Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
Incidents (archives, search)
1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476
477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
319	320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328
329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Eaglestorm and How I Met Your Mother articles

User blocked indefinitely for personal attacks and incivility. Sam Walton (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

In mid-2015, Koavf edited some How I Met Your Mother articles en masse, without leaving an edit summary, performing edits which did things along the lines of removing sections under the headings "Trivia", "Cultural references" and "Music", and adding tags to indicate plot sections were too long or lead paragraphs too short (e.g. [1]). I initially disagreed with him, and even reverted one of his edits ([2]), but after beginning a discussion on his user talk page (archive link), I came to agree with him.

Eaglestorm, before this discussion, was reverting many of Koavf's edits, and has been doing so intermittently ever since. Eaglestorm's edits usually have one of the following edit summaries: "nonsense pogrom", "culling", "revert driveby deletion", "pogrom by converted", or something similar. ([3][4][5][6][7] and many more.) Today, he reverted three of Koavf's edits and wrote this message on his talk page before quickly archiving. Every time I've seen Eaglestorm doing this, I've reverted him/her, leaving edit summaries linking to the discussion mentioned above, citing relevant policies and trying to start discussion ([8][9]). Eaglestorm has refused to open up discussion, ignoring messages left on his/her user talk ([10], until his response today). I believe there have been some other issues involving Eaglestorm's conduct in the past ([11][12]), particularly with their lack of communication. I have avoided bringing them to ANI in the past as their edits were erratic, but this message was probably the clearest indication that Eaglestorm has no intent of editing constructive in this topic ("FU both"). This is not a simple content dispute issue as there have been no objections to the actions of Koavf or I, other than Eaglestorm, who has never started a discussion or (as far as I can remember) cited policy in an edit summary when editing this topic. I'm unfamiliar with ANI so I don't know how things usually work here, but I feel a topic ban from HIMYM articles, or a block would deter this action by Eaglestorm. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a subject that should be discussed on the article talk pages. I know that when this series was on the air, the pages were heavily edited and I think a consensus should be attempted because I'm not sure whether either editor has consensus on their side. I remember that it was standard for this series to have Trivia sections for each episode so removing them from certain episodes could be seen as disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not like Eaglestorm is a newbie. He has almost 13,000 edits compared to 8,000 for Bilorv. I guess that could cut either way. H. Humbert (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, Liz, we have WP:FANCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:V, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE; on the other, we have... resistance to change. Have you read some of the content Eaglestorm is fighting to include here? Cultural references such as "Robin's "vice" bag is compared to Mary Poppins' magical bag." ([13] For context in the show, this is one character making a joke about another's bag in a 5-second portion of a ~21-minute episode, and should not be mentioned any more than anyone would ever think of listing all the jokes in the episode. This isn't cherry-picking: this is essentially the gist of every bullet point under every "Cultural reference" section there ever has been on a HIMYM article.) Now I know several Wikia where lists of allusions to any work of media in the real world is standard, but that's not the case on Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 07:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eaglestorm is continuing to violate WP:CIVILITY with this obvious attempt at provoking me ("ugly stains by butthurt people"). If this was a new editor, admins would have no problem blocking him. Because Eaglestorm has 13,000 edits, as H. Humbert points out, no one but Liz can even bother to reply here. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a temporary block on this account for the personal attack noted above, which should show that such comments are not acceptable here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Liz here, in that this is clearly progressing into much more than a mere content issue. If it were that simple, I'd suffice it to say that Bilorv and Koavf clearly have the right of this, according to all policy and community consensus on this kind of fancruft. The disputed material (in-so-far as has been presented here), clearly falls under WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and the other policies cited above. This kind of content is, broadly speaking, not important to an an encyclopaedic summary of the subject of those articles and constitutes a kind of bloat upon which the community has very clear standards. I can't see the removal of this content as being very contentious in any consensus discussion amongst experienced editors, though I'm curious nonetheless to know how many editors have been involved in the relevant discussions thus far.

But these content issues are quite beside the point, insofar as ANI-relevant complaints are concerned. The behavioural issues are quite another matter. Edit-warring under any circumstances is problematic, but all the worse when one of the parties is using inflammatory, hyperbolic language like "pogrom" and "conspiracy", which is clearly a violation of WP:AGF and general common sense when it comes to measured discussion between contributors. There's also a pretty significant implication of WP:OWN and lack of perspective and understanding of the collaborative process of WP anytime an editor invokes the kind "things were just right until you came along" sentiments that can be seen here. As if that were not enough, the "FU" comment blows by the bright line with regard to WP:CIVILITY and is not to be tolerated on this project. This is all superfluous commentary, given Martin has taken the action clearly warranted in these circumstances, but I thought I would add my voice to those urging the editor in question to learn to be less attached to his content and better internalize Wikipedia principles and procedure, or at least to understand that civility is the best route around even those you think are trampling on good content. Bear in mind, all I know of this dispute is what has been presented here, but in light of that evidence, I rather suspect Bilorv and Koavf are to commended for keeping their cool and for pursuing the issue through proper procedure. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Snow Rise. I'm afraid I feel that Eaglestorm is not going to change, following their presumably intentional choice to refuse to discuss this even at ANI, the edit summary "illegal block by conspirators", this rant and rude comments to IPs like this (although to be fair, the IP was wrong to make this revert). I understand that Eaglestorm has been around for a while and made a lot of edits, and while I'm sure many of the ones he/she makes today are still constructive (e.g. this and this, although I'm not familiar with the subject matter), if they were a new editor solely reverting edits to HIMYM articles and writing these overly intense rants, I would probably be quoting WP:CIR. They've been blocked five times and they still don't get the message. I don't wish them any ill will, but I do feel that this discussion has been in vain. However, I still hope Eaglestorm will take your comments on board and try to react less angrily and defensively in the future. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose indef block. While this thread does look to be a masquerading content dispute, what we really have here is a user with a long history of blocks for edit warring, refusing to discuss anything in any venue, and personal attacks. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; any one of these would be unacceptable behaviour as isolated incidents, but together and in a pattern they show an editor who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Their response to the NPA block above was to post a screed disguised as an unblock request railing against the "deletionist alliance" (paraphrased) working against them, which after their block expired they removed immediately with a note decrying the "illegal block by conspirators" (removing a personal attacks block notice with another personal attack), followed by a nasty note (now deleted; it included the text "Get lost and mind your own business, loser!") to an IP with three edits. We don't need any more of this kind of editor around here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm afraid I have to agree. Unfortunately, this user appears to unambigously lack even basic competency with regard to our most minimal standards for civility and the collaborative process. Indeed, despite more than eight years on the project, they seem to lack familiarity with many of our most straight-forward content and behavioural guidelines. At this point, it is pretty obvious that they will not desist in outright harassing any editor which they perceive to be members of the "conspiracy" that exists in their head; they cannot disengage from said editors because "these assholes" are "RUINING EVERYTHING!". Frankly, at this juncture, the diatribes have devolved to the point where I honestly don't think they can be described accurately as anything but meltdowns and temper-tantrums. Even putting aside the paranoid suggestion of conspiracies, I just don't think this user has the social maturity required to participate on this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snow rise has summed it up nicely. For an editor to have been here as long as Eaglestorm, this really is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Snow Rise, as well as the fact that this editor should know this type of behavior is unacceptable, considering they have over 13,000 edits and have been here for eight years. Not to mention this[[14]] complete lack of trying to recognize wrong behavior, as well as trying to shunt blame to other editors in a ban appeal. Boomer Vial (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eaglestorm continues incivility and refusal to co-operate in a different topic, Ace Combat articles, with this and this edit summary directed at ScrapIronIV. I'm unsure as to what "going after me with all those other editors" is supposed to mean (possible this very ANI thread, which is completely and utterly unrelated?), but "unjustified stupidity by troll" is a violation of WP:AGF at best, and in my opinion another personal attack. I think that an indef block is warranted. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have had minimal interaction with this editor. As posted in links above, posting a 3RR warning on their page was "unjustified stupidity by troll", warning them of that incivility was "continued harassment" and made me part of some cabal that is out to get them. I do not believe this is acceptable behavior. Scr★pIron^IV 18:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm going to have to agree with Snow Rise on this matter. This degree of uncivilized behavior is appalling to say the least. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Legacypac's persistent bullying

Moved from AN — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again – after his cursing and threatening me in November 2014 – Legacypac (LP) wants to bully and threaten me. In a November2014 ANI discussion, colleague Serialjoepsycho concluded (24Nov2014,20:42 and 27Nov,01:38) that LP should not have threatened me the way he did and no one stuck up there for LP’s threatening and cursing; yet LP this month threatened/tyrannized me again.

If he can’t stop bullying me, there’s a good chance he does that to a lot more editors. In that mentioned 2014 ANI discussion, editors DocumentError and Skookum1 indeed seem to have attested of similar problems they experienced with LP. I’m not in the position to verify and judge all their complaints about LP, but for me, LP now surely starts to have appearances against him. Perhaps, therefore, it is time now for a real tough warning for Legacypac to stop his bullying and bossing of others?

The occasion this time was a posting from me on Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 where I criticized LP and two others for posting comments in a discussion section that seemed to be not addressing the issue there under debate. LP quickly accused me (5Jan,14:34) of having made a “personal attack” there by being not civil, impolite and/or disrespectful. I asked him (6Jan,14:02) how he meant that.

LP then replied/repeated/explained/threatened/accused/bullied (6Jan,14:36):
- “your rude comments…”
- “[do] not comment on other editors”
- “you have been warned”
and (14:50):
- “[you] insult and belittle…an experienced editor”
- “your behaviour is disruptive”
- “stay off this talk page…”
- “…(for a while) and I’ll not pursue this”
and (14:56):
- “quite inappropriate to do that”
- “… Your comments and behaviour are quite offensive…”
- “… and could easily result in sanctions like a topic ban or block”
- “If you stay off Talk Syrian War for a while I'll save myself the effort of reporting you”
- “…but if you continue acting inappropriately…”
- “… all this will become evidence”
- “ [you are] warned again”.

Apparently, according to LP’s explanation, the whole blow up is about LP reproving me for criticizing specific edits of specific editors including himself which he considers “commenting on other editors” which he fiercely denounces as not “civil”, “rude”, “impolite/disrespectful” and “personal attack” and – (partly) perhaps bearing on my later edit TalkSCW6Jan,14:23 but in that case in my opinion equally unjustified: there, too, a simple disagreement on content is no ground for such incriminating and bullying – reproving me for being “insulting”, “belittling”, “disruptive”, “inappropriate” and “offensive”; reason(s) for LP to try to extirpate all that with threats/injunctions like “you are warned” (2x), “...pursue this” , “reporting you” , “all this…evidence”, “sanctions like…”, and “stay off this talk page” (2x).
Since when is criticism on actions/edits of Wiki colleagues off-limits? Why does LP call criticism/comment on an edit “comment on an editor”? (‘Edit’ is not ‘editor’.) If my criticism would have been unjust LP could simply have said so or have reproven the criticism – but even a refuted or refutable criticism isn’t automatically a disrespectful or impolite criticism nor automatically an unacceptable personal attack – but Legacypac never even tried to rebut that criticism, he straight resorted to his threatening and cowing habit.

Meanwhile, editor Knowledgekid87 seems to have been enticed to join in that LP’s game of groundlessly accusing me (6Jan,14:31-32): of wittingly “reviving” a debate that “has died” and of being uncivil – ofcourse also without specifying my incivility – just to have me (and you) wondering and intimidated – safe behind Legacypac’s back and at the same time covering LP’s back: another reason perhaps why it is high time now to call an end to that (presumably contagious) harassing/intimidating/bullying mentality of Legacypac’s? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to provide diffs of the problematic behavior I warned , Corriebertus about but he kindly provided them himself. So here Corriebertus is Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion and here he removes a close [15] by User:Knowledgekid87 to continue discussing changing the name of the Syrian Civil War to "The Early 21st Century War in Syria". Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death and clearly is not going to happen. Last formal request [16] plus the archives are littered with informal move requests. Admins should also look at [17], and soliciting an editor into this discussion I have no interest in interacting with [18] [19]

As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized and the user needs to get over it. The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted. The allegation that I cursed is not true. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I fail to see any incivility by Corriebertus. I'm becoming annoyed with your sensitive skin. I'm not addressing the move requests here – that's not the issue that was brought to us. The issue is your conduct, and it has been brought to ANI over and over again. Corriebertus is being completely civil and your outrage over his tone is uncalled for. People are allowed to discuss issues, and disagreeing with you is not a license to get all bowed up and ruffled. He is allowed on any talk page unless he has been topic banned, and he is allowed to ask questions of editors whom you don't like. What is your problem, and why shouldn't we consider your behavior to be chronic disruption? Katie^talk 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just read this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Is_the_title_correct.2C_.22Civil_War.22.3F and WP:CANVASSING an editor who was banned specifically for his interactions with me is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already read that discussion. Now answer my question. Katie^talk 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor did not like the answers given after they continue to push a rename that is never going to happen, told other editor to get out of the discussion and accussed them of not discussing, and reverted a discussion close 2x. I warned the editor and moved on. Several weeks later they start this thread. That's it. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the frustration with the constant move discussions; but, I think Katie's points are well taken. — Ched : ? 17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I, too, have been on the receiving end of Legacypac's bullying, thin-skin hyperbolic reactivity, personal attacks, and groundless accusations recently and in the past. Why he hasn't been dealt with more severely by now for his behavior is beyond my understanding. KrakatoaKatie's assessment of "chronic disruption" is wholly on the mark, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several days ago WV removed my talk comments and when I restored them used that dif to accuse me of breaking 3RR. I can dig up difs but it was in an unrelated 3RR report I filed. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the comments were on WV's talk page, theyhave every right to remove them at will, and you were in the wrong to restore them. This is standard practice, and it's probably enshrined in a guideline somewhere as well. If your comments were on an article's talk page, then WV should not have removed them unless they satisfied one of the criteria outlined in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it is on my watchlist, I have been uninvolved with the Syrian Civil War article nor have I met or had any contact with Corriebertus before. I agreed with Legacypac that this edit was not civil: [20], what does it even mean "Seriously discussing"? Corriebertus points out my edit here [21] but never explained what he got out of all the past discussions that were held already on the matter. Given the past consensus I suggested to wait a month or two [22] which in my mind seemed reasonable. What I am seeing now is more of a WP:POINTy attitude that the discussion MUST be held now despite ones that had already taken place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this is about, don't care, and am uninvolved in all of this. That said, while I don't spend much time at ANI, every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search [23] seems to indicate I'm not imagining this. That's all. LavaBaron (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WV conduct

@BMK to answer your question WV removed my comments on an AfD [24] which I restored [25]. He then calls for a boomarang at a related 3RR.[26] (sorry not sure how to link to diffs in a closed 3RR) and when I ask "why the heck are you deleting my comments?" he "votes" again with "Another Support for boomerang following this[27] revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV"

I'm a little frustrated that WV has

Deleted my comment at AfD, and when this is questioned...,

Called restoring my own comment on an AfD breaching 3RR,

Wording his comments in such a way to look like there are two editors calling for a boomarang - leading his second comment with "Another Support"

then coming here saying I'm using "personal attacks, and groundless accusations"? He sure likes to call for Boomerangs... Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Administrators and editors please take note that Legacypac opened this subsection as a complaint regarding my conduct 3 1/2 hours ago [28], but I was never notified by him that he had done so. When Chesnaught555 kindly informed me of this on my talk page just a short while ago [29], Legacypac immediately responded to Chesnaught's comments here with a very lame excuse: "I responded to allegations he made in the thread, so notification is fine but I don't believe it is required." While I do believe Legacypac is trying to distract by starting an entire sub-section about me, I don't believe his reason for the non-notification. If he were merely "responding to allegations", he would have just responded, not started a sub-thread calling for a boomerang and looking for someone he views as an enemy be blocked. This, clearly, is retaliation for my comments above. It's obvious bullying. Further, he's been here long enough to know that something like this requires a notification. The strange creation of sub-thread, the attempt to distract, the suggestion of a boomerang being appropriate when it's not, the retaliation, and the non-notification only further prove Legacypac's disruptive behavior and battleground mentality, making the initial report by Corriebertus to be a legitimate and necessary filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor doth protest too much, methinks. This is an active discussion already involving you, the section name contains the abbreviation of your username that you show in your signature, I suspect you have this page watchlisted. The odds you would have been discussed here without your knowledge are slim to none. Failing to notify you might have been a minor faux pas but it didn't warrant the above arm-waving. And, WV, your use of "battleground mentality" to refer to another editor is pot-kettle in spades. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have been too busy today researching sources for an article and working on it to take time to notice or care what Legacypac has been doing here or anywhere. Moreover, if I knew about his mention of me here (as you are trying to claim), why would I ignore it? In spite of your ridiculous allegations, Mandruss, this filing is not about me, regardless of how you are trying to spin it and as much as Legacypac wishes his behavior and editing style were not under scrutiny right now. Congratulations on doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia but doing everything to further the distraction created by Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A wall of text with no answer to my diff substantiated allegations or diffs to support WV's serious allegations against me. I was recently blocked for failing to convince admins to sanction (what I later realized was) an Admin and Lugnuts about editor misconduct. Can we expect the same for WV here? Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

I'm not here to pile on to a witch-hunt (no, really), but I think there's possibly some WP:CIR issues with Legacypac. I'd like to believe he's editing in good faith, esp. as he's been here since 2007, but some of his recent activity is akin to someone who doesn't really understand the basics. Aside from the misguided enforcement request against me, there have been some bizarre deletion rationales at AfD of late. For example, one and two. I hope that future AfD rationales can be built on policy, as other users might see it as being disruptive. Unless anyone else has anything of substance to add, I recommend this is closed as I don't think it's going anywhere. Obviously bring back concerns to ANI if issues are continuing AND there's clear evidence of no improvement. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We did have an issue recently in which Legacypac AFD-ed a discretionary sanctions article, the AfD failed, and he went ahead and did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) of the article five hours after his AfD failed [30], then undid other editors attempts to repair it. Some of us asked him on his Talk page to self-revert and he basically told us to drop dead. An admin finally had to intervene to undo the blanking [31]. It caused more than a minor inconvenience as we were trying to settle the article for the DYK queue at the time. LavaBaron (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use your content dispute to try to paint me as bad. The close was keep, but with explicit direction "The result was keep. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)" which I had already done on Oct 28 (7 days before).[32] and only LavaBaron opposed. Given the other comments on the AfD including a Delete, and a "Keep and Merge" I decided to be bold. There is an open merge proposal on the proposed target [33] which shows I continued to seek consensus. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Do not characterize this as a "content dispute" unless you have some diffs. I had no involvement in the page, or the topic range at all, other than some minor copyediting to conduct a QPQ for DYK. This is not a topic area, nor article, on which I edit. (2) Do not start firing smoke round diffs to make this look like something more complicated than it was. You AfD'ed an article, your AfD failed [34], you did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) less than five hours after your AfD failed [35]. Polite attempts to reach-out to you by multiple editors were rebuffed in aggressive fashion and an admin ultimately had to intervene to undo your damage [[36]. That this was an article under discretionary sanctions should have landed you a 30-day block right then, but everyone involved in this (myself included) were coming from DYK Review and had no interest in the topic area to pursue it. LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac has a clear track record of disruptive and deceptive behavior to force their own preferences over established policy and practice. Less than two months ago, they ended up here because they were NAC-ing articles as delete, sometimes not even acknowledging NAC closes, then applying speedy tags to try and trick admins into thinking that these were just deletions that had fallen through the cracks. Their anti-Neelix jihad has been a long-term disruption. It's astonishing what some editors are allowed to get away with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To this I can only say hogwash to this "disruptive and deceptive " characterization. This issue was extensively discussed at ANi, DRV, and various talk pages with zero action taken against me. There is clear policy arguments for and against my one NAC delete close which BTW survived a DRV. I've not done a NAC close since - too much grief. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously mentioned, I don't spend much time at ANI but every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search of the archives of this noticeboard seems to indicate I'm not imagining this, that the last couple of years has been a parade of warning after warning he's been given. This is not the track record one would expect of a normal, content-focused WP editor. He seems to know how to push just far enough with his edits and how to be just nasty enough with other editors to only get yellow cards. My limited interaction with him just in this thread has left less than a good taste in my mouth - instead of offering explanation or reasonable rebuttal for questions about his edits his first inclination is to unsheathe the knives and start swinging. He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl. LavaBaron (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl." Yeah. That's clear. This should be the place to deal with that, but it often seems to not work out that way. Go figure. Begoon ^talk 14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Resolution

The original ANI notice seems to be vague. A number of editors such as Begoon, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Lugnuts, Corriebertus, Knowledgekid87, Winkelvi have provided thoughts, but this has rapidly descended into a complaint fest and parade of horribles with no suggestion for resolution, which is unfair to Legacypac and other editors themselves.
As a concrete proposal, therefore, I recommend - based on the issues raised by aformentioned editors in the preceding discussion - a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per reasons described in "continued discussion" (above) by me, specifically the "stealth deletion" of a discretionary sanctions article by Legacypac. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per LavaBaron. I have to wonder, however, what will change in the future with the behaviors noted by myself and other editors above. If this CBAN proposal becomes a reality, it will be interesting to see if LPs behavior changes for the better outside the specifics of the CBAN. If not, we will likely be back here again (and again) with LP as the subject of more filings. One thing at a time, I guess. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a dumb idea. I've edited quite responsibly in the SCW&ISIL area for several years. I have started and built out a number of good articles there, have no record of edit warring sanctions there, and regularly patrol changes and revert vandalism in this area. Large parts of both the text and organization of the pillar ISIL article still stand as written and organized by me last year. Some people don't like my cleanup efforts but targeting my participation in ISIL topics is wrong headed.

I'm also surprised to see WV still posting in this thread after he failed to answer for his own behavior just above, claiming he was too busy. Someone should look at his falsifications and act on them. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Within the context of the behavioral issues that have been raised, starting a response to another editor with "what a dumb idea" may underscore that this is not such a dumb idea after all. Just a thought. LavaBaron (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh. [37] kettles, pots and all. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The formal proposal is in revisions history. Feel free to use it. But it won't have my support until any of the sides properly establish their viewpoints. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you providing a better worded proposal QEDK. I agree it's preferable to the current version, as it's more precise and fairer to Legacypac as it leaves less ambiguity, but I'd rather defer to another editor to introduce it as I'd rather not become more involved in this than I am already. LavaBaron (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can introduce a proposal, however only uninvolved editors can close it. That's how it works. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. LavaBaron (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I've noticed that you've nominated a bunch of redirects by Neelix for speedy deletion, branding them as nonsense. Why? They seem perfectly fine to me. Neelix is an experienced editor who clearly knows why such redirects are required. I therefore support the CBAN proposed by LavaBaron as I think you need to learn that your behaviour is unacceptable. Chesnaught (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that Neelix disappeared up his own orifice in a blaze of self-failure, right? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Ches doesn't know it, he must be living under a Wiki-rock. Even so, it does seem at this point, from the edit summaries as well as the fervor behind the deletion nominations by this one editor, that there is an unhealthy flavor of vendetta afoot. Just my observation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'A bunch' of Neelix redirects is a very unfair characterization. I processed (CSD, RfD, AfD, or cleared as ok) over 2,200 Neelix redirects just this weekend on list 5 so far [38]. [39] plus some on lists 1-4 too. You must have missed the community decision that any Neelix redirect can be deleted G6 housekeeping if an Admin thinks it would not survive RfD.

Also Someone should look into WV's false allegations above since he keeps spouting nonsense about me here please. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Legacypac's incessant breast-beating and pronouncements of their editing's importance, their efforts are proving indiscriminate, disruptive and spiteful. Just a few minutes ago, Legacypac reinstated a pair of speedies I declined without substantive explanation, without bothering to check out the reason I gave, with a snarky (at best) edit summary. It's one thing to whack Neelix's hundreds of synonyms for female mammaries; it's quite another to aggressively try to delete redirects like "possession of a firearm", when the simplest Gsearch would shows several million uses, included frequent references in US statutes and court cases. Their jihad is more disruptive than the problem; the reason that nobody noticed Neelix's crap for years was that it was mostly harmless. That can't be said about Legacypac's behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the reinstatements and thought of coming here to mention them, but am glad someone else took the initiative. At this point, yes, the Neelix-related deletion requests by LP do seem spiteful and disruptive. As I noted above. Is his war on Neelix really doing any good at this point? I submit, "No". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz just a gentle reminder, this isn't the place to "pile on" against Legacypac. Please clearly state whether you Support or Oppose the Community Ban proposal, preferably with a bullet point and bold, in the main threadline, for ease of bookkeeping. LavaBaron (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for late reply. Lugnuts, of course I am aware of Neelix's departure, but as Winkelvi was saying, LP does seem to be on a vendetta against him for some reason. Chesnaught (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no vendetta - there is still a BIG cleanup job to do. Neelix created thousands of fake words and other misleading redirects. It remains easy to pick off dozens of these in minutes. Editors that are spending their time bitching here instead of cleaning up or doing something productive should be ashamed of themselves for they truly are the proverbial peanut gallery. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of language won't help you out at all here. Furthermore, these redirects that you are nominating for SD aren't always the malicious ones which Neelix created; some of them were actually fine. Chesnaught (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This edit, with the summary "the peanut gallery can choke on their nuts" is probably enough to convince any rational editor that a CBAN is necessary for Legacypac. The pattern of abusive personal attacks and provocations has gone one far too long. An editor that has no qualms dragging any and every editor who differs wih him to ANI or Arbitration Enforcement on a daily basis should realize that he has been hit by a long overdue WP:BOOMERANG. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alansohn. Despite the issues being brought to the attention of the user, they continue with the same behaviour that brought their habits to the attention of ANI. And Legacypac should count himself lucky it's not a block/lenghty ban/indef. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

Elvey was indefinitely topic banned from COI matters by the community per this. ~~The topic ban started Aug 7 2015 and runs 6 months.~~ Elvey has violated this ban many times, and has been warned once by admin JamesBWatson here and was reminded of the TB last week by me here.

My warning came due to his TB violations in the past month:

Here
here
here
here
further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1., mentioned above. I didn't go further back in time than that.

After my warning, Elvey made the following edits just this morning:

this

this to a section he started claiming COI-driven editing in an article about a drug.

These three edits to the article about David Healy (who writes about COI in the pharma industry), to its section on Conflicts of Interest in the pharma industry, here and here about a "bombshell" and here and went on to add content about the "bombshell" to a drug article, here.

More broadly, he has been pursuing an SPI case about an editor he believes has a COI with regard to drug articles (per this already-presented dif and any others. His pursuit of that SPI case became so disruptive that admin Vanjagenije wrote this: "I now officially ask you to stop participating in WP:SPI. You are not welcome here any more. Your comments are full of insults towards other users who just wanted to understand you and to help This is a huge waste of time."

Elvey has disregarded the community-imposed topic ban. He seems to be unable to deal with COI matters in WP without being disruptive and he has a substantial blog log.

I suggest a 48 block to stop his current run of TB-violating edits, and an extension of his topic ban on COI matters to indefinite, with the standard offer to lift it. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (striking per note below Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

As I understand, his topic ban is already indefinite, and "may be appealed to the community in six months". This does not mean that it expires in six months, but that It may be appealed in six months. So, your second proposal is redundant. And, with respect to your first proposal, I have no idea what is a "48 block". Vanjagenije (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vanjagenije for pointing that out - I have corrected my posting above. I thought the community had been more lenient than it had been. (I meant 48 hours btw) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the topic ban to be with respect to COI as defined here at wikipedia:COI, broadly construed. I will hold off on any further related editing 'till this is clarified. As I am under the ban, I am almost entirely unable to defend myself without violating it, so I will not comment further unless asked. I am proud that opened an SPI on a user who has since been banned for confirmed sockpuppetry and who has no respect for WP:NPOV, though of course Jytdog routinely defends him to the hilt. Jytdog and this user have on occasion done good work. I have attempted to avoided mentioning whether the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI as much as possible. Even assuming I have said that I think the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI, which I believe I have not, should that immunize the user from my opening the obviously well-deserved SPI on them? I think not. Jytdog fanatically defends this user, who has oft defended him in the past and this ANI is part of a defense strategy that others have noted.

Jytdog's diffs do not show what he says they show, by and large. And, it's difficult to avoid the occasional unintentional slip. And, I've slipped on occasion; and I apologize for that and am trying not to.

Jytdog is currently edit warring to re-introduce material to support his extremely non-NPOV. This material is unacceptable and in violation of Jytdog's own expressed views on what content is acceptable WRT WP:MEDRS that he has espoused when removing material supported by equally topical sources of equal quality, but which opppose his extremely non-NPOV. (Diffs upon request.)

Recently, I have twice asked Jytdog,"Do you have any alternative accounts?" but he vaguely states, "I have nothing to say" and shut down the thread instead of responding. A sentence in WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... , and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Jytdog, in being unresponsive to this good-faith question, stands in violation our WP:CIVIL policy until he responds.

I have respected Vanjagenije's ban, as much as I disagree with the basis for it. It served to let Vanjagenije get away thus far with being unresponsive to good-faith questions. It is unfounded; I insulted no one; I posed probing, reasonable questions, and commented on behavior, as our policies encourage us to do, but I could have been even more civil, I'm sure.

I would like to get back to editing.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvey: As you probably noticed, this is administrators' noticeboard, not your own. If you edit other people's comments just once more, I will block you immediately. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije, I don't know everything that has happened at that SPI, but it seems to have angered you, so I think you should consider yourself involved as far as Elvey is concerned. He's frustrated because of the way the SPI has been handled, you're frustrated because he's not doing as you ask, and things are escalating. Now Jytdog wants a ban. Please look up how often Jytdog has asked for blocks and bans in the last two years. We need de-escalation. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need Elvey to abide by his topic ban until he properly appeals it. He never expressed an understanding of why he was topic banned; he makes no acknowledgement here that he understands he has violated the topic ban. We don't de-escalate in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of my incorrect understanding of Elvey's topic ban I struck my original recommendation above. I think it is important to make a proposal, so I will make a new one. I am asking for a 6 month block for Elvey in light of the above, and his continued disruption here in order to prevent further disruption (e.g editing my post as Vanjagenije mentions above, in this dif. Making it appear that I edited Vanjagenije's quote and called it an "unfounded personal attack" is really out of bounds.) Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support some sort of block. I'm not sure what the appropriate length of the block should be, but there are serious issues here. I am going to provide some further specific evidence below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang?

Jytdog is currently under an ArbCom-imposed topic ban for matters related to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted

ArbCom found

that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.
Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility.

In discussing Formerly 98, Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban, as Formerly 98 edited in these areas, logically, if I'm in violation of my TB for discussing his edits. (Evidence: diff shows extensive GMO discussion with Jytdog)

Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?

Oh, and that's an interesting diff for other reasons too - look HOW Pharmacia & Élan are mentioned! Perhaps some users can edit in alignment with WP:NPOV even despite such employment relationships. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense I'm afraid your log is much longer than any boomerang you could possess. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about me. When it comes to Boomerang, it's about Jytdog' violation of an ArbCom-imposed topic ban. Nice try deflecting the discussion tho.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think it's an automatic right that everyone has at AN/I. This is not the case, and it is patently clear that in fact you are trying to deflect axamination and discussion of your actions; this will, of course, fail. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's entirely possible for the boomerang to hit and take both of them out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt that just be a stick? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... the prototype Mk I?

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any violation by Jytdog here of the topic ban concerning GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Does Elvey's ban indeed extend to anything related to User:Formerly 98, including any articles he edited?
Does it extend to a ban on to any editor ever accused by anyone of CoI?--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. If he does not discuss CoI, articles edited by and issues relating to sockpupptery by User:Formerly 98 are open to Elvey. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~BTW, can somebody PLEASE show this editor how to format properly?!~~ That seems to have ben sorted- by everyone else anyway! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

Observation On January 14 Jytdog wrote I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you. Then above he cites 2 talk page entries which are not related to COI, but then took actions to ANI. Though Elvey posted a quote in 1 of these comments which was suggestive. I suggest Elvey should wait for his or her appeal in a couple of weeks before getting involved in COI matters again, including suggestive comments. Since neutrality is very important for Wikipedia and given the history of COI edits, skeptical editors are important. Also, at least to me it is unclear if talk page comments are part of the ban. Maybe this could be clarified to reduce confusion. I also note that Tryptofish is not an uninvolved editor in related topics and always defends Jytdog. Suggestion close this thread, no real breach after Jytdogs own warning. prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prokaryotes, you are illustrating the problem that I described. And no, I do not always defend that other editor, nor do I always criticize editors who take the opposite position in those POV discussions. But your comment clearly casts me in the way that I described, by trying to discredit what I said. In fact, now that we are on the subject, I will point out that higher up in this ANI thread, an administrator was called "involved", who really was not involved. Same problem, not being addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procaryotes, in the first dif I posted about post-warning activities Elvey writes about my supposed refusal to acknowledge something and then added the quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” which is a reference to paid editing. I made clear already how the other difs are related to conflict of interest. You misrepresented the difs. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

just a note. As he did in the last ANI that led to his TBAN from COI, Elvey has mostly gone to ground, per his contribs (although there is this strange bit of activity with a doppelganger account per Special:Contributions/Elveyzilla). I am grateful for the (mostly) lack of drama but this matter does need closing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am concerned that the Elveyzilla activity looks like a possible attack/research page, because it seems to be a copy of the talk page of another user (with the use of a transparent "zilla" alternate account to disingenuously deflect attention from the main account). I am going to ping Alexbrn, and perhaps take the page to MfD. This is yet another concern that I wish administrators would pay attention to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently on a public computer and I don't have access to my account. Back in November I noticed that after a self-imposed 2 month break Elvey immediately went back to editing against their ban. I compiled a draft ANI proposal in my userspace here. I will add further comments when I am back at my home computer. I will also bring the links from my sandbox to this discussion with commentary at that time. Adam in MO via --75.132.99.164 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've spent half an hour reading but i still cannot figure out the reason for the initial ban, and it strikes me as over-reach. Anyway, i'm not sure what to make of this but continuing to watch and try to understand this inscrutable case. What's it about in a nutshell? Is there a summary anywhere? SageRad (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the intital case (linked in my OP) because Elvey was disruptively interacting with other editors here over COI issues. I asked for a topic ban and he behaved in such a way that he came within a hair of more serious sanctions, but came away with that. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose the following resolution:

Elvey is reminded that accusations of COI must be backed by solid evidence, and that repeated accusations of COI in the absence of such evidence are uncivil and unacceptable. The "pharma shill gambit" has no place on Wikipedia. Any future accusations of COI must be made at the appropriate noticeboard, WP:COIN, must be backed by credible evidence, and must not be repeated if rejected unless there is some material change in the evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle with that Guy but thank you for commenting! has been wind whistling here...... Elvey was already TBANed by the community for acting disruptively in COI matters, and he went right back to it, behaving inappropriately yet more. Your proposal in response to that, replaces the TBAN with something weaker... how that is consistent with anything we do here? Or maybe you think the original TBAN was inappropriate? These are real questions. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Against Sorry, Guy, but that is a terrible idea. We need to move toward stronger action. A community ban is needed here. If we aren't going to give our TBANs any teeth then why have them. Elvey has walked through this COI Tban on multiple occasions and a community failure here would endorse more disruptive behavior.--Adam in MO Talk 11:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Elvey is community banned for 3 months with the standard offer for failing to abide by community consensus regarding their COI related edits. In addition to a continued ban on COI, Elvey is banned from participating in SPA related discussion, broadly construed. Elvey can come back to the community after 6 months and make their case for the TBANs to be lifted.--Adam in MO Talk 11:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant external link - useful/valid or too close to "outing"?

I'm writing an article on the UK undercover policing relationships scandal. As part of this I came across the following link (embedded in the wikimarkup via comment to avoid oxygen: ><). It aims to identify and document relationship aliases of the kind condemned by police chiefs today, as far as I can tell. I'd like views whether or not it is appropriate to add this as an external link.

Why it might be appropriate:

High profile issue in UK; police themselves acknowledge in their statement that this activity was completely unacceptable and that targeted persons are considered victims of abuse
Genuine research value - a person researching this area may well have a legitimate interest in learning what is known and cases it arose, which is hard to find elsewhere
Factual rather than opinion, not designed or intended as an "attack page" per se
"Names" are of persons using aliases in which there is legitimate significant public interest

Why it might not be appropriate:

Could be considered an attack page anyhow, even if not intended as one?
We don't have to advertise people's details as "persons who may have been involved in a kind of wrongful official action" (although we usually do when they are known and we have an article on the matter, see 'Death of Freddie Grey' and others).
Potential for harm vs potential for beneficial encyclopedic information?

Comments appreciated; this is a delicate decision I wouldn't like to make without some sense of how views shape up and/or consensus. Not posted on article talk page in order to avoid oxygen there until it's clearer and because I'd like experienced views on it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELN might be a better place, though it seems somewhat dead. Maybe advertise this request for feedback there? --Izno (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved in the discussion directly above this one, and I happened to glance down and notice this – and I also happen to have been involved in recent discussions about the outing policy, so it's something where I have been giving the subject some thought. Of course, you are not proposing to out any Wikipedia editors, but it happens that none other than Jimbo Wales himself put a sentence into the outing policy long ago, that says that one also should not "out" the subjects of pages, a concept that today would be more associated with BLP. It seems to me that the critical issue for you to consider is the extent to which the EL would reveal real names or other personal information about the persons using those aliases, to a greater extent than what is generally known throughout the source material. If there are lots of other published sources that name these people, or link to their names at that EL, then you really would not be revealing anything that isn't already public information, and there would be no problem with the EL. But if you have found a website that just happens to have this personal information, but that information is not widely known, so that these persons could be considered private individuals rather than public figures, then I think that it would be best to omit the EL. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing proper categorization

KewinRozz (talk · contribs · count)

I properly categorized the Lavdrim Muhaxheri-article, created by the user, see diff here. I was reverted, insisted, was reverted, then initiated a discussion. From the discussion, it is clear that the user does not know how to properly categorize people. He is new, and this is his only article. After several replies clarifying the matter, he is still not getting it. Last revert here. I have assumed good faith, but I'm losing patience. Am I wrong here?--Zoupan 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've replied on the talk page; As for now I'm reverting this to the original version which has been co - edited by not only me. The categories should be consistent with the article. I think that you're confusing subcategories with main categories when it's the main categories that are referenced to in the article. For instance, the article mentions "wahhabism" as a theory and not exclusively people who are wahhabists.Readers of the article might want to know both about the theory or people who adhere to it. The same goes with the rest. I'm currently looking at if your tag 'Kosovo Muslims' is consistent and relevant for the article. KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is a content dispute; in the future, things like this should go to a forum like WP:THIRDOPINION first, not here. But since we're already here, I'll give you my opinion. Looking at this diff, for the most part the tags on Zoupon's version make more sense the the other cats. This article is about a person, and thus person-oriented tags are more appropriate (e.g., "Wahhabists" vs. "Wahhabism." A tag like "Wahhabism" would be entirely appropriate if this person was an influential figure in Wahhabism as a school of thought, but not so much if they are simply an adherent. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Ohnoitsjamie, it concerns the following part; 'In August 2014 Kosovo mobilized to fight religious radicalism, also referred to as "wahhabism" and "radical Islamism", and terrorism by arresting around forty citizens who were suspected of engaging in the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.'KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I thought this conversation was about categories; I'm not sure what point you're making with this quote. (2) Please take this discussion back to the article's talk page where it belongs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is (was?). I seriously believe that further discussion between the two of us will lead nowhere. It is now obvious that the user has ownership issues. See this revert of copyediting.--Zoupan 16:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reverted versions was also an over - write but I've changed to the 'wahabists'. I have no ownership - issues whatsoever, as one can see I welcome co - editors.KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you just reverted Ohnoitsjamie... Need I say more?--Zoupan 16:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this sort of dispute is exactly what the WP:THIRDOPINION dispute resolution process is designed for. Mike1901 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been the case. But now we're here, and the third opinion was reverted.--Zoupan 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do yourselves a favor and stay away from category arguments. Nobody cares about categories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some people do or we wouldn't be here, would we. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some evidence that anyone besides Wikipedia editors care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, touché. 74.205.176.200 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These categories were added by me and other co - editors and I've suggested that the discussion would be on the talk page so that other co - editors could partake. One can compare with the previous versions prior to today User:KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion between the two of us went nowhere. Since the user has been warned, I would also like to ask if this revert of copy-editing is appropriate?--Zoupan 16:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Lavdrim Muhaxheri was 9 years old during the Kosovo War. Should he be included in the "People of the Kosovo War" category? KewinRozz insists.--Zoupan 18:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is now getting seriously annoying. Please take a look at the user's replies at the article talk page.--Zoupan 14:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior by experienced editor Alexikoua

I believe there's a glaring discrepancy between what you'd expect from someone who's been an editor for more than 7 years, and how Alexikoua (talk · contribs) behaves, especially concerning intellectual honesty. I made an edit (explained here and here) since this was the only way for me to get Alexikoua to engage in discussing this specific issue. I subsequently pinged Alexikoua to make sure he understood why I made these edits. Not a single time did he discuss the issue on the appropriate section on the talk page during this period (my post still stands as the most recent one here), but this has not stopped him from reverting, again, again, again, and again. His reasons for reverting in chronological order are:

He claims removing "in Albania" is disruptive
Accuses me of violating "DRN procedure" and threatens to report me
He implies the issue has been settled because it's been "refuted in all noticeboards (DRN etc)"
He states that "all noticeboards disagreed with this removal" (my removals of "in Albania")
He states that it has been "ignored in DRN & all noticeboards"

I will get back to points 1-4 (point 5 speaks for itself), but first some background (who's Kone?)

Why is Alexikoua insisting on adding "in Albania"? Because by adding "in Albania", it leads the reader to believe that Kone did not mean "Albanian origin", and Alexikoua has already decided that the latter is not possible (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). This is not a coincidence, but a tactic he's used several times to push a certain narrative. Two other examples come to mind:

The Italian source which labels Kone as "greek midfielder of Albanian origin" is interpreted by Alexikoua as "the greek midfielder originating from Albania".
Eventhough two neutral editors claimed that Kone declared in his press release that he was of "Albanian ancestry" (here and here), Alexikoua insists that it could also mean "originating in Albania" (see the pattern?). Noitce how Alexikoua gets accused of distorting Kone's own saying. I'd argue that this isn't the first time Alexikoua distorts Kone's words (compare translations he did in 2014 vs 2015). The addition of "whether in Albanian or not" is important because it allowed him to argue that "all relatives are greek independent of where they live, and parents are relatives too, thus Kone's ethnic greek".

With regards to point 1 raised earlier, I'll let the admins decide. As for point 2, at that point, the DRN was closed, so it's beyond me how he can accuse me of violating DRN procedure. And finally, points 3 & 4 are downright dishonest. To refute means "to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge." The DRN, which was closed due to no one volunteering, can be found here. Notice that in his summary of dispute Alexikoua never addressed the specific point which he argues was refuted. As for being refuted on other noticeboards, that's simply not true either. I welcome Alexikoua to present diffs where these points have been refuted on noticeboards. Unless he can provide these diffs, his reasons for reverting on said basis should be regarded as fabrications (never mind that he doesn't discuss it on the talk page).

Alexikoua resorts to ad hominem and accuses me of "usual trolling", and again threatens to report me, but this time for "continuous disruption". Notice how he on both occasions doesn't follow through with the report, and on both occasions I am "1 step from being reported". One can only conclude that these are merely attempts to silence the new editor (me).

Shortly after the DRN was closed, I opened a RfC. Alexikoua stops by and accuses me of manipulating available material. Apart from the fact that it's disruptive to "crash" someone's RfC like that, the accusations he make's have no merit whatsoever. This is evident from the fact that the concerns I raised on the RfC concerning unsupported claims about Kone's ethnic background have now been remedied through consensus.

I even warned Alexikoua, but he didn't hesitate to remove it. [49]

I believe an administrator could look at all of this, and say "tl:dr, new user vs old user, this is a content dispute, will not get involved". I'd argue that this is the easy way out. At least ask Alexikoua to provide some form of evidence for points 3-4. Ask him about point 5 (is this even a legitimate reason for reverting?). Ask him why he ignores to discuss the issue on the talk page. Ask him why he's accused me of trolling. My closing statement will be a straightforward question to the administrators: provided what I present here is true, would you say that the actions of Alexikoua are in line with the policies of Wikipedia with regards to intellectual honesty? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A short note on one point: removing a warning is entirely acceptable; the only thing not allowed to be removed is a declined unblock request during the duration of the block in question. Removing a warning is considered the same thing as saying "I've read it". Don't have knowledge to dig into the rest here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it's not acceptable. However, if you look at his reason for removing it, it reads "tag misuse". My intention was just to show that there is a pattern on behavior that's not allowing us to move forward with the issue. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this is a rather desperate report by DevilsWB simply because he fails to wp:OWN the specific article & more precisely to remove a tiny part [[50]]. Although he was kindly adviced by third part users in the DRN that his proposal is clearly problematic [[51]] he simply ignored it and continues with the removal like nothing happens.

I would rather disagree with the "young innocent user" scenario. DevilsWB was already blocked once (as an unlogged editor [[52]][[53]]) due to disruption in this article & he was until recently cooperating with two persitent socks: MorenaReka ([[54]] the only one that found his pov reasonable in the DRN) and Lostrigot (edit-warring in DWB's favor [[55]]). The last one was blocked a few hours before DWB filled this report.

The "third party" user would be User:Zoupan? He easily qualifies as neutral here as much as I or User:Athenean do. You're welcome to present a topic where he took a stance or voted against you or Athenean. So much for the canvass that you try to accuse DevilWB.--Mondiad (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth to mention that there are off-wiki attempts in favor of DWB's pov. For example this thread [[56]] shares the some spelling spelling mistakes with DWB (Greek without cap [[57]]). Thus, if there is a specific user that creates disruption as part of the above that's not me.Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As much as User:Alexikoua tries to divert attention out of the article itself, DevilWB is right about the content:

The Italian sources which are the most neutral in this case clearly state di origine Albanese[58] (Kone è di origine albanese ma di nazionalità greca) [59] (greco di origine albanese) - a fragment coming out of his word int the press-conference in Italy - and not "of origin in Albania" as Alexikoua tries to push.

Still related to the content, I made some edits in order to stop any edit-warring and placed all Greek sources along with Albanian and Italian ones. But the Greek text is a mistranslation of the original Italian text ma sono Greco (but [I] am Greek) using probably Google Translate ending by mistake in "but they are Greeks" which would be "ma sono Greci". You are welcomed to ping any native Italian user and ask for an opinion, as a matter of fact I will start searching for one. The importance is that by this statement Kone's family comes out to be of Greek origin, going back to Kone as an Albanian of Greek descent. This is the nutshell of all discussions. Instead of categorizing him as Category:Greek people of Albanian descent it came up as Category:Albanian people of Greek descent. It's not the first time Alexikoua pushes these kind of misinterpretations, and I am pretty sure he understands here to error in translation.

It is too bad we have to loose so much time about his "basic ethnicity" which is clearly Albanian and not focus on other topics, just because Alexikoua doesn't like the idea. At the end, Kone made his own choices in life. He states that he "feels Greek" and he "never denied his Albanian origin". That should be sufficient. The rest should be just soccer.--Mondiad (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although he was kindly adviced by third part users in the DRN that his proposal is clearly problematic 89 he simply ignored it and continues with the removal like nothing happens. Reading this might give you the impression that these neutral "third party users" (not sure if he meant users or user) decided to step in and lecture me about the problematic nature of my arguments. No, that's not what happened. What really happened, is that one of the users who happened to disagree with me from the get go, explained his position in his dispute summary. It's the same user who later made this statement: [60]

I would rather disagree with the "young innocent user" scenario. DevilsWB was already blocked once (as an unlogged editor [[61]][[62]]) due to disruption in this article

I started editing under my IP-address, and decided to create an account shortly after, but I never hid the connection [63] Yes, I was blocked for disruptive editing, but what Alexikoua is conveniently hiding is that my unblock request was accepted. [64] Further, I did what I promised to do. I opened a DRN, and during the time it was open I only made two edits to the article: I reverted vandalism, and placed an OR tag (which Alexikoua subsequently reverted). I asked an admin for assistance who agreed with me that the entry was troublesome. [65] I opened a RfC. I never touched the main part that was being disputed (the opening sentence under Personal Life), not once! I finally convinced the "third party user" that the entry was problematic, and he made the necessary adjustments. [66] With regards to the other part that is disputed, i.e. "in Albania", I started editing it after the RfC was opened in order to get Alexikoua to engage in discussing it, because he had until then (and still has) ignored the discussion related to this part on the talk page. It's all in my OP.

he was until recently cooperating with two persitent socks: MorenaReka ([[67]] the only one that found his pov reasonable in the DRN) and Lostrigot (edit-warring in DWB's favor [[68]]). The last one was blocked a few hours before DWB filled this report.

Notice the lack of evidence here. For what it's worth, when I first made the DRN request, I didn't even include MorenReka [69], but this was closed by a volunteer since he noticed that MorenReka had made one or two posts on the talk page related to the dispute and his/her participation was thus required. There was never a cooperation between me and MorenaReka, quite the contrary. I told her/him that I preferred to tackle the dispute alone. [70] With regards to Lostrigot, he decided to enter the scene relatively late. But there's no cooperation here either, I agreed with his addition of Kone's origin (something I myself had been arguing for earlier), but I disagreed with his addition of trivia.[71][72]

It is also worth to mention that there are off-wiki attempts in favor of DWB's pov. For example this thread [[73]] shares the some spelling spelling mistakes with DWB (Greek without cap [[74]]). Thus, if there is a specific user that creates disruption as part of the above that's not me.Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How's this relevant? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to recruit people online to join your battles on wikipedia is very relevant, as it is considered very disruptive. So I'm going to ask you point-blank: Is this [75] you? Athenean (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Stealth Canvassing: "Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)" and/or Meat Puppetry: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate.", and both are clear violations of Wikipedia policy. In my eyes this is more egregious than the content dispute.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's me. However, I was a new user (only days old). I did not know the policies of wikipedia. If it's sanctionable, so be it. For the record, here's a similar request I made to an editor: [76]. I always had good intentions, I wanted to make something right that I knew was wrong. Also, this shouldn't be a reason to dismiss everything I presented about Alexikoua's behavior. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@UnequivocalAmbivalence: This is not a content dispute, but rather about Alexikoua's behavior. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case DWB fully ignores DRN statements, especially from the DRN filled by himself and continues with instant removals. This is indeed serious evidence of disruption from his part. Nevertheless the editor initiated this desperate report, after unsucessful attempts to recruit long-term sock accounts. No wonder it was filled a few hours after the last recuited sock was blocked. I'm afraid that this is a case of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.Alexikoua (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case DWB fully ignores DRN statements, especially from the DRN filled by himself and continues with instant removals. This is indeed serious evidence of disruption from his part This is so bizarre. The DRN statement you speak of was from another party involved in the dispute. It's as if I would accuse you of ignoring my DRN statements, or Resnjari's comments. The DRN was closed, there were no volunteers. I didn't edit during the DRN (apart from the edits I made explained above). The end. It's all in my OP. Nevertheless the editor initiated this desperate report, after unsucessful attempts to recruit long-term sock accounts. No wonder it was filled a few hours after the last recuited sock was blocked. I'm afraid that this is a case of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot I have already admitted to "meatpuppery" (see post above), but there were no attempts to recruit long-term sock accounts. I don't think I even knew what sock accounts were then. But, honestly, whatever. I'm not even surprised anymore. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DevilWearsBrioni: If this wasn't a content dispute than you should have refrained from proffering evidence that your content is correct. Instead, the bulk of your posts here are related to proving that you were right in your content changes, and that his refusal to accept your correctness is at the heart of his "Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior". Secondly, I find your argument that you were new and unknowing to be unconvincing. You clearly acquainted yourself with enough Wikipedia policy to start this report, and by that time you should have become familiar with the core policies, so any failure to understand the rules at this point is on you as it would have to be a willful ignorance. Also the tone of the reddit post makes assuming good faith impossible, as the intent was clearly laid out. The bottom line is that this type of behavior is unacceptable, regardless of whether or not you are right. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@UnequivocalAmbivalence: If this wasn't a content dispute than you should have refrained from proffering evidence that your content is correct. Instead, the bulk of your posts here are related to proving that you were right in your content changes, and that his refusal to accept your correctness is at the heart of his "Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior". This is absolutely false and the fact that you'd say this makes me question your motives here. The heart of his "disruptive editing & dishonest behavior" is the fact that he repeatedly reverted me without discussing the issue (why am I obligated to discuss, and he's not?), and that the reasons given in his edit summaries are incredibly dishonest. Or do you agree with him that my edit was "refuted on all noticeboards" or that "all noticeboards disagreed" with my edit? Like I wrote in my OP: Unless he can provide these diffs, his reasons for reverting on said basis should be regarded as fabrications. Do you think it's OK to revert without discussing the issue and justify reversions with lies and half-truths? Do you think it's OK to accuse someone of trolling? Do you think it's OK drop a comment like he did on the RfC? I look forward to you answering these questions. Moreover, I'd love to hear what parts of my posts involve "proffering evidence that my content is correct". Secondly, I find your argument that you were new and unknowing to be unconvincing. You clearly acquainted yourself with enough Wikipedia policy to start this report, and by that time you should have become familiar with the core policies, so any failure to understand the rules at this point is on you as it would have to be a willful ignorance. By what time? The post on reddit was written a couple of days after I started editing on wikipedia (2 or 3 perhaps). That was one month ago. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not false. To avoid large blocks of text I will refrain from long quotes, but I will offer this one from your first post. "The Italian source which labels Kone as "greek midfielder of Albanian origin" is interpreted by Alexikoua as "the greek midfielder originating from Albania"." This is a content issue. As to his accusations, the reddit link seems to give them quite a bit of credence. And the phrase "By this time" means just that, right now when you expressed your ignorance as to why your previous actions, which were disruptive and directly against policy, would be relevant. Even if you didn't know then, you should absolutely have known by now, and you should understand why they are extremely relevant. The interceding months should have given you insight into that, and you should understand why they were disruptive, why they are relevant now, and perhaps even show a little contrition about it. I am not condoning the way in which Alexikoa may have been going about asserting his version or that he is blameless, but to my eyes the most egregious violations are your breaches of policy and your failure to recognize them. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is demonstrably false. There's an important sentence preceding the one you bring up: "This is not a coincidence, but a tactic he's used several times to push a certain narrative. Two other examples come to mind:". It's not about the content per se, but about the pattern of dishonest behavior. It takes a special kind of dishonesty to interpret this the way Alexikoua does, and if there's any ambiguity as to why he does it: the other material I put fourth (originating in/from Albania) certainly paints a picture. As to his accusations, the reddit link seems to give them quite a bit of credence. The "evidence" that I am recruiting "long term socks" pales in comparison to the evidence I've presented with regards to his dishonest and disruptive behavior, but it seems like you don't give a rats ass about that part. The interceding months should have given you insight into that, and you should understand why they were disruptive, why they are relevant now, and perhaps even show a little contrition about it. Months, or month? No agenda here, right? I am not condoning the way in which Alexikoa may have been going about asserting his version or that he is blameless, but to my eyes the most egregious violations are your breaches of policy and your failure to recognize them. I have recognized them. Your focus this entire time has been on me, and only on one side of the story. You don't condone his actions, but you've been very cautious to not condemn them either. You didn't even answer my questions concerning his behavior. Him being blatantly dishonest doesn't depend on my existence. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@UnequivocalAmbivalence:, this discussion was not raised to decide if User:Alexikoua is a good or a bad guy, but rather his behavior towards an article. All this is getting too long. User:DevilWB accuses him "Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior" related to the Kone's article. It has to be seen in the article's context. DevilWB is also taking responsibility for his actions, and not denying anything. Can you please also take a moment to consider if DevilWB is right or not about Alexikoua's behavior in this case? It's not a content issue but user's behavior towards the article's content issue. For what you are saying seems like an editor can do whatever he/she wants with an article as long as the other side is a potential subject to WP:SHOT. By the way, WP:SHOT says There is no "immunity" for reporters, it does not state that the initial topic of the report should be ignored based on a weighting system of who is more culpable. It's not a tool for scaring reporters, but for making sure there are no exceptions to rules. --Mondiad (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OSMOND PHILLIPS

OSMOND PHILLIPS showed up several months ago, and most or all of his edits have involved adding a group of nineteenth-century American pictures to biographies of nineteenth-century Americans. However, these images have problems, and he persists, as seen in particular at Talk:Billy the Kid#Regarding the purported image of John Tunstall. He claims that each one depicts so-and-so, but aside from the lack of evidence for that, some of his additions conflict with reliable sources, e.g. at Talk:BTK, claiming that File:John Tunstall retouched.jpg (derived from his upload) is the same guy as [77], which has here been uploaded as File:John Tunstall seated pose cropped and retouched.jpg.

Moreover, the images he's uploading come from The Phillips Collection, part of an online magazine that admits that it has no provenance for any of these images — it's just some magazine that found them in an antiques shop, and some months ago he said that he is "THE AGENT AND PROMOTER OF THIS COLLECTION". He routinely says "they're confirmed by professionals" or "they're supported by researcher [name]", e.g. [78] and [79], and his userpage (speedy-deleted as U5, but identical to his Commons userpage) is filled with unsourced claims that he expects us to trust, but he repeatedly fails to provide evidence that would give anyone here reason to trust his claims. There's no evidence that these claims these are authentic, no evidence that these images can be trusted, and no way to verify his claims that they're the people he says they are, but he edit-wars to ensure that they remain (reverted here, with more reversions at [80]; and reverting multiple people at [81]).

And finally, consider his conflict of interest: we don't tolerate people who promote their own organisations by dumping lots of their stuff into articles (e.g. [82], with nine of his uploads) and edit-warring to defend that stuff. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely block accounts who are here only for advertising and/or promotion. This seems like he's here only for promotion. Katie^talk 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that I'd block the guy myself but I've edited Billy the Kid rather extensively. Katie^talk 21:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, the issue of the images added by PHILLIPS is already being discussed on Commons here, a discussion you are already part of. PHILLIPS has offered to provide a "check list here of all the ways we research a photograph to help identify the person." That discussion is ongoing.

Your insistence that PHILLIPS states the photos have no provenance is a red herring. The full title of the the web page you linked to stating the images do not have provenance is "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance". The substance of the discussion ought not to be about old school provenance, as long required by museums and art collectors, but whether EN:WP editors are willing to take advantage of modern forensic methods that are being used to determine the authenticity of photos whose origins cannot be proven using traditional methods. This issue is part of that discussion on Commons. As noted there, experts in the fields of forensic photographic analysis have concluded that a photograph found in a thrift store, without ANY traditional provenance, is of Billy the Kid and is genuine. They are running into the same disbelief here on wn:wp that experts initially treated their images with. These experts appear to be changing their opinion. Apparently PHILLIPS is engaged in an effort to supply similar evidence for the photos they've uploaded.

Nyttend, on Commons you state, "discussions there have no authority here, discussions here have no authority there." So why do you propose here on en:wp to engage in a discussion of the images' and PHILLIPS' credibility when the images are on Commons, and that conversation is already being had there? You can't have it both ways: insist that en:wp and Commons are independent, and suggest that PHILLIPS be blocked here for images they added there.

PHILLIPS began contributing to WP on July 1, 2015. They are still a relatively new editor. They apparently have some expertise in the area of Old West images. WP is bleeding editors and fewer and fewer people are contributing. I have been acquainted with a number of exceedingly worthy editors who have abandoned WP due to harassment and uncivil behavior. I believe the multiple attempts to remove his images and his account here, here, and on this page border on uncivil.

Experts on WP are especially few and far between. The Old West Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through the halls. Since PHILLIPS is a professional and business owner, I get the impression they don't watch WP like a hawk as some editors do and may not respond to these concerns as quickly as some might prefer. Following the principle of don't bite the newcomer, I think it would be extremely premature and contrary to good faith to block him at this time.

I agree that PHILLIPS has reverted edits made by others when they should not. I attribute this in part to the fact the they are a newcomer and likely unfamiliar with WP's byzantine methods of conduct, its dozens of pages of policy, its dozens of policies and procedures, and WP's 5000 word long Five Pillars. Let's try to remember that some people actually live a full life without checking WP daily for comments on their contributions. I suggest a cooling down period and allow PHILLIPS to provide any evidence they have about the images that support their contention that they are of the individuals named.

In any case, the discussion here on en:wp ought to be restricted to whether PHILLIPS is engaged in promoting their business. They appear to be trying to contribute potentially informative and revealing images about a number of Old West figures. I don't see how their business benefits if PHILLIPS is releasing images into the public domain. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 00:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not merely that PHILLIPS is promoting his business: that's one problem, but as well, he's repeatedly adding images to articles that fail our verifiability and copyright standards. Uploading bad images to Commons isn't reason for sanctions here, but using bad images in violation of our standards is reason for sanctions. Moreover, note that PHILLIPS' website has lots of ads: making his collection more prominent through Wikipedia will obviously increase the number of people viewing the website, increasing ad revenue. We already sanction people when they attempt to promote nonprofits or personal websites; attempting to increase views to one's commercial website shouldn't be treated more easily. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"attempting to increase views to one's commercial website shouldn't be treated more easily." True. It that is, indeed, the case. And it's proven to be so. I'm not very comfortable with what seems to be a real lack of good faith and biting going on here. If that isn't what's intended, I'd love to see someone say that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that has concerned me since I first saw the Phillips site is whether, if this were text, it would be considered a reliable source. After reading the contents of "The Phillips Collection, Proof without Provenance" pages linked above—the text written by Catherine Briley—I was left feeling very uncomfortable as to the reliability of the site and thus the images being presented. Mr. and Mrs. Owner buys photos, they suspect (but do not know) that it was collected by Phillips based on photos that they think may be of the Phillips family mixed in with the photos that they believed to be of rather more famous Old West individuals. I've never seen a similar chain of guess and surmise being allowed before on Wikipedia: these are basic verifiability issues. And if the source isn't deemed sufficiently reliable, how can photos from it be deemed reliable, and especially as the photos themselves do not appear to have been marked as to the subject, but are apparently being classified by eye, including Mrs. Owner's artistic eye. Putting a definite name to a photo that isn't self-identified on the original is an extraordinary claim, and I don't think there has been adequate support/documentation to justify those claims. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I reverted was only the photos. If I am not allowed to revert how can they be allowed to remove the photo. I am doing the same action as the person who removed them. Yes, I am a newcomer and have a lot to learn. Is it okay thatNyttend decided for himself to remove all of the photos? Should he be warned, temporarily banned? Put up for deletion like me? I don't know the rules as yet. He made the decision to remove all of the photos for all of us.

The Phillips Collection has nothing to do with the online magazine texasescapes as Nyttend states. All of the ads are on texasescapes. We receive no money from advertising from their online magazine. The editor believes in the photos and allowed us to write articles there to starting getting the collection known. We have made strides in research identification since then. The collection was originally collected from the 1890's to the 1930's we have evidence that proves this. The collection has gangsters from the 1930's and then stops collecting. We have NOT uploaded any photos to wiki that are after 1923. The oldest photos on Wiki is circa 1900. There were not as many publicized outlaws after that until the 1920's. The current owners of the collection purchased it in the mid to late 1990's. So it is not a recent find as they have had it for around 20 years. The collection is over 85 years old. They knew what they had but didn't know what to do with it. I was hired to have it researched and promoted if the research proved to be positive.

Photo's have been deleted when I first came to wiki because I was new and didn't even know they were up for deletion. I would not have known how to support them at that time. I submitted the Philips Collection resume of professionals and family descendants research on my user pages not knowing where to put it. Users against these photos were quick to remove the photos and the resume list. The same users are against the professionals stating that they aren't professionals. Yet these professionals get paid for their experience. We use professionals in the study of Photography, Victorian clothing, Historians and Forensic Arts. The forensics used, is the same forensics used to convict or prove the innocence in our court of law. Would these same users against the photos decide not to use the same forensics that may keep them out of jail? It doesn't matter what I put on here these same users will fight these photos. Nothing I can say will be good enough. That will be easily proved in reply's to this comment.

The majority of people believe that the Billy The Kid croquet photo is of BTK and others without provenance. Should people decide for us what we can see or what we should believe in. These users do not want anyone to see these photos and make up their own mind whether they are of the person or not and whether the public can see them and decide for themselves. These users are throwing away history. It is not for them to decide. To stop these photos they have put me up for deletion. So they will use any means to keep our history from being shared with the public. There is almost hundred photos that we are working on now to provide to wiki administrators the type of photo and the photography stamp information. We will need a little time. These users will try to have me removed before I can submit the information. I will be adding a long check list of the processes we go through with professionals to identify each person claimed in the collection. Last on the list is forensic analysis on higher profile people. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that our checklist would be scrutinized just like our resume of professional people researching these photos. So I am going to walk you through the analysis of this photo we believe to be of Virgil Earp and his daughter Nellie Jane. I am sure the following will be picked at as well. Regardless of the research.

File:Virgil Earp-Nelie.jpg

Virgil Earp-Nelie

This is a cabinet card photograph. Cabinet cards were first seen in the mid 1860's and continued to circa 1900. The cabinet card is easily recognized because of the size which is around 4 1/4 by 6 1/2 inches. The style of the photography stamp whether printed or cursive, type, weight and color of paper, gold trimmed, scalloped or plain edges can help you narrow down the long years of the cabinet cards popularity. Along with decorative borders, color of ink, and back stamps. More information can be found on Wiki here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_card The photography stamp is WL [intertwined] Latour, 11 Main St. Joplin, Mo. There is plenty of information on the internet about Latour. Wiliam Latour [1845-1914] learned the trade at age 11. He studied the daguerreian photography art under the tutelage of Augustus Plitt, one of the St. Louis' most respected artists. From his instructor, he also learned ambrotyping and the aesthetics of photography, etc. He was known to have a business in Sedalia and Joplin, MO. One of the sites with this information is http://historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium2/pm.cgi?action=app_display&app=datasheet&app_id=2356& Another site states he quit the business circa 1900. This information tells us he was in business while Virgil was alive. The style of the cabinet card and later business years works with Virgil's age. When we cannot find information on the photographer we look in the census records to see when he was in the area and what his occupation was. The writing on the back states "To Alice from Josie" It is believed to be the handwriting of Josephine Earp. We have another photo of one of the Earp's with the same writing style. Examples of her writing can easily be found on the internet. Her writing changed as she got older. We also have a photo of Josie on her horse and her writing on the back about her favorite pal. Virgil had a niece named Alice. She was the daughter of Newton Jasper from Nicholas's first wife. This can be found on Find a Grave, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=3164. Evidence shows that it could be indeed Josephine and Alice of the Earp family. Virgil died in 1905 at the age of 62. This can be found at a reliable source called Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Earp Its also states that Virgil had a daughter Nellie Jane that he wasn't aware of until 1898. He visited her the next year and obviously other places. We have had, as an example, people say Virgil never was known to be in Joplin. We have found by these photography stamps that if the person wasn't good or bad and made the local paper or signed documents etc, you cant really say they was never there under most circumstances. Some of the photo stamps do match the area the person was known to be in at the time. A picture of Nellie Jane can be found on Find a Grave. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=40289053. Photos on Find a Grave can usually be trusted because most are uploaded by descendants. This is one of the places where we find family members and get their opinion on our photos. The photo of Nellie Jane matches well along with another photo we have of her taken in CA. Anytime you can identify additional people in the photograph it increases the probability tremendously. Virgil was shot in the left arm and lost the use of it. That is what historians believe. His elbow was damaged and completely or partially removed. Could Virgil actually be able to bend his arm like in the photo? We found another photo owned by Craig Fouts of Virgil, his wife Allie and John Clum. [We have photos of Allie and John Clum that match as well] Virgil's left arm is bent in both photos. Whether he had some use in his arm or he used his other hand to place it. The photo shows he could. Fouts is a known collector of historic old west photographs and is well respected. His photos of the Earp's are in all the Earp related books and Wiki. If this photo was a tintype we would know that a tintype is a reversed image of itself. Like looking in a mirror. We would know that Virgil's left arm that is shown bent is really his right arm. Virgil Earp's ears are distinguished. He has long ear lobes as does some of his brothers. He likely got them from his mothers side as Nicholas's lobes are not as long. More can be said about Virgil's facial features and hair but the ears are the best indicator as they do not change with the exception of the lobe getting longer at times. The clothing fits the era. Nellie dress style is correct for the late 1890's along with the color of it. Earlier dresses were dark unless it was a graduation or another special occasion. Wedding dresses were typically not white either. Nellie's rolled back hair style was only popular in the 1890's. Virgil's suit and his removable collar that would be stored in a collar box was still used in that era. Several styles of these 1890 and early 1900's collars can be seen on the internet. We also check for jewelry, like Nellie's wedding ring to see when she married and does it work with the photographers years in business. We study the age difference between Virgil and his daughter. Whether Virgil is wearing a wedding ring or not. Virgil never married Allie but she was his common law wife. We look for moles, scars and any other identifying permanent marks. We try to find descendants, contact museums who has information on the individual. We contact authors and historians. We search old newspapers for information like this site Chronicling America by the Library of Congress. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/. We have joined ancestry sites to study their family trees to find clues of who the names are on the back of the photo if it isn't of the person photographed. Most photos have the names of family or friends that they are sending it to. Some of our photos do have their names on the back of the person photographed. Finally we use a professional forensics facial expert to compare with authenticated photos by using computer analysis. We only do this analysis on higher profile people because of the cost. We have not done Virgil's forensics yet, but we will. This information tells us that this is a circa 1900's cabinet card with the photography studio being in business during Virgil's later years. He is photographed with his daughter. Both are wearing the correct period clothing of the time. The cabinet card has the later color of grey with an embossed decorative pattern. The script is cursive and is appropriate for the time. The ink in the photo is the typical rich soft tones used in the later years of the cabinet cards. The writing on the back has known family names. We have around thirty photos of the Earp family members which enables us to compare with, even though they are unauthenticated. Many are with other family members. All of this information in a court of law would be enough to confirm their identity even without forensic facial analysis. Yet it is not good enough for some of the Wiki editors who want to stop all photos without a chain of provenance. It should not be up to a few, to keep the interested public away from such important history. How many of Abraham Lincolns photos have no provenance. Yes, he is easily recognized. Just because someone does not have the experience or talent to identify photographs does not mean the photo should be withheld. This photo was on Virgil's Wiki page to share with old west enthusiasts but was removed. I will be adding comparison photos soon. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and WP:COI. Nuff said? -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, for Wikipedia. Carlstak (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But also, arguably, Here to build an encyclopedia. I suggest that, as and when the copyright issues are sorted out over at Wikimedia, it might possibly be reasonable to use some of these images, with suitable prominent caveats and subject of course to individual discussion on talk pages. A hint to OSMOND PHILLIPS: we would need checkable versions of the arguments for authenticity of each and every picture. Banning strikes me as counterproductive. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like one person mentioned. The owners artist eye could not be used for identification. The owner who found this collection in an antique mall had the artistic experience to recognize the possible faces of these outlaws and lawmen. Therefore saving this collection and adding to an important part of our history, This is the resume of one of our Forensic artists. Her art skills are considered an advantage to helping her with forensics making her one of the top forensic experts.

Extended content

Carrie Stuart Parks

P.O. Box 73 Cataldo, Idaho 83810 Forensic Art Experience Forensic illustrator 1981-Current: Stuart Parks Forensic Consultants, Cataldo, Idaho

Criminal and civil forensic art. Courtroom exhibits for prosecution, plaintiff and defense. Courtroom sketching for KXLY, KHQ, KREM television.
1981-1989: North Idaho Regional Crime Lab, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Serving the police and sheriff's departments of the ten northern counties of Idaho, the Department of Fish and Game, the city and county of Spokane, the FBI, and the Department of the Treasury (A.T. & F.) Numerous other agencies.
Qualified as expert witness: forensic art, memory: Idaho and Washington
Fine Art Experience
Professional Artist
1974-Current The Art Studios of the Coeur d’Alenes, Cataldo, Idaho
Watercolors, acrylics, mixed media for corporate and private collections
Teaching Experience-Forensic Art
Achievements:
Researched, developed and taught twelve different 40-hour classes in forensic art including:

• Composite Drawing for Law Enforcement • Composite Drawing Workshop I • Composite Drawing Workshop II • Composite Artists Seminar • Certification for Composite Artists • Facial Reconstruction and Unknown Remains • Facial Identification for Visual Information Specialists • Advanced Facial Identification • Skill Development for the Composite Artist • Demonstrative Evidence: From Crime Scene to Court Room • Courtroom Sketching • Children and Forensic Art Courses approved by and/or offered by numerous state P.O.S.T. training agencies: • Law Enforcement Television Network • Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission • FBI Special Projects Section, Washington DC • United States Secret Service • Royal Canadian Mounted Police • California POST • Institute of Police Technology and Management, University of North Florida • Bridgeport Police Training Academy • Cincinnati Police Training Academy

Training approved by the International Association for Identification for meeting certification training
Demonstrative Evidence approved for CLE credit: Idaho State Bar
Certified Forensic Artist, International Association for Identification
Law Enforcement Trainer of the Year,1st runner up finalist, Department of the Treasurery, Federal Law Enforcement Academy, Glynco, GA.
"Spirit of the American Woman" (Woman of the Year) J.C. Penneys' Career Excellence Award Presented at the Women's Forum Career Excellence Banquet.
Educator of the Year, first recipient of the Lewis Clark State College Alumni Association Award. Lewiston, Idaho
John Edgar Hoover Memorial Medal and Citation Awarded by the American Police Hall of Fame, Miami, Florida for leadership in law enforcement instruction.
Watercolor: Best of the West
Juried Invitational Exhibit, Boise State University
Merit Member
Idaho Watercolor Society
12 Best Centennial Artists of Idaho
Idaho Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Idaho Artist for "Art in the Home Show"
Southern Homes Magazine, Atlanta
Bachelor of Science
Lewis Clark State College, Idaho

Double Major: Fine Art and Social Science
Presidential Honors (4.0 GPA)

Forensic Art Training
80 hours: Composite Art and Photographic Retouching
FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia
15 hours: Techniques of Facial Sculpture
School of Forensic Science
University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama
40 hours: Interview and Interrogations
Institute of Police Technology and Management
University of North Florida, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
The Police Artist in Identification, Special Seminar
University of South Alabama, New Orleans, Louisiana
40 hours: Composite Drawing Workshop
School of Forensic Science, University of South Alabama, New Orleans, Louisiana
40 hours: Forensic Animation of Motor Vehicle Collisions
Road Safety Research Centre
Ryerson Polytech, Toronto, Canada
16 hours: Child Sexual Abuse Treatment, Special Seminar
Idaho Network for Children/Lewis Clark State College, Idaho
Demonstrative Evidence Training Seminar
Seattle, Washington
Train the Trainer one day seminar
Creating Visuals-Professional Education Seminar
Dynamic Graphics Education Foundation, Washington DC
Identikit School
Idaho P.O.S.T., Boise, Idaho
Forensic Art Training Seminar
International Association for Identification
72nd Annual Educational Conference, Washington DC
73rd Annual Educational Conference, Sacramento, California
75th Annual Educational Conference, Nashville, Tenn.
(By Invitation)
"International Symposium on the Forensic Aspects of Mass Disasters and Crime Scene
Reconstruction". FBI Academy, Quantico, VA.
SCAN Content Statement Analysis, LSI
Publications-books written and illustrated:
Secrets of Drawing Realistic Faces (author and illustrator)
North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2003
ISBN-13: 978-1581802160
Secrets to Realistic Drawing(co-author and illustrator)
North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2005
ISBN-13: 978-1581806496
Secrets to Drawing Realistic Children (co-author and illustrator)
North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2008
ISBN-13: 978-1581809633
The Big Book of Realistic Drawing Secrets (co-author and illustrator)
North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2009
ISBN-13: 978-1600614583
Secrets to Painting Realistic Faces in Watercolor (co-author and illustrator)
North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2012
ISBN-13: 978-1440309045
Drawing Realistic Faces Workshop(co-author and illustrator)
North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio 2012
ISBN-13: 978-1440321535
A Cry From the Dust
Harpercollins Christian: Thomas Nelson. Publisher, August,2014
Winner: the Carol Award for best suspense/mystery/thriller 2015
The Bones Will Speak
HarperCollins Christian: Thomas Nelson. Publisher, August,2015
Publications-books illustrated:
Seasons of My Heart, by Barbara Peretti, illustrated with 40 original watercolors,
JackCountryman/Word Publishers, September, 1998
Publications-DVD’S:
Don’t Lie to Me, DVD and Workbook
“Unlocking the Secrets to Drawing Faces”
“Drawing Secrets: Realist Faces”
Produced by Artists Network
“Watercolor Secrets: Realistic Faces”
Produced by Artists Network
“Drawing Secrets: Pets”
Produced by Artists Network
“Drawing Secrets: Techniques for Realistic Results”
Produced by Artists Network
“Watercolor Secrets: Realistic Animals”
Produced by Artists Network
“You Can Draw Your Face” Children’s DVD
“You Can Paint in Watercolor” Children’s DVD”
Publications-Magazines:
“Five Portrait Drawing Fix-its”
Artist’s Sketchbook, June 2006, Pages 40-44
“Drawing Your Life”
Artist’s Sketchbook, April 2005, Pages 12-13
"Composite Art Without Artistic Talent"
Law and Order Magazine, Vol. 40, No. 10, October 1992 Pages 50-54
Publications-contributed:
Big Book of Drawing
North Light Books
The Artists Toolbox
North Light Books
Drawing & Painting People-The Essential Guide
North Light Books
The Weekend Artist-You Can Draw People
LeasureArts, F & W Publication
Have You Seen This Face: 24/7: Science Behind the Scenes: Forensics
Children's Press(CT) (May 2007)
Publications-Listed:
"The Artist's Life-A Sketching Sleuth" by Tucker J. Coombe The Artists Magazine, Vol.10, Number 4, April 1993, Pages 36, 38
Forensic Sciences, Volume III by Mathew Bender, Criminalistics,
Index of Experts/ Identification Experts.
Modern Visual Evidence, By Gregory P. Joseph, 1991, Appendix L,
Graphics Experts.
Who's Who of American Women
Publications-Illustrated
Over 25 limited edition prints
Cover-North Idaho College Spring Catalog (international award winning)
Limited edition print for Pacific Printing Industries
Limited Edition Print: Con-Ag '94 Show, Las Vegas
Coeur d'Alene Arts Directory and Calendar Cover
Hospice of North Idaho Poster and Signature Wine Label
Old Mission Centennial Skills Fair Poster
Special Presentations
(By Invitation) "Interviewing Children for Composites"
The Governor's Task Force on Children at Risk, Boise, Idaho
Papers
"Forensic Art"
Pacific and Northwest Region Criminal Justice Educators
Seattle, Washington, October 1986
"The Art of Forensic Science"
National Association of Medical Examiners, Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 1986
"Special Problems in Composite Identification"
International Association for Identification
Forensic Art Training Seminar
International Meeting, Washington DC, August 2-7, 1987
"Forensic Art for Law Enforcement"
Northwest Command College, Washington State Criminal Justice Training
Commission, Port Ludlow, Washington, March 1988
"Demonstrative Evidence” “Composite Art for Non-Artists"
Approved for CLE credits-State Bar of Idaho
-American College of Trial Lawyers, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
-Idaho Association of Defense Counsel, McCall, Idaho
-Idaho Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
-Shoshone County Bar Association
"Forensic Art Without Artistic Talent"
International Association for Identification
General Assembly, International Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee, July 1990
"Courtroom Exhibits and Evidence"
Criminal Law, The Idaho Law Foundation, approved for CLE credit
Boise, Idaho, August 1992
Pocatello, Idaho, August 1992
“Forensic Art, Discovering Untapped Resources”
American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers International Conference
Anchorage, Alaska, January 1995
"Composite Drawing"
"Demonstrative Evidence: From Crime Scene to Courtroom"
International Association for Identification
International Meeting, Little Rock, AK, July 1998
"Would I Lie to You? Recognizing Truth and Deception"
Domestic Violence Conference
Post Falls, Idaho
Professional memberships
International Association For Identification, Forensic Art Lifetime Member
Appointed Forensic Art Subcommittee 86-90.
Chair: Education Committee 87-92
Juried Shows
-Idaho Watercolor Society Juried Membership Exhibition
Boise Blue Award
4 Honorable Mention Awards
7 Chosen for Traveling Show
-Art on the Green, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
-Western Women's Art Showcase
-National Art Show at the Dog Show
Wichita, Kansas
One Woman Shows
Featured artist in Sun Valley Artwalk, Sun Valley, ID
“Partners in Crime” Lewis Clark Center for Arts & History, Lewiston, ID
Artwalk I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII
Sandpoint, Idaho
Featured Artist, Sept., Idaho Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Boise, Idaho
Reflections Gallery, Sandpoint, Idaho
Frame of Mind Gallery,Coeur d'Alene
Colburn Gallery, Spokane
Vintage Wheel Museum, Sandpoint
Invitational Juried Group Shows
Elllensburg Western Art Show
Art on the Green, Coeur d'Alene
Sandpoint Art Festival
Celebration of Western Art-Olympia
Ridpath Western Art Show, Spokane
Sample Corporate Collectors
Coeur d'Alene Resort
Six commissioned originals and print for each room
Halekulani-Waikiki
Original paintings commissioned for Royal and Presidential Suites,
Honolulu, Hawaii
Kahala Hilton-Waikiki
Honolulu, Hawaii
Boise Cascade Corporate Office
Boise, Idaho
Magnuson Hospitality-Wallace Inn
Commission original and prints for each room
Wallace, Idaho
Sterling Savings
Seattle, Washington
Harpers, Inc.
Showroom, Post Falls, Idaho

OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proof? Once again, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog; dumping someone's resume here, without evidence, is no basis. You have, however, given us proof that you're relying on original research to make your decisions. Continued agency and promotion on behalf of your business, together with persistent original research and edit-warring against people who enforce our policies, means that you need to start editing in completely different fields if you want to continue editing. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, I'm a little unclear about how you come to the conclusion that PHILLIPS is engaged in OR when they attempted to add the very specific procedures they go through to validate the authenticity of an image. For reasons I can't fathom, Robert McClenon labeled this edit as disruptive, removed the edit, and warned PHILLIPS that he could be blocked for his actions. Nyttend, you're saying they are making this stuff out of thin air, when they are trying to provide substantial information on the experts they've used.

I'm at a loss as to how PHILLIPS can provide substantive evidence of their methods for authenticating the photos, which those clamoring for removal of the photos are demanding, when he is blocked from doing so because it constitutes promotion. I am not getting any sense that several of the editors hot on PHILLIPS' trail want to work with them to resolve this, but are determined to delete his images and boot him off WP.

I noticed that Robert McClenon and Dat Guy believe that PHILLIPS' additions to this page constitute self promotion and vandalism. I encourage fellow editors to try to give OSMOND PHILLIPS some allowances. They have been a WP editor since July 1 and are still a newbie. They were attempting to provide a list of the methods that they have used to authenticate the photos that are the subject of the ANI discussion. They don't know the rules and policies of WP. Allow a little bit of good faith.

Gentleman and Ladies, unless we can back off a bit and give PHILLPS a little time and room as an amateur contributor to WP to figure out if there's a way these photos can be authenticated, I fear that these actions will continue to showcase WP's hard ass attitude towards newcomers and reinforce why new editors don't stay. Is anyone up for a little patience and moderation? — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, while I understand assume good faith, I will point out to User:Btphelps that assume good faith has limits. It is not clear that the editor in question is an amateur contributor. They are promoting their business. Rather than lecturing other editors, why don't you reason with this editor whose enthusiasm (maybe commercial enthusiasm) is being disruptive? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to OSMOND/PHILLIPS COLLECTION that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm seeing blatant advertising and it sure sounds like hornswoggle to me. These extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carlstak (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand why I consider it original research, consider the definition of original research: material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. You've produced a large group of portraits without any provenance: as far as you know, nothing's been said about their subjects in any way whatsoever (let alone being said in reliable, published sources), so you know nothing about these images other than certain facts (e.g. the photographic techniques and elements visible in the pictures), from which you perform research such as examining clothing, conducting handwriting analysis, examining jewellery, and identifying locations. Or consider WP:SYNTH (a section of the original research policy, which says:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.

Saying "this is a daguerrotype; that one has Uncle Lu written on the back; the other one was taken by a photographer active from 1850 to 1890" is fine, but "because of those facts, we know that this is John Doe" is original synthesis. And finally, on the evidence issue: do we have any online reliable sources that speak about these experts authenticating these images? Are there any articles of this sort in reliable print sources? All we're being given is claims that so-and-so said such-and-such: anyone can make such claims without any difficulty, so there's no reason to believe these claims without backup from independent sources. We're being told that OSMOND PHILLIPS has all these qualifications, too; read Essjay controversy to see a prominent past example of what can happen when people rely on an editor's claimed-but-not-proven personal qualifications. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The research process used to identify these photos is the same process that was used to identify Billy the Kid's croquet photo. That photo is well represented on Billy The Kid's page. It states, "The image was reviewed by experts on Old West history in order to authenticate it.[87] On October 5, 2015, Kagin's, Inc., a California-based numismatic authentication firm, verified the image to be authentic after a number of experts had examined it for over a year. A special show describing the examination of the photo was shown on the National Geographic Channel on October 23, 2015. Other experts do not believe that the photo shows Billy the Kid or the Regulators." Please explain the difference between any photo from the collection and the croquet photo. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today PHILLIPS, in response to other editors' requests that they prove that the images they have added are genuine and not a mere attempt to promote a business, attempted to add a list of the procedures they engage in to validate and authenticate the images. DatGuy apparently took a hasty look at it, perceived it to be vandalism, reverted it, and immediately fired off a Level 3 notice to PHILLIPS warning him that he could be blocked. Given that PHILLIPS is a newbie, I believe this was excessive and bitey.

Editors have challenged PHILLIPS statements about the authenticity of the images and accused him of engaging in original research. Their reply was an attempt to answer those accusations. They state they are relying on considerable outside experts (and, in overkill, posted the entire resume of a university professor and expert) whose paid work evidently supports PHILLIPS' belief that the images are authentic. It was NOT an attempt to promote their business, but a direct response to the challenges made by other editors about the nature and conduct of their business. To further the discussion, I am reposting these steps below:

Method used to verify the identity of the historical people in the Phillips Collection of Old West photographs: (as provided by PHILLIPS here)

Style of photo: We thoroughly studied the history of the historical person and created timelines of their lives. Getting to know our subjects involved buying and reading biographies, buying old western books, reading books through interlibrary loan, internet research, reaching out to Universities and museums, and poring over old newspapers. It also involved reaching out to living descendants. All of this was in an effort to know the subject’s whereabouts and to verify that were of the correct age to match the style of the photo. The photos in the Phillips Collection range from the 1860’s to the 1930’s and include a majority of cabinet cards but also tintypes, CDVs, daguerreotypes, and one glass negative. Tintypes (or ferrotypes) arrived around 1856, and were generally popular from 1860 to 1870. But, they were made in some portions of the country until the 1890’s even though that was more of a rare occurrence. CDV (Carte de visite) photos are small photos placed on a thin card material that typically measure 2 3/8 inches by 4 inches. They arrived about 1859 and were most popular from 1860 to 1880, but were known to be made up until the late 1890’s, but this was certainly not common. Cabinet cards appeared around 1866, and were most popular from 1875 to 1900, but lasted into the new century for a few years. These photographs can vary greatly in size, style, and color. Cabinet cards can be further dated by the decoration on the card or the lack thereof. Photos from the 1870’s were often mounted on plain brown thinner-stock cards and lacked any identification as to the photographer. However, that was not always the case. Some photographers opted to spend the extra money for a more decorative card. That completely changed in the 1880’s with the name of the photographer routinely either on the front or back, or both, in decorative script. By the 1890’s, cards were even more decorative and sometimes the edges of the cards were decorative.
Clothing: We verified that the clothing of the subject was historically accurate. This involved researching books on historical clothing and fashion, internet searches, and involving experts.
Photographer: The photographers were researched using various sources. These sources include: census records, internet searches (there are several websites dedicated to providing information about 19th century photographers and when they were in operation), researching old newspapers for ads or stories, genealogical websites, Google books, contacting historical societies, museums, contacting descendants, etc. Once we knew the timespan that the photographer was in business, it was compared with the subject’s life timeline to verify that they could have been there.
Handwriting: Some of the photos have handwriting. If available, handwriting was compared to handwriting samples.
Other people: If there was more than one person in the photo, positively identifying the other person(s) in the photo as a friend, relative, spouse, or child makes it far more likely that they are the historical figure.
Descendants: Reached out to descendants of the historical people to have identity further verified. Often relatives have photos that are not available online to use for comparison purposes.
Museums: Contacted museums to verify identity of subject. Again, museums often have comparison photos not readily available elsewhere. They also have experts who can aid in identification.
Jewelry: Some ornamentation worn by the subject in an authenticated comparison photo is visible in Phillips Collection photos, adding to the verification.
Other physical identification marks used in comparison: Scars, hairlines, shape of ears, shape of eyebrows, shape of lips, shape of nose, etc. We also compared body type and size. Learning the history of the subject’s was very useful in this method because physical descriptions were often given in old accounts of the subject. For example, it was reported that Doc Holliday was blond but was going bald towards the end of his life. We verified the loss of hair for the Phillips Collection photos of Doc Holliday.
Location: For some of the photos that were not studio taken, the physical location is visible behind the subject. We did research on those locations. For example, for the Billy the Kid in New Mexico photo, we made two seperate trips driving 14 hours to locate the rock he was sitting on and matched up the mountain range in the background.
In some instances, the name of the person is written directly on the photo. The collection has a photo with “Uncle Lu” and other information written on the back, which is a photo gangster Lucky Luciano.
Forensic testing. The Phillips Collection contains nearly 500 photographs and one glass negative. We believe that the collection was amassed over several decades. The collector was very thorough; he collected not only historical figures but their families as well, and/or the various people involved in a historical conflict. I can give two examples.

The collection not only has three photos of Billy the Kid, but also nearly 50 photos of the players in the Lincoln County War and their family members.
The collection has not only Wyatt Earp, but nearly 70 photos of the people involved in the events surrounding the shootout at Tombstone and their family members. When it is noted how many photos the collection has of a historical person, and also the people closest to them, it increases the likelihood that the photos were collected directly from family members. Criticism has been directed at the collection as being just “look-alikes.”

It would be nearly impossible to amass a collection of nearly 500 photos of people who LOOK EXACTLY like THE most famous outlaws and lawmen in Old West history, PLUS their wives, girlfriends, children, friends, sworn enemies, and government officials. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to PHILLIPS' statement above, "we use a professional forensics facial expert to compare with authenticated photos by using computer analysis." So in addition to the research they conduct, they engage experts. The photographs have not been published before because they are only recently authenticated, as described above.

It should be noted that these images have apparently never been published before. PHILLIPS provided via OTRS on Commons a copy of the contract designating him is the legal representative for the owner of these images. WP policy allows owners to release their images to public domain.

— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, what a mess. OSMOND PHILLIPS gives us a longwinded proof that this photo is a genuine image of Virgil Earp. Sadly, he has flubbed even the most basic research. The image in question was not taken by William Latour, but by one of his sons. Judging from the mounting used, it is likely later than 1905. It may be Virgil Earp, but it most probably isn't. Nasal Ant Horn (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unfortunate, after all the talk about forensics and proof, that such basic errors are being made. Throughout, OSMOND PHILLIPS has compared his images with the recent croquet photo that was featured on television: Please explain the difference between any photo from the collection and the croquet photo. There is no magic conveyance of provenance from the one photo to this collection's five hundred. Every photo is its own puzzle to unravel, and the resources put into attempting to verify the croquet photo were quite large. I would be surprised indeed if equivalent resources had been lavished on every photo in the "Phillips Collection". Then there's this extraordinary claim: It would be nearly impossible to amass a collection of nearly 500 photos of people who LOOK EXACTLY like THE most famous outlaws and lawmen in Old West history, PLUS their wives, girlfriends, children, friends, sworn enemies, and government officials. Each photo looks exactly like these outlaws and lawmen, when even the published side-by-sides are in many cases not even close to the naked eye. I don't see how we can trust that the names that have been attached to these photos are accurate with these sorts of extraordinary claims, absent equally extraordinary evidence. Even if an image is pre-copyright, how can it be usable without real proof of who the image represents? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about this guideline]. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being hassled by User:Matt Lewis

I don't really like bringing this here, but user:Matt Lewis has been threatening to "report" me, so I thought I'd better just do it myself.

Matt made an edit to Naturopathy that introduced new, uncited claims and brought the lede into conflict with the rest of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&type=revision&diff=700163445&oldid=698665542, so I reverted it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&diff=next&oldid=700163445. My edit summary was maybe a little brusque "No. Adding vague qualifiers doesn't help", but it wasn't wrong, and I wasn't trying to be rude.

Anyway, he came back with a screed on my talk page, threatening to report me for, amongst other things, bullying. I tried to better explain why I had reverted his edit, and pointed out that having a go at me wasn't OK. That got a much longer screed about all the things I supposedly do wrong on WP and how terrible the Naturopathy article is. I told him if he wanted to do something to the Naturopathy article, he should take it to the naturopathy talk page, and he replied with another threat to come to ANI. So, here I am. PepperBeast (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing people you disagree with of "bullying" is the flavor of the month. People seem to think it's some kind of magic word by which they can "win" their dispute, but generally it's grossly misused. BMK (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that observation actually add anything to this case? I've heard it before, and I wonder sometimes if it doesn't rather work the other way. I would agree that threatening ANI is not generally appreciated, but what I actually did was told PepperBeast it was certainly going to happen.. but when I could find the time. Perhaps not the best way of doing it in retrospect, but he could have just backed down and apologised you know - that can work wonders in situations like this. What is certainly a fact here is that I got quite upset and I let it show. I had nothing to gain from creating an ANI in terms of the article or anything - ie it couldn't have been pitched against PepperBeast doing anything, except perhaps apologise. Please don't assume that it was. My personal ANI would have actually centred around a point that I am raising below instead... Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BMK that there are various flavors of the month that are yelled in order to try to "win" a dispute. It is also popular to yell "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. Yelling usually doesn't help, especially when what is being yelled is wrong. There are a few editors who like to yell "bullying". Sometimes yelling "bullying" is done by bullies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all it were, I probably would have ignored it. PepperBeast (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it all a bit mysterious in how much I'm supposed to have done. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. I was going to say bringing this to ANI was a bit knee-jerky, but wow, those posts are both nonsensical and way over-the-top. I'm also surprised to see that Matt Lewis is an established editor with nearly 10K edits (though only a handful of those since 2011). What really disturbs me is this excerpt: Look if you don't respond to me sensibly here and apologise, I promise to you that I will report you for doing this. It's simply a matter of principle. I made ONE SINGLE EDIT to an article - a very good one - and someone (not even you so why are you here?) quite-antagonistically reverted it without properly explaining why. And you have effectively given me a low-key Warning. And you too have not shown me where and why. I simply re-worded a very-biased paragraph to be a little less obviously biased. The only link you have given me is "Referencing for beginners"! I joined this place 10 years ago - don't you realise that you aren't supposed to treat people like that? I'm just not sure about this. Matt Lewis definitely needs to take a chill pill, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who issued the warning, which of course caused Matt Lewis to share his vitriol with me too. I also found his words quite over the top. I got the impression that his threats were empty but also baseless, so I'm not sure there is anything really to be done. Delta13C (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to let it ride, but he was back this afternoon with "I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it." I'm feeling rather put-upon. PepperBeast (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My take at this point is that Matt Lewis should have had it made clear to him that his conduct in this case is unacceptable, especially for an editor with his experience. Certainly, more voices explaining that would be helpful, but the take-away for Matt should be to dial back the vitriol, because a repeat of this sort of incivility can and should result in strong sanctions. In short, this thread should serve as a final/only warning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lewis does not appear to have edited since this thread began, but I concur with your read - his reaction is not acceptable conduct. I worry about the response we will get when he does come back and comment here - it may likely be more of the same. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but I think you are just wrong to voice that here. It’s negative speculation and I find it somehow prejudicial. I haven't said anything yet...

Ok, I am a person with very strong values, and I feel that needs to be said first. I’m not particularly good at interfacing and making friends here etc, but I am normally very collegiate I promise you. I can get into occasional scrapes though and I'm probably not particularly liked. I certainly don't scrub my personal pages enough. When will I learn? But I promise you that I do not look for incidents like this, and I do not ever want to see them. I come here either to read or to edit. Looking at some comments above, I've seen some advice has already been given for some kind of punitive ruling towards me. But before people get ahead of themselves, can anyone here tell me how bad my conduct has been, and actually provide actual examples of the areas I have been unfairly or even unduly upset? No one has yet addressed my position in this case, or my point. It's actually a weirdly pre-emptive ANI. But I will accept any point where I have personally gone wrong. Why would't I?

A few days ago on the Sat 17th I made one [edit] (ie nothing to wave sticks at), in an article I’ve never edited before or since (so absolutely no reverts etc) and the next day it was removed and I was basically Warned for making it. It could have been the case that Delta13C thought I was a sockpuppet. If so, he or she was wrong - and that would be a simple AGF matter, soon resolved hopefully. The problem is that I felt that the Warning, combined with the "No." that Pepperbeast gave me when removing my single contribution, meant that ‘a Level 2 Warning’ was on the cards for anything similar that I may have contributed. I felt I was being told to 'back off' basically, and I didn't like the feeling at all. It felt threatening, and that is why I reacted as I did. I saw a very valid improvement to make to the article here. I made one decent-enough edit (better than what was there for sure), and am always willing to work on things when people treat what I’ve done with due respect. It’s not the removal of my contribution that is the problem here (or 3rr or anything like that) – it’s how my contribution was dealt with.

In terms of ‘harassment’(!) of PepperBeast (who I do find very cocky and rude I'm afraid), I made one admittedly-upset and fairly-long comment on his Talk page, and then left one very short reply after he responded to it. I admit that I am prone to longer comments – I can’t help that, and I’m sorry. But please people - don’t be too rude about that, it’s just the way it is. It's partly a time thing - I don't really have the time to shorten myself, and I always begin big. But yes that was all it was – two comments to him, one long, one short. How can that be "harassment"? PepperBeast has also suggested that he’s started this ANI because I said I would make one myself (which was to be in part about patrollers in general). Is this really the right way to treat ANI?

I wasn't going to create my own ANI today (I suggested I was too busy at the moment to PB when I gave him my timeframe), but I have to find the time respond to this particular ANI now. I accept he wasn't going to be ecstatic bout having a pending ANI hanging over his head, but I'm really busy (as a carer who works all hours) and ANI's like this one really do force people's hand – as mine has been forced here. So I don’t think it was right of him to do this for a number of reasons. There were plenty of other options for him. Certainly no harassment was around. I think this is all about respecting the real-life lives of the various people who make edits to this place.

Now please - I genuinely would appreciate knowing what exactly I did wrong in the first place, including regarding Civility in my reaction to the very-antagonistic reception my single contribution received. I can’t always help being annoyed, but I do want to help being “uncivil”. I believe I have a very clear point indeed here, and as I suggested on [talk page], my own ANI was actually going to question the correct attitude for 'patrollers' in general, and whether there shouldn’t perhaps be a ‘code of conduct’ in their behavior to people - including new accounts, returning users (like me), IP's etc. Basically to avoid upsetting decent well-meaning people, and especially in delicate areas surrounding health. I think ‘curt reverting’ (to give it a name) can be an extremely negative thing for Wikipedia. I’ve already explained this to Delta13C, after he apologised for his Warning upsetting me. I accepted that apology and moved onto discussing content, as he suggested, and as can be seen. I wanted this level of conversation to be on my talk page really (or the article's), but it ended up on PBs as Delta replied to me there instead of on my own. I couldn't do anything about that, obviously. I'm entitled to respond to someone under their comment, and I already told Delta that is what I always do - but he says that he missed me asking for that. So there was two conversations going on PB's page. I didn't personally see any bother though. I did feel these two people are a bit too connected with each other, though.

Yes I'm sorry, but I did originally see PB and Delta13C as ‘tag-teaming’ in some sense – because it was the only way Delta’s out-of-the-blue Warning made any sense to me. I simply assumed that one of them says “No.” to an edit he doesn’t want, and the other “Warns” the user. You have to admit that is basically what happened, with no policy-based reason behind that I can see at all. Isn’t that the basis on an ANI issue? ie unless it got sorted out otherwise?

I have to say that if Pepperbeast simply apologized as Delta13C quite-easily did (though he is rather rough on me here), it would have all been fine. I have never turned away an apology from anyone on Wikipedia. But I began quite upset and I think I had a right to be. My edit was in good faith and ALL content edits take some time. Removing text takes only seconds. People really do sometimes forget that here – the actual time that ALL content-makers put into this place. I believe it is wrong to be curt to people who have taken the time to make an edit like mine. Especially in areas like this to be frank. I’ve felt in that past that Wikipedia somehow tolerates rudeness to people in the area of alternative medicine. It that right? The oft-maligned ‘Wikipedia is Not the Truth’, general Policy, AGF etc – it all points to the same thing; find the right balance because you do not need to judge. I can tell you from experience that these people are usually ill, often with cases where conventional medicine is sadly not really working for them. You’ll be surprised how many people turn to herabalism especially. In certain cases I've even seen them pointed there sometimes (with the usual provisos), when doctors reach the end of what they can do. Placebo? Who knows. When the results are really good they are soon taken up by the pharmas. But those are still used by the herbalists though. Why don't we give thse vulnerable people a break and stop being so cold and nasty to them so often? I’m not personally associated with any alternative health, nor do I lean towards any of it really - though a chiropractor did once manage to sort my back and I'm a big fan of 'good food'! I think it's just wrong to assume that people are ‘involved’. All I did was make a simple edit. I didn’t deserve to be effectively warned away. I think I just editied perceived 'protected content' that really didn't deserve to be protected, that's the underlying story here. And it was protected far too overzealously - that's the bottom line.

Regarding this ANI, the obvious question for me to ask is where is the actual "harassment" I'm accused of giving? I haven't harassed anyone, I never will and never have. It’s a particularly bad thing to do in my opinion. PepperBeast has also suggested he created this to ‘pre-empt’ my ANI, and he seems very confident about it doing it too. This confidence really concerns me to be frank. Do I not have a right to be concerned about him? I personally think that the over-exuberance of some change-patrollers can actually be a negative thing for the act of encyclopedia building. I certainly don't feel like I made my edit on a level playing field in this case, or that my edit was valued in any way at all. I think there could be a problem that some editors with particular 'jobs' can see themselves as being on a higher plain to others, and perhaps even subject to a slighly different ruleset. I think it's a problem for this place: a place I can promise you that I've always tried to help improve.

If this response is seen as "more of the same" (I'm at a loss with that one I’m afraid), it's because I actually have a point isn't it? I won’t be making my personal ANI now though - and actually, how can I? My question regarding patroller conduct is raised here instead. Someone perhaps could think about it if they want. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to apologise to you because I haven't done anything wrong. Your edits are not sacred and I did my best to explain to you what I thought was wrong with that particular edit.
I don't know why you keep saying "harassment", when, in fact, I deliberately avoided what I think is kind of over-the-top language. I said you were hassling me and threatening to take whatever your big problem was to ANI. Well, here we are.
Actually, you made two long comments, the first, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700317501&oldid=696396936, starting with If you ever use language like that towards me again on the edit table I will simply have to report you. You don't seem to realise how utterly wrong it is, so at some point you will need to be told. It combines incivility with abusing Wikipedia's core values. It leaves a stink and ultimately works against the encyclopedia. It's bullying really. After I replied to that, you came up with a second, much longer rant https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700373035&oldid=700356227, and finally, you repeated your ANI threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700851858&oldid=700407744 I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it.
I am not responsible for Delta13C's warning, or anything else that Delta13C does. I have no idea why you think I am "too connected" to Delta13C or even what "too connected" means.
My talk page is not a place for you to rant about everything that's wrong with WP.
Seriously, lay off the personal attacks. PepperBeast (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you made this ANI a lot more personal than I was intending to do with mine. Yes I did make a mistake above, missing the my middle response to you. You called my angry reaction a 'personal attack' (does that ever make things better?) and said my edit contained Weasel Words, which doesn't make sense to me in this case, as I explained. In my opinion the reading of the term and the refs contains Original Research. I mainly addressed the content of the edit and my feelings surrounding it. If you feel that my explaining my own views over a content issue that you've addressed yourself constitutes a 'rant' and a point of harassment (or 'hassle' as you actually did say, but in terms of an ANI people are obliged to see it as the same thing), I would say that's very subjective, and hardly an issue for an ANI complaint. Btw, your point about the Intro needing to be so decisively negative because the rest of the article is so singularly negative (or has become so perhaps), is actually a very complex one. And as I've said, I've always felt that imperfect improvements should be improved upon, not given a straight denial. 10 years ago I think that was far more likely to be the case. As I remember it, people were much more inclined to edit or hone things out in turns, and the general atmosphere was far more productive. I’m sure that articles like this one contained more balance then too – albeit with various issues surrounding weight and wording. It's quite rare to see a perfect first edit anyway, isn't it? What you've got to ask is, does the contribution improve and progress or advance things? I think that over the years Wikipedia has become too much of a static shop front, but these kind of articles are nowhere near good enough yet. Very often when I use Wikipedia I see broken or misrepresenting links and failing statements, and they certainly exist in this article still.

So yes I can see that I fully responded to you twice, and not just the once as I said above - but with this ANI you really forced my hand here when I effectively said I wasn't ready yet. And it's an awkward hour right now. I can only find pockets of time, and in no time some people call for beheadings in these places - ANI's can be quite OTT at times they really can(!) I've got someone now asking for sanctions over my supposed "screeds". Look, I apologise if I got it wrong about you and Delta13C being a 'tag team'. But you did manage to appear like one, which I am sure you can see if you really looked at it. Look at your sharp and conclusive 'edit note' followed by his completely out-of-the-blue warning. But that was just an unfortunate sequence perhaps. And also unfortunately, Delta13C did make his reply to angry-me not on his own 'Warning' section, but on your Talk page instead - even though I clearly asked him to keep it all in the same place. It was wrong of him really, and it was another thing that made it look like you were 'combining' to me.

I do think my points on patroller etiquette are very much still valid though, and that is what my own ANI would have focused on. If you simply apologised for being so 'owny' (saying "No." to me over this Intro basically, as you did to the other guy on the discussion page) I would never have gone onto make an ANI of course - as I said. I think most ANI's can't really be done when someone's apologised. I may still have dropped-off my thoughts on patrolling in some relevant discussion page somewhere however, like I used to do with these things (the Patrollers page or whatever). And finally, surely no one should ever be above apologising here, but you will know that I'm sure. And it's especially the case when you know someone wants to hear it surely. It should be just standard practice when you've done something 'off', and you can surely still make all your points after doing it, and in whatever way you choose. It worked between Delta and me (though he hasn't quite continued the sentiment here unfortunately for me) and it would very-easily have worked for us. Sorry I called you cocky and rude above, but I do think you could perhaps come down just a step to my humble editor level. Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought your comments on my talk page fell a little short of being personal attacks. Calling me rude and cocky here, however, does not. I'd accept your sort-of apology, but you're still haranguing me for some kind of mea culpa for undoing a single edit, and it's not going to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did call it a 'personal attack', and I took you up on it and talked of ANI if you didn't apologise for your attitude. I was pissed off! It was purely the way you made the revert that upset me - curtly saying "No" (the rest of the edit note is more complicated to deal with, and this isn't the right place to talk of article-balance or strict Intro rules re the rest of the article.) You'd never seen me before, and I'd made one single edit! And of course I was immediately Warned by Delta too, which doubled my anger to the "pissed off" level you saw. It was not the fact you reverted that really angered me at all. As I've said below, you have to expect quite a lot of full reverts in Wikipedia these days. I've certainly never asked for an apology from someone for doing that. It was the way you reverted, and the way it all happened wasn't good. It felt like I was being warned away. Surely you can both see that now, to some degree at least? ie after it happened - though not at the time perhaps. I admit it was bit paranoid of me to see you as 'tag teaming'. Tbf, I think you should have seen my point of view, and maybe apologised the way Delta did instead of making this ANI. I'm sure I wouldn't have done anything then, despite the point I wanted to make on patroller etiquette and the need for it. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions may be needed Matt Lewis has made it clear that he is unwilling or unable to take on board the criticism of his conduct that has come out of this thread. The huge rant (10 KB!!!) he posted in this very thread is combative, suggests his prior combativeness was a desire to prove a point (?) along the lines of WP:DTTR, and in general displays an attitude reminiscent of the Wikipedia of eight or nine years ago. Wikipedia does not need to drive off new editors, and I question whether someone who snaps at established editors over a templated warning would react much better towards an inexperienced user who actually does post an unfriendly message at his user talk page. I just get a terrible feeling about Matt Lewis at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10KB!!! Huge rant! Oh come on Mendaliv. It's takes about 2 minutes to read out loud. I write the length I write and I apologised for that when I wrote it. If you don't like it, don't read it, or just don't read it all perhaps. Don't you think you are being bit over the top yourself here? If you really have a "terrible feeling" about me, maybe you need to take that "chill pill" you recommended to me above over another 10k post! They are just a long posts. Give me any amount of longer posts over a typical group of sometimes completely needless comments and I'll show you which take up less k. Some Wikipedia pages can seem to go on forever, but it won't often be down to the longer posts. As anyone who knows me on Wikipedia will tell you, if I ever write anything at any real length it's always constructive. I really do feel that Wikipedia risks driving off new and even old editors at times. I don't see how you can categorically say it doesn't. It’s just my opinion, and it's not a crime to have one surely (unless I've missed anything truly radical the past year or so). As I just suggested to PepperBeast above, I think that 10 years ago in certain ways Wikipedia was actually a more productive place. Not in every way of course not, just in some. And I never said any solution was easy did I? Discuss, absorb.. or ban? Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so aggressive? I seriously think there's something wrong here if you think this is an appropriate way to respond. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really 'aggressive' is it? Look at your comment towards me again please. Is it really the right way to approach this? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree the reaction here seems OTT. And I'm someone who does often write long posts and can be quite aggressive in defending myself. Probably the warning wasn't necessary, but I imagine an article like Naturopathy does often have problems with well meaning editors who support naturopathy but don't understand our sourcing and other requirements. And while looking at the long term contrib history or perhaps the long talk page of Matt Lewis may suggest that they are not new and didn't need such a warning, a quick look at the contrib history may not clear things up so much. Ultimately I guess, if you are an experienced editor and don't need a warning, then it's not like there's some harm in receiving one. If you're not an experienced editor, then receiving a warning served to inform and also makes it difficult for the editor to claim they weren't aware of our policies and guidelines.

I do agree improvements with mistakes that can be easily corrected should be corrected rather than simply reverted. In fact I got in to a minor dispute with another editor over this about a week ago (not much about my edits). But on the flip side, sometimes edits are problematic enough that even if you think there is some minor improvement in some area, it's better just to revert and require the improvement to be far better. Colloboration can sometimes mean "sorry that's just too bad" rather than just "I see what you're trying to do but there's a problem so I'll fix it". Also, sometimes editors may just genuinely disagree about whether improvements are necessary (or perhaps they will agree, if they say proper improvements but can't see it until they see them), in that case, there ultimately needs to be consensus on the best wording so you're going to need to initate discussion.

And while editing in situ can be easier, other times for a variety of reasons it's better to come up with some draft on the talk page. The biggest confusing thing about this is if it's such a big deal, why is there zero discussion on the article talk page? Does that mean Matt Lewis now accepts that improvements aren't necessary and if so, why is there still so much fuss?

P.S. Just a quick reminder that edit requests are only intended to be used for simple changes that already have consensus (whether from previous discussion or which can be assumed). A simple "no, please establish consensus for your change" to an edit request is fine although that doesn't seem to have been what happened anyway. If editors are using edit requests incorrectly, it would be better to educate them on the correct usage of edit requests not to require long discussions when rejecting an edit request. Admitedly I'm not really sure what discussion page is being referred to anyway, since there's no comments by Pepperbeast on the Naturopathy talk page (perhaps in archives).

Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, I explained in great detail above. This is all happening on my talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I haven't read all you said, but I see zero chance you can come up with a good explaination of why the discussion should be held in your talk page. If you want to modify the article and get into a dispute, discuss it on the article talk page. (There are some exceptions where it may be fair to hold some discussion on an editors talk page, but I won't go in to detail except suffice to say if there is actually going to be any change, the primary point of discussion should be the article's talk page.) This means if you haven't discussed it in the article talk page, it's pretty much impossible to make the claim people are being unresonable or rejecting any changes. So either you care about the changes and they are a big deal and there is a discussion in the article talk page, or you don't really care about the changes and this whole long discussion is largely moot.

And BTW, you've made a big deal about how you're an experienced editor who didn't need warnings, but then seem to be giving us an example showing you still don't understand how wikipedia works (if you do think the changes are justified but are not discussing it in the article talk page), so perhaps the warning was fair. (I'm assuming you do at least understand people can give you as many level warnings as they want. But nothing is likely to happen to you unless you violate some policy or guideline. And some resonable comments in an article talk page proposing changes particularly if you've taken on board what has been said before and our policies and guidelines, carries almost zero risk of being blocked simply for these comments, unless you're either a sock of a banned editor or have a topic ban.)

Also one thing I learnt from the above discussion before my first reply was that other people had told you to take it to the article talk page so I see even less chance you can explain why there is no discussion in the article talk page.

Your rants about how poorly your proposed changes were handled is of course offtopic on the article talk page. However such rants are rarely going to get far if they're over a nonissue (i.e. there was no change needed for the article anyway). Come up with an example where good, or nearly good changes were rejected (or perhaps it was impossible to know if the changes were good because they were reverted for a trivial error which could have been easily resolved to allow proper assessement), and you may achieve something productive.

But if changes were actually without merit, at worse you can say the edit summary was bad. But it would have to be very bad for people to care about a single edit summary. And frankly the edit summary doesn't seem bad at all [83]. Actually even if it turns out the article summary did need work and your proposed wording was close to the consensus new wording, it's fairly unlikely we're going to conclude there's clearly a problem from this one instance, but you at least may have some decent evidence. (And just to be clear, since we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here, only deal with behavioural problems if we look at the article and see the changes haven't been implemented and there no discussion, the only possible conclusion is it doesn't seem there was merit.)

TL:DR version; no discussion in the article talk page = no evidence you really tried to collobrate on improving the article = almost impossible to establish people are being "owny" or rejecting resonable changes = no issue for us on ANI = don't give warnings about how you're going to take people to ANI over such non-issues = if people come here because you gave such warnings, just say "whoops, sorry my bad" not write out long replies.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, I can't disagree with you more. Matt Lewis's explosion in response to being reverted and templated is flat out disturbing. First of all, Pepperbeast's revert was perfectly in line with WP:BRD, insofar as Matt Lewis introduced new material into a stable article without discussion. Matt Lewis, being a regular, should know well enough how BRD works. It might've been courteous for Pepperbeast to then let Matt Lewis know why he was reverted in a more lengthy explanation somewhere, but not strictly necessary. Now, Delta13C templated Matt Lewis with {{uw-unsourced1}} for that contribution, which would have been the appropriate warning otherwise. Last I checked, WP:DTTR hadn't become a guideline—with WP:TTR still listing good counterpoints—and, honestly, I'm not sure you can even call Matt Lewis a "regular" in the sense of DTTR considering his level of activity in recent years. Perhaps article talk discussion was lacking, but that's on Matt Lewis within the BRD framework. You can't just go and blow up, threatening to take everyone to ANI in response to what is, in the scope of things, the tiniest slight. If we take Matt Lewis's conduct as indicative of his general attitude, which I believe is reasonable, we have a person who is very rapidly demonstrating himself to have a civility problem. Loquacious threats to drag unsuspecting editors to the dramaboards have a distinct chilling effect, particularly against inexperienced users. It's disruptive, and the fact that Matt Lewis immediately leaped to that level leads me to believe we need to take a much harder look at his user interactions if there's no indication this was an aberration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop calling me 'flat-out disturbing' etc please? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you find the phrase upsetting, but I've got to call a spade a spade here. You need to understand that your conduct here has been inappropriate and disruptive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Nil, I find this a bit hard to accept this when you admit you haven't read all of my defense. I don't want to repeat too much for you, as long-post repetition is not well-liked is it? But I will say this (as I've already said I think in two different places)... I didn't discuss the edit first as I saw PepperBeast's "No" to someone else on the article Discussion and I didn't find it very welcoming. So I was bold. I’m always prepared for anything I contribute to be removed by someone on Wikipedia, especially as the years have gone on. I expect that era of 'can I improve?' has simply gone, for these kind of articles at least. I have said very-clearly that my anger towards both Delta and PepperBeast (but was it really "hassle" from me, though?) was NOT about my contribution being removed! And I did NOT make one single other edit! I am very HAPPY to work with anyone who isn't rude to me on content. It's was ALL about the very particular way I was 'received' by them. Deta's Warning seemed to just appear out-of-the-blue, straight after PepperBeast said "No" in removing my edit. And when Delta14C moved his 'Warning' discussion from my Talk onto PepperBeast's Talk page (even though I asked him to keep it on mine), I felt even more sure that they were 'team-working' together on protecting this essay from certain unwanted edits. However I accepted Delta's apology re the Warning 'iking' me - though he didn't seem to accept that a warning was completely unjustified here. I then discussed a content issue in the whole article to him (as he suggested I do, though perhaps not there obviously) and then PB said “take it elsewhere”. Ok, fine. But why was Delta even on PB's Talk? And then this highly unconventional ANI suddenly happened.

I'd actually like to know if Delta gave me the 'Warning' (which of-course many people will find intimidating however you say they don’t all matter) because he thought I was a sockpuppet of the IP who also got a "No." from PepperBeast regarding a similar type of Introduction change? And maybe also if anyone really thinks that this ANI was a particularly good idea, and was made quite in the right spirit? Readjusting the track with me might have been a better idea I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some real advice for all you guys out there, please do not post essays, it doesn't make your argument a pinch more believable than what it'd be without all the fluff. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I get this. In the sense that Matt Lewis has been all but screaming "Don't Template the Regulars" from the git go as though it's policy, I agree that it hamstrings his credibility. In the sense that I'm calling him out on demanding other editors follow nebulous essays by linking to the essays, then I don't really get how that hurts my credibility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By essay, I mean, a really long reply/comment/post, nothing else. It had 1.6k words, thrice the limit for my English essay.

And, I was only referring to Matt's essay, so no worries mate. I think I'll label my messages next time. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. Silly me, I should've understood that. I agree wholeheartedly. Essay-length responses on any talk page, let alone ANI, are really counterproductive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping not to comment here again, but sorry... you've been given a 500 word English essay to write? That's less than 20 lines on my monitor, which is about 2 average paragraphs surely? My 1,600 word post (if that's what it was) was my main defense to an ANI. I've got to ask you what your English essay it was on? English is my 'subject' (I'm 45 btw, I'm not still studying it) and I am really interested in what they ask of students now. Tbh, I don't see how anyone can practically request this kind of thing of Wikipedians. If a long post is too much for someone to personally to manage, surely they can just leave it to someone else? My defense wasn't made to anyone personally - and people's hands are rather forced in these situations. I think you can look at this both ways really - ie some people find it a bit of a chore to read more than a longish paragraph or so (and presumably do all they want to do), while others have real difficulties keeping their comments to a single paragraph. But Wikipedia is a big place and is supposed to cater for a broad spectrum of people - so what's the bother? There is no great hurry here, or a shortage of staff is there? I've not been repeating anything over and over, which can be a real pain over many long posts I'd agree. Surely you wouldn't say this to anyone outside of ANI, so why say it at ANI? And isn't it rather picking on a defendant? You probably don't see it as being rude when in here, but I think it is. I'm a decent human being who has already pre-apologised for writing the length that I have (and often do). And I'd like to say that in 10 years I've never once complained about anyone's writing needs or style, nor ever made suggestions for anyone to be punished in any particular way either for what it's worth (I've never personally seen that as my role). And believe me, I've wrestled with some notorious sock-farmers and article disrupters over my really active years here too. I just do not like being totally-needlessly needled at, with Warnings or whatever. And I really do not think it's good for Wikipedia. (380 words). Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you something. The shorter the speech, the happier the audience. I didn't critique your writing style, just the need of writing 1.6k words to defend yourself. Since, I probably have some informal kind of ADHD, I went through the first three paras of what you said and it has missing commas, periods and uses words that are not related to the context. Undue exclamation marks, a display of battleground mentality and no quotations from policy. And you thought was I said previously was critique. Ha. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An IP on a dynamic AT&T Mobility range has been engaging in persistent personal attacks over the past 24 hours

There's an issue with drafts being shuffled around by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that's being handled over at WT:WPAFC. However, we've had a repeated issue with an anon placing inflammatory comments over on that page. He was already banned after trying to get Ricky desysoped over at AN but apparently he's on a rather dynamic network and has swapped IPs consistently and continued to leave messages. Here's a hopefully complete list of socks:

166.170.44.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - original banned IP
166.170.45.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
166.170.45.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
107.72.98.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He's already been banned on the first IP and it's pretty obvious he's the same guy. Could we get a ban on these and any other socks that he shows up with? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just WP:DENY and move on please. The same complaint is happening here by regular editors here so if they want to bring it here, let them do it without encouraging this character. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we need to at least deal with these IPs. It's vandalism all the same, even if it's on a talk page. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been months of this. WP:RBI. This character is following me around demanding the same thing ever change he gets. The subject matter is the excuse. Worst part if I can't even tell if it's from the longevity issues or the Indian caste stuff or the Koch-brother stuff or what but he's been consistently angry with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I considered leaving a polite message asking what draft it was but since he's already been banned after he tried to get you desysoped it'd be better if we just ban these IPs and semi-protect WT:WPAFC for a few days. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't think it's a draft that's an issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, not banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: If it's this dude, they are indeed banned.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant to say blocked. But since it looks like they have already been banned previously, it's a moot point. In any case, he's back on 2605:e000:3f13:1d00:8a7:d8fe:c0d1:f4f6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 166.170.48.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) doing the same thing he's been doing (either trying to call for Ricky to topic banned from AfC or just spouting personal attacks against everyone involved). --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then I stand (well, sit) corrected! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah this guy! As Jezebel's Ponyo has mentioned, this particular individual has been quite a thorn for a while. Liberal application of WP:RBI is pretty much the SOP when dealing with this person. A little back history is available here, if anyone happens to be interested. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackmane: Geez, looks like that guy's got quite a history, especially with the consistent personal attacks against Ricky. Might ought to consider a range block, at least over 166.170.44.xx and 160.170.45.xx and possibly even higher to 166.170.xx.xx if that won't cause too much collateral damage. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 04:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocks have been assessed by several Checksusers and are not possible due to extensive collateral.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the case, can we just get a block on these and then deal with any other socks that pop up when they do? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looks like he struck again over at bot requests. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Py0alb

Please refer to this ANI which resulted in a warning to User:Py0alb following "conduct (that) is attacking and ill-informed". The admin at the time said that "a block for incivility at this point would be more punitive than preventive. However, any more attacks or warring by Py0alb will be met with sanctions". A formal warning was placed on Py0alb's talk page and was promptly deleted by Py0alb.

Py0alb is a very occasional visitor to the site with just only 582 edits in five years and yet he makes bold claims about site policy as if he is an experienced and regular user. He seems to become involved in conflict every time he visits the site as a check of his talk page and contributions will reveal. For example, an argument with User:115ash led to him posting this warning which was not justified. On his own talk page, there is this complaint about his attitude. He has also been in breach of copyright.

He had not been on the site since November last year and reappeared on 18 January with this confrontational attack on the major cricket article. I considered his tone and his use of the phrase "un-encyclopaedic gibberish" to be a breach of WP:CIVIL. I therefore reverted his edit and suggested that he puts forward a constructive argument if he wants someone to respond to him. His response to that was to reinstate his original post, "warning" me that I will be banned and demanding that other people are polite and respectful to him. Admittedly annoyed by his attitude, including his apparently entrenched view that the term does not exist despite the evidence in the article, I responded by advising him to study the citations. His response to that was to again threaten me with a ban because I, and not he, am guilty of abusive behaviour. Apparently, it is abusive to suggest that he needs to read the citations to understand that the term does exist and has widespread usage.

He placed a PROD on the article, claiming that the term does not exist, despite the citation evidence. That is his prerogative and it is mine to remove the PROD as I do not agree with it, so I did so. He came back and reinstated the PROD, demanding that the article is deleted immediately. This is, of course, out of process because if a PROD is rejected by an interested party, the next step is to take the article to AfD. His second attempt at PROD was removed by another user who advised him of the correct procedure.

Today, having been inactive for two days, Py0alb blanked the entire article and placed a redirect on it. His comment was a threat that anyone reverting his change would be banned, which is bang out of order. He made reference to a previous AfD in 2011 when an earlier version of the article was deleted because it lacked citations. The current version has several citations from significant sources to comply with WP:GNG. Besides blanking the article, he went into the talk page and declared that it is "a direct contravention of Wikipedia policy" (this from someone with only 582 edits in five years) to recreate an article that was formerly deleted. Any article can be recreated if the earlier issues (in this case, no citations) can be resolved. He finishes by saying without any authority whatsoever that "The article will now be deleted for the final time".

Frankly, this person is a troublemaker. He seeks confrontation and it is evident from his attitude to this article and also to the Indoor cricket article for which he received his warning two years ago that his sole rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has obviously not learned anything from the formal warning which, remember, he immediately deleted from his talk page. I recommend an indefinite WP:BLOCK for someone whose behaviour is repeatedly hostile, abusive and unreasonable. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on this page was discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket. Consensus is to delete. Jack is ignoring this consensus and is now engaging in an edit war and engaging in a personal vendetta against me (see this completely unnecessary ANI for an example). This is not a personal matter, it is merely a matter of correctly following protocol. I understand that it can be difficult when a page you have worked on is deleted - I have experienced this in the past - but Jack needs to calm down and understand that this page is unencyclopaedic, and that his opinion alone is not sufficient to supercede a clear consensus. I do not want a war, I merely want correct protocol to be followed. The phrase is a nonsense.

Thanks, Py0alb (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely wrong as a matter of policy. Fortunately, another editor has reverted you, or I would have done so myself. But you don't have only one choice (take it to AfD); you can also tag it per WP:CSD#G4. Frankly, I doubt an administrator would delete it on that criterion, so taking it to AfD again is the better option. From the diffs above, this isn't the first time you've made statements or acted as if you are a policy wonk when in fact your grasp of many policies is sorely lacking. No one expects editors to understand all the Wikipedia policies, but you should at least have enough insight to know when your interpretation of policy is at least close to correct. I suggest that at a minimum you step back from some of these confrontations, or you are going to find yourself in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bbb23. You may note that since writing the above, Py0alb has tried to canvass support from the other editor involved in the dispute. He has not, however, been successful and has again been told to follow the correct process. What he is saying about consensus is ill-informed, to say the least. The article that went to AfD in 2011 was completely different as it was no more than a stub that, crucially, lacked citations. I did not take part in that AfD but thought the decision to delete was fair enough. Since then, usage of the term has increased and I keep hearing it in discussions on the media and at cricket grounds. I decided to research it and found that it is now quite widely cited so I decided to recreate the article and capture a range of sources so that it will meet WP:GNG, not just the NCRIC SNG. I am not engaging in an edit war as I have only reverted one of his changes and that was effectively a response to vandalism because he had blanked the article without following due process, and that after the process had been explained to him by another editor. To say that I am conducting a personal vendetta is a ridiculous statement. I am not even protecting the article because I was quite happy for him to PROD it and I would be equally happy to defend it at AfD. I want only two things from this: one is that the article will be treated with respect which includes being taken to AfD in a constructive manner if someone deems it necessary; the other is that I do not have to deal with ill-informed, opinionated editors who are confrontational and rude from the outset. In view of this editor's past record of confrontation, including a formal warning that he has completely ignored, not to mention the serious doubt I have about someone who appears sporadically yet writes as if he is a continuous user, I still recommend that an indefinite WP:BLOCK, especially as he has again blanked the article since I restored it yesterday and repeated the correct process to him. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is something I am slightly confused about, in that Jack claims above "I was quite happy for him to PROD it" and yet this edit reveals something different: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Major_cricket&type=revision&diff=700427615&oldid=700423682

Aggressively defending articles you have a personal interest in from due process is really not the sign of a constructive member of our community.

Py0alb (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to format your responses in the proper way. You make discussions difficult to read. There's nothing confusing about what Jack said. He said it in his opening post. You prodded the article, and he removed it. Your prodding the article was your prerogative. Reinstating it after he removed it was not. Your last sentence is more meaningless rhetoric than anything else. At the same time, some of Jack's allegations in his last post are off the mark. The reverts here by you were wrong, but I would not label them vandalism, just a repeat of your misunderstanding of policy. Also, your last revert came before my comments above, and at this point it's fairly clear that you're not going to heed good advice from Jack, but did from another editor (the same one who reverted the reinstatment of the prod). So, I don't think that last revert is anything surprising. Finally, whether you should be blocked for what you've done is unclear. If it were clear, I would have already blocked you. Regardless, jumping to an indefinite block of an editor who has a clean block log is a rather drastic sanction. I would think any sanction would depend on how you conduct yourself after this discussion. Certainly, my 3-year-old warning is not as relevant as a more recent warning, and, in any event, was limited to personal attacks. Although your style is more aggressive than collaborative, I don't believe a case has been made for personal attacks. I'm more concerned with your competence and whether your edits are a net benefit to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bbb23. Looking at the history of Major cricket, I see that Py0alb added a PROD tag to the article, which was then removed by BlackJack. Py0alb then reverted the PROD tag removal, which is not proper procedure; if the PROD tag is removed, the article must be AFD'd (or CSD'd if it meets criterion - even though I agree with Bbb23 that administrators rarely delete per this criterion unless blatantly obvious; an AFD is preferred). Despite the fact that another user correctly reverted the restoration of the PROD tag (note the edit summary), he reverted the page twice (here and here) before finally nominating the article for AfD as instructed by multiple users. This is edit warring in my eyes, as multiple users have attempted to leave edit summaries describing proper process, and the changes were reverted outside consensus and despite a discussion on the article's talk page. Py0alb - You should stop making reverts such as what you did recently. I note that you have since nominated the article for AfD, and I wouldn't block you for edit warring since you seemed to have stopped (if I was an admin) - but you need to acknowledge this, listen to other editors (especially when multiple editors step in to correct your reverts and actions), and discuss disputes before reverting. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since raising the AfD, he has written this which indicates that he is continuing to ignore advice given by other users. In the AfD itself, he has voted twice and he has made a personal attack: both entries removed. In addition, he is evidently seeking to mislead readers re the citations and persuade them to ignore non-internet sources, claiming that "'Its in a book I once read, trust me' is not a valid form of evidence". Apart from its nonsense value, this constitutes a serious breach of WP:AGF. It doesn't end there. Since raising the AfD, he has removed a link to the article from another article. Frankly, this is all completely out of order and I repeat that WP:BLOCK is necessary in this case. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that these edits may have issues, but I'm not seeing a personal attack against another editor here (addition diff). It appears to be a logical analysis to me (taking "right or wrong" out of the equation). When it comes to the issue of edit warring, he has ceased doing so. Py0alb has voted; we just need to let the community have a chance to give input and come to a consensus. If disruptive editing occurs, that's a different story. However, until this happens, I suggest that we step back (both of you) and let the AFD take its course. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are of course correct, I have maintained a rational, impersonal, and professional dignity throughout this discussion. I have nothing agaisnt jack on a personal level, I simply feel that the page in question quite clearly fails WP:V and needs to be deleted from the site. A "personal attack" might constitute raising a spurious ANI and repeatedly insisting that another editor be given a block simply because you don't agree with them. If an editor acted like in such an antagonistic and uncivil manner, I think the admin might need to consider looking into their behaviour at that point Py0alb (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal attack, that is a ludicrous accusation. I just repeated the point made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Cricket&type=revision&diff=698008924&oldid=698004810 that the term "major cricket" is one that has been invented by wikipedia editors as a convenience. There is nothing personal about this. Py0alb (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Steve Comisar annoyances

This biography article has repeatedly had "fans" of the subject advocate for inclusion of various things, and people actually threaten editors who had removed them (see ANI archives).

One common thread with a few of these advocates had been that, instead or in addition to making their point on the article's talk page, they have spammed the personal talk pages of every editor involved with the same long statement. You can witness the latest incident of this sort at Special:Contributions/205.115.188.114. Should this be ignored and should it be assumed to be good-faith behavior? LjL (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim bexley speed, TheThoughtfulOrc, Ruby Murray, Cwobeel, Tokyogirl79, DanielRigal, and Onel5969: pinging you as the involved parties who received the talk page message this report is about. LjL (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This story has something for everyone: Canvassing, probable sockpuppetry and possibly also paid editing. Discussion is ongoing here too: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TonySpraks. I am assuming that this will lead to the people responsible getting blocked very soon and then it will all calm down. I'd be sad if it meant that Comisar lost his internet access completely (or if that is already the case) as there is so much scope for education and entertainment that he could be taking advantage of instead of wasting his time trying to manage his own reputation. If Wikipedia stands for one thing it is to bring knowledge of the whole world to anybody who who is interested, prisoners included. I find it genuinely sad that he is not interested in any of that, only in himself. The talk page messages are unwelcome and somewhat annoying but I am just rolling them up on my talk page. So long as he doesn't start with the snail mail again I'm not going to get too angry. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the offline and online harassment, if I'm reading the article's talk page correctly. At one point Comisar was sending out multiple letters to at least one editor's home address, which was viewed as harassment given the amount of letters sent AND the fact that one of the sockpuppets began making threats. The IP shows up as being located in Jacksonville, NC and is through the Naval Network Warfare Command, but I'm not sure if that's accurate or not. Now if this is accurate and the IP is someone in the military editing on behalf of Comisar, they need to stop. The military does not take well to people taking part in harassment campaigns, which is essentially what's happening here. They might not be making threats like TonySpraks, but these accounts and IPs are all making the same claims based on the same, unusable sources. This shows some clear off-line coordination so even if this is a case of different people, it's still clearly meatpuppetry. This unfortunately also makes it difficult to tell if this person is one of the same people that have already posted or if it's someone who is spamming the page with the same requests because they're all being told to go to the page and use these specific sources. I'm leaning towards this being multiple people using a script to ask for changes because Maniamit (one of the more vocal people recently to lobby for Comisar) wrote something similar and claims to be located in India. Can we lock the page to where an admin would have to approve any edits to the page? This has been going on since 2011 and it's only going to get worse once he gets released from prison. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually opposed to full page protection unless there is continuous vandalism that cannot be dealt with timely enough. Here, for now, we seem to be able to revert the dubious edits just fine with semi-protection alone, so, I would leave full protection for another day. I note that this IP editor directly claimed we "educated" them "on the Wikipedia editing process", so I would say that's an admission that they are the in fact one of the same people that have already posted. LjL (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's an annoyance at this point. I was simply going to delete messages like that to my talk page, and just keep an eye on the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of Comisar's puppets threatened me in a very ugly fashion about five weeks ago. WMF legal got involved and asked if I would talk to law enforcement about it. The next day, I got a call from a Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigator who confirmed that the threat came from a Navy IP address, and that they were trying to figure out who was responsible. Comisar and his puppets want the article to state that he is an experienced actor as well as a multiple convicted con artist. He is also reaching out to any actor in Hollywood who has been in jail or prison. He is clearly lobbying for an acting career when he gets out of prison. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, is there a reason the article's set to PC1 instead instead of full SPP? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be me - I tried doing some page protection but borked it up. If you want to fix it, feel free. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Consider it done! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro's team will solve this mystery! LjL (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason anyone should watch that show is if a kidnapper shows up and says, "Watch an episode or die!" --QEDK (T 📖 C) 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the IP I've reported here has been been blocked for a week for disruptive editing; the SPI involving them has concluded, but unsurprisingly, no word has been stated about the IP; anyway, most of the spamming at the Steve Comisar talkpage has been hatted, and it seems like it will continue to be as it happens in the future. LjL (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser won't link an IP with a named account, but there was sufficient behavioural similarity between it and Curiouskitten777 for the week-long block to be applied. There's also enough here to pursue any new IP or account that comes by with the same set of actions (spamming usertalk pages with requests to make proxy edits saying Comisar is an actor). So, yes the socking will likely continue, but please re-report at the SPI if a suspicious new IP or account appears - it should be quicker to resolve than it has been in the past. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: is this a good example / test case? Maniamit was determined by checkuser to be unrelated to the sockfest, but the pattern is the same, and some editors have conjectured he might be a meatpuppet (paid editing or similar). In any case, it was in his plain sight that others who pestered editors with this lobbying were hatted or even blocked, and yet he just went ahead and made a personal editing request to Tokyogirl79 on the article's talk page. LjL (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Content/3RR and Lack of civility on List of people with autism spectrum disorders

We're coming dangerously close to violating WP:3RR on List of people with autism spectrum disorders, though reverting mass removal of content where such removal goes against the underlying guidelines for inclusion on the page probably does not violate it. Eventually, an RfC was opened in an effort to stop the edit warring, which failed as User:Galerita removed the content again, which I reverted again. Additionally, Galerita came pretty close to violating WP:CIVIL, if not crossing the line, here on the RfC. Some admin needs to step in before things get out of hand. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of this list article should be enough indication that this is a potential, if not actual, BLP violation. It was nominated for deletion and kept, but that was in 2007. Hint. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the incivility. There's mention of one editor being accused of having created an unbalanced article, but that's it. This discussion also is indicative of the BLP violating potential of such a listing--note the suggestion we create Autism spectrum disorder and violent crime. Like we have Homosexuality and violent crime. Wait. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like you are both close to violating the three revert rule. I will say, though, that Galerita's edits to that page aren't acceptable, as that page is not the right place to discuss whether or not their Aspergers caused them to do what they did. Chesnaught (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"that page is not the right place to discuss whether or not their Aspergers caused them to do what they did" I completely disagree Chesnaught. When the appearance of cause and effect is created by association, and NO causal relationship exists, then some appropriate comment is required. This standard in the media, and not to do so can result in defamation proceedings. Galerita (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a good reason not to have such articles in the first place. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our family has several members with ASD. It is distressing to say the least. So I searched for "famous people with ASD" and this was the first hit. I was shocked by the inclusions on the list. It took some time to discover that the crimes committed by individuals on this page were unrelated to ASD. Even including this disclaimer in the header would be insufficient as I didn't read the header, just the names.

In its current form the page creates the impression of a causative relationship that doesn't exist. There will be distressed individuals with ASD seeking solace that some famous people have ASD to find they are in the company of serial killers. ASD is already difficult to live with for families and individuals themselves. Sufferers have high rates of psychiatric illnesses, suffer rejection, isolation, unemployment, difficulties functioning in society and have high suicide rates. Compounding this with the inevitable prejudice created by this page is insensitive, offensive and probably injurious.

Here's another test. Would it be appropriate to write to the living noncriminal entries on the list and ask if they are happy to remain on it? I'm happy to do so if no one else is.

The page should NOT remain in its current form. Some ideas: deletion; restrict it to people noteworthy because they have ASD (rather than noteworthy people with ASD); or restrict it to noteworthy people who publicly identify as having ASD (i.e. advocates).

Finally, my apologies for being robust in my editorial approach. I am an occasional rather than experienced Wikipedia editor. It should be self-evident that experienced editors are better able to preserve and defend the content they create, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation. I can see this page is inappropriate even though I don't know the detailed rules.Galerita (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Galerita: As these people are already notable it would be perfectly suitable for you to state that their ASD didn't cause them to do what they did on their articles rather than the List of people with autism spectrum disorders. Having AS myself, I can fully understand why you wish to clarify that said condition did not make them commit whatever crime they committed, and I do hate how the media portray us sometimes, but that page is a list of people and nothing else. Chesnaught (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesnaught555: I think this is inadequate as it does not address the issues I have raised. The impression of a causative relationship is created by this page, NOT on the pages of the individuals concerned. I think the only solution is to delete the page. Galerita (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding the article violates WP:COATRACK. It focuses too much on people with ASD who have committed crimes, and hence creates the impression that ASD is causal in those crimes, when it is not. To quote from WP:COATRACK, the "article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." The context of WP:COATRACK is that subject is the subject of the article, not necessarily an individual person. Galerita (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long term abuse

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Long_term_abuse

– Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Campus sexual assault RfC

Hello, there is currently an active RfC going on at the Talk:Campus sexual assault page regarding whether or not to use in-text attribution for a statement. When the RfC was first opened, User:Flyer22 Reborn (who supports not using attribution) phrased the question as two opposing areas of comment: 'Don't use' and 'Use'. I requested on her talk page that this be changed to a simpler, one-question format. She did not change it, so I noted my objections on the RfC page and left my comment only in the latter section. Another user, User:FoCuSandLeArN, also noted on Flyer22's talk page, "It is my opinion the RfC !voting space was indeed very poorly organised. Having to support and oppose several points in the same RfC is indeed very impractical, which is why I only !voted once." and left a comment only in the latter section. As the RfC progressed, it collected a total of 7 comments in the latter section. Today, five days after the discussion was opened and the objections were noted, Flyer22 has added a new note to the latter (and only latter) section which reads "Note: There is no obligation to vote twice. Feel free to ignore voting in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)". As the time to compromise has passed and this note is suggesting that an active area of the conversation be ignored (either entirely or for new votes, depending on the interpretation of the wording) I move that the note be struck from the conversation, at least as it pertains to suggesting that participants ignore any part of the discussion at this point. Given that the note may impact an active RfC discussion, I have attempted to comment it out pending the resolution of this issue. Please advise the best course to proceed. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion's transpiring nicely. There are points where both parties are willing to compromise, and it appears there are attempts at drafting modified content per the results of the ongoing conversation. I think we can ignore this little bump in the road and interpret the consensus accordingly. I assume Flyer22 was just trying to correct that incongruity. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Scoundr3l brought the matter here because I made it clear on his talk page that I would seek to get him blocked if he kept messing with my comments like he did here and here, which is a WP:Talk violation. There was nothing inappropriate about the note I left in the RfC, which was to clarify that there is no obligation for editors to vote twice in that RfC; that editors can vote once or twice in that RfC is made clear by the way editors have been voting in it thus far. It's also made clear by this discussion on my talk page. FoCuSandLeArN seemed to question if he had to vote twice, and so I left the aforementioned note in the RfC that there is no obligation to do so, just like there is no obligation to vote twice if a RfC has a Support and Oppose heading. The only reason things have escalated this far is because of Scoundr3l's need to debate every little thing, and because Scoundr3l and I bickered with each other at the talk page; see this link for what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I began writing this before Flyer22 left a comment on my talk page. My motivations were not swayed by idle warnings on my talk page but by a desire to remove confusing statements like "Feel free to ignore voting in this section" from a section which is currently being used for comment. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Trolling over there now coming over here. Seems like a discussion is getting somewhere over there, though it's pretty tl;dr. The statement is so WP:POPE obvious that it is clear we have the "men's rights" trolls just there to cause drama, but looks like the actual content issue might be getting resolved anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified my note with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just keep cool heads and let the issue move on. No need to let petty grievances take over. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly the RFC looks to be a real mess, but I don't think there's any way to solve that now. However I do agree it's a little weird to only have the comment for one of the options in the middle. Even if it's felt it wasn't needed for the first, I don't see why it wasn't mentioned for the third option. I think it was particularly bad with the original wording.

It would have been best if the lack of need to !vote could have been clarified at the beginning (not that I'm sure why it needs clarification, people participating in RFCs should know we aren't voting so there's no obligating to to vote in any specific maner). But the beginning of that RFC is such a mess that I have no idea, and no desire to learn what it's about and I suspect many potential participants are just going to completely ignore the beginning of the RFC.

Anyway, to avoid dispute, I've included a modified version of Flyer's comment under the other two proposals that people seem to be !voting on. The new wording from Flyer is better, but there's still no reason why it only belongs in the middle option.

P.S. Personally I find it hard to call commenting out (or better simply removing the additional poor wording) included in the beginning of the middle option only, a violation of WP:TALK. People should remember that RFCs are supposed to be worded and structured neutrally. And if they're modifying an ongoing RFC, they need to take great care not to violate that principle. If their actions violate it or appear to, undoing their actions until the issue is resolved is a fair call.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I remembered Flyer 22's name from a dispute over another RFC. At the time writing above, I couldn't recall if they were the one who's actions I had mostly criticised. But a quick check has now confirmed they were. I do not believe my above comments were significantly influenced by any memories I had of the previous experience with Flyer 22, but I obviously can never say for sure. I have no particular desire to involve myself in either RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, I'm sure you remember it was me you mostly (rather only) criticized in that previous discussion, despite the clear-cut personal attacks, etc. from two administrators directed toward me, including this mess; that discussion is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#Administrator User:Jehochman's conduct at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. As seen there and now in this discussion, you and I have different ideas of what a WP:Talk violation is. It is also quite clear that we never agree. And I don't see how your edits to the RfC, which is going fine except for the occasional bickering, helped. The note I left was placed in the second section because people will see the first section first. And the note for the third section, which you added, was not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do my best not to hold grudges and so don't remember the name of precisely who did what unless I have a reason to (like they are an editor I feel I need to keep an eye on) or they come up often enough that I do remember, or I happen to remember for some other reason. I considered and consider your actions there wrong, but they weren't so wrong that I had any reason to keep an eye on you, nor was I particularly likely to encounter you again in my own editing. So as I said in my second reply, I did not remember you were the one who I criticised when I left my first reply (which includes the edits to the article talk page).

I did remember your name, but I did not think you were the one who I criticised until I checked. When I thought about it a bit more, I began to wonder if you were the one based partly on your actions here and since I did have a vague memory I felt your behaviour somewhere was unresonable. I didn't actually look for the discussion, instead I looked at the RFC and was easily able to figure out from what it was in fact you.

(Now that I've looked back at the discussion and read your final comment which I never read before, my concerns combined with my concerns about what happened here are even stronger. It sounds like you didn't and I'm guessing still don't understand how RFCs are intended to work and why they are intended to be a community discussion, not simple one random person's ideas which may include including stuff you don't yourself support but believe the community wants or may want to consider. Or making a proposal which isn't your preferred version and not including your preferred version in the interest of compromise based on previous discussion. Whatever else may or may not have gone on, I'll freely admit I didn't look that closely. What I did see was that it was quite clear you committed a major error and where unable to see you had done so and that this error was quite serious since it risked damaging any RFCs you were involved in. So maybe I will remember you now, although why you would want that, I'm not sure.)

Anyway, I hope you are willing to WP:AGF that I was and am telling the truth when I say I did not remember you were the one when originally replying.

I obviously disagree that the notes I left are unhelpful. Firstly as I said above, your original wording was seriously wrong in an RFC, something which you haven't really acknowledged. (You've improved your wording, but haven't said anything to suggest you understand it was a major problem and people were right to be seriously concerned about it.)

Your second wording was better, still while it may be more likely people will read the first section there's never any guarantee, so telling people they don't have to !vote in only one section is out of place. I'll admit though I made a mistake in my original wording. I simply copied yours without thinking too much about it but your wording still has the flaw that it's only discouraging !voting in one section. (There's no more reason why people who've !voted in the second section need to !vote in the first section.) I've now improved my wording [84].

Unfortunately this means the middle section still has the poorer wording. However from all you've said and done so far, I suspect if I delete your wording and replace it with my signed wording you'll complain. And the problem isn't significant enough that I'm going to bother to try.

And in case it's not clear, it does matter, since even with the improved wording, leaving the wording in only the middle section leaves the impression it's some sort of secondary proposal that doesn't matter. The first and second proposal may be mutually contradictory so can't both be implemented, however that doesn't mean people have to !vote on the third proposal, they don't have to as they never do.

It's of course possible for someone to !vote support for both the first and second proposal. Often they may give some indication of which they prefer. But on the other hand some people may think it doesn't matter so they will support both equally. Since this is an RFC aimed at achieving consensus and not a vote, whoever closes the discussion should take their comments on board based on strength of argument and grounding in our policies and guidelines as they should always do regardless of who !vote what & where. Not that many real votes with multiple questions require you to vote in both for your vote to be valid anyway.

As I said before, the far better thing would be for such notes to be left at beginning of the RFC. Except the beginning is such a royal mess, it's fairly likely that very few people will actually see the comment. Mind you, the reason why this often doesn't come up is that normally if there are only two possible mutually contradictory options, it's better to simply include one option. While it's still important to get the wording right in such cases to ensure you aren't biasing in favour of any specific option, it makes things clearer and avoids such needless confusion. (Of course including both options seperately is no better when you are going to say "There is no obligation to vote twice. Feel free to ignore voting in this section" in only the second section.

Anyway as with the previous discussion which I now sadly remember much more than I ever wanted to, I've spent way too much time here so won't likely be commenting further. If editors wish to reword or even remove my notes in that RFC, feel free to replace or delete them as you believe is fair and there is consensus for. Don't however take this as carte blanche to do anything which may bias the RFC. If you've had problems before in that direction, I suggest seeking consensus first before making any changes to avoid that issue.

P.S. Whatever is achieved in that RFC, that shouldn't be taken as a sign it was handled well. Any RFC where when someone visits it, the first thing they are greeted with is a very, very long (significantly longer than this very very long comment of mine) discussion between editors, rather than a neutrally worded summation of the issues and main points is a mess. While RFCs growing organically out of existing discussions is a good thing, this doesn't mean people should ignore the basic tenets of making a good RFC when starting them. (And this is ignoring the confusing and seemingly unnecessary inclusion of the only two possible mutually contradictory options which effectively lead to this ANI in the first place when the comment was added.)

And while achieving a result if that happens is good, RFCs are generally best when they have maximum participation and it's fairly likely people have and will visit that RFC, see the very long beginning and go "um okay, whatever, bye". I suspect most of those who do choose to participate are going to jump straight to the !vote parts. The trouble there is while they will hopefully get an idea of what the issues are from the !vote discussion, they may not particularly those who visited early on because there was no such simple introduction and summation. Therefore they may not be well informed and may have trouble coming up with their best policy and guideline based argument. I suspect only a tiny number of new participants are going to read any significant part of the initial discussion.

P.P.S. It looks to me like the personal attacks you referred to include "obnoxious" and being basically referred to as a troll. Personally, while calling someone obnoxious can be uncivil, it's also the sort of thing which can be a harsh but fair description of behaviour. (I'm not saying it was fair in that case, simply that it can be.) And funnily enough, when searching that ANI, I few threads down I found someone else was called obnoxious in ANI itself. Calling somone a troll is more serious since it's in many ways an even more serious accusation of bad faith than vandal so should IMO be reserved for clear cut trolls. However it's complicated and the OP of this thread was effectively accused of trolling and being a troll in this very thread. Despite your apparent strong concerns about calling some a troll being a PA, it looks like I was the first to raise the issue. Which to be clear, I don't think is something worth worrying about.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, you sated, "I do my best not to hold grudges and so don't remember the name of precisely who did what unless I have a reason to (like they are an editor I feel I need to keep an eye on) or they come up often enough that I do remember, or I happen to remember for some other reason. I considered and consider your actions there wrong, but they weren't so wrong that I had any reason to keep an eye on you, nor was I particularly likely to encounter you again in my own editing. So as I said in my second reply, I did not remember you were the one who I criticised when I left my first reply (which includes the edits to the article talk page)."

I stated that we never agree, and that's true. I have a very good memory, as a number of editors at this site know. Any time I am involved with a WP:ANI thread and you happen to weigh in on it, I have come away with the conclusion that you strongly dislike me. So you are one of the ~~administrators~~ editors I have pegged as knowing not to come to for help. When I see the type of comments you made in that previous WP:ANI thread focusing on me the way you did with the mess I was put through and downplaying bullying tactics by two administrators, I am left taking your comments regarding me with a grain of salt. Plus, there was this edit by you soon after that matter, which I consider you having felt the need to keep an eye on me, as though I was the main disruptive one. After all, you had never edited that article before, and one of the administrators I was in dispute with made it seem like extra eyes were going to be on me to keep me in line. I received emails from well-respected editors stating that the main administrator in that RfC dispute had been wrong to make a fuss over the headings, especially since the headings represented his views, and that he was completely out of line for his incivility. I received even more emails from well-respected editors stating that this administrator (yeah the one Clpo13 had to revert on that gross personal attack) was over the top and should have been admonished. Yes, Nil Einne that, was a personal attack, whether you want to simply consider it incivility or not, as if that would make it better. These editors all agree that the Jennifer Lawrence RfC was formatted fine. And, indeed, other than the bickering between me and those two administrators, it was a successful RfC and will be closing soon. I know how to format RfCs (I've been doing it since about 2007, either then or a little afterward, when I started editing this site), though I occasionally misjudge what is the best formatting. Just because you wouldn't have formatted the Jennifer Lawrence RfC that way...it doesn't mean that it wasn't the right format. From what I see, it was the best format for that type of dispute. As for the current RfC formatting, that's clearly not my best work. And I still feel that your edits there were not needed. But either way, this simply marks another case where we have disagreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my memory is not always as good as I think it is. Looking at User talk:Nil Einne/Archive 3 (at two sections I posted to your talk page), I see we were on better terms before, and that I perhaps used to think fondly of you. At some point, that changed. In Wikipedia years, 2009 was a lifetime ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits by User:Funkatastic

The editor keeps adding Bubbling Under chart peaks at Rick Ross discography, which cannot be verified through sources provided. I tried to explain to the editor that those peaks s/he adds cannot be verified at his/her talk page. But s/he removed my explanation, and reverted the page to his/her revision 1, 2. S/he keeps saying in the edit summary that These are routine calculations. Very much allowed. I'm not sure what routine calculations have anything to do with the fact that the peaks aren't verifiable.--Harout72 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So very happy you chose to involve other editors in this issue. WP:CALC, a sub policy of the WP:No Original Research policy, states specifically that:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations."

The Bubbling under charts act as extensions of other charts. For example, if a song charts at #5 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Chart, which serves as an extension to the Hot 100, one could most certainly deduct that 100+5=105. This is simple addition, and to argue that this doesn't qualify as "simple arithmetic" is asinine. Additionally, this user has began edit wars on the pages Rick Ross discography (as well as my personal talk page), without adding any further explanations of his edits other than the argument made in his original edit summary, despite the fact that I presented a policy that specifically countered his argument. Though I personally feel that Harout72 is guilty of disruptive editing, I'd personally prefer that no repercussions are given to him and someone just simply explain to him that what he's doing is incorrect and violates WP:CALC. Funkatastic (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You simply do not want to hear what others are saying to you. You were not brought here because you added Bubbling Under peaks, you were brought here because you kept adding peaks that cannot be verified through the sources that your edit here adds. This here is one of the sources that supposedly supports those chart peaks, which does not list any chart peaks for any songs whatsoever. The issue here is about the fact that you're either not familiar with WP:Verifiability or you knowingly keep disrupting that page. Also, Bubbling Under peaks are never adding in the column of Hot 100 chart, they should be listed at the notes section.--Harout72 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just accused me of exactly what you're doing, you're not listening to counter arguments. I did not add a single source to this page, so if that's the argument you're switching to now that's great, because now you look even dumber. The only thing I did was take the Bubbling Under positions from the Notes that already existed on the page and reflected them to the tables. So if your new issue is with the references, you're not even talking to the right person. This is hilarious. As you added in the final sentence of your last argument, "Also, Bubbling Under peaks are never adding in the column of Hot 100 chart, they should be listed at the notes section." is once again, completely ignoring the policy WP:CALC.Funkatastic (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your edit. You have copied and pasted an entire older revision of the page from which I had to remove all of those sources and peaks due to unverifiability. By doing that, yes, you are adding sources which do not support your added chart peaks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the proper move there, isn't to completely remove all of the content. It's to add a notice at the top of the section & article saying that the article is unverifiable and it's sources need to be updated. So once again, you made a mistake. Funkatastic (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any material not supported by a reference can be removed without warning or notice; it is not a "mistake" to not tag it first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this at Rick Ross discography and I'm not getting involved beyond this except to point out the fact that Funkatastic, you don't seem to understand it is not "basic arithmetic" because the Bubbling Under chart only tracks songs that have not yet reached the Hot 100. Therefore, a song that falls out of the Hot 100 will not reappear on the Bubbling chart. Thus, that particular song might be #101 in Billboard's calculations in a given week. To then list what is #1 on the Bubbling Under chart as #101 is inaccurate, because in reality it might be #102 or even #110; without actual figures, one cannot know. I've noticed what you've done at Meek Mill discography with Azealia911 (talk · contribs) with re-adding the Bubbling Under peak onto 100 and it's inaccurate, persistent and disruptive. Please recognise that you are misconstruing what the Bubbling Under chart actually is, and what it isn't is a simple extension chart (if it was, songs that fall out of the Hot 100 would reappear on it). This isn't anything personal, it's just that I've come across this misunderstanding many times over the years and it's frustrating to see it all over Wikipedia. That's why the note should be placed next to an mdash, because in the end, it did not chart on the Hot 100, its exact position outside the top 100 is not known, and the Hot 100 and Bubbling Under chart are two different charts. (Also, WP:CALC was not created for this reason and the cited passage indicates there must be consensus about said "calculation" for it to be added. There clearly isn't consensus among users about this, even beyond the scope of this.) Ss112 10:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing what Ss112 has just said: the Bubbling Under chart is not an extension of the Hot 100 because it only includes songs that haven't yet reached the Hot 100, and does not account for those that have fallen off yet might still be just below 100. WP:CALC does not hold here, because the criteria are not the same between the two lists. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Funkatastic has either not seen this or still does not care, having just edited 2 Chainz discography, still operating under the assumption one can add the Bubbling Under onto 100 and citing WP:CALC in his edit summaries. It needs to stop; it's disruptive, persistent and inaccurate. Disruptive because he will restore his edits if anybody takes him up on it. Ss112 18:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*@Harout72: You've forgotten to notify Funktastic about this ANI complaint. I have done it for you, but given the fact it pops up in a big orange box every time you edit the page, I fail to see how you have missed it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Ignore this. I noticed he removed the ANI notification. My bad. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by 2607:FB90:43:660A:D7A8:3DC6:D8BD:6BDA

This editor - 2607:FB90:43:660A:D7A8:3DC6:D8BD:6BDA - who has also edited as 2001:558:6007:71:1D73:C89:31B2:941, 2607:fb90:41:819e:2d0e:1d0f:e2e1:9b77, etc. - seems to be becoming increasingly disruptive, and when blocked simply moves IP address. The problem is not that their edits are vandalism as such, as many are helpful - but they are sometimes contentious, and the editor has totally ignored all attempts to communicate with them. The editor leaves no edit summaries, and has never, so far as I know, commented on a talk page. The contentious edits, so far as I am concerned, relate to the years of birth of Dave Bartholomew and Freddy Cannon, both BLPs. They also have a habit of removing redlinks, despite being warned not to. I admit to getting exasperated with this person because of their complete refusal to communicate - I would be more than happy to discuss with them how best to address the issue of the contentious birth years (through footnotes, etc.), but I cannot resolve a dispute when the other editor refuses either to explain their edits or communicate in any way. Advice or action welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Just an update - the 12-hour block yesterday had no effect, and the editor is continuing to remove redlinks as before, without any discussion or edit summaries, most notably at Roscoe Lee Browne. Can anything else be done? Thanks, Diannaa, for protecting Freddy Cannon and Dave Bartholomew. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tainted AfD

I'm referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Bond. Several strange things are happening there: four "keep" voters (plus a single-edit IP) showed up there, all parroting similar lines, and noticeably failing to address the lack of credible sources in the article being discussed. One of these is a single-purpose account. Two others are very close: one of them left 128 messages on the other's talk page in the past three months. All this is bad enough, but now, three of these four have taken to assassinating my character on another forum. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I do think there's something suspicious about the whole scenario, and I'd appreciate some administrative input. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything suspicious at all. You nominated an article, others think it should be kept. To say that Checkingfax and Natalie.Desautels are somehow meatpuppets is laughable. Newsflash: editors who collaborate in the same area often message each other, and if someone finds a helpful person they often ask that person for help in the future. Jbeaton5 has admitted he got a bit oversensitive and has apparently moved on. So should you. Katie^talk 17:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the fact that other users disagree with me that I find problematic — although it would help if said disagreement were based on policy rather than emotion and empty rhetoric. It's the frivolous accusations of incivility and tendentiousness, the forum-shopping, the seemingly coordinated feigned outrage, the baseless ridicule, the consistently diversionary arguments, the piling on for no reason other than that I nominated for deletion a deeply problematic article. I don't have a problem moving on, but I did want the record to show that my complaint is not entirely without merit.

And yes, Jbeaton5 is still a single-purpose account, while 96.20.154.75 is still a single-edit IP. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a pretty regular denizen at BLP discussions - and I assure you that a person who even gets into the NYT is more likely than not to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this requires any administrative action, Biruitorul. The fact that an IP made their first edit to vote on it, for example, will be taken into account by the closing administrator. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial information being added to leads of important articles

JoeSakr1980 is adding trivial information to leads of relevantly important articles such as:

...And many many more.

This has justifiably been reverted by a lot of users including: Hammersbach, SegataSanshiro1, Elie plus and many more. It also appears he works for the Lebanese government ([85]). And now he's edit-warring to get his way. Something needs to be done. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there appears to be heavy disruption at this article by the same user: Visa requirements for Tunisian citizens. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user is also vandalizing several articles. Either that or they're not competent enough to be here (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecuador&diff=prev&oldid=701328645)142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of talk page messages to this editor. They haven't edited since then and I'd like to see how they respond. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Etienne, if they cannot abide by policy they should not be here. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JoeSakr1980 is still fairly new, so I've left a message spelling things out very clearly. Outside of the visa requirements article, he's mostly only at 1 revert, though on a variety of pages and usually for similar (if not identical) edits. His edits appear to be in good faith, if perhaps in the wrong part of the article or accompanied by other problems. I would not immediately dismiss arguments citing WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, or WP:Recentism, but do not care to make them myself.

142.105.159.60: please read WP:NOTVAND. You are also edit warring just as much as JoeSakr1980 is.

If JoeSakr1980 ignores my warning, I will take further action. If another admin takes further action before then, whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: would you say this edit was likely in good faith? I can certainly accept that someone would mistakenly believe a wrong fact about English spelling, but the entire edit consists in subtly breaking the spelling of several words or changing them into different words. Also, what about the fact that JoeSakr1980, below, claims to never have known how to reply on his own talk page, yet he not only suddenly started doing so, but was as confident as to make a "cleanup" of it (i.e. deleted all the warnings)? To me, something about his good faith doesn't add up. LjL (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually could see some of my IELTS students making most of the changes in the link (particularly changing "two rivers" to "to rivers"). Those that I can't see my IELTS students doing, I know I've made the same mistakes in Spanish. I'd bet $10 he wasn't using ctrl+f. That link does support a potential WP:CIR argument, but doesn't quite spell out bad faith for me.

His first to his talk page was blanking the whole page with the summary "clean up" (not just the warnings). The next comparable edit (which was not labelled as a clean up) comes several hours after he said that he hasn't figured out how to reply on the talk page yet. Some less technologically proficient users get intimidated by the edit window, especially when English clearly isn't their first language. (When in doubt, imagine that the other user as that one elderly friend or family member who keeps installing toolbars, thinks Google "makes internets," and thinks that Facebook is a standard Windows application).

Again, all that could be part of a WP:CIR argument, but more edits of that type would need to be presented to overcome the fact that he's only been here a few months and that most of his activity appears to be repetitious or non-experimental. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's stopped his promotional posts for now, so I think this can be closed. If WP:CIR comes up again with this user or if he starts up his spamming again, then action can be taken.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the user who just reported me

EtienneDolet, Well I don't work for the Lebanese government. I work in the German representation office at Nicosia, TRNC. My edits were referenced and you may or may not agree with my edits. I revered the edits for some users and urged them to include then in a possibly new section. As a history or foreign relations topic. My roles on Wikipedia is to promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy as much as possible. My main scope of edits on Wikipedia are concerned with Via requirements and Visa policies. I've been correcting those, updating them, and undoing every vandalism edit for some time now. Concerning the "Visa requirements for Tunisian Citizens". Me and a visa-policy veteran called TwoFortNights were undoing edits from a user who engaged in an edit war. His edits were wrong and he constantly denied our requests to discus it on the talk page. I have reported him on Berean Hunter's talk page for appropriate action to be taken. I'm not the one who imposes vandalism or engages in an edit war with anyone. I have previously reported many users for being sockpuppets on Wikipedia and the appropriate action was taken by blocking them. Check Vanjagenije's talk page. You shouldn't block me or take such action just because a user thinks I'm an article messer on Wikipedia. Thanks for your time and efforts in making Wikipedia a much better place. Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~You might want to try posting in the thread that's about this issue instead of starting a new thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Moved response to thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeSakr1980: Please read and follow Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines and Policy on paid editing which says how to comply with wikiipedia's Terms of Use. Also please note Wikipedia is not for promotion and using it for such may result in loss of editing privlages. Thank you for your understanding and compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jbh ^Talk 13:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeSakr1980: Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, so when you say "My roles on Wikipedia is to promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy as much as possible", that's directly contrary to a Wikipedia policy. Relent on this promotion and make your edits be about creating an encyclopedia, or you will inevitably find yourself in more trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LjL (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the user who just reported me

Jbhunley, you left a paid editting section on my talk page, as you said I'm still fairly new on Wikipedia. Been here for a couple of months and haven't figured out how to reply to a talk page just yet. I've felt I would be better to leave a section here and on your personal talk page too as you said I shouldn't edit before I clarify things out.

I state that my employer has no relation with my Wikipedia account and under all situations and conditions I take no compensation or financial gains from my edits what so ever. My edits are completely mine and I don't benefit from doing so in any possible way.

My edits were just to spread the info out in appropriate places and I have not an idea that it's prohibitted or would get me in such a trouble with dozens of admins. Sorry for everything. Please let me know about what should I do to end this mess up. Thanks. Joseph SakrJoeSakr1980 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeSakr1980: All you need to do is not "promote the presence of Lebanon and it's foreign policy", just do not do it. Wikipedia is not a place for promotional behavior. You should read our core policies about how information must be presented from a neutral point of view and that information must be verifiable by citation to reliable sources. (Click on the blue links they link to pages than describe the terms.) That said, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for being willing to contribute here. Jbh ^Talk 16:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by User:Blethering Scot

Blethering Scot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Talk:St. Cuthbert Wanderers F.C. (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:St. Mirren F.C. (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Reported by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Any suggestions on how to dissusade User:Blethering Scot from a series of personal attacks across two RM discussions, which are repeated in edit summaries (contrary to WP:ESDONTS)?

Some examples among many:

[86] " saying you lied is not a personal attack" - edit summary "You did lie, you are a liar"
[87] "you were called out on your lies". edit summary "you are a liar"
[88] -- edit summary "Stop replying if you truly want it to be enough"

The last one is a clear statement of intent to drive me away from a discussion of which I was nominator.

I have asked them several times to desist, and discuss the substance ([89], [90]), but it only makes things worse.

What to do? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blethering Scot notified[91]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally think this is worth an ANI filing. If you don't like the way Blethering Scot is expressing himself, don't engage with him further. It's a survey(s), not a debate(s). Blethering Scot's points are that the vast majority of other Scottish teams with "Saint" in their name use the full stop on Wikipedia, so in terms of WP convention, the convention is to use the period. The fact that Blethering Scot is being rather clumsy in his communication is fairly irrelevant in my view. As always on Wikipedia, focus on content, not on other editors or their behavior. Just ignore the wording, focus on content, and let other people !vote. Don't clutter the page(s) with unnecessary conversation. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that XFD and RM were consensus-forming discussions in which policy and evidence assessments were scrutinised and discussed, and not just WP:VOTECOUNTing. Closers are certainly instructed not to just count heads, but to weigh a debate.
  As you can see, I did try to focus on content, and did significant research on common usage. But I was just met with tirades of abuse.
  BS's claim is as you say, that "the vast majority of other Scottish teams with "Saint" in their name use the full stop on Wikipedia" ... but reality is that it's 50-50 (3 each way, less than I had initially thought). I would have replied to correct that, but the barrage of abuse is intimidating and explicitly intended to intimidate. Is that really acceptable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He may have gotten heated in his replies on the two similar RMs but that's something that can be easily ignored and redirected to discussions of content. It's always best to completely ignore insults, name-calling, accusations, etc. and stick only to content. Every single editor on Wikipedia will get name-called, accused of something, or insulted, if they are here long enough. The trick is to overlook that and discuss the content issue behind the words. I don't personally think the blow-up on these two extremely similar RMs warrants an ANI. If this were a longstanding problem across multiple subjects and over a long period of time, and had also been attempted to be resolved over a long period of time, on user talk pages, then it might. But I don't personally see anything actionable here other than a return to sticking to RM !votes and WP naming conventions. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be interested to see if others share that view that aggression and personal attacks are just "clumsy communication". WP:CIVIL/NPA/AGF are supposed to be fundamental policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed my point. This is one instance (on two nearly identical RMs). If you had had problems with the user over a lengthy period of time across multiple subjects, and had tried to work things out with the user on their talk page over a lengthy period of time, that would be the time for an ANI. As it is, I personally think the behavior best and easily ignored. (But maybe that's just me; I don't let myself get baited by other people's name-calling, and in content discussions I stick to discussing content, not editors' behavior or the way they express themselves.) Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be focusing on target's strategy for dealing with attacks, rather than on the acceptability of the attack. That seems to me be as misplaced in this context as in any other -- there are many ways in which people can minimise exposure to attack, or mitigate its consequences, but they shouldn't have to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm focusing on your handling of this matter, and whether an ANI was warranted at this juncture. See Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#First_offenses_and_isolated_incidents. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brown haired girl is correct to complain. Unless there is clear evidence of lying then calling someone a liar is a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith. I don't think we do the project any favours by asking the victims of personal attacks to toughen up or ignore it, if we don't work to make sure this is a reasonable place to be then the good people will leave and only the stubborn and rude will remain.

@Blethering Scot: is reminded that accusations against editors must be backed up by evidence or they should be kept to yourself. Repeated or egregious personal attacks can result in a block. HighInBC 04:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also Softlavender I don't think that it could be called a first offence or an isolated incident if it is ongoing after a request to stop. Also notice a previous block for personal attacks in October. A warning is sufficient now, but if it continues it is actionable. HighInBC 04:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree a final warning is warranted. This is a complete overreaction concerning whether an article title should contain a full stop. Not the first time the editor has engaged in personal attacks. Should be made clear that any further similar behaviour will be met with a further block. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: my accusations were backed up clearly with evidence. BrownHairedGirl lied, she had refused to withdraw that lie. i provided clear evidence proving her statement was false. She said enough, but kept replying thats not my fault but hers. You issued a ping reminding me to provide evidence, this indicates you did not read my responses. i provided evidence to prove she had lied in her statement of as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs. This was a false statement in my view to mask her mistake and misleading opening. I proved this to be false, yet she thought it acceptable to continue to lie. I do not see calling out an editor for her lies to be a personal attack, nor will i apologise for it. if that means a block then go ahead. It is my view that @BrownHairedGirl: should be frankly embarrassed. She has wasted everyones time because she refused to withdraw a lie. She knows she wasn't correct, she has seen my evidence showing she was incorrect and attacks me. This isn't about a simple ., but about her false statement and misleading opening. If there was a convention stating the . should not be used as she said in her opening then she needed to prove it. She said all Blethering Scot 21:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot tell the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion then you are indeed heading for a block. You have not provided evidence of anything other than that you and BHG made a mistake or disagrees with you. Now argue the merits of the dispute without resorting to attacking editors or you will be blocked for personal attacks.

It seems that BHG has admitted that the numbers were not as they thought, so why not just move on and stop with the assumptions of bad faith. HighInBC 21:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Show me where she has admitted or apologised to me. You are frankly wrong and i told you very clearly block me if you can prove I'm attacking her. She lied by virtue of making a false statement, a statement she hasn't withdrawn. Sorry but tell me how saying as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs isn't a lie. Tell me how that statement is a difference of opinion. In the thread I clearly provided evidence that she was wrong. She attacked me first, not the other way around. She has not redacted her lie, or made any attempt to apologise for it. Can you advise where in the NPA policy it states that calling an editor a liar is a personal attack, when it is proven the person is lying. We are only here because Brown Haired Girl handled herself very badly. Had she as soon as I provided evidence of her false statement, redacted and admitted she made a mistake then fine. She choose to ignore my evidence and pile it on. Im embarrassed for her and thats a fact. Please note any block against me must show to me that calling a user a liar when proven she lied is a personal attack or we will be heading to arbcom. Blethering Scot 21:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I simply do not care about a dot. This isn't the issue with her move request, the issue was she opened her move request saying to remove the dot from "St." per wikipedia naming convention. When I asked her to show me where the convention was she said The convention does not seem to be documented, but it is longstanding practice on.wp not to use the dot in "St.", as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football club. Essentially it doesn't exist. As she said as reflected in names of other football clubs, I wanted to verify this info so I checked all other football clubs in Scotland and found no such demonstration existed either. When i advised she had mislead she said I was just showing signs of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This was antagonising behaviour, because at this point all id said was her initial statements were misleading and they clearly were. I then provided her with the evidence she asked for. She kept saying I hadn't provided evidence, when i provided the link to back up my point. She said i was like an advocate conducting a cross-examination. The fact is all I did was question why here statements were misleading a move request. She should no signs of withdrawing statement or clarifying why she mislead us. The fact is it was lies or at best deliberately misleading. Not something you would except from a sysop. Also its not entirely unclear whether a dot can be considered to be covered by the common name policy. Blethering Scot 21:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even presuming the factual claims you made are accurate, being mistaken about our conventions when you make comments doesn't automatically make someone a liar or imply they delibrately mislead. Refusing to admit you were mistaken (again presuming your claims are accurate) is problematic, but again doesn't mean someone is a liar or delibrately mislead. I don't see where you've presented any evidence that BrownHairedGirl knew she was wrong when she made the statement which is implied by your claim she lied or delibrately mislead. And frankly calling someone a liar or saying they delibrately mislead without significant evidence is a far more serious thing than being wrong about our naming conventions. So unless you do have evidence it's far more important that you withdraw your claim then she withdraw her claim about our naming conventions (presuming she is wrong). P.S. I had a brief look at the discussion so I'll add that WP:COMMONNAME is one of our naming conventions, one of the most basics ones. As to whether it should apply to the dot in an abbreviation, I would say yes, but I don't think that's a discussion suitable for ANI anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave this for another admin to decide. I don't like it when people dare me to block them, and I don't really feel like playing this game with you right now. HighInBC 22:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't daring you to do anything. You said you were going to block me, if i believed she was lying. I said go ahead if you feel you have enough evidence it is a personal attack and can prove that BrownHairedGirl did not lie or try and mislead. I think its obvious at best she was misleading and at worst she lied. I won't apologise for that when the evidence is clear to see.Blethering Scot 23:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about you just make your argument based on the facts of the dispute instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks. If you think the fact claimed by BHG is wrong then make an argument to disprove it and gain consensus, there is no need to assume bad motives. Comment on the content not the contributor. This is Wikipedia 101. You can believe whatever you want, we are only concerned with what you do. HighInBC 23:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am happy to discuss the substance of the issue, including BS's concerns over my assertions ... but only with an editor who behaves in a civil manner. I have no problem with some discussion of a disagreement, but I will not engage in substantive discussion with an editor who assumes bad faith and repeatedly engages with personal attacks.

I would not stay in any workspace or other meeting in meatspace with people who conduct themselves like that, and per WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia editors are entitled to discuss disagreements and allegations of error without being repeatedly called called "liar", and without facing an editor determined to bully them out of a discussion. Wikipedia's decision-making process is consensus-forming discussion, but consensus-forming cannot happen in the context of such aggression. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out to User:BrownHairedGirl that the conversation was civil until she said I was displaying signs of Wikipedia:I just don't like it, all because i asked her to clarify the policy she was referring to & challenged her ascertain that the policy was reflected in the names of other Scottish football clubs. She also accused me of being like a barrister because i was wanting her to clarify her comments. None of this displays a civil attitude towards me. She specifically asked me to provide evidence that there are no other clubs in the SPFL called Saint that use the displayed name without the dot. As provided in the RM St. Johnstone F.C. and St. Mirren F.C. are the only clubs named saint in the SPFL. Click on the league links on the spfl tables on the official website to see this for yourself. Her failure to acknowledge this and her belligerent style make me fully believe she intended to mislead therefore i have to come to the conclusion she lied. At the same time i looked at Category:Football clubs in Scotland. As you will see there are only a further 4 with the name Saint. These are St Anthony's F.C., St Roch's F.C., St. Andrews United F.C. and St. Cuthbert Wanderers F.C.. That means of 6 Scottish football clubs named Saint, only 2 use the naming style without the dot. That means clearly there is no deliberate reflection in the names of other Scottish football clubs. It is my believe that BrownHairedGirl is showing evidence of behaviour not befitting an admin, and because i called her out on it brought this here.Blethering Scot 18:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume BHG is referring to this, clear articulation in the MoS. I really can't fathom why therefore, this has all blown up over a full stop. Fenix down (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nil Einne Im fully aware of the common name policy and one I agree with, however i think its debatable whether it applies in this case. However BrownHairedGirl pulled it out as an after thought when called out on her misleading facts. Im glad u acknowledge that her behaviour is problematic if proven. I have very clearly provided evidence that she was wrong, yet she fails to acknowledge that fact. She know full well there is no reflection in other Scottish football articles. Blethering Scot 18:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fenix down it has not blown up over a dot. It has blown up over BrownHairedGirl failure to admit she provided misleading evidence to a WP:RM. This is problematic behaviour not befitting an admin.Blethering Scot 18

55, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Being mistaken is not the same as lying. People have disagreements on Wikipedia and that doesn't make them liars. It was inappropriate to use that term - and multiple times yet - even if her information was incorrect, and even if she didn't explicitly acknowledge that. After all, part of the reason to have the discussion is to gain a consensus as to what should be done, including verifying what the facts are, if they are in dispute. Rlendog (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I dont believe that to be the case. As far as i can see she wasn't mistaken, she misled. Im not going to withdraw that view in anyway. She is still belligerently ignoring that facts and refuses to acknowledge despite evidence being presented to her. As for my repeatedly repeating my view, given she started the attacks on me, again I won't apologise for that. She is an admin and I am not, therefore she should be setting an example. She has not set an example by accusing me of being a barrister for asking her to clarify her statements and i mean ask her, she has not set an example by not acknowledging the facts. Frankly this is not about a dot but the fact she won't admit she was wrong and tried to hide it by pushing me.Blethering Scot 19:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] This should never of been brought to AN, had she apologised and said sorry I was wrong, redacted her false statements, then i would of apologised to her. The fact it was brought here without any acknowledgement on the RM or here makes me think whats the point.Blethering Scot 19:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where it all blew up. BS wrote As you've said to me show me your evidence to back up your lies. ‎ As for I dont like it thats just you trying to hide the fact you are being evasive. If you can prove common name applies to a ., then please go ahead. However dont make false statements

I replied[92]

| have provided evidence of common usage, and of usage by the club itself. That is what matters in Wikipedia policy.
You have offered no evidence in support of any other names, and so as noted, your comments are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
You now seem to be trying to find flaws in my comments as if you were an advocate conducting a cross-examination, rather than a fellow en.wp editor trying to reach a consensus. Your latest statement, with its accusation of "lies" is a direct personal attack and assumption of bad faith, so I will not discuss any further with you. If you persist with such a personalised approach, I will consider seeking sanctions.

From then on, BS just kept on repeating "liar", and repeating the impossibilist demand that I somehow prove that a generic principle applies to a particular aspect of a name. The hostile advocate-in-a-courtoom-bullying-a-witness approach makes it impossible to have a dialogue about any concerns over evidence and assertions. For the record, one of my assertions about other usage on Wikipedia turns out on checking to be a little overstated, but given the evidence of common usage I think it is immaterial.

There is a fairly simple way to handle assertions that appear incorrect. Simply say what you have found, and ask the other to explain the difference. If we had had that discussion, then I might for example have pointed out to BS that part of the difference was because I had referred to "football clubs" whereas BS was talking about the much more limited set of SPFL (premier league) clubs. But such misunderstandings don't get unravelled when an editor immediately assumes bad faith and responds to every reply by yelling "liar", and by abusing edit summaries to make that attack.

The edit summary "Stop replying if you truly want it to be enough" is a clear statement of intent to drive me away from the discussion. This isn't consensus-forming; it's a blatant attempt to shout me down and not only drive me away, but deter any other editors from joining in. It's WP:BATTLEFIELD behaviour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl Sorry, no i referred to every Scottish football club with a Wikipedia article. There are only 6. Actually no you said Enough, then said [93] enough again. My reply was to say if you are truly saying enough to me then stop replying to my posts. Because i have to reply to yours. You are still trying to misinterpret facts.Blethering Scot 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BS, please read WP:AGF. Disagreement over facts, or difference of interpretation or understanding, or even an error, can be due to an mistake or to a difference of view or to nuances of language. It is not, as you claim yet again, "trying to misinterpret facts" -- that is an assumption of and faith, which the core of the problem with your approach.

That phrase "trying to misinterpret facts" is just a rewording of your cruder yelling of "liar". I don't now how many editors need to warn you stop doing this assumption of bad faith before you will listen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl Well you are. You made out above it was me that started the enough's, when in fact it was you and my enough was in response to yours, which was an attempt to close down discussion. You made out above I didn't provide evidence of all Scottish clubs, when i did both SPFL and the other 4 clubs outside. The issue is here you are showing no sign of acknowledging anything, therefore it is very difficult to assume good faith. As another user said above thats evidence of problematic behaviour. Why won't you admit you made errors, the more you insist you didn't the more it looks like it was deliberate. Seriously thats all you had to do, two days ago. I would of apologised at that point. The more this drags on the less i see to apologise for.Blethering Scot 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boaxy misbehaving and socking

This user has been consistently attempting to add an LGBT category to Unfinished Business (2015 film) in an attempt to push a political viewpoint. However, I initially disagreed with what the category specifically meant; especially without a verifiable source to back it up. Boaxy claimed that he didn't need a source because it wasn't "original research." [94]

At that point, some unknown user (whose IP kept changing daily) stepped in and tried to undo Boaxy's vandalism. But Boaxy continued to edit war over the inclusion of the category for several days, during which Boaxy logged out and used an IP address (71.116.235.134) to further push his viewpoint. [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]

At one point, Boaxy finally added a source, but the other user reverted it after he reviewed the source and found it to be unverifiable because it was just a short review with no talk about the film being targeted to an LGBT audience. Boaxy used his IP evasion again, in which I discovered what was going on and decided to refer this matter to this board. [101] [102] [103] [104]

I bring this matter to your attention to also remind the administrators of the fact that Boaxy was previously involved in edit-warring to include LGBT categories on some Sailor Moon articles (during which he also threw temper-tantrums and made personal attacks against other editors - myself included - who opposed the additions) in 2015, and was subsequently topic-banned from editing Sailor Moon articles. [105]--Loyalmoonie (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Chris[reply]

I ask whoever is in charge of this procedure to watch the film. You only need to watch the first fifteen minutes or so to see why the LGBT category is perfectly being fine to be added. I put the category without a reference as the LGBT category is not original research. One of the four main protagonists is homosexual so that automatically warrants a LGBT category. As my oppressor thinks I'm pushing an agenda, I added a reference and they still insist I'm being spiteful. I'm not. The LGBT pop culture category should be removed if I can't use it. It's there for a reason as wikipedia is LGBT friendly and my oppressor has to just deal with it and accept it. Boaxy (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boaxy tried to be bold and add Category:American LGBT-related films; it was rejected. Given that this is a BLP issue here, the caution says no until there's good reason. I see no discussion at Talk:Unfinished Business (2015 film) so take the discussion there and I suggest Boaxy provide more than personal WP:OR of "you need to watch the film". And this source of not particularly reliability doesn't tell me anything that says to call it a LGBT-related film. But again, I could be wrong so onto that talk page, please. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- What do you mean tried to be bold? I saw this movie for the first time around Christmas Eve or so, and I always check to see if Wikipedia is up with pop culture as they usually are. I thought to myself, there should be a LGBT category as one of the main protagonists is homosexual and there is lots of lgbt undertones in the movie, such as being at gay parades, gay bars. etc. I look and see there isn't one. I didn't fret that much over it as this movie is still quite relatively recent. So I added the category without a source as I didn't think it warranted one, and it really doesn't. It's quite obvious the film is LGBT related. Some things do not need to be sourced if it isn't original information or things that need to be cited, like box office prices, behind the scenes information, etc. I'm more than willing to add more sources, but what good would it be if they get removed because there is a user who believes I'm pushing a gay agenda? But I also said this seems to be a conflict of interest. I don't know the wikipedia term for that, I'm sorry. Loyalmoonie seems to be stalking me and thinks I'm pushing a gay agenda. I been on wikipedia for 11 years. I don't need to push anything. If someone is gay related, I'm going to tag it as such. If he/she has a problem with that, they need to talk to the wikipedia staff to remove the LGBT tags and projects and shit. I'm sorry. Boaxy (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reverts by Aubmn socks

Blueundigo5 has been blocked as noted below. In the future, consider reporting the sock at WP:SPI instead, so they can check for sleepers, etc if deemed necessary. ~ Rob^Talk 20:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Blueundigo5 (talk · contribs · block user)
Banned Aubmn (talk · contribs · block user) has made multiple reverts of edits by Blue Indigo and now myself, most recently as Blueundigo5, and in the last couple of days as BlueUndigo4 (talk · contribs), BLueUndigo2 (talk · contribs), Blueundigo3 (talk · contribs), Blueindigo23 (talk · contribs), Newqueen2 (talk · contribs), Samfrodo (talk · contribs) and others. The others have been blocked by Bbb23 and Acroterion. Could anyone block Blueundigo5 and take whatever measures seem appropriate? NebY (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent sockpuppet account (Blueundigo5) responsible for vandalism to Italians and Paris in World War II, among others; also responsible for repeated and persistent edit warring. Helmut von Moltke (talk)

Blueundigo5 now reverted by many and blocked by the tireless BBbb23 - thanks. NebY (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

MoiraMoira's abuse

En.wiki is not Nl.wiki. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrong venue on wrong Wiki. Amortias (T)(C) 21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't belong here

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

I am really sick of this situation. Being stalked by an admin is already bothersome, but having one's IP range blocked for nothing is way too much. On nl.wikipedia the range 151.20.0.0/18 (belonging to a big slice of Italians) has been blocked for 1 months because of (Google Translate) "Disturbance / threatening atmosphere". The "Disturbance / threatening atmosphere" is the following message in a talk page: "We agreed to move also the German article at the end :-)"; such message was a reply to another user's message: "For your information: the German WP has the wrong spelling as well and the same discussion. Regards". The fact is that it was being discussed about an Italian spelling on de.wikipedia, and at the beginning user Tusculum did not agree with my purpose to rename a page, so he wrote that message in the related Dutch talk page. Eventually he and the other German users concurred with me and move the page, so I added "For your information" my message, to explain in that talk page that he agreed with me too. And I was blocked. For a month. For doing nothing bad. And with me a lot of Italians. In the last week on nl.wikipedia I have just written to another Dutch user and made no edits. Do you think is the admin's behaviour correct and respectful of Wikipedian rules and conditions? Besides I have seen that (s)he and another pair of Dutch admins/users are literally stalking me, even if I am not doing anything wrong, in each single Wiki-project I dare to surf, in one of ErikvanB's pages, whom I had already reported here. I have read some affairs on the Internet about this MoiraMoira and I am wondering whether I have to start being scared or not. It is not just the fact that admin has decided to make chasing me his/her mission: I do not know how tracking a user's activities is possible, either a lot of time is spended to search the Wikis for every 151.20 IP's contribution, and this would be a bit scary by itself, or they know more about "me" than the simple IP address, than what they are authorised to know, violating a user's privacy without being policemen or lawyers. I just would like this to end. The article for all this started has already been renamed in every language except Dutch, and I do not care if they prefer being the black sheep, but they still are not stopping the useless stalking, if I were a vandal I would have been blocked or warned on other Wikis or they would even do it themselves (actually it is one of them who has undergone that). And now MoiraMoira has abused admin's powers too, by blocking me for literally nothing that is worth a block, as you could read above. Please take some actions to stop such a behaviour. I would have written this on nl.wikipedia, but I was prevented from editing anything and even if I did they would delete it since they are the ones ruling the Dutch Wiki, so... 151.20.87.220 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to see here. This is about a dispute at nl-wp, and as far as I can see MoiraMoira has been taking no action at all here on en. As far as I could figure out, the IP is on a cross-wiki campaign about the spelling of some Italian village, with "é" or with "è" (see Portobuffolé). Blocks on nl don't concern us here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So... I can do nothing and will just stay blocked as many others Italians for doing nothing wrong, is this what you mean? 151.20.107.241 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly nothing you can do here. If you want to do something about it on nl-wikipedia, the best advice I can give you is to try to talk to them in a way that just sounds a bit less shrill and a bit less, pardon my French, obsessed. And stop behaving in ways that come across as hounding, like the way you kept posting unwanted messages to Moira on her nl talkpage, or the way you accused her here. I realize you are trying to get something done that you think is right, and as far as I can see you have successfully convinced a number of editors here on en-wikipedia that it is in fact the better version, but it really would help if you could acknowledge that it's (1) not a black-and-white matter – seeing as both forms clearly coexist, and (2) not an important matter at all – seeing as this is all about nothing more than the angle of some little black dot over the name of some obscure village. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But how could I talk if blocked? I wrote that at the end of my comment. Maybe it is not possible for an English admin to intervene there, even if "this" is the main, international Wiki and I think that some hig-ranked admin may do something about such an abuse, but if it is not so at least could an admin just try speaking in that Dutch admin's talk page to ask her to remove this unmotivated range block and to stop stalking, since I have no longer been doing anything wrong to those Dutch admins and in nl.wikipedia? 151.20.120.68 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you should simply leave the Dutch wiki alone. Since you don't speak Dutch, there's not overly much you can do there anyway, and if they want to keep those "è" instead of "é", why not just let them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is what I wrote in my message above, I do not care they are the only ones with a wrong spelling, so much the worse for them, I do not want to do anything more there, but the fact remains that block is motiveless and an abuse. If nothing is possible, well, at least English Wikipedians have learnt something new about that Dutch admin. 151.20.122.199 (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive/problematic IP

Need help with a problematic, disruptive anon IP --107.107.58.183-- geolocating to Brooklyn, NY who has been targeting my edits today. Currently, the IP is reverting at Drake Bell in what seems to be a mission to have me dinged for a 3RR vio (see here and here). The same IP has been adding and reverting back in what is incorrect information about a photograph at the Billy the Kid article for the last couple of days (see here, here, and here). It seems they are mirroring edits made by this IP (see here: [106], [107], [108]). Not sure if this IP is the same as the problematic and disruptive Brooklyn, NY/Bronx/NY IP I (and others) have encountered numerous times over the last year or so? Whatever the case, their edits and reverts are not helping either article. In fact, I have finally gotten an edit warrior at the Drake Bell article to finally start discussing edits rather than reverting -- the IP edit warring as well has certainly thrown a wrench in the works. I don't expect they will stop reverting, rather, this will continue if not dealt with. Page protection would be great, and I'd rather see that happen over blocking, but since they now seem to be following me around Wikipedia, protecting one or two articles may not be the answer. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now this IP --166.172.61.144-- (geolocating to the Bronx) has joined in :[109]. I do believe they are either working together or are the same individual. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the disruption/edit warring has continued [110], I have filed a RPP here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Bronx IP has joined in: [111]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any help, the 166.x.x.x IP range is known to be used by disruptive editors and have been summarily banned from Wikipedia. clpo13_(talk) 00:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats?

Are this (the last paragraph) and this legal threats? —teb728 t c 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the first diff (deleted) but yeah, the second one is, even though it's uploaded to Commons rather than Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, someone at Commons probably wants to take a look at the uploads of Commons:User:Nmkkato. I'm pretty sure they all unquestionably fall out of scope. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And they've been cromulently blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Some of those uploads have highly sensitive personal info in them. clpo13_(talk) 00:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Their commons uploads have been mass deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited them to explain their concerns without making threats[112], it is not really clear to me what they are complaining about. I am about 70% sure that they got something taken down as a copy vio and they are misunderstanding our licensing requirements with an accusation of copyright infringement. HighInBC 00:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally agree with you, but I think this individual probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia even with a retraction of the legal threat. It looks like the whole purpose of her presence here is to push information about a lawsuit against BMI. And honestly, that little of an analysis is charitable. But from the look of the documents and how she's conducting herself elsewhere, I feel pretty confident a retraction won't happen anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was less concerned about a retraction and more concerns about figuring out what they were concerned about per WP:DOLT. HighInBC 01:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the legal threat in this case appears to be an ongoing lawsuit against wikipedia and wikimedia. At least that's what the upload and comment [113] seems to imply. If that's really the case, then retraction of the threat requires the lawsuit is resolved (whether it's dismissed perhaps because they drop it or ask for it to be dismissed or it goes to court and achieves some outcome). Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More incivility in autism AfD

There is more incivility in the AfD for List of people with autism spectrum disorders article mentioned a few days ago, this time by User:Calton. See here, here, here, and here, all directed at the same anon IP who is making efforts to improve the article to address the concerns expressed in the AfD. According to his talk page, Calton has a history of incivility, so I'm not inclined to assume good faith at this point. Smartyllama (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: He also posted uncivilly on the IP's talk page. Smartyllama (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here [114] he told me I needed to "get new reading glasses" and then offered to recommend retailers that sold eyeware. He recently told Neutralhomer that he was "delusional" and "self-absorbed" [115] while here he apparently accused a different editor of suffering from schizophrenia [116]. It appears he's previously been blocked 9 times for incivility on charges ranging from "taunting" to "racist edit summaries." [117] LavaBaron (User talk:Lavaetalk) 02:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is Calton's SOP, insult and keep insulting, rules be damned. How he is still an active, unblocked user is beyond me. I personally believe that Calton needs to be blocked indefinitely as he doesn't offer anything positive to the project. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)f[reply]

It does seem odd. Maybe 10 times a charm, though - at this point - more drastic protective measures do seem in order. LavaBaron (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you selectively quoted part of a page claiming that it supported your idiosyncratic opinion whilst utterly missing the immediately following paragraphs that contradicted it, then it's a fair question to ask how you managed to miss it. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. "You deserved it," is certainly the most novel defense of CIVIL I've seen, but I guess there's a first for everything. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for Smartyllama's yammering about "good faith", considering his attempts to lard List of people with autism spectrum disorder with criminals using laughable sourcing -- "his mother said he had Asperger's on an online forum" is good enough for him -- or even create a separate criminals-with-autism list despite there between no connection whatsoever between the two elements, he set fire to his own expectation of good faith in what he's trying to accomplish. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the AfD. Your conduct is at issue here, separately from whether you may have had a point. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my proposed "separate criminals-with-autism list" was nothing of the sort. It would discuss the numerous studies which show no correlation, and incorrect claims by certain individuals to the contrary. It could even discuss the recent controversy over President Obama's proposed gun control measures which would prevent certain autistic individuals from owning guns and was opposed by several autistic advocacy organizations. Smartyllama That being said, after looking over the sources again in more detail, rather than just looking at the publication and seeing if it was reliable, most of them were not reliable, and the ones that are (such as Adam Lanza) have remained in the article. I have no objection to the removals that were made at this point. (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close. I reviewed the diffs offered by the OP. Nothing egregious stands out, other than the usual heated discussion. I blame the lack of structure in AfD discussions. We need less free for all and more regulation. Perhaps we should limit all participants to one initial comment followed by one discussion reply. We need less talk and more action. Some things don't need to be endlessly debated. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There has been a pattern of issues cited in the last 30 days that should be addressed first, particularly in light of the (astonishing) nine previous blocks for the same issues to which the editor of this ANI has been subject. Even in the ANI itself, the subject of this report seemed unable to contain himself, using words like "yammering" to describe Smartyllama's input, for instance. LavaBaron (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Nine blocks for incivility and his responses here show Calton isn't going to change. This isn't a "heated discussion", it's Calton's SOP of nonstop insults and snark with zero positive contributions. This, this, this, and this are all from yesterday (minus the Autism AfD ones). All laden with insults and snark, no positive contributions. Just to add to this, he actually uses TWINKLE to revert "most wins" to "winningest", even proper english and sentence structure doesn't stand a chance with him. Some serious sanctions regarding his incivility, insults and snark, or just a long-term block are needed for Calton. This is not business as usual here, this is a problem editor who has proven time and time again that he will not follow the rules. So, we as a community, must make him follow those rules or show him the door. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This abysmal "winningest" junk is turning up everywhere. My experience is that the people pushing to include it don't just want to lower the tone of the encyclopedia, but the tone of every conversation about it. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree with ya there. I have even heard it on the news (ex: "the winningest coach"). If I had used a word like that as part of a sentence, I'm pretty sure my 7th grade English teacher would slap me with something. :) I even use the Oxford comma and a double space after sentences, both of which are rarely used anymore. I can thank my 3rd grade English teacher for that one. :) So, in the greater scheme of things (Calton's incivility, etc.), it isn't super important, but I thought it was worth mentioning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose- Calton is right about the substance of this dispute. That's a crappy article, and unsubstantiated claims on an internet forum are no better than "I heard it from a bloke at the pub". But Calton sure does have a way of making you want to disagree with him even when he's right, with constant sarcasm and insults for no good reason. Reyk _YO! 07:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It seems to me that people here are distracting from the underlying problem with the article and why it's at AfD. I am not the least bit interested in analyzing or examining Calton's tone or personality. I'm more interested in what he's saying. There's way too much discussion on this. Put it through AfD, one comment per person, and then close it. Stop arguing about trivialities and find something else to get offended about. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD can be discussed there. Even if Calton is right, he went about it the wrong way and that needs to be addressed. If he had no previous bans for incivility, I might be inclined to assume good faith and be done with it, but he has nine, so I'm not. And the very anon Calton attacked has made significant efforts to improve the article and address the AfD concerns. Smartyllama (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calton's conduct in the AfD can be discussed here, as well as his recent conduct elsewhere. For example, it might be discussed whether telling an editor on sight to "go away, you are supremely unqualified to edit here" is a statement on the merits of the article under discussion, or something else. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And in the case of his statements towards me on this very ANI, it shows he is often either willfully ignorant or unable to comprehend the arguments others are trying to make. To quote the article's talk page, here is what my proposal was.

"I don't think we need a specific list article for that [referring to infamous individuals], but we could have an article called Autism spectrum disorder and violent crime or something like that which discusses the individuals in question as well as the lack of overall connection between the two in more detail than the main ASD article, this list, or the articles on the individuals themselves can provide. That would also be a good place to put forth the factors any additional diagnoses might have played in those individuals, provided such claims are reliably sourced and not original research. But this article is not the place for that. We could add a "See also" at the bottom once said article is created though to make it easier for people to learn more." So in fact I specifically said I did not support a separate list article for infamous individuals as I understood another user to be proposing. Rather, I was proposing a detailed, non-list article to discuss the studies in question which show no connection, as well as individuals who falsely proclaim there to be a connection, as well as the fallout from this controversy (which would include the recent gun owner controversy and a Congressional proposal barring the Social Security Administration from cooperating and enabling the law to be enforced.) Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I mentioned above, but just stating for the record. Calton's personal attacks need to be addressed regardless of whether he has a point. The AfD concerns and the concerns about Calton's actions are not mutually exclusive. And changing the entire structure of AfD as user above proposed would require more community input than a single ANI request. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes

BLOCKED

For a year. :3 --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

58.96.113.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on January 8 after creating many many nonsense pages/hoaxes. The block expired and the IP address has returned to creating even more hoaxes. Qpalzmmzlapq (talk | contribs) 02:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a year. The IP appears to be static and this has been going on for a long time. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lynda Obst Productions

Please see the mess at Lynda Obst Productions.

A couple different IPs in the same range really messed things up. Reverted to last version prior to that. Doesn't appear to be any warring or anything. Just lack of competence from an IP, which most likely requires no ad.in intervention. John from Idegon (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raggz BLP violations

Raggz (talk · contribs) Repeated violations of WP:BLP policy; drawing own conclusions (WP:FRANKIE) from multiple sources to apply controversial labels not stated in the sources. Labels considered incendiary in US politics (Marxist, communist, Trotskyite, supporter of revolution) are being used based on combining membership in the Socialist Alternative (United States) with other sources that draw conclusions about that party. Reputable sources that have followed Sawant's political career have consistently called her a socialist and given little or no attention to the Marxist and Trotskyite labels.

Diffs:

[118] -- calling a citation for blocking a street during a protest, later thrown out by a judge, "criminal activity". No reputable sources have ever called Sawant "criminal"--Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a civil trial but a criminal trial. His edit was better phrased and I accepted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs)

[119][120][121] -- Communism, Trotskyite, etc--Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Socialist Alternative Party is a revolutionary Trotskyite Marxist party.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs)

[122] more of the same after final warning

BLP/NPOV policy warnings: [123][124][125][126][127] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am just an editor with no political agenda regarding this article. Dennis is all of this true for you as well?

I am not acquainted with the subject, nor am I am not a member of this revolutionary Marxist party. I have accepted some of Dennis's edits and agree that these improved the article. In particular the criminal issues were better addressed with his edits.

Well, I suppose that I do have an agenda here to state. I dislike politicians that mislead us as to their true political agenda and political philosophy. I have edited this article with the intent to ensure that the Reader is not misled. I had never heard of her and could be mistaken, but this is not a forum for that discussion. Dennis, why are we even here and not on the Talk page? Have you even once engaged in Talk?

Bottom line recommendation, explain to Dennis that we talk about our edits and try to reach a consensus before we come here. Raggz (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In biographies, the default position is to remove the disputed negative material until a consensus is reached that it is suitable for inclusion. In this case, it's my observation that relentlessly attaching the phrase "Marxist" or "Trotskyite" to every single mention of her political party affiliation is not good writing style, never mind BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the big deal is here. Multiple RS describe Socialist Alternative as Trotskyist - e.g. ... MSNBC [128], Seattle Weekly [129], Seattle Post-Intelligencer, [130], etc., and the diffs of Raggz' edits show the addition of descriptive prefixes to the party, rather than to Sawant's name. (Also I know this isn't admissable but, purely as an aside, in conversations I've had with officers of the SA they've described themselves to me as Trotskyist, and, IIRC, it could be I'm wrong on this, but SA is a member of the Committee for a Fourth International, aren't they?) The question about "citation" vs "criminal activities" I agree with, however, it seems Raggz deferred and accepted the change so not sure what the prob is there either. Maybe I'm missing something. LavaBaron (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this BLP still contain disputed, controversial assertions? {{disputed}} does not belong on any BLP. The policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS is "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." These disputed epithets and labels need to go now. Reach consensus on the talk page before restoring any controversial claims about a living person.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Epithets" seems a little hyper-dramatic for what's been described. LavaBaron (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here to build an encyclopedia

BLOCKED

Jacksmith2134 indefinitely blocked by Euryalus and edits were oversighted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just reverted some edits at WP:Here to build an encyclopedia and was going to leave a typical warning but this is above my pay grade. See the result of the edits and the uploaded file. Is any action needed beyond monitoring? Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the edit was suppressed by an oversighter. The image is on Commons but is now tagged for speedy deletion. — foxj 09:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Massive deletion of userspace

Not for ANI. Sam Walton (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

DGG is going on a rampage and going to pretty much wild out all of userspace. This requires more than a small suggestion. We can't drive away all out content creators here. 166.176.59.145 (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Ummm... And what exactly is the reason you bring this to WP:ANI? Kleuske (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, an RfC would probably have been a good idea. Or listing at T:CENT. But yeah, a proposal to apply WP:G13 outside of draftspace isn't something to announce on ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Err.... compare the IP address here with the IP address on this report . Might there be a connection - he certainly doesn't have any userspace to delete KoshVorlon 16:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Omar-toons

I have indefinitely blocked Omar-toons (talk · contribs) for being a sock-puppet of globally locked Omar-Toons (talk · contribs), and for POV-pushing including routine misrepresentations of sources and mistranslations of foreign-language terms. The latest examples I am aware of are here and here; this was previously discussed at AN/I here. In case people might feel I'm too involved since I had previous run-ins with Omar-toons' POV-pushing, I'm bringing it here for review. Huon (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, redirected from Omar-Toons in 2012 (which looks like the time of the last block on en-wp with no activity since), history indicates lost password however rather than globally locked? And since there is no evidence they have been running multiple accounts simultaneously, where is the socking? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I wish people would *provide* the background instead of just expecting others to trawl for it. Global lock here. I prodded Vituzzu since he placed the original lock, and it looks like from his notes he did intend to lift it at some point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too much heavy lifting, OiD? Good thing you had the strength to let us know. Don't work too hard. Tiderolls 14:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on the "contribs" link I provided will show the global lock. Sorry if that wasn't sufficiently clear. Huon (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged from Talk:Spanish protectorate in Morocco about Omar Toons's edits there. I have little to add, and only want to express my despondency here. Thank you Huon. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility on the Parapsychology Talk Page

There have been multiple incidences of incivil behavior at Talk:Parapsychology, including the following most egregious examples by editors JuliaHunter and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&type=revision&diff=701589880&oldid=701589805

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AParapsychology&type=revision&diff=701403715&oldid=701403508

75.118.11.184 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My evaluation of Brian Josephson's status in the academic community is harsh, but it looks to me to be fact and isn't really disputable. Plainly identifying the way a believer in paranormal phenomena is perceived by the WP:MAINSTREAM academic community really isn't a contradiction of the terms of WP:CIVILITY by my reading. jps (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with jps. Brian J. is no stranger to the mainstream view of his, shall we call them, beliefs. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't often see the word "agnotological", does one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. could I send Brian some of my bent spoons? [reply]

How embarassing; I had to look it up! Keri (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me too. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks. Using this thread to make User:Brian_Josephson your punching bag saves me the time and trouble of copying and pasting diffs. 75.118.11.184 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly log in to your main Wikipedia account? Or, if you are concerned about WP:OUTING (which is legitimate given that account's username), would you perhaps start a new one and privately declare your old one to arbcom? Thanks. jps (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments do not look civil to me. What happened to "Focus on Content"? One may disagree with a person but to say those things shows a level of hostility that is not welcome on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, similar incivility is simultaneously going on at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Weak statistical evidence?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang out for a stroll! jps (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FOC.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DENY. We can safely ignore SageRad's and your contributions here owing to your obvious and transparent WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ACTIVISM, and naked agenda to skew Wikipedia to your preferred POV in opposition to WP:MAINSTREAM scientific evaluations.jps (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in calling me an advocate - I am an advocate of civility, one of the 5 Pillars of WP WP:5P4.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, according to arbcom. Please read WP:Civil POV pushing for more on your tired tactics. jps (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to me as a POV-Pusher?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the shoe fit? jps (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a direct answer. Otherwise, I will AGF that you have no evidence whatsoever that I am a POV-Pusher and therefore you would not make such an incivil accusation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, you must be aware that you are banned from alt. medicine, GMO and agrichemicals for violating WP:NPOV? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not aware of this. Please provide diffs.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions , Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms, [131], [132]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these diffs show that sanctions were imposed on me for violating NPOV, which is what you stated - please read WP:Casting aspersions. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would clutter this thread. But assuming they weren't for POV pushing, what were all these topic bans for then? Please tell. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It would clutter this thread" - that has to be the weakest argument I have ever read for not presenting evidence - evidence which simply does not exist. I remind you that we are on a noticeboard which requires you to provide evidence of such aspersions. I invite you to now strike your totally false and unfounded aspersions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest route to solving this is topic-banning Brian Josephson from all pseudoscience topics. He is otherwise a good (great actually, they dont give Nobels to dunces) scientist (in his field) who also believes some laughable rubbish. Ban him from the areas he has problems in where he tries to promote pseudoscience crap, conflict disappears. If anyone wants to take a closer look at NPOV, FRINGE noticeboards the last few weeks, there are a couple more who need to be punted from science-related topics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be thrilled if he would help edit the Josephson effect. jps (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Singh was interesting on the subject of Josephson: he described him as a really nice guy who is keen to be fair to people who propose weird and bizarre stuff, but is easily swayed by the zeal of the True Believer. The example was homeopathy (which is, of course, unambiguously bullshit): Singh explained the evidence, Josephson was convinced, but days later he spoke to a True Believer again and was right back to believing the woo. Topic ban? I think that would be excessive, but we've topic banned people who have been less persistent over much less time in giving undue weight to fringe beliefs. start at 1:00 Guy (Help!) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually read/heard Singh's views on him and they are indeed interesting. The problem with people who can be productive in their areas of expertise on wikipedia is that so often they are distracted by getting into pointless arguments elsewhere. I am sure we all remember how Mathsci ended.... Had he been suitably restricted earlier it might not have escalated to the stage it did. At this point Josephson is being disruptive to others, and to himself. So if it helps, think of a topic ban not as a punishment, but as a guiderail to prevent him bowling into the next lane... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rude, incivil, and bullying behavior

... is indeed going on here. And it's being accepted, and stamped with the seal of approval of Wikipedia. If the systems that exist for enforcing the policies and guidelines do not work -- and in fact ramp up the rudeness and incivility instead of addressing them, and even threaten to topic-ban a person who has just been subjected to rude and incivil behavior ... then we're completely lost here. SageRad (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a suitable editing environment, and the very mechanisms that are supposed to address problems with civility are in fact being used to rub salt in the wounds of the original recipient, and then to attack those who may comment against the "bully consensus" with things like this, which is addressed of course at me and DrChrissy:

Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang out for a stroll! jps (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well since both you and DrChrissy were topic banned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms I'd say it was fair comment. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Mrjulesd - I suffer from Type 2 diabetes. I have infections in my feet which prevent me from walking and my Drs are considering amputation. Your support of "...out for a stroll" is a personal attack.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also DrChrissy has showed signficant problems with advocacy of quackery, hence his other topic ban, so has a pre-existing agenda against skeptical sites specialising in alternative-to-medicine claims. I know why SageRad opposes the specific skeptic site under discussion, and it would be better all round if he backed off that one.

Unfortunately WP:CRYBULLYING is the new WP:CRYBLP. The "bullying" in question is, as far as I can tell, primarily telling advocates of fringe material that no, we will not reflect nonsense as if it were reality. Firmness is not bullying. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, please provide evidence of my supposed advocacy.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885 § Repeated misrepresentation and uncivility by JzG is the topic ban, if you are blessed with the bare minimum of self-awareness you will readily identify the problem there. I personally think you are not so blessed, and I don't propose to waste any time trying to persuade you to your own satisfaction of things that independent observers accept to be true - not least because you have an unfortunate history of misrepresenting such explanations as "bullying", "uncivil" and "harassment". Guy (Help!) 19:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore the obvious attempts at taunting and the personal attacks, but will state that I am self-aware - I just passed the Mirror test. Instead, I will focus on the content. I'm afraid it is lost on me how the diff you have provided in anyway shows that I "showed significant problems with advocacy of quackery". Please will you provide a more specific diff?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's simply rude and uncivil to say the things in the original post's diff's, and many things said in response here on this ANI messageboard, including the remark "Look, it's the GMO paranoia gang..." -- it's uncivil. It's name-calling. This is a serious business, the editing of "the sum of the world's knowledge", and we need an environment where people feel able to edit without getting called names all the time, and without prejudicial poisoning of the well to be done all the time. We can be relaxed and joke, but not at the expense of other editors. We cannot call names, and we cannot say things that are clearly intended to "get to" another editor psychologically, which is the core action of bullying behavior. It's all pretty simple. It comes down to respecting others. We can talk about ideas here, and Wikipedia is a miracle. It's the most amazing discourse on the planet, in my opinion, where we can figure out what is a point of view and what is acceptable to be told in Wikivoice according to sources. There is so much amazing philosophical and intellectual learning that can happen here. People can see when their previous beliefs are not in line with evidence, and people can open their minds to new points of view. It's an amazing place, but when people run around with intent to trash others, it degrades to a schoolyard with bullies. SageRad (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin Please look at what has happened here. An issue was raised, incivil language started and 2 editors, @SageRad: and myself, reminded editors that WP has a strict policy regarding WP:Civility. We have then been subject to personal attacks, accusations of NPOV, aspersions about support of various topics, and others. Why should editors, calmly and politely reminding other editors to remain civil according to one of the pillars of WP be subjected to this unacceptable behaviour? It is clearly wrong and needs to be stopped.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to ping ArbCom here, I think, in hopes of some member of ArbCom not just going on a lunch break. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone do that? Arbcom cannot currently find its own arsehole with a compass, map and a mountain rescue dog. The above at worst is snark bordering on mild disrespect to someone who is pushing woo. You *personally* have opined that the community has not laid out clear civility policies (despite there being at least 4 policies to the contrary) so frankly expecting Arbcom to do anything about it is a waste of time when they cant even do their job enforcing wikipedias standing policies. Unless of course you were referring to the various discretionary sanctions available on all the fringe/pseudoscience topic areas, in which case taking it to Arbcom would result in a "Take it to AE!" response, but wait! Since Arbcom in its wisdom decided closing an AE report as 'no action' is an arbitration enforcement action that cant be overturned, no one wants to take actual serious shit to AE now in case it prevents future enforcement actions. Of course as an admin you could do something about it, but that would require you to actually do some independant thinking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said poopy words. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

User blocked by Bishonen. (non-admin closure) Chesnaught (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:LongDistance06 was previously blocked and has since evaded the block under the new account User:NewLongdistance06 without discussion of why the indefinite block should be removed. SFB 15:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, with a little information on their page about what they need to do to be unblocked. It's not exactly a well-hidden sock — maybe they simply didn't understand that a block applies to the person. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

Backlog

Vandal blocked by Boing! said Zebedee (non-admin closure) Thomas.W ^talk 18:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is a massive backlog on WP:AIV and consequently a vandal I reported an hour ago has spent the last half an hour writing "fuck you bitch" on my talk page. Can someone please handle this? 108.94.155.69 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Repairperson needed because of undiscussed page moves and simultaneous cut-and-paste-moves involving multiple articles

Calerusnak has made a total mess of a number of articles by first moving them around and then making cut-and-paste moves. The currently affected article names are, as of latest count, Mercedes-Benz ML, Mercedes-Benz ML-Class, Mercedes-Benz GL, Mercedes-Benz GL-Class, Mercedes-Benz GLE and Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class. I know the standard procedure is to tag with {{histmerge}}, but this also involves (AFAIK at least) undiscussed moves, so the best fix would be to move everything back to where it was when Calerusnak started the circus... Thomas.W ^talk 18:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Large numbers of user accounts have been set up in the past few days, each making a single edit adding a spam link to one of a number of related websites offering tennis-court surfacing or similar services. First reported on talk:Spam-blacklist, but it seems to have outgrown the scope of this option. Example edits include:

[[133]], [[134]], [[135]], [[136]], [[137]], [[138]], [[139]], [[140]], [[141]], [[142]], [[143]], [[144]], [[145]], [[146]], [[147]], [[148]], [[149]], [[150]], [[151]], [[152]], [[153]], [[154]], [[155]], [[156]], [[157]], [[158]] . . .
Mean as custard (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please list on the spam blacklist, we have automated tools there for blacklisting the spammed domains. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Threat

User blocked.Amortias (T)(C) 20:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diff Clear threat of taking legal action against FoCuSandLeArN. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:MusicHistory101

I noted at the bio article Axe (battle rapper) the lack of reliable sourcing and added a ((notability|biographies)) tag diff. MusicHistory101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is also apparently 73.35.68.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[159] and Topbookclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[160] keeps removing the tagdiff diff diff diff without bothering to improve the article reference wise and saying I "have to go through the forums and read them to see the rich history of the sport and beginnings of battle rap". Civility went down hill from there with the user calling me a "person who hates Hip-Hop music" and "some sort of racist" and saying "your account could be deleted for racism and acting maliciously with intent to discredit a person and destroy valid articles"talk. Pointing out Wikipedia policy and guidelines has gone nowhere. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Eaglestorm and How I Met Your Mother articles

Legacypac's persistent bullying

WV conduct

Continued discussion

Proposal for Resolution

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

Boomerang?

Questions

Related problems

Continued

Proposal

Relevant external link - useful/valid or too close to "outing"?

Refusing proper categorization

Disruptive editing & dishonest behavior by experienced editor Alexikoua

OSMOND PHILLIPS

Being hassled by User:Matt Lewis

An IP on a dynamic AT&T Mobility range has been engaging in persistent personal attacks over the past 24 hours

User:Py0alb

More Steve Comisar annoyances

Removal of Content/3RR and Lack of civility on List of people with autism spectrum disorders

Long term abuse

Talk:Campus sexual assault RfC

Disruptive edits by User:Funkatastic

Disruptive editing by 2607:FB90:43:660A:D7A8:3DC6:D8BD:6BDA

Tainted AfD

Trivial information being added to leads of important articles

Concerning the user who just reported me

Concerning the user who just reported me

Personal attacks by User:Blethering Scot

Boaxy misbehaving and socking

Repeated reverts by Aubmn socks

MoiraMoira's abuse

Disruptive/problematic IP

Legal threats?

More incivility in autism AfD

Hoaxes

Lynda Obst Productions

Raggz BLP violations

Here to build an encyclopedia

Massive deletion of userspace

Block of Omar-toons

Incivility on the Parapsychology Talk Page

Rude, incivil, and bullying behavior

Block evasion

Backlog

Repairperson needed because of undiscussed page moves and simultaneous cut-and-paste-moves involving multiple articles

promo-seo.co.uk

Legal Threat

User:MusicHistory101