also objected to my closing of their improper RfC on my talk page. Subsequently, they basically just posted the exact same RfC again, so I've made an attempt to reword it neutrally since Twobells seems insistent on using the RfC process to canvass uninvolved editors to agree with their POV. Note also that Twobells has been blocked several times in the past for edit warring, refusing to listen to consensus, and refusing to disengage. However, I do think this instance is a simple content dispute. For now, anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a case of WP:IDHT, WP:STICK and possibly even incipient WP:NCR. Please review the user's comments on the talk page. In my view they are tendentious, the user is ignoring dissenting voices and refusing to accept anybody's view that conflicts with his desired edits. So yes, it's a content dispute but one that I think requires a warning to the user such that if he carries on, he can be sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, everyone and thank you for your time. What these editors call 'Tendentious' is nothing more than the attempted addition of non-contentious referenced material. I would like for a moment to check the definition of 'Tendentious', if that's okay? expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one. The material concerned is the considered opinion following extensive research of a number of well-known and respected authors and journalists, their source material speaks for itself, they have no agenda political or otherwise and that is the crux of the matter. More, that no attempt at balance and neutrality has been adhered to in the removal of said source material. With good faith in mind, I premise that editor Nick Cooper is attempting to employ these tactics to avoid the addition of non-contenticious straight forward transparent source material, regards. Twobells (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it is contentious is blindingly obvious from the fact that there is a long argument on the Talk page where you are failing to persuade others of the merits of inclusion. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    'others'? There is only one editor apart from myself currently editing the article, you seemingly appeared from nowhere when I challenged the constant reversions of non-contentious referenced material. Moving on, the reason for the very long talk section is not that the referenced material is contencious, rather that another editor consistantly refuses to accept that he cannot remove non-contentious material, if you read the talk history you will see that the conversation is centered around trying to politely and calmly discuss why Nick Cooper must abide by best Wiki policy not employ WP:OR and rather than try and dominate the article as if he owns it accept that other editors have a right to add said material. Twobells (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the edits made my Twobells, it seems they might have a slight battleground mentality, I suggest someone warn him. Weegeerunner chat it up 17:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    With respect, you have just reverted my own edit stating that 'I should not delete other peoples messages', which suggests bias. Also, wanting to add non-contenticious referenced material in a polite and calm manner while being accused of lying and scoffed at for not having the latest computer is not a 'battlefield mentaility' however, it may suggest, perhaps, I am not getting a fair hearing here. Twobells (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After I cleaned up the language in the RfC and left my own comment on the material to be added, Twobells simply deleted the whole thing ([21]). So, I've made my own RfC. For the record, I was originally summoned to the discussion by the bot that advertises RfCs, I don't give a crap about guns in the United Kingdom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What you actually did was rew-write another editors rfc according to your terms of reference, I will revert that and when I am ready I will re-write the rfc according to mine which I believe will neutrally reflect the situation, for some reason you've jumped into the discussion and then appropriated the rfc for reasons known only to yourself. Twobells (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Twobells: you invited outside comment by using the RfC process. RfC means "request for comment". You know what that means, right? It means that your thread gets advertised on a special page, and a special bot goes around putting notices on users' talk pages that there's a thread open requesting comments on an issue. I am one of those users. After the bot notified me, I closed your improper RfC so that other users wouldn't be bothered by it, and then I unwatched the page because I really don't care about this. I only came back because you brought your tendentious "me against everybody" attitude to my talk page. I don't really care about that either, I just explained my rationale and suggested you try with a properly formatted RfC, which you did. So then I offered comment, but you didn't like how it was going and deleted the whole thing. But by that point, I was interested, so I started yet another RfC, which since it's properly formatted is drawing comment from other disinterested users signed up for the feedback request service, and that is not working out in your favour, is it? So, watch what you wish for, I guess. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we go again. This is Twobells' standard pattern: cobble together a series of (often dubious) sources to support some strongly held content he wishes to add to an article, then when someone objects engage in a series of reverts accusing the editor of suppressing his valid edits using a policy such as WP:OR (of which he entirely lacks understanding), then move to the talk page and engage in a war of words, often across multiple threads and always on the offensive. The next move, when consensus is clearly against him, will be to either threaten a report to an admin (this move is falling from favor) or head to somewhere like WP:DRN. Twobells operates on the assumption that if he has content with a source (regardless of the veracity or reliability of the source), his edit is a) not tendentious and; b) must be allowed to stand. A while back, he got on a highly nationalistic streak and attempted to claim several American TV shows were British-American based on some very thin, paywalled textbook sources (all British) and some minor participation by UK entities in the production of the show. Another editor and I went around and around and AROUND with him, attempting to reasonably and rationally discuss why his sources were problematic and the involvement he cited was not in line with MOS:TV, but he would not budge. With consensus well against him, he tried reports to a couple noticeboards as a means of intimidation before trying WP:DRN. The other editor most strongly involved in the discussion and I refused to play his game when it went to that length, and he finally gave up. But it was a long old battle before he did.

    There are several peripheral issues that make working with Twobells more problematic. First, he has a tendency to edit and re-edit his posts after one or more editors has responded. Second, he tends to start multiple threads (there are three on the article talk page above as of this morning) related to the issue, resulting in multiple running discussions that are eventually all the same thing. Third, he will suddenly disappear for days on end, then come back, guns blazing. I gather the last is work related, but he never does the editors involved in the discussion the courtesy of letting them known he'll be gone, leaving them to conclude he's left the discussion. None is major by itself, but taken together, they add to the difficulty of carrying on reasonable discussion with Twobells. Someone above said he has a "slight" battleground mentality. That's like saying a woman two weeks from delivery is slightly pregnant. A perusal of his edit history will show a number of these protracted "me against them" discussions on a range of topics. It's exhausting, counterproductive and disruptive. --Drmargi (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The above certainly tallies with my encounters with Twobells, mostly on UK firearms-related page. It seems that Twobells maintains a belief that if something they think supports their own pre-existing view of a subject has been published, then it must stand, regardless of whether other editors dispute it as valid corroboration, or if a key claim or claims in a source can be shown to be wrong or misleading. They also have a tendency to argue the quality of the sources - and/or their authors - as if that magically over-rules the most basic of fact-checking. Twobells frequently accuses anyone who presents evidence that something in one of their sources is in error or otherwise false of relying on OR, and thus declaring such objections inadmissible. Whether this is a case of them knowingly gaming the system, or - as Mrmargi says - a lack of understanding of what actually constitutes OR, is impossible to say. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It tallies with my experience also and I still haven't got my head round why they nominated British Raj for deletion. I don't think I've had a single useful discussion with them due to the battleground issue and, let's say, unique interpretation of policies. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Creationist nonsense

    Looking at the edits and history of Creation–evolution controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I suspect that JakeTheEpic8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), WolfBitn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vrence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (especially the latter two) are one and the same. In any case there is clearly no point humouring them so I have blocked all three. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Their edits are pretty blatant. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG:, Looks like a duck. The only thing I would suggest in addition to that is perhaps opening a SPI and seeking a checkuser.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tobibln and their long-term pattern of unsourced changes

    This [22] is the last of a long record of unsourced additions of content from Tobibln (talk · contribs). The user continues ignoring the warnings left at their talk regarding the addition of unreferenced material. You may find more diffs at the user's talk. I believe other actions are now in order.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Which destination are you disputing? A quick check of Moscow Domodedovo Airport's flight schedule webpage verifies all the aiports Tobibln added. This is a nine year, 33k / 98.8% mainspace edit, drama free account [23]. Unreferenced material is allowed to be added -- a reference is only required if it's likely to be challenged. Why would someone argue about easily verified airplane destinations? NE Ent 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you heard about WP:BURDEN? References for start/end dates are required per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do notice that you have made several attempts to communicate with Tobibln. I notice that User:Tobibln has never responded to you or anyone else on their user talk page or article talk page. There does seem to be a failure to respond to legitimate concerns or communication in general. It seems in 9 years this user has somehow not talked to anyone. HighInBC 18:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's just wait for their opinion here, although my major concern is that they keep introducing unsourced statements. Maybe we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also noticed this behavior, and I've undone lots of his edits, like this. Looking at his contributions, I've found this old edit, where Tobibln talked to another user. So I don't understand why he's not responding on his talk page, as the user has certainly seen notifications. Wjkxy (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BURDEN says "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (wikilink original). The advice at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT includes "10. For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." In both examples given in this thread, finding a reference to support Tobibln's addition was easy. The big picture question should be, what is more important, that Tobibln is improving mainspace by adding non-contentious, easily verifiable content without referencing it, or that they are not "following the rules"? Per Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY the obvious answer should be the former. NE Ent 12:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the point here, I'm not talking about current destinations. They added an unsourced entry here [24] (i.e., the new service to Krasnoyarsk), that's the very reason of this discussion. And references should be provided, as stated in WP:VERIFY: ″All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.″ This is what Tobibln did not do. Their continuous addition of unsourced content like the one in the diff has to stop, mostly considering that they did not reply to any of my messages left at their talk and that, despite being well aware of the verififiability policy, continued with their behaviour.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here [25] you have a clean example (i.e., not masked by current destinations that currently do not require a citation) of a totally unsourced addition made by this editor.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tobibln: you have been here almost 10 years but have never really talked to anyone in the community. We are a collaborative project, please discuss this with us. HighInBC 21:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well this user has not edited since this post here. I would say that this is probably going to get archived without a response. I think if it carries on and they continue to fail to communicate that it should be brought back here and this thread linked to. HighInBC 15:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on the history of Haiti

    The user Savvyjack23 has been attempting to censure any mention of the Haitian genocide from the article on Haiti. I request an Administrator to help mediate the situation, and take an unbiased view at the current article.

    The article in question is Haiti.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haitian STEVE (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reviewed the situation and agree Savvyjack23 was correct to revert your edits. I suggest you get consensus for your controversial edits on the talk page instead of keep attempting to force it into the introduction. Number 57 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is a content dispute, dispute resolution such as WP:3O may be helpful, assuming there's been sufficient discussion on the talk page. clpo13(talk) 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This is far from the truth. (As per mentioned above,) and while many of Haitian STEVE's edits in the past have also been controversial. If you look at his talk page, he has removed all the warnings he has incurred up to this point. To whom it may concern, thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing a warning is proof that the user saw the warning, and it remains in the history for all to see. So, that's a thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    3O wouldn't work because Number 57 has already given an opinion. I'd say the OP is heading for a boomerang. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bias in Sporting Clube de Portugal by User:SportingCP1906

    (@Yamaguchi先生 and Davefelmer:)

    I don't know if this is the right place, and I have complained in Yamaguchi先生's talk page, but please review edits in Sporting Clube de Portugal since 24 November 2015, before SportingCP1906 (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia. As a Sporting CP supporter, he has been introducing blantant bias in the article, using primary sources, unreliable sources, non-notable content, and unsourced content about living people. Thank you very much. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SportingCP1906 has also been uploading copyrighted images to Commons without permission to be used in Sporting Clube de Portugal. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am free at the moment and I will have a look at the article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @FreeatlastChitchat: First of all, thanks for your assistance.
    The sentence "3.5 million fans spread across the globe" in the lead is unsourced. It's a claim made by Sporting CP. The rivalries section has heavy bias, for example, it does not mention the fact that Sporting CP fans put a stand of Estádio da Luz on fire when Benfica beat Sporting in 2011. This incident is way way more notable than "In 2015, in a futsal derby, members of No Name Boys referenced the incident by showing a banner with the inscription "Very Light 96", an act which infuriated Sporting", which actually was a consequence of Sporting fans making fun of the death of one of No Name Boys founders, Gullit, before the futsal match. "Some argued that the incident of 1996 wasn't an accident, but a deliberate act to cause injury on Sporting fans", the source is not working and Record is a newspaper close to Sporting, part of group Cofina (yes, like a conspiracy. "Álvaro Sobrinho is also the largest private investor in Sporting Clube de Portugal" and "holds large investments in telecommunications with YooMee Africa and the media industry with Newshold Group", related to Cofina...), and according to Portuguese media the incident has always been described as an accident. To imply that it wasn't is speculation, a serious accusation and a BLP violation on the person who did it (he already served his time in prison), whom is still alive.
    "and fans of the club were so disgusted by their team's performance that they began setting fire to their scarfs and flags", the source is from a Sporting supporters website, and the claim is doubtful since is usually made by Sporting supporters to infuriate Benfica supporters. For example, Sporting fans still commemorate the result of that match, despite Benfica won the league and cup that season.
    "Sporting were heavy favorites, and at the time had one of the greatest squads that ever graced Portuguese football pitches" clearly biased. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    By user:SportingCP1906.

    I don't understand the issue here, but it seems everything I write is either biased or incorrect. I do not intend to offend anyone or start a edit war, but this is very unpleasant, as I'm just completing a page that was extremely incomplete before i joined wikipedia.

    First things first: I do not own any of the pictures, however, I use them as a free licence for educational purposes, and they all relate to important moments of Sporting. What I'm going to do is put the places where I have taken the pictures from. As such, people can know I'm only citing other sources for educational purposes.

    Second: the person who says Record belongs to Cofina and has close ties to Sporting, but does not show facts to prove the point. So if I'm biased and I use unsourced evidence, the same should apply to the user in question.

    Third: :"Sporting were heavy favorites, and at the time had one of the greatest squads that ever graced Portuguese football pitches" clearly biased. . [1]This is from a Benfica blog, as such, is biased, but it says exactly the same as I was saying. The person in question must be portuguese, because seems to know a lot about portuguese football, as such, must have faculties to read the article. And for a fact, Sporting had a great team: Luis Figo (future Ballon d'Or Winner), Paulo Sousa (two-time UEFA Champions League winner) and Balakov, recently considered the greatest Stuttgart player of all time. Also, I say Benfica won the championship, I do not hide that.

    Fourth: I talk about dark periods of the club, such as the nearly demise in 2012-13 and the 12-1 aggregate loss for Bayern Munich in 2009. Also, there are videos on the Internet proving Benfica fans set fire to the scarfs and flags. And before that I say "Benfica were at the head of the table", something not mentioned.

    Fifth: Regarding the very light incident, I will had more information regarding behavior of both clubs, I do not argue with that. However, I must show this [2] TSF is one of the most renowned radios in Portugal, as such, is reliable.

    The person clearly supports Benfica, and there is a conflict of interest for both sides then. However, I'm going to keep edit and fulfill a page that deserves to be more complete. Any problem with that and I'm willing for a healthy discussion, not one that borders the ridicule.

    References

    1. ^ "Jogos Imortais: Sporting 3 Sport Lisboa e Benfica 6". aminhachama.blogspot.pt. Retrieved 20 December 2015.
    2. ^ tsf.pt. TSF http://www.tsf.pt/desporto/interior/benfica-acabouse-o-blackout-comecou-o-folclore-4391774.html. Retrieved 20 December 2015. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    You don't understand copyright. What you do is license laundering, and you don't understand fair use.
    Portuguese people who follow Portuguese football know that. I don't have to prove it since I'm not editing Cofina or Record.
    Blogs aren't reliable sources.
    "Videos on the internet" aren't reliable sources.
    The "incident" in the futsal derby isn't notable when compared to the fire inside Estádio da Luz.
    If you really want to improve the article about your club, you should read Wikipedia:List of guidelines. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    New user spamming GA passes

    RESOLVED
    Sockpuppet indef blocked. All articles affected have been reverted back to their normal status. GA review pages have been tagged for deletion. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Contributorcrowen (talk · contribs) is a newly registered SPA account that been passing a bunch of GA nominations (see Talk:Sania Mirza/GA1, Talk:Jwala Gutta/GA1, Talk:Mélanie Laurent/GA1) of a single user without proper reviews (edit warring as well when I told the user it had not been properly reviewed). I don't want to cast aspersions, so I won't name the nominator here. Nymf (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Numerounovedant has also received a barnstar from Contributorcrowen, for those improper reviews. This one as well. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually about to figure out how to report a sockpuppet with this account since it had passed Numerounovedant's articles that - from what I can see - aren't at the quality of GA. Disc Wheel (T + C) 14:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was a bit proactive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Numerounovedant. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 19:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nymf, Yashthepunisher, and Disc Wheel: Could you guys scrutinize the contributions, reviews and nominations of the sockmaster and his sockpuppet(s), since their skill in content review is clearly flawed. With thanks. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    repeated removal of COI and Notibilty tags on page Thomas Strudwick

    Hello When I reviewed the article Thomas Strudwick on the new pages feed, I tagged the article with multiple issues including for COI and Notabilty, but one of the editors (with a possible COI) is ignoring my repeated requests to stop deleting these tags without the necesary article improvements. The whole of the page history shows up these issues. I also suspect sock-puppetry and have requested an investigation about this on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racing25. Please can an administrator get involved here to help? Pahazzard (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no discussion on the talk page. Those tags all suggest discussion on the talk page which is pretty hard to do if you don't explain the COI issues. Notability-wise what is your concern is unclear either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ricky81682, thanks for all your help. I'm lacking experience in the COI tagging and hadn't thought to write that up in the article talk page - I'll remember to do that in future. The notability guidance seems a bit whooly, and I'd rather tag it than not for at least getting consensus from other editors. There was sockpuppetry involved that has led to the COI accounts being blocked at present, so all fine for now. Thanks again Pahazzard (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear COI, in that Thomasstrudwick (talk · contribs) (now blocked) edited only Thomas Strudwick. The subject of the article is marginally notable; there's some press coverage in reliable sources [26][27], and they did win one championship race. So the article needs improvement, but probably not deletion. Attention from someone into motorcycle racing would be helpful. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Aslishiva - competence issues, POV editing, here to promote

    User indefinitely blocked by Bishonen. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Reporting Aslishiva for competence issues and persistent promotional/POV editing. The first thing I'd recommend is looking at their talk page here where I've not only had to teach them about basic English grammar, like the difference between "its" and "it's", or to capitalize days of the week. I've also had to teach them that WikiProject Film doesn't care about fluffy, promotional statements like, "The film gets standing ovation by each and everyone who present at this premier."

    I've also had to admonish them several times since October 2015 for adding their own commentary and analysis to articles, like here where they describe a film's box office take as "good growth", without attributing the statement or providing context so that readers understand what the subjective label "good growth" means. Or here where we note the unsourced subjective commentary "The film declared [sic] 'one of the biggest flops of the year' after first week of its release." Or here where they seem to copy from the attached reference, "The film opened to a bumper response all over India." What on Earth does that mean, and why is Aslishiva copying opinions and presenting them as facts? And in the same edit Aslishiva thought it was appropriate to include the phrase "The film shattered all previous record of opening" which is clearly promotional and is a potentially deceptive statement as well, because the reference says that Prem Ratan Dhan Payo "has shattered the records of [Salman Khan's] previous films, including Bajrangi Bhaijaan and Ek Tha Tiger" not that it "shattered all previous record of opening". (Emphasis mine.) That's a big difference, and one that speaks to either a lack of competence in reading comprehension, or a deliberately promotional agenda. Or both. Even if the film shattered all previous opening records, "shattered" is inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia, and Aslishiva still misrepresented what the reference said.

    Today, the user described as fact, the opinion "The film saw good growth in collection on its second day", again, with no context to explain the subjective "good growth". I'll note that in October I explained that context is necessary if we're going to use subjective phrasing like "average grosser". Aslishiva doesn't seem to care, and keeps parroting what the trades say without any regard for presenting the information honestly. And for some background, Indian cinema is a cutthroat world and the film articles are heavily patrolled by sock farms and editing rings where the most common practice is to chase and report the newest, highest box office estimates (box office values in Indian cinema are all guesses), stuff the article with positive reviews, etc. The bulk of Aslishiva's edits involve daily and sometimes several-times-per-day box office updates.[28][29][30][31][32]

    Note also this edit where the user cherrypicks four unsourced reviews, then summarizes them with "The film received extremely positive reviews from critics." Clearly here to promote, not to write neutral academic articles. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hell, I don't think he knows that he has a talk page. As far as I can judge, this user is ignorant about the fact that Wikipedia articles have to follow certain guidelines and there are policies to be followed. Assuming good faith, he knows nothing (aka our very own Jon Snow). Should be blocked, imo, he's not responsive anyway. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He knows. He's edited talk pages before, and he thanked me for an edit I left on his talk page on 2 October 2015. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what Cyphoidbomb has reported, it seems obvious that this editor is simply not able to contribute to Wikipedia in a manner consistent with the guidelines. He's had a few months to learn from his mistakes without any obvious improvement in behavior. Competence is required, and an editor who requires someone to follow them around to fix their errors is a net negative to the project. clpo13(talk) 18:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another recent example: here, Aslishiva changes a box office estimation to ₹ 90 crore (1 crore = 10 million, so 90 crore = ₹900,000) when the reference that Aslishiva provided estimates "85-90 crore". Consider also that on 2 December, I commented on his talk page that the honest thing to do when presented with differences of opinion or a range of opinion, is to present the difference of opinion so readers get the full picture. In this case, there was no reason why Aslishiva could not have presented the 85-90 crore estimate as a range, but instead, he chose the higher number. Competence issue? Penchant for promotion? Whatever it is, it's not productive and it's a decision that lacks integrity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block with Template:Uw-block on their talk page until the user can convince an adminstrator to unblock, using the unblock template. This user needs to read the concerns about their editing, understand them, and to change the bad behaviour.--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Yerevan Thermal Power Plant

    As a part of student assignement, Armanilogin (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) continues to re-add copyrighted material to the Yerevan Thermal Power Plant. The issue is discussed at the articleõs talk page and at my talk page, but these editors refuse to understand the copyright violations policy and ignores the request to not restore copyrighted material or remove maintenance tgs without discussing first. Beagel (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear administration, the user Baegal does not discuss anything with us. He just deletes our work putting his own without explaining anything. We have redone our work 5 times and he does not respond in any way. He just puts the article the same way as he did before, and deletes our work constantly. IF we violate something he could at least explain us what to do. Nevertheless, he speaks with us with an offensive tone, and does not cooperate with us. We would be glad to cooperate with him and help wikipedia with its hard job. Also, you can see in his message lots of grammatical mistakes, that one more time proves his attitude. I think he has issues to my race/nationality. Best Regards, A new, but enthusiastic member of Wikipedia, Arman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted once again and given each user a clear warning about this. Sam Walton (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It still is going on [33]. Possible evasion of block. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And possible sockpuppet [34]. Beagel (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)When I arrived just now Armanilogin (talk · contribs) was already blocked 36h for copyvio after they continued the behavior. APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) was then created and continued attempting to "restructure" the article. I've indef'd that account as the loudest of ducks and semi-protected the article for 3 days to discourage further block evasion. Hopefully this will push the editors in question to discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the block of Armanilogin to indefinite due to the threats they just made on their talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samwalton9: Could you also block APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the sockmaster? Thank you. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @QEDK: Not so sure about Eduard Muradyan since they've been around the whole time. Beagel mentioned the possibility of a class project, which seems probable. Sam Walton (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samwalton9: Yeah, seems to be a meatpuppet. I think we're better off giving a bit of ROPE one last time. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 19:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated removal of content on Palestine despite closure of recent RFC

    PROTECTED
    Resolved
    --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The relevant RfC closure is here, which concluded that:

    "There is consensus that this disambiguation should contain all the uses of the word Palestine. The majority site that thats the way disambiguation pages work."

    Despite this WP:COMMONsense closure, a handful of editors continue to edit war against this conclusion.[35][36] -- Kendrick7talk 22:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully protected the article for 10 days; for solving the content dispute, please use usual dispute resolution avenues (which in this case may include arbitration enforcement if everything else fails).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    MFD's related to fair use violation claims in Timed Text

    Just FYI, I WP:IAR closed an entire batch of MFD's, venue changing them to a larger discussion at WT:NFC. If you are interested in the discussion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair-use_status_of_Timed_Text. — xaosflux Talk 04:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dcirovic

    This seems to have been resolved. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The above-named user is adding the following to disambiguation pages:

    {{Short pages monitor}}<!-- This long comment was added to the page to prevent it from being listed on Special:Shortpages. It and the accompanying monitoring template were generated via Template:Long comment. Please do not remove the monitor template without removing the comment as well.-->

    I have never seen this added to any disambig page. I reverted the change to the WFLS disambig page and I was immediately reverted by the user. I have gone through the user's edits and they seem to be making multiple edits a minute over the course of several hours. This could be the use of an unregistered bot to make these edits. It could be nothing, but it just seems hinky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an established mechanism for handling short pages, that has been in place since 2008, or so. By adding a template Template:Short pages monitor and a short comment of ~300 bytes, short pages are moved out of the Special:ShortPages list, and placed into the Category:Monitored short pages. --Dcirovic (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you using an automated process to tag these pages? Such work should be performed with a bot flag. — xaosflux Talk 04:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks--I wish you explained that at 04:13. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies Sorry for the misunderstanding.
    @Xaosflux A small part of it is automated, but most of it done by hand. That is because the short pages are not uniform. Could you give me a user-bot flag for for a day or two, please? -- Dcirovic (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bot flags are rarely dished out to users on a just-like-that temporary basis, make a new account and go through BRFA. Or else, you can request help at AWB. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dcirovic: this would need to go through the bot task approval process QEDK mentioned above. It is a wait, but can set you up for running this as reoccurring in the future. — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK --Dcirovic (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple duplicate pages created by Wj887

    The user Wj887 appears to have created multiple duplicate pages which need deleting, under the names QHT, Quantum Hi-Tech, Quantum Hi Tech, etc. I was unable to pick them out specifically because they are exactly alike in terms of content. The articles he's created have been CSD tagged multiple times but the user has continued to recreate these articles. CatcherStorm talk 06:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave him/her a final warning. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP, non engagement with the Project

    BLOCKED
    Resolved
    --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This IP, 80.195.27.47 has recently been blocked for not engaging with the Project. The block expired recently and unfortunately he/she continues to engage in non productive activities. See his latest post and his references to God (clearly a trolling comment) I would suggest that the admins take the appropriate steps to deal with this abusive IP.

    Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.100.132.214 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Copied entire ANI page to his talk page. Clearly NOTHERE. Blocked three months. Katietalk 16:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AIV backlog

    Resolved
    Sir Joseph (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:AIV needs urgent attention, please! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Scratch that. Now under control :-) -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Offensive language

    This is a content dispute. Both those words are real non-slang terms to describe things. If they are the correct words for the article or not is a matter to be settled on the talk page. This is not a behavioural issue. HighInBC 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Apparently Nyttend doesn't understand that words like "cripple" and "bastard" are highly offensive terms for, respectively, people who have disabilities and people who are born outside of lawful wedlock. (see WP:LABEL) He used the terms, [37] and [38]; then was reverted with notice on his talk page, and is now edit-warring on both articles: [39], [40]. The word "cripple" is as offensive to people with disabilities as the "n-word" is to people of color; the word "bastard" has broader meanings as a generic insult, but it's most offensive form is when applied to children born out of wedlock, it is a demeaning and dehumanizing label. (In the second case, it would possibly be different in the context of a direct quotation from a work at the time, but in the case of "cripple," that is a totally inappropriate word for the article in which it is used. I am simply requesting that Nyttend be informed that these words are inappropriate for professional writing, are labels not to be used, and that he cease using such phrases and not edit-war to include them. I hesitated to even go 2RR, but given the egregiousness of this terminology, it seemed appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 18:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    He's from Ohio, which explains everything. The people in that state tend to live in a 19th century state of mind. Be patient with him. :-) Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While we certainly can't say that everyone from Ohio lives with that state of mind, I essentially agree with the above comment. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. Amaury (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTCENSORED is like OTHERSTUFF, it's not a justification for insulting people. WP:LABELS is the more appropriate policy. Viri, I understand you are being tongue in cheek here, but given I've heard the same said of Montana, maybe strike it, in the spirit of the season?  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You should get out more! Montana has a great reputation, and is known far and wide for its rugged individualism, live and let live philosophy, and beautiful open spaces. I can't say the same for Ohio, which recently rolled back its energy efficiency and renewable energy standards just a few months ago. Ohio is a state that has a regressive reputation. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lighten up, please, I'm having fun during the holiday season, and this is meant as humor. Let's not take ourselves too seriously. I believe it was Richard W. Pogge, an astronomy professor at OSU, who engaged in a relevant thought experiment on one of his podcasts a few years back. He wondered what it would be like if you could go back in time to talk to your ancestors. He noted that the farther back one goes the less one could say, and this applied to brief periods of time as short as only a century. Just what would you talk about at the holiday dinner table in 1916 or even 1816? Could you really say anything at all and actually be understood in any way? Pogge makes the case that you couldn't, that our paradigm changes so fast over small time periods that even going back one or two generations is hard; imagine going farther and being able to discuss a topic like germs, space science, or even telecommunications. You would be burned as a witch before the dinner even ended. We should be thankful that we can still talk to Nyttend and communicate with him, even though we inhabit the same point in time. :-) Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's 2015. Viriditas's insults are not acceptable. The "just kidding" excuse for any sort of -ism, doesn't fly anymore. [1][2][3]. NE Ent 12:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Montanabw. The terms are both 1) derogatory, and 2) dated (e.g. see the OED:[41], [42]) In this context on the service animal article, these terms are not appropriate. There are plenty of alternatives here; one practice is to use the "people with (insert condition here)" styled phrasing. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I got distracted by RL after filing this, have just now posted notice to Nyttend. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, "Bastard", "bastardy" "bastard eisne" and "bastardy Proceeding" are a set of terms that are at least an archaic but historical artifact that is essential to the law and history. See, Garner, Bryan A. (1999). Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul. Minnesota: West Publishing. p. 146. I agree that it has unpleasant connotations. It would depend on how and where it was used. We should not WP:Censor. But burning one of our esteemed contributors for using the term is an untoward and unwarranted result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And they would or would not be relevant if we cited the actual court case or a commentator or someone for the reason why the children did or did not count. I've removed all those counting references and left just the names for now until someone can put up a source that identifies the issues. It was from his will, if he used the word "bastard" in it, then it would be relevant to use that phrase. If the court used it, it would be relevant. If a commentator used it, it could be relevant but if we don't even have a source about it, it's not likely to be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Is this thread really necessary? Trout to Montanabw for doing a superior dance over run-of-the-mill anachronisms. Just handle the editing controversy in the usual places, this is not an "incident." Carrite (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Montanabw. The language is entirely inappropriate. Omnedon (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad everyone seems to be handling it with some jokes and smiles, but the language is inappropriate for a cooperative setting. Just giving out a warning should hopefully be enough to prevent this from happening again. Oh, and Montanabw, if you read this, hello! Haven't messaged you in the longest time, hope everything is well! (Sorry for getting off-topic admins)TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A warning is unlikely to help in a case where the editor denies that there is a problem. But there is. Omnedon (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I totally agree with EEng's comment. Although these terms are not politically correct, and could be considered offensive (by some), are they really worthy of reporting here as an incident Montanabw?? I mean, come on!Charlotte135 (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    'Not politically correct' calling people cripples? You wouldnt describe calling a Jew a 'Kike' as 'not politically correct' would you? The above attitudes are why discrimination against the disabled is still not frowned upon - even among what we sometimes like to think is the enlightened participants of wikipedia. Although the 'bastard' one is a bit more nuanced. Its the correct term given the era and laws at the time. Bastardy only being relevant in outdated legal systems. But there are plenty of sources that use it appropriately in context. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I don't think using the term 'Kike' is quite the same as the word crippled, do you? I would not use either term myself. I think my use of "politically correct" though, was probably not a good choice in hindsight. Point taken. But still... is this really, truly something that should have been dragged over here?Charlotte135 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend is an administrator. Per the Super Mario Effect - if this was a user they would have likely just been blocked already. Like it or not, admins not only get special treatment, but most shrug off 'warnings' from us lowly users. The only form of sanction that gets an admins attention is being dragged to a Drama Board in front of their peers. So yes, this probably *is* the correct place to deal with it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    English is a dynamic language. Acceptable usage changes over time, and it changes at different rates in different places / cultures. This was a content dispute with edit-warring by both parties [43]. Had the OP exhibited AGF to Nyttend -- that Nyttend was simply not aware of current usage guidelines for this particular term, they could have easily provided links to numerous usage guides on the article talk page [44]; instead they engaged in melodramatic talk page posts "Has your account been hacked?" and this unnecessary ANI thread. NE Ent 12:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cripple and bastard were in (respectively) non-offensive or technical use well within living memory. Equating them to kike or nigger is nonsense (and no, I won't say, "differently sensed"). EEng (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/just-joking-is-no-excuse-for-sexist-behaviour-at-work-20120823-24oyw.html
    2. ^ http://palmbeachgardens.floridaweekly.com/news/2011-02-03/Healthy_Living/Say_Just_kidding_too_much_and_its_probably_an_insu.html
    3. ^ http://psychcentral.com/lib/defending-against-im-just-saying-and-other-verbal-annoyances/
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page move and gaming the system

    User:Nymf has gamed the system in a redirect "purposely" so a page move cannot be done. After 8 years I would think he would know this is against the rules of wikipedia. The gaming article in question is Malin Akerman. The proof that it was on purpose and that he will do the same again is Nymf's talk page. The background is the following. I had asked an administrator to delete the original "Malin Akerman" redirect article because someone had made it impossible to move "Malin Åkerman." This was done. This seemed like a no-brainer move like Martina Navratilova. Nothing on the talk page on moves in 5-6 years, actress lived whole life in North America, actress self-identifies with Akerman spelling in personal correspondence, and signature, etc... so the move was made.

    It was moved back by Nymf with a summary of "per talk page RM request". I thought maybe I missed a new post on the talk page so I went back to check. Nothing, so the summary was bogus. Because it was bogus I checked Nymf's edits and saw he gamed the system by making it impossible to move back without another administrator visit. I told him as much on his talk page but he seemed defiant which told me he will do this again and again (and who knows how many times he's done this in 8 years). It still seems routine to me, but obviously this is a dispute I will now have to take to the Talk:Malin Åkerman page. I have no problem with his revert, but Nymf must be warned by someone official never to do this type of gaming thing again. I've seen many a block for this in my years but an official warning will hopefully suffice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an old RM request that resulted in no consensus. On the talk page. Nymf probably intended to tell you that he doesn't want that move because of reasons mentioned in the old RM(Nymf partipiciated in it). It is definitely controversial to move, no matter what you think- there was a NC page move five years ago, and your bold move was opposed. Do a RM, and seek consensus. Sure, Nymf's reasoning was unclear, but please assume more good faith next time. I will talk with Nymf about his behaviour on his own talk page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That might have justified moving it back, but the edit to the resulting redirect was clearly an attempt to game the system by making it harder for his action to be reversed, which is definitely against the rules. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There was no legitimate reason for this edit. If an edit subsequent to a move added redirect categories or something, that would be one thing, but removing whitespace that doesn't have any bearing on the article appearance is a clear sign of wanting to prevent a page move. Doing it to prevent an edit war is assuming bad faith given that there's no indication there would be multiple reverts. Anyways, per WP:BRD, the next step would simply be a move discussion on the talk page, since the last one was five years ago and closed as "no consensus". clpo13(talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The only good faith explanation for this edit was that it was accidental, but Nymf's comment make it clear it was intentional. Warnings and/or sanctions are appropriate. NE Ent 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The littlecircle can't be used in Canada where this person lives so even if the subject likes it, they would have trouble using it on documents. Both editors are being foolish spending time on this. Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That might help and will be something that will be brought up when I form a proper RM (where I want to make sure the sourcing is neat and tidy). This is only about gaming the system, purposely. I asked Nymf to fix the situation so this an/i would never see the light of day, and the response was "Go ahead." So here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS clearly allows provision for diacritics but as Nymf has pointed it, it's (apparently, I don't know much) a different letter altogether. I say, that the reasoning behind not moving the page was perfectly fine but gaming the system, to make it much harder to move it, was unjustified. And, WQA to the accused, please. Akerman's referred to by the media as Akerman, only because it's easier but since she doesn't bother to use that little circle (I don't know what to call it, sorry) on her social accounts, I'd say the OP's stance is the one I'm going to lean to. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violations at Mo Ansar

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

    Having an issue with this user at Mo Ansar, repeatly reverting to insert their negatively-skewed POV of this political commentator. Has been warned by several editors not to reinsert defamatory material like this but continues unabated, with edit summaries such as "unfortunately for you, it's the truth". Only edits this article, unless it's to insert negative POV about this person in other articles. WP:NOTHERE block appears to be in order. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A quite horrid BLP at best. I cleaned up some of the worst bits, but a lot of it is still "sourced" to YouTube. Collect (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have referenced all of my edits. Although they have been taken out, feel free to check back. I have reverted some and it has then gone back without references. I can only apologise for being new and not getting the rules right. This whole page since Dec 2015 was edited into a promo page, which i don't think this site should be used for. The Youtube channel you talk of collect hosted nothing but footage of the subject, including a recording of one of his personal phone calls. I will leave you to decide who runs the 'Driller Kay' account on Youtube.

    Ivanvector unfortunately there is a lot of negative points around the subject of this page. As I'm sure you can see by the evidence that 'either he or someone close to him' edited this page to make himself look good. I have inserted many credible links and citings to my edits of which you and others have removed, however they do not breech conduct rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutonPete (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    List of people with surname Carpenter is an anthroponomy article or must have similar names re-directed to disambiguation pages?

    A problem has been coming up and it has lead to some edit warring and pointing of Wiki rules. And the interpretation there of.

    The article List of people with surname Carpenter is an anthroponomy article and shows a list of people with that surname on Wikipedia. A few disambiguation editors cite WP:INTDABLINK and that this "is not a policy applying to a disambiguation pages; it is a policy applying to all links, in any pages, pointing to disambiguation pages."

    They imply that this rule over rides disambiguation and list articles. This interpretation allows them to tear apart list articles with similar first names of the same surname and redirect the reader to multiple disambiguation pages.

    For example: William Carpenter at List_of_people_with_surname_Carpenter#W had all those name removed from the list article and replaced with William Carpenter (disambiguation), several people which redirects to William Carpenter.

    I have no problem with William Carpenter per say as a disambiguation article. The problem is their insistence that strips the list article of the same names. In essence destroying the purpose of the List or anthroponomy article.

    I have cited ...
    Disambiguation pages#Given names or surnames "Articles only listing persons with a certain given name or surname, known as anthroponomy articles, are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them."

    Example: List of people with surname Spencer [edit] Shortcut: WP:APOLIST The Spencer (surname) has a good deal of content, so adding the full list of people with the surname would be excessive. There are enough persons with that surname to support its own list. List of people with surname Spencer is not a disambiguation page; it is a List. The same applies to this list and other similar lists.

    Disambiguation
    What not to include ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches ... To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well-known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is only listed at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponomy article. This is even more widespread for first names—many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. Herb (disambiguation) does not even list any people named "Herb", but instead links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed. Consensus among editors determines if an article should be listed on the disambiguation page.

    They insist that anything (for example) that has Bob or Bobby Carpenter must be "a link such as Bobby Carpenter is a link to a disambiguation page. That link should therefore follow the rule of WP:INTDABLINK, which you copy out above: Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate a wide array of reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports can not distinguish instances where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the policy of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page., so the link should be piped through Bobby Carpenter (disambiguation). The links from "List of ..." are clearly not errors; they are "intentional disambiguation links" as described here, and are linked through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects so that it is obvious that they are intentional links and will not be found in a search for incorrect links to the dab page."

    The gist appears that a list or anthroponomy article which has similar names (like Bob or Bobby Carpenter) with a direct links to the article on the subject (different Bob or Bobby Carpenters) must be redirected through yet another disambig link before being directed to the actual article needed. And this despite the list having the specific and direct link to the article in question. (Which they repeatedly change to "Bobby Carpenter (or Bob Carpenter), several people". This appears to be regardless of intention of the list in question.

    Why all the redirects to different disambig pages when the list or anthroponomy article should and does provide a direct link to the article in question?

    Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be a form of WP:LISTCRUFT. There seems to be more of this lately; there have been four massive redirect spams in the last month. In general, trying to emulate a search engine by hand is a futile exercise and clutters Wikipedia. That's why Yahoo Directory is dead. We may need clearer policy on this. John Nagle (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't for ANI though. It seems like there needs to be some MOS policy here such as whether we should include red links or require sources for them or include fictional character or only if there's separate articles on them or what. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC) - ???????[reply]
    Jrcrin001, the specific edit you seem to be unhappy with is this one. Ironically, you have complained about this edit to a number of editors who had nothing to do with it, but have never contacted the user who actually made the edit. And, until now, it was impossible to understand what your objection was, because you copied-and-pasted huge walls of text instead of explaining simply what you meant. To make a long story short, you were unhappy because links to articles about individuals were removed from the surname list page, and replaced with links to the disambiguation pages for those names. I've seen it done both ways, but the bottom line is that you left fairly unpleasant messages on the user talk pages of multiple people who had nothing to do with this change, and instead were only trying to format the resulting links correctly. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, here are the two edits in question: [45] [46]. (I am basing this off of the two user talk pages Jrcrin001 notified of this discussion.) In them, links like Bobby Carpenter, a link to a disambiguation page, were changed to links to Bobby Carpenter (disambiguation), the same disambiguation page. Since they were already intentional links to disambiguation pages, the edits did specifically what WP:INTDABLINK says should be done. That is all those edits did, they certainly did not do anything that qualifies as tear[ing] apart list articles. The edits did not remove any lines. I'm having trouble spotting what the issue is here that requires ANI, let alone such a gigantic wall of text at ANI. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    REPLY -
    Names in list article currently shows 23 William Carpenter with direct links to their specific articles. See: List_of_people_with_surname_Carpenter#W
    1) An editor comes in a deletes those direct links and replaces them with ... William Carpenter, several people.
    2) A bot or human editor comes in and adds a disambig link citing WP:INTDABLINK. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_with_surname_Carpenter&oldid=695545937
    3) An editor says about 2) that we did nothing wrong but fixed a problem and that they are doing nothing improper. (hint: The problem must be with you.)

    The disambig link editor uses the names removed from the list article for the disambig page. And despite efforts this has happened several times. Recently I contacted two of the secondary editors to advise them of a conflict of what I see in Wiki rules. They are the ones that did the second part and not the first part. I have contacted other editors before this off and on over the last many months. This to no conclusion. This time after their comments that I have been "advised" I am wrong and one implying that I can not read or understand their interpretation of one rule over riding everything else. I have had enough. I do not want to edit war and I do not wish to fight any turf battle. I told them both I was bouncing this issue up stairs for admin help.

    FYI - I am not on Wikipedia daily nor am I an expert. I, like many others quit adding to Wikipedia, helping, donating and making corrections because of the too many PC and other power dominant editors doing their own thing. I, like too many part time editors hate the bully tactics and the games played on Wikipedia. I came back at the request of several people who encouraged me strongly to come back. Not much has really changed in my opinion. Wikipedia is still byzantine with too many conflicting rules. This is the first time I have brought this issue to this page. Usually I go to others and try to work things out. Recently I see among the disambig editors that there will be no consensus. It is their way or the highway. Or no interpretation but theirs.

    There is a game and interpretation of a single Wiki rule to strip names with direct links in List or anthroponomy articles. This creates duplicate pages of links. Like a manual index. I have not mentioned here one single editor who is doing this. This was deliberate to focus on the problem and not any specific editor.

    I would like to have a consensus and ruling (so to speak) that they (Disambig type editors) quit striping names out of List or anthroponomy articles to create their redirects to articles. Again - When they remove the name they create the problem by replacing it with a single name and an eventual link to a disambig page for the names they stripped out in the first place. To me that is wrong. It defeats the purpose of the list or anthroponomy page.

    I read the rules and it seemed clear to me that List pages aka anthroponomy pages are exempt from such diambig redirects. Especially when they link directly to the article in question. The exception being for the occasional needed hat notes at the top of the page.

    Am I right or wrong? If I am right say so. If I am wrong, then okay fine. If any Administrator can help me understand why I am wrong that would be very nice and extra.

    The disambig editors can keep their disambig pages of duplicate links - I do not care about them -, but they should leave the list articles alone. Nor do I care if their disambig pages are orphans or not. I do not care about their number games or status within the Disambig community.

    I will abide by the Administrators review of this specific issue. AND if I am too wordy or do not use those fancy short cuts or use the proper wiki words - too bad. If you hold that against me or decide your opinion based on any of that then that tells more about you than me.

    I await the Administrators decision. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators have nothing to do here. Administrators role is to use a few tools to protect Wikipedia from overt disruption. This is a regular dispute between people having s good faith disagreement. Use processes outlined at WP:DR to reach a consensus. Admins have no time to play in this, unless someone starts making problems. --Jayron32 00:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I have no objection to listing all 23 people named "William Carpenter" on the list of people with the surname "Carpenter". So long as none of those is a link to the disambiguation page, there is no conflict with WP:INTDABLINK, or any other policy I know of. I do not replace lists of unambiguous links with single links to disambiguation pages, so I really don't know why I have been brought into this discussion at all, if that is the only complaint. bd2412 T 00:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this issue resolved?
    That WP:INTDABLINK DOES NOT over ride WP:NAMELIST & MOS:DABNAME ?
    That specific links within a List article should not be removed for replacement disambig links in List articles? IE ALL William Carpenter (or any other name listings) and their specific links to the individual article to a specific list article not be removed from a list article and replaced with a link to a disambig article on William Carpenter or similar?

    That WP:INTDABLINK DOES NOT require stripping within List articles of direct name links to specific articles and forcing those same names into Disambig link pages?

    If that is a consensus and meets Administrative approval then I am happy. Because if the issue happens again, I can cite this if it is a consensus. Or as mentioned above doe this need to go to yet another noticeboard or elsewhere?

    Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You still do not get the point. WP:INTDABLINK does not say anything about whether a list of people with a common surname should (a) list every article about a person who has that surname, even if several of them have the same first name, or (b) just link to a disambiguation page that lists people who have the same first and last names. What WP:INTDABLINK does says is that if the latter approach is chosen, then the link should be of the form Firstname Lastname (disambiguation), and not just Firstname Lastname. The reason this discussion is not getting anywhere is because you do not understand the difference between these two concepts, so you are unable to comprehend the responses you are receiving. But the issue you are complaining about is the replacement of links to individual articles with links to disambiguation pages, not the formatting of those links. If you keep referring to irrelevant policies and issues, you are just going to confuse everyone. You have not achieved a consensus on anything because you haven't even been able to state clearly what you are trying to accomplish. That is the end of my participation in this pointless discussion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 02:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add to R'n'B's explanation, a chronology:
    1. Jrcrin001 created List of people with surname Carpenter in April 2010
    2. From the start it listed duplicate names, rather than linking to a disambiguation page for them: there seems to be no rule or guideline saying which should be done, and similar lists of names use both systems (although it looks as if links to dab pages might be more common, especially in lists which do not divide the people into actors, politicians, etc).
    3. Over the years a variety of editors have worked on the page.
    4. Alafarge recently made a series of "cleanup" edits in which they (a) treated the list entries like dab page entries (only one blue link, etc - no justification for this), (b) decided to link to disambiguation pages (a choice, but going against the long-established format of this list, and would have been better discussed on talk page), and (c) in making those dab page links went against WP:DABLINK by linking directly rather than through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects (incorrect editing).
    5. The bot detected that there were incorrect links to dab pages, and added a template to alert editors
    6. An editor fixed those incorrect links in line with policy
    7. Jrcrin001 reverted
    8. Another editor fixed those incorrect links
    9. Jrcrin001 reverted again, and left strident messages on talk pages of both editors
    10. Jrcrin001 replaced the entries for individual duplicated names, removing the problem of how to link to dab pages, but has plastered their complaints over various talk pages and ANI.
    Jrcrin001 appears not to have communicated with Alafarge, the editor who made the changes to which they are objecting.
    I suggest that Jrcrin001 owes an apology to the two editors to whom s/he has used language like By applying disambiguation rules to list articles you are violating Wiki standards and disambig rules. Please stop. You have created great confusion. Please revert all the damage you have done to list articles., and should slow down, read the policies, and check edit histories of an article before choosing which editor to contact about changes with which they disagree. PamD 08:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that in trying to clean up a long list and going by WP:BOLD, I inadervertently stepped in a hornet's nest. I had no idea that surname lists and the nature of disambiguation titles was so controversial. I was following a practice I had seen on other surname pages and thought was sensible, namely to substitute a single disambiguating link for a slew of similar forename-surname combos in a long list, thereby making the list shorter and thus more readable/usable. But since I have no dog in this fight, I will stop dealing with this altogether. As far as redlinks go, I have been making a practice for awhile now of adding new biography pages to surname pages as a finding aid, and one thing I keep running across is that people who aren't notable enough to have a Wikipedia page of their own are inserting their names in surname lists (or their friends are doing it for them; not that it matters which), probably assuming no one would notice. So, again, it made sense to me take these redlinks out. And no one has ever notified me directly that either of these practices was problematic; this discussion is the first I've heard of any of it. (And I hope I am not making yet another error in posting here, as someone who is not an admin.)Alafarge (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I suggest that trivial stuff like this not come to ANI. Can grownups please try a bit harder to resolve such cosmic problems before running to mommy and daddy? EEng (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KunoxTxa47 WP:NOTHERE

    And the blocks did fall. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Based on this comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turq Qunox Right-Wing Party, I have to presume that KunoxTxa47 (talk · contribs) is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to further their own agenda. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruptive editor Jigigocortez creates no substantive content, blanks pages

    BLOCKED
    Resolved
    --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Jigigocortez has repeatedly blanked whole pages or parts of them ([47],[48],[49],[50]) despite having been warned not to do so, and a look at their biggest "contributions" show them to be wholly unsourced ([51],[52],[53],[54]). I think that since Jigigocortez has never participated in any discussions about their behavior, and any person who is even partly rational or competent knows that blanking content is unacceptable, they should just be blocked. -Darouet (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV might be the best place for this. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Erpert. -Darouet (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 31 hours. SQLQuery me! 07:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Belittling by Debresser

    (non-admin closure) In the spirit of the season, maybe everyone can make a few early New Year's resolutions and try to stick to them: (1) Don't be snippy. (2) If someone does slip up and get snippy, don't overreact to it. I'll get the ball rolling by apologizing to everyone I've been cranky, snippy, snarly, snarky, nasty, pedantic, sarcastic and bombastic with over the years - and I'll try to to my best not to continue in that vein in the future. BMK (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Beginning with these edit summaries and continuing in each of his replies in this discussion on his talk page, Debresser has thrown in a little belittling insult each time.

    Another editor, along with myself, told Debresser to give it a rest per NPA. The user replied with yet another belittling insult and stating NPA gives "leeway [to] an editor...on their talkpage". I don't remember seeing anywhere on NPA that says "no personal attacks except on your talkpage".

    While these insults are mild at best and they don't honestly bother me, the fact that they are on-going, does. Even after being told by another editor to lay off, Debresser continues. As Debresser is a long-term user, (s)he should know better. I ask the community what should be done (trout, admonishment, etc.), if anything. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Security concern

    I received this message on my talk page; an IP accusing me of making an edit on his talk page, today. I tried to investigate to see what I might have done (by accident) and the user page shows its history with one edit credited to me, looping back to MY talk page. My contributions shows no edit to this IP user page. So this is a most confusing loop of unsubstantial accusations and misdirected history. Is this a breach in the security or some other manipulation? Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything. What user page are you referring to? Prodego talk 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only seeing the IP's edit on your talk page, but nothing that looks like you (or someone faking you) editing their page. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a trap! Because the IP doesn't have a user page, clicking the IP shows his contributions, not his user page or a diff. Normally you'd expect to see a page or a diff or a history of that page but because it's an IP it's howing his contributions. Nothing to worry about. Just read the top of the page where it says it's his contributions and not a user page, history or diff. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Trackinfo I created a talk page and user page. I bet it looks different for you now. --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More Dodgyness

    More dodgyness, just like some previous dodgyness.
    User:Nimmu23 and User:Zestmind
    These two SPAs are likely the same person. Both followed the same sneaky method to introduce there adverts into Wikipedia.
    Start a sandbox.

    Zestmind
    Nimmu23

    After waiting a period of time create an article.

    Zestmind
    Nimmu23

    Hijack a unrelated redirect.

    dif deleted. (Barbara Khozam) Zestmind
    Nimmu23

    Move to new location.

    Zestmind
    Nimmu23

    Change target of resulting redirect back to what was there.

    Zestmind
    Nimmu23

    Both also created short user and talk pages on the same day as they introduced their spam to mainspace.

    Zestmind [55]
    Nimmu23 [56]

    Is this the MO of a new shills sockfarm? Am I right in guessing these two are too old for a checkuser at SPI? Anyone seeing the like still happening? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Looks like a duck to me. I'm pretty sure a CU check will result in  Confirmed (if sockpuppets). Hence, a few blocks are in order. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User Doc_James is removing sourced content in the Management section of Dengue_fever article

    No admin action is needed. Any further discussion about the content dispute or about MEDRS guidelines can be discussed at the appropriate talk pages, Talk:Dengue fever and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Doc_James is removing a sourced (secondary source, i.e., Indian Government's Department of Health website) content. I discussed extensively on the talk page of Dengue_fever article.[57] But User:Doc_James is not able to provide any reason for removing the content. But he is intentionally to trying to hide a fact which is happening in India at Government level for more than 2 years with respect to Dengue fever.[58]. The source link is the Tamilnadu Government's Department of Health website.[59] He is misusing his experience to hide a valuable fact happening in India for Dengue fever showing his personal opinion. I have given a single line which is specified exactly in the Department of Health website. There is no necessary for a RfC. Sathishmls (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When reporting a user here, please remember to notify them. I have done this for you -- samtar whisper 10:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute (and the material has been quite properly removed - and not just by Doc James). Nothing to do here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This report appears to be misleading. Doc James is not the only editor to have removed this content (KateWishing has also done so) and a very clear explanation of why this material is being removed has been given on the talk page. Unfortunately it appears Sathishmls is simply choosing to ignore this (after being told the information is inappropriate, they suddenly state "Thanks for the discussion which helped to get the consensus. I have added the same content." and restored it again). If this report leads to anything, it will only be a WP:BOOMERANG. Number 57 10:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For dengue fever, Indian Government is providing these Indian medicines to their people and they have brought these medicines under Vector Borne Disease Control Programme. I added the same line what their website says. nothing more. I am really confused what it is misleading here ??? I asked Doc James what is the reason that makes him think the Indian Government's website is not a reliable one. He is not able to answer. I waited for few days. i didn't get any answer even after that. Hence i added back the content. what's wrong in this ? Sathishmls (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This matter should not be at ANI but since it is, it concerns Dengue fever where Sathishmls has attempted edits like this which say that certain things are used "for the control of Dengue". The problem is that the certain things includes nonsense—any claim that papaya juice extract controls dengue fever is WP:FRINGE and cannot be asserted as a fact. The text would still be unsuitable if it were changed to say that a certain organization claims papaya juice controls dengue fever because it would then fail WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I am fine to remove certain material instead of all the content. Is that fine to have "In Tamilnadu(India), Indian medicines such as Nilavembu kudineer along with conventional medicine are used for the control of Dengue under Vector Borne Disease Control Programme." ? Sathishmls (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because it implies this nonsense is effective. Alexbrn (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be cool of course to block a sitting member of the Board for edit-warring (just kidding), but, well, no, this is just a content dispute. If reverts continus, a full protection would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexbrn, Nilavembu kudineer is not non-sense. Since it does not falls under western medicine, you cannot say it as a non-sense. Please have respect to Indian medicine systems. King_Institute_of_Preventive_Medicine_and_Research's (has an international vaccination center authorized by WHO) Department of Virology along with Central Government's National Institute of Siddha did a case-control approach using Nilavembu kudineer towards combating major types of fevers including Dengue.[60] Sathishmls (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For wikipedia, in describing medical efficacy, the is no "Western" medicine and there is no "Indian" medicine. There is "medicine", some of which is effective, as shown by the globally accepted standards of medical evidence. We show "respect" by applying those principles without discrimination. It would in fact be a kind of racism of low expectations to think that Indian medicine was something that needs indulgent descriptions of nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sections on management are not for listing what different small groups of people have tried. They are for discussing the overall medical consensus around treatment. Currently that section is supported by a number of referenced from WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sathishmls: I don't think you are likely to win this one. WP:MEDRS is well-established policy, and this really is looking like a bit of a WP:BOOMERANG. Perhaps this discussion should be continued at Wikipedia talk:MEDRS? -- The Anome (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    MEDRS is a guideline, not policy. And Doc James is one of its fervent supporters. It has the unfortunate effect of excluding well established facts about medical practice outside of the western medical tradition, by saying that if western medicine hasn't proved something effective, we basically can't mention it. It's pretty much contrary to policy, in my opinion (I have not looked at the exact content issues in the present case, just commenting on MEDRS). Dicklyon (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Randall Adhemar and IP 69.200.228.170 - Persistent addition of unsourced content and unwillingness to comply

    This user/IP has been persistenly adding unsourced content to various articles and continues to do so after a final warning on his talk page User talk:69.200.228.170.

    Note that this fixed IP indeed belongs to the registered user: [61], [62], [63].

    On several occasions the user has come to my talk page with walls of text, protesting about my removals of his unsourced content: archived here and currently here. On each occasion I responded that Wikipedia needs sources. He also went to user NeilN's talk page with similar complaints (User talk:NeilN/Archive 27#Calculus) and User talk:NeilN/Archive 27#Calculus_2, where he was replied to by users NeilN and My very best wishes. This user/IP seems to be convinded that given his expertise in certain matters, that their is no need for him to provide sources. With this particular edit he added—directly into the article—a typical talk page like comment, including a personal comment about me. At that point I gave him a 3rd level warning ([64]). After his next unsourced edit ([65]), I gave a final warning ([66]).

    After that final warning:

    In view of this last edit summary I decided not to reply anymore. This user seems not be interested in how Wikipedia works, he refuses to properly format talk page messages, assumes bad faith, ignores comments pointing to relevant policies and guidelines and helpful essays, attributes other people's helpful comments to me. Perhaps adminstrative action might help here? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User and IP notified on talk pages: ([69], [70]). - DVdm (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with cleanup

    I came across the article for Smart Boys as an A7. It was a film so it didn't qualify for an A7, but a look showed that it was created by a sockpuppet of User:Gantlet, who was blocked in 2010 and was evading said block. A look at the article creation history for this sockpuppet (User:Rajeshbieee) shows a whopping 900+ pages. Many of these appear to be for barely notable films. This search engine is likely the best way to look.

    Each of these pages need to be gone through and if they don't assert notability or have some glaring errors, be deleted as a page created by someone evading a block/ban. This will be a massive undertaking and I'd appreciate anyone that wants to help with searching and tagging. I'm not going to delete all of them without doing at least a cursory search for sourcing since some of them might pass GNG or some variation thereof. Still, the temptation to just delete them as creations by a sock is strong and I feel that the best way to avoid doing a massive, possible detrimental deletion would be to go through these one by one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Without yet looking at the articles, they should either be mass-deleted (assuming nobody touched them after the sock), or we need a coordination page similar to CCI pages, otherwise it will be a lot of time wasted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought this up at WP:INDIA and @Sitush: said the same thing. I figure that this is likely the easiest and possibly best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If its 900+ pages someone other than socks must have definitely edited them. I prefer a coordination page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, where would be the best place to coordinate this? -- samtar whisper 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not really matter; For instance, WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've very basically put together blocks of ~50 articles to be checked - is this the best method of splitting the work? -- samtar whisper 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I though about asking a bot to add there all the titles (possibly split into blocks) and then posting individual progress. See how it is done at WP:CCI, e.g. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Proudbolsahye.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that would have been so much quicker D: feel free to do that Ymblanter and scrub my manual attempt :) -- samtar whisper 12:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have a bot. Let us first see if someone could help us just seeing this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to ping you to AN/I @Cyberpower678: do you think you could assist with this given your bot expertise -- samtar whisper 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just run a quick Python script to generate a list of all the titles at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee; it's pretty basic, but it's on Wiki, rather than elsewhere. Feel free to revert if you want something with more detail. Harrias talk 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the time being, Harrias could you modify your script to insert a line every 50 articles saying "Block x" (x=x+1) so it can be divvied up? -- samtar whisper 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We can do it manually I guess. Thanks Harrias--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Labs seems to have gone down, as it does intermittently, otherwise I'd be happy to run it again. Harrias talk 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You've probably already done what you want to do here; but if not, you could use this tool. The output can be downloaded as wiki markup and pasted wherever you want it (that's how the CCI listings are generated). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think people should slow down here. While User:Gantlet was blocked in 2010, that was only a 35-day block, and had expired when most if not all of the articles involved were created. Gantlet wasn't blocked again until this month. Their recidivist socking apparently went undetected for too long, but that alone isn't grounds for summarily purging their contributions. G5 isn't retroactive, and I fear it looks like the articles need to be examined individually and taken through standard deletion processes as appropriate. Or have I missed something? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BlackJack

    Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at these edits by BlackJack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [71][72]? They certainly seem to cross the line into personal attacks: in eight years I've never before been told that I am "unfit to be an editor here". StAnselm (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything that Anselm has done on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) and the article itself needs to be scrutinised, including his convenient relationship with User:Reyk who seems to be on hand whenever anyone replies to Anselm. Anselm has annoyed more than one experienced editor with his condescending attitude and his over-zealous views about the BLP policy, even though he is guilty of breaching the policy himself. He does not comply with WP:AGF and, in that respect, the limit is this accusation: "Now, the fact that you now refer to a guide issued "about 2005" suggests that "Sri Lankan cricketers, 2015" is simply a made-up reference that you added to the article. Don't do that, please". Nothing has been made up as any sensible person reading the discussion would immediately agree. His attitude is disgraceful and several of his actions are completely out of order. In my opinion, he is unfit to be an editor and should resign from WP. Jack | talk page 13:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What this comes down to, StAnselm, is the pure case of verifiability. Technically nothing is verifiable unless we were there at the time witnessing it, and if we *were* there at the time, then this contravenes WP:PRIMARY. Essentially we would end up in a situation where we had *no* articles on Wikipedia, because nothing is truly verifiable. Bobo. 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a reignition of [73]. All this great drama is around the Article for Deletion discussion about S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer), a former first-class cricketer in Sri Lanka. This person is surely less notable in the US than (choose your favorite candidate to the next coming election), but there are some sources about him. Nevertheless it seems that at least one side of the discussion is using arguments that are not established cricket technical expression, like "forgiveness my arse" and "mendacious fuckwittery". It could be useful to remind some 'older' editors that being calm and level-headed could be more convincing than ... I don't remember the exact established cricket technical expression to use here. Pldx1 (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment(ec)- StAnselm points out that Jack's precious new sources don't actually say everything Jack claims they do, and Jack responds by attacking StAnselm's religion. That's fucking low, and any remaining inclination I might have had to extend this guy any assumption of good faith is gone. Also not a fan of the following:
    • Re-creating an article that was deleted via consensus at AfD (and confirmed by DRV), with juuuuuuust enough cosmetic changes to persuade a lenient admin not to G4 the wretched thing, despite doing nothing to actually address the reason for deletion. If someone immediately renominates a kept article just to get another roll of the AfD dice, that would not be permitted. This is exactly the same thing.
    • Places two warning templates on StAnselm's talk page at once, then "Look how many warning templates he has" along with a lot of associated bluster. Not to mention that placing the warning templates in the first place was silly tit-for-tat retaliation for this.
    • Lots of personal attacks: 'idiot', 'You are a condescending individual whose motives are highly questionable.' , 'You are a disgrace.', 'infantile sidekick'. Took me a little while to realise this last attack was aimed at me, because I don't recall having much interaction with StAnselm before we crossed paths at the Perera AfD. Not sure if I'm being accused of sockpuppetry or what, but I think deigning to answer this allegation would give it a veneer of legitimacy. Reyk YO! 18:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Scottywong's FCOI

    Scottywong has apparently come out of retirement to defend CobraNet. CobraNet is currently a GA article that Scottywong created with his very first edit, and which he worked on for over two years to get approved as a GA.

    Scottywong currently has a WP:FCOI with some portions of the article, being an employee of a non-notable company highlighted in the article whose publications are being used as sources.

    Scottywong doesn't believe he has a FCOI in this situation, and has pointed out that he originally added the content and sources before he was hired by the company.

    Scottywong hasn't disclosed his identity nor his employer, and would like it to remain so. I am not aware of him disclosing enough information about himself to make his identity apparent. He has made his employer rather easy to determine given his comments and editing given what he says here. I expect that was made in response to situations where similar disclosures where made. I'm unaware of those edits/discussions. I've not looked to see if he's made similar, coi-violating edits.

    The problems that I'm having with Scottywong is that he doesn't feel he has a FCOI, he's not been following COI (especially WP:COIADVICE), and he's pushing the limits of WP:COITALK (granted, there's no evidence he's being paid to edit Wikipedia). Most importantly, his participation in the current content dispute at CobraNet places the disclosure of his employer in jeopardy, and creates a great deal of doubt that he can put the interests (policies, etc) of Wikipedia before those of his employer (especially when you know who that employer is). If he wants to keep the identity of his employer private, he should not be making the edits and comments that he has.

    I don't keep abreast of how much more strongly COI has been enforced the past few years after the FCOI restrictions were extended, and have only glanced at some of the ArbCom and other discussions that led to the new restrictions. I hope editors more familiar with the FCOI changes will comment. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=696373484"