Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150
1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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 [1] 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 [2] plus the archives are littered with informal move requests. Admins should also look at [3], and soliciting an editor into this discussion I have no interest in interacting with [4] [5]

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: [6], what does it even mean "Seriously discussing"? Corriebertus points out my edit here [7] 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 [8] 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 [9] 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 [10] which I restored [11]. He then calls for a boomarang at a related 3RR.[12] (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[13] 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 [14], 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 [15], 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 [16], 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 [17]. 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).[18] 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 [19] 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 [20], you did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) less than five hours after your AfD failed [21]. 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 [[22]. 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. [23] 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 [24]. [25] 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]

The VAST majority of my noms are deleted. Sometimes others see stuff that can be retargeted or think something should be saved. That is why we have Redirects for Discussion. I don't see a result of not delete as a failure.

Regarding Legacypac's apparent "vendetta" against Neelix redirects, there are some 80,000 nonsense creations by that one editor which the community agreed needed to be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion (rather than mass-deleting all of them, and rather than keeping all of them as good-faith contributions). To support this, the community also passed a special criterion for WP:G6 to allow admins to speedy-delete them. Both of these discussions were large threads with broad community support, not just one or two editors deciding to go rogue. This was happening entirely in the background until about a week ago when a handful of editors began executing their own vendetta against Legacypac, following him around removing his CSD notices, and that's the entirety of the reason that these masses of obvious-delete redirects are getting dumped at RfD again (and then speedy deleted anyway). So if you want to end the disruption entirely, stop removing the notices. ~~I have no comment on the proposal.~~ Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 26 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]

Editors calls other editors SCUM and FUCK on the top of their talk User_talk:Lugnuts should not be talking about bans over civility. Anyway I was already blocked for complaining about Lugnuts rudeness, so punishing me again because he is still annoyed at me taking him to AE is quite wrong. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling any editors scum, if you take your head out of your arse, you'll see it links to a highly funny TV show. Yes it fucking does. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It stroke me what Ivanvector wrote which I trustfully accept as a fact. It thus looks to me that Legacypac's only fault (apart from his less-than-civil commenting style) was that he was cutting procedural corners in his efforts to undo all of Neelix's vandalism/contentious edits, by XfD'ing and re-XfD'ing Neelix's redirects (as anyway approved by a large consensus). Uninitiated editors could well not have the knowledge of the context and tried to stop/revert him, leading him to that less-than-civil behaviour. Still, I believe Legacypac's initiative deserves at least a degree of recognition. As for the civility issue, I believe a punitive ~~ban~~ block of a day or two should suffice, as it is often done with editors too quick to revert or who show outbursts of aggression. In short, there is a problem with Legacypac's civility, as this thread's title shows anyway, but topic bans are NOT a right remedy to civility issues. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri - my impetus for the proposal had nothing to do with his civility, though that is definitely a concern based on his rap sheet at ANI. My proposal was based on my non-Neelix experience in which he AfD'ed a page under discretionary sanctions and, five hours after the AfD failed, "guerilla deleted" (blank/redirect) it. After being asked by multiple editors to undo the guerilla deletion he simply dug in his heels. An admin finally had to be sourced to undo it as everyone else - everyone except, apparently, Legacypac - was treading carefully to avoid violating the discretionary sanctions. Based on the whole of the non-Neelix issues, it appears he has a shoot first / ask questions later approach to editing sensitive articles and an unwillingness to collaborate with others on this topic. (And I say this as someone who is not active at all on the topic, but came across it quite by accident, as I've detailed in my original case in the preceding section). LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron: Sure, but this post is about persistent bullying by Legacypac, as this precisely is the problem stated by the OP. You have rightly noticed that the thread has descended into a complaint fest and a few editors started digging out their content disputes with LP. BUT we are still - or should be - discussing the original problem which is LP's "bullying". Topic bans are preventive, their aim is to prevent damage to a certain subset of Wikipedia articles. But nobody here suggests that LP damages any topic. So, when talking about behaviour, we can only look at punitive sanctions, like formal reprimands, short-term blocks, etc.

You mentioned an instance of blank-and-redirect. I am not involved in the ISIL topic but where I edit (India & Pakistan) we also have discretionary sanctions. Still, articles are frequently blanked and redirected with little fanfare or consequences. This is not to say these topics are comparable, but I'd like to put an single act of blank-and-redirect in correct perspective. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 08:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a single act, first of all. Second of all, it was not simply a "blank and redirect" - he AfD'ed it and there was a wide consensus it should be kept as is. Less than five hours later he decided his opinion was more important than the community and did a blank/redirect - overriding a just-established consensus on this discretionary sanctions article. Multiple editors requested he voluntarily undo it and he basically told them to GFY. With a great expenditure of time that could have been spent editing, editors then had to source an admin to clean up the mess Legacypac left. This also caused problems with DYK bookkeeping as the article was in the queue at the time. Through his history of edits, Legacypac seems to believe there's one way to do things: his way. And if you're not on board, you better get out of the way, as Begoon noted. LavaBaron (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Absurd to apply "a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case" for continuing to clean up Neelix redirects that are - so far as I know - quite unrelated to the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. NebY (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't always agree with Legacypac, but IMO he's right here. So are kashmiri and Neb above. A topic ban wouldn't make sense. ansh 666 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a proposal for a topic ban, but rather a community ban. Ches (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a proposal for a WP:CBAN topic ban from pages covered by WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, as I quoted above - you may find it helpful to review WP:CBAN. This raises the question of what it is that you are supporting. Is it a topic ban from WP:GS/SCW&ISIL pages, or a complete ban from Wikipedia for continuing to clean up Neelix's redirects? NebY (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The former, sir, although given LP's recent bullying of other users, I would be in support of the latter should it ever be proposed. Ches (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Lugnuts. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose LP is on the right side of the Neelix redirect issue. He is explicitly carrying out the stated view of the community. I've had occasion to see Legacypac in action over the last several months because of our mutual interest in pruning the WALLEDGARDEN of "World's Oldest People" articles. LP is often brusque and snarky but generally right. His contributions are a boon to the project. It is not a violation of civility to call dumb ideas dumb, nor is it unconstructive to ridicule the ridiculous. David in DC (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. So if you act like an uncivil ****, but hunker down with a thankless task in the meantime, you get a free pass. Glad that's clear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't strike me as a reasonable recapitulation of my comments. Nor of LP's behavior. Which is unsurprising, but still sad. David in DC (talk)

Well Dave, I can't account for your reading skills. No doubt we'll see Legacypac back here sooner rather than later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinion on the non-Neelix related issues that were mentioned? Specifically his "guerilla deletion" (blank / revert) of a discretionary sanctions page after it failed his AFD and his refusal to undo it, ultimately requiring admin intervention? LavaBaron (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but this thread is supposed to be about "persistent bullying." What you're describing as a "guerilla deletion" may or may not have been improper, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what it's doing in this thread at all. David in DC (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is about whatever we make it about. A thread title is not a suicide pact. LavaBaron (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LP dared to blank a page under sanctions and you are proposing a one year TBAN? Is that correct? — kashmiri ^TALK 10:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support looking for any justification to invalidate perfectly independent viewpoints. I do believe this has gone well beyond CIR levels to the point of questioning if a suicide by admin defense is being put forth. And now for the obligatory attack to invalidate myself as per the modus operandi. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be a pattern of behaviour here, which I cannot personally speak to, which is informing many of the positions with regard to Legacypac, and it may very well be that there is some long overdue community action that needs to be taken. Certainly there seems to be a bit of battleground mentality involved here. However, reviewing the diffs supplied above and looking over the talk page discussions, it doesn't seem as if the digression into polemics is altogether one-sided--including particularly the failures to assume good faith and attempts to discredit the opinions of others via an implication of disruption. Both LP and corriebertus seem inclined to engage in this kind of behaviour, with each apparently oblivious to the irony of their charges: [26], [27]. Even recognizing that editors who routinely fail to operate in a collaborative fashion should be called to account, and further acknowledging that the editors commenting here seem to have valid points about a pattern in Legacypac's collaborative approach, I'm still concerned that it may not be appropriate to invoke a sanction in this case, where the behaviour of the filing party is arguably as, or more, combative and disruptive as LP's. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If the above arguments are not enough, LP also casts totally unbased aspersions on editors who don't support his arguments at AfD and elsewhere. This action is long overdue. Jacona (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's a lot of cleanup to do with the list(s) of Neelix redirects. Legacypac has done good work on getting that process started. But the behavior problems listed here, including incivility and outright personal attacks, disruption at RFD and in CSD tagging, and general unpleasantness? Nope. There are enough editors working the Neelix list. Right now Legacypac's involvement is doing more harm than good. Walk away. Edit something else. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Going through Legacypac's extensive rap sheet at ANI, it appears he's already been subject of a one-year ban, ~~which makes me wonder if one-year is even too little given this is a chronic issue~~.EDIT - nevermind, just noticed that was a TBAN on BLPs, not the different topic this one proposes. LavaBaron (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have a ‘better’, or at least a competing, proposal: see below. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's apparent there is a group of editors out to find a way to punish Legacypac. Again, there have been numerous discussions approving Legacypac's course of action regarding deletion of the Neelix redirects, yet this group continues to bring up that entirely unrelated behaviour as a reason to sanction him in whatever topic area this thread is about. While Legacypac's behaviour may have been tendentious within that topic, it's this group's behaviour which is disruptive to the project as a whole. I endorse no sanctions, and suggest this be closed with no action for the good of the project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the rhetorical strategy of the minority of Legacypac supporters in framing this as a Neelix issue but once again, for the record, I'm the proposer and I've never even mentioned Neelix as a reason for a ban. I've also only co-edited two articles with Legacypac and my gross quantity of edits on those articles was a whopping six (6) edits [28] so I'm not sure which "group" that makes me part of? Does that still make me a part of this vast conspiracy you've alleged - like kind-of a second gunman type-of-thing? LavaBaron (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hey, the LP opposers were the ones who brought up Neelix in the first place. ansh 666 22:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have never mentioned Neelix except to say I haven't mentioned him. I assure you I am not part of some type of shadowy cabal of "LP opposers" [sic] and, as noted, only six of my mainspace edits - out of 8,000 total WP edits [29] - have even been on articles also edited by Legacypac. Finally, the OP's original title was "Persistent Legacypac Bullying." If all that isn't enough to dissuade you from the idea this is nothing more than a Neelix issue, I dunno what to tell you. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then, in the same vein, I assure you I am not part of some type of shadowy cabal of "LP supporters". I wasn't saying that you were the one who brought up Neelix (it was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz). I am aware that this isn't a Neelix issue; I didn't mention or consider it in my reason to oppose the topic ban (apart from citing others who did). In addition, at least one person who supported the topic ban used the Neelix issue (for which there is a community mandate, btw) as the reason. ansh 666 03:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Shadowy cabal?" Oh sheesh. LavaBaron (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, I was directly copying your text. Besides, haven't I mentioned that Legacypac and I don't always get along? ansh 666 12:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a forum for discussion and dialog, not "copying" other editors or yelling "I know you are, but what am I?" Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I am attempting discussion and dialog! But it is obvious that I will not be able to get my point across here. ansh 666 13:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fret not, ansh. You can only control what you send, not what others receive. I sense the Force of WP:IDONTHEARYOU is strong in this one. David in DC (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding exclamation points is unlikely to help you get your "point across here" and, to get ahead of the donkey cart on this one, all caps is not likely to help either. Best of luck - LavaBaron (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ivanvector and the others above. Many of the proponents of this block should focus on their own behavior and not Legacypac's. It's probably about time we close this thread because it's likely not going anywhere and no editor deserves to have the sword of Damocles hanging over his head so long. Calidum T|C 15:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought it up here, I'd appreciate it if you could provide more detail on what's wrong with my "behavior". Thanks. As for why this proposal is open still, it's because it's running 2:1 in favor of the CBAN. That's not a consensus to CBAN, but neither is it a consensus to close. LavaBaron (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Legactpac has a history of focussing his efforts on WP:HOUNDING and making personal attacks on any editors that he thinks he disagrees with. These efforts have in the past led somehow to blocks and retirements of his "enemies", which he interprets unsurprisingly as evidence of the widespread community support for his actions. For whatever reason, it seems that this support is now wearing thin. The SCW/ISIL topic are will manage fine without him, no doubt. zzz (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Competing proposal: block from Wikipedia for one week

There is no consensus for what many here seem to think would be a punitive block. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of curiosity to understand what type of editor, or what type of person, Legacypac (LP) is, I looked up his User contributions list, and was dumbstruck: LP pulled it off to achieve 308 edits on 3Feb2016 between 00:00 and 13:14 o’clock. I dare say, with no irony intended: this man must be a genius, an IQ of 140 or more (but, to avoid misunderstandings: being extremely intelligent doesn’t say anything – in my opinion – about ‘being a good person’).
Then, I started to read this discussion I kicked off myself, and was immediately very, very disappointed by already the first reaction of the accused, mr LP. In those only 158 words (16Jan), he manages to tell a lot of (pardon my French) rubbish and seems to be ‘playing the fool’ – very convincingly, I must admit:

“5Jan,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion”: No, people. I did not tell anyone to stay out of a discussion, I only asked everyone to leave out of discussions posts that do not address the issue there under debate.
“Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death…”. That may very well be a correct statement of LP. The whole point however is: LP should have clearly, squarely and fairly said so IN THAT SCW DISCUSSION SECTION, immediately. Then nothing of this mess would have come about.
“As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized…”: ??? how, then?
”… and the user needs to get over it.” Thanks; and I really was ‘over it’; until Jan2016, when I got involved in a conflict with some editor, LP, in a way that seemed slightly to resemble an earlier conflict with some editor back in 2014, whose name was … (just checking to see who that was, back in 2014 …) LP!
“The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted.” That may or may not be so, but is slightly beside the point here. We don’t have time to check all such contentions of LP, especially because he doesn’t conveniently add links or diffs to them to enable us to quickly check them. He thus seems to gamble on us not having the time and intelligence and patience to check every excuse he brings to the fore.

Now, on 24 January, LavaBaron here (above) proposed “a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case”. I do agree that some sort of ban or block seems the way to deal with the assumed accumulating and long-standing problems with LP’s behaviour. But is that proposal of LavaBaron’s the best option?
8 Supports for Lava’s proposal are from: Lava (‘stealth deletion…’), WV (…but wonders ‘if LP’s behaviour will change outside the banned topics’—that’s exactly my problem with Lava’s proposal), Alansohn (‘…pattern of personal attacks…long overdue’), Lugnuts (per Alansohn), 9795 (per Lugn), Hasteur (‘LP seems to sollicit for suicide by admin’—well, I agree LP really triggers us to react, but I believe topic ban is not the best option to do so), Jacona (‘aspersions…’), UltraE (‘behavior problems as listed here; LP has done good work but now is doing more harm than good’).
4 Opposes are from: kashmiri (‘topic ban is inadequate reaction on civility issue; punitive block of two days is better suited’), NebY (‘CBAN absurd for Neelix affair’), ansh666 (‘topic ban makes no sense’ because ‘LP is right here’—sorry, I don’t understand in what exactly LP is right ‘here’: perhaps the Neelix stuff?), DavidDC (‘LP is brusque, but on content his contributions are often good’—which I don’t challenge: my criticism was never his article content, was always his unacceptable uncivil behaviour; sort-of what Katie says too (16Jan)).

Competing proposal: It seems to me not very logical, not helping, to ban Legacypac only for certain topics: considering his presumed high intelligence and drivenness he’ll probably continue his uncivil behaviour in other topics. This is feared also by WV, and is even confirmed by Lava’s latest discovery(3Feb,17:16) that LP has already had a one-year ban on another topic!
Presuming LP is addicted to Wikipedia (as I probably am myself, too, I admit), I think it would be more suitable and better ‘curing’ to simply now block him from Wikipedia for just a short time, say one week (kashmiri proposes a block of only two days, I guess that is too short, here. Five days minimum, I’d say). Gives him time to detox, and time to think over his behaviour, and perhaps his ‘sins’, on Wikipedia; time to decide for himself if it would be worth while to try on a different, more civil, ~~more polite,~~[struck out CB,5Feb.12:01] behaviour. Then, when he comes back into the community after a week, if he falls back into the same old ‘mistakes’ again, just block him again for a week. And the third time, block him for two weeks. Next time longer. Et cetera. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~~Support in Addition to One-Year CBAN~~ ->edit: as per Hasteur<- ~~for reasons stated in preceding two threads~~ LavaBaron (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that LBP's conduct is so far gone that it is unlikely they can reform, but per the minimal restrictions policy, we are obligated give them an opportunity to demonstrate their disposition outside of the topic space. Kicking this down the road one week by a one week block after the extended nature of the existing conduct is not sufficent. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't really understand this proposal, but throwing around cool-down blocks when you can't really specify what is the problem is certainly not in the best interest of this project, and plainly punitive blocks are verboten. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - LP's behavior does not merit a block. LP does good work, improves the encyclopedia and apparently his blunt style provokes others. In my view, that tells us more about the people who claim his words provoke them. Perhaps this is a case of "Shoefitz syndrome". When LP ridicules the ridiculous, it's possible that the ridiculous recognize themselves and overreact. There's a difference between defamation of character and definition of characters. David in DC (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per David. Best I can say to everyone offended by LP is to grow a thicker skin. ansh666 22:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, @Corriebertus: it's been a while since I made the comment, so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe what I was referring to LP being right about was the content dispute on Talk:Syrian Civil War which started this. I also don't see this as bullying or harassment; it's pretty typical for Wikipedia (not to mention the real world). I'll repeat the advice I mentioned above: grow a thicker skin. ansh 666 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am a completely uninvolved editor that happens to have been following this thread and I feel that certain claims being made are addressed on the CIVILITY page, specifically: "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, he or she very probably doesn't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonise, rather than helping." In this case, it would seem, not having a thick skin, though no doubt disadvantageous, should not preclude one from a positive editing experience. Primergrey (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This sounds clearly punitive rather than preventive. Perhaps if no resolution or consensus is reached here, a simple admonishment would suffice, with the condition that if the behavior continues, sanctions will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, I'd suggest you do a search for "Legacypac" in the ANI archives. It appears he's up to something like his 47th final warning ... (exaggerated for emphasis, though just barely) LavaBaron (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can produce a final warning from an admin that stated that sanctions will ensue if not heeded, then please do. Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here [30] he was warned not to persist making questionable WP:NACD (the kind other editors have, in this thread, noted he's continuing to do). Here [31] 3bdulelah asks him to please stop calling other Wikipedians edits "terrorist propaganda". Here [32] SlimVirgin nicely asks he be more attentive in his deletions and he comes straight out of the gate swinging. Here [33] WordSeventeen requests he stop redirecting articles that he doesn't like but that have passed notability (the same issue I described in the preceding thread). I could go on, but I'm not the ANI secretary and this could literally extend for pages. His entire history has been one of combative interaction with other editors, of treating WP like a giant barroom brawl in which he needs to preemptively beat-down any editor who shows the slightest whiff of disagreement with his edits. That said, I agree it's undeniable, after looking at his edit history, his contributions in some areas have been good. This is why, like you, I oppose the idea of a block (but support the CBAN). Hitting pause on his editing on a relatively small section of WP for a relatively short period of time might give him a moment of reflection that would allow him to re-start on a collaborative foot, instead of treating other editors like hurdles he has to barrel through. His last TBAN and his most recent block seem to have been useful in behavior modification and triggering an additional one might pivot the dial a little further still. We should intervene to help useful editors like Legacypac modify their behavior before it gets to the point where they're no longer salvageable. It takes a village. LavaBaron (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide one other: this thread which I regrettably opened with a comment bordering on personal attack about Legacypac's CSD tagging. Rather than devolving into a back-and-forth where everyone insists someone should be banned, the exchange led to a constructive discussion about ways to better execute a difficult thing that several editors have been working on, which was informed by Legacypac's constructive input. While I do believe that Legacypac has misinterpreted some guidelines here and there, I've found he's always open to polite criticism and quite willing to adapt if he's doing something against consensus or convention, notwithstanding defending himself if he believes he's being unjustly attacked. Editors like LavaBaron and Corriebertus are painting a picture of an editor with his head buried in the sand who won't listen to anything, refuses to collaborate and insists on bulldozing their way through all opposition. I've encountered editors like that, we all have, but I don't see it in Legacypac. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I struck out the word ‘polite’ from my posting of 3Feb.19:17. It seems vague there, seems not to make the case or my case clear, could even be incorrect. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on reactions hitherto: I ofcourse only ventured a hopefully ‘improved’ proposal because a solid majority of respondents seemed conviced that something should be done towards Legacypac’s behaviour.
Of the eight editors who were in favour of the (punitive) proposal of Lava (‘CBAN on topics SCW and ISIL’, see previous subsection), by now only Hasteur and Lava have responded, both with one rationale.

Hasteur said on 1Feb: ‘LP’s behaviour has gone well beyond ’Competence is required’ levels’;
Wonders “if a suicide by admin defense is being put forth”;
And supported a CBAN on two topics.
3Feb, Hasteur says: ‘we are obligated to give them opportunity to show better behaviour outside topic space’: I agree; but in both proposals (mine and Lava’s), LP is given that opportunity.

My proposal does something more: incite LP to think for a whole week about his own Wiki performance while being blocked from making edits.
Also Lava’s proposal does something more: ban or block LP for a whole year from some topics. That seems to me overly severe, not necessary or useful:

Too severe: 3Feb, Hasteur says: ‘it is unlikely that LP can reform his behaviour’. I disagree: every intelligent person can reform. If we have not yet even slightly punished someone for a specific ‘misbehaviour’, it is too early to say it is unlikely he can reform. LP has not yet been ‘punished’ on topics SCW/ISIL; therefore a first punishment of one week seems appropriate, bombing him right away with a one-year ban overly severe.
Not necessary: if a first week-block ‘cures’ LP, he is free again to work in every topic. If it does not cure him (if he does not reform), we’ll very soon find out and give him a second, or third block, etc. Which can lead to a total block, eventually. Hasteur expects a one week block to be “insufficient”: that is pessimistic, and I don’t think editors/trespassers should unreasonably ‘pay’, suffer, for (unfounded) pessimism of Hasteur (or others).
Hasteur seems to suggest that LP is hopeless on two topics but quite a decent contributor on other topics. What is the rationale to suspect that?

Of the four editors who were against the (punitive) proposal of Lava, by now ansh666 and DavidDC opposed also my proposal:

Ansh says (and implicitly, DavidDC said the same on 29Jan): the conflict or event that triggered this whole discussion (my post of 16Jan) was ‘no bullying or harassment of LP’. That places them outside the rather solid consensus in this discussion until 3Feb, but of course makes it fully consistent that they oppose all proposed measures against LP.

As for new respondents: I’ll react on them later. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please give us a new comment for every new respondent. Others cannot be counted on to bring their critical skills to bear on this deeply complicated issue. Play-by-play from someone who's involved is near-mandatory. David in DC (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corriebertus started this thread with "Again – after his cursing...". Please provide diffs to substantiate the first allegation before making additional comments here. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An answer, three questions:
@LP asks for the cursing to be corroborated. This was all talked over etc. in 2014, in this discussion, linking to this edit, 24Nov2014, for the cursing.
Now, Just three questions, for:
@ansh666 and David in DC: As I stated here (16Jan), LP accused me of personal attack, and even after my asking he could not tell me where my PA had taken place (except that he apparently judged criticism on an edit as “personal attack”), nor did he withdraw that accusation. The two of you claim or suggest however, that LP has not harassed/bullied me. Does that mean it is OK to accuse someone of PA when that is not true? Or does it mean I did perform a PA on LP and that you can tell me what and where that was?
@David in DC: Your sentence “Play-by-play…”: I assume you are saying I am doing ‘Play-by-play’. What is that?
@Hasteur: I see you have hidden parts of my postings. What gives you the right to do that? Aren’t we all reacting on, and thus ‘analysing’, postings of other discussants? --Corriebertus (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment forgive me for not reading the whole thing, but I have seen LP's name quite a lot so I do want to comment and I do think something should be done. Those who are opposed to a block or a ban, what about a TBAN on "admin" stuff? LP would be allowed to edit, but would not be allowed to close AFD's, would not be allowed to revert vandalism, etc. This should stop some of the interaction. We could also make this the last stop. If LP makes it to ANI again, then it's a guaranteed block. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in. (Some of) those who oppose a block or ban, seem to hold the opinion that LP did nothing or nearly nothing wrong. And probably they won't even allow me to write this latest statement down, and (try to) find a way to obscure this latest statement of mine. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...it is perfectly clear to me even as an outside observer why someone would take your statement as an attack. Saying please, have the politeness not to disturb legitimate discussions of others on some Talk page when they've been attempting to convey the general consensus on the very issue you're discussing? I can't see how that's, as you describe yourself, polite in any way. And nor is he or anyone else bullying or harassing you. The discussion was closed by an uninvolved editor in accordance with general consensus, and you undid it - which is disruptive behavior. He was justified in warning you. Legacypac has not been any more impolite than you have. ansh 666 23:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

Two claims regarding Elvey were discussed: 1) they have violated their topic ban related to discussing conflicts of interest, and 2) their conduct violates the discretionary sanctions related to GMO topics (see here and here on casting aspersions as a principle).

Editors were divided on whether there was a topic ban violation. Folks who thought there wasn't one noted that the editor received warnings, and that the behavior thereafter didn't appear to be in violation. However, the recent behavior included suggesting a specific editor has a COI, urging that others take action against an editor with a believed COI, and gathering / discussing COI-related evidence about an editor for an SPI. If these edits were accidental, they were made in poor judgment, and I am not convinced Elvey has made sufficient efforts to avoid or disengage from areas where COIs are likely arise.

On the second matter, there was agreement that Elvey's behavior promotes a battleground mentality. This matter was also discussed at the prior topic ban discussion, indicating a pattern of behavior. The diffs presented by Tryptofish and others show that Elvey's interactions with others in multiple areas are disruptive and needlessly aggressive. This conduct is not acceptable.

The topic ban was breached, and there are persistent behavioral issues with the editor. On that basis, Elvey is community banned for a period of three months. They are also topic banned for six months from 1) discussing COI-related matters, broadly construed, and 2) commenting on or initiating SPI cases, which may be appealed at the appropriate venue in six months. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Dishonesty is on display above, where Jytdog, for the umpteenth time, attempts to reframe a straightforward situation as something else convoluted and 'out of bounds'. The straightforward situation is that I replaced what I perceive (per the ¶ above) to be an "unfounded personal attack" on me with that phrase. I could have used {{rpa}} but wanted different wording. This straightforward action was reverted by Vanjagenije and I was threatened with an immediate block if I removed his personal attack on me again. This is bullying. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether that was a personal attack. I don't think reasonable people would disagree that threatening someone with an immediate block for removing what they feel and can reasonably seen to be a personal attack is reasonable. And its particularly inappropriate of an admin, because we expect them to behave better than average editors and not to act when involved, and here, the attack was by the admin, Vanjagenije. SlimVirgin agrees that he should have considered himself involved.

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]

Do you, The Bushranger? I thought this was ANI. Would you be willing to answer my questions: "Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?"--Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the main issue: If I'm in violation of my TP ban because I discussed Formerly 98, as Jytdog claims, then Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban for doing the same. If not addressed here, it becomes ripe forWP:AE. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK for admins to enforce policies on the folks they don't see as sharing their POV, only, and call requests for evenhandedness "disruptive"? Seems to be. :-( --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I renew my request that Jytdog to acknowledge the violation, or dispute it. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is without merit. Discussing an editor and his reasons for his behavior around his username/account, and what the community should do about that, have nothing to do with my TBAN. I have not touched on the topic of my TBAN since it was imposed, except at Arbcom. This is a transparent and weak effort at retaliation that is yet more evidence of your generally disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 29 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]

Oppose as a step backwards. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate. While this discussion arose out of violations of a specific topic ban (re COI), the general problem, as stated at the TBAN, is hounding, and, as noted in this discussion, general behavior across serveral topics. If Elvey only needed reminding of proper behavior a few words would be suffice. That they haven't shows that the problem is deeper than addressed by a mere reminder. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose user is in clear violation of an existing community sanction. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my later edits and comments to that text AND SlimVirgin's comments about that? She says it's not what you say it is at all, so how is it "clear"? Like Tryptofish did, you insist on assuming bad faith and saying I'm not credible - that is, I'm lying? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I "do not know and cannot claim to know" [43], [44] whether you're lying. But if I were to repeat that phrase twice in a thread, in consecutive replies, it might look like I was calling you a liar, merely by calling attention to the question of whether you're lying. I think that you would be justified in interpreting it that way. However, SlimVirgin and Drmies might not agree. Likewise, by drawing attention to the fact that Monsanto has deep pockets in three consecutive replies, right after mentioning an editor that was ostensibly protecting their interests, doing this three times,[45], [46], highlighting it in a nice green color, and especially juxtaposing it with a statement that it's some kind of mystery why that editor supposedly protects someone's interests, it certainly looks like you're calling that editor a shill. This could be some sort of accident on your part. Maybe those particular keystrokes are soothing in some way. It could be that this "deep pockets" thing is some kind of tic or compulsion or some sort of poetry that I'll never be able to appreciate. Whatever. I also don't know why the admins don't see what I'm pointing out here. I know what I'm seeing, but all that can be done is to point it out, and then shut up about it if it doesn't get traction. Geogene (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I believe 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. Any future accusations of COI must be backed by credible evidence, and must not be repeated if rejected unless there is some material change in the evidence. No one claims COIN has no issues that hinder its effectiveness and evenhandedness.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per prop prokaryotes (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

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 SPI 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]

Support. To be clear, I understand this to be a community-imposed site ban for 3 months, with topic bans about both COI and SPI (I assume that meant SPI, not SPA), both broadly construed, with the option to appeal the topic bans in not less than 6 months from now. I believe that this is the proper response in the context of the previous community topic ban and the subsequent conduct, and a necessary step to let the rest of us get back to peaceful editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the proposal to SPI. My mistake. Good catch. Cheers. --Adam in MO Talk 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the next step. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - given this, a reasonable action for clear violations of current sanctions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my later edits and comments to that text AND SlimVirgin's comments about that? She says it's not what you say it is at all, so how is it "clear"? Like Tryptofish did, you insist on assuming bad faith and saying I'm not credible - that is, I'm lying? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the OP, and I am fine with this. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to respond adequately while I'm under the ban. However, I've apologized - on this page - for the COI related edits I made. Jytdog claims I didn't even acknowledge them; that's another in a long line of false accusations by Jytdog, which seem to work so well. I was topic banned largely for objecting to misleading presentations of evidence regarding my posts on COI matters. So objecting to the flaws in evidence in this case seems likely to be similalry futile or counterproductive, irrespective of the flaws, anyway. Feels unfair to be facing such a perfect storm.

I have a history of conflict with voters J. Johnson (at Earthquake prediction, where he is very frequently in conflict with other editors), Jytdog, Adamfinmo and Tryptofish. Some of them regularly work closely to support each other or the same status quo POV (which I'm sure they will all agree is a NPOV.)

I see no discussion here justifying the a ban from SPI related discussion, broadly construed. I object to that as unreasonable. I responded, as did SlimVirgin; see ***, above.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that we "regularly work closely to support each other", , you are just continuing the conduct that brought you here. Editors can agree with each other without actually editing in a coordinated way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elvey certainly does have a history of conflict; that is why we are here. His statement that "some" of us (who, precisely?) "regularly work closely to support each other" is not only false, it is prime example of where he attacks editors rather than positions, and a manifest violation of WP:AGF. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, I didn't say and don't think that you regularly work closely to support those other users, but could have been clearer. I said you are very frequently in conflict with other editors at Earthquake prediction.

I ask the closer of this (and others) to make note of the way these three users ignore the words "Some" and "or" that surround that misquote. Context matters and yes, I could have been clearer. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could have been clearer, but you were not, and I think that was deliberate. To avoid making an actually false statement you imply that I am part of some cabal, which amounts to deception. If part of your defense against the charge of a TBAN violation is that you are being oppressed by cabal you need to provide specific evidence (such as diffs), not disingenuous aspersions. BTW, which "misquote" are refering to? Tryptofish and I both quote exactly your very words some half dozen lines above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This proposal adds confusion to confusion. I've tried to read the August 2015 discussion in which Elvey was topic-banned, following a proposal by Jytdog, but I can't understand it. (Pinging Drmies, who closed it.) It appears that Elvey was banned from Wikipedia discussions about WP:COI. Now Jytdog is back, asking for a total ban because Elvey allegedly violated the topic ban. But he wasn't banned from editing articles about physicians who have challenged COI within the drug industry, etc, which it seems is being used against him. And this comment, which is being cited to support a ban, is ambiguous; I don't read it as a COI accusation. When a comment is ambiguous, we ought not to rely on it to ban someone from Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal here was not proposed by Jytdog, so he should not be made the issue. It looks to me that there is a pretty strong consensus in these discussions that there was nothing ambiguous about the glyphosate comments. Artful, perhaps, but very clearly intended to paint Boghog, a good editor, in just the way that ArbCom has said is unacceptable. It's fine if you have a dissenting view of those comments, but it is a dissenting view. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog opened the thread and proposed a six-month ban here. When that wasn't supported, someone else proposed a three-month ban instead. But that Elvey should be banned stems from Jytdog, as did the topic ban in August that Elvey has now supposedly violated. A better solution, if one is needed, might simply be to ask Elvey and Jytdog to avoid one another. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we tried asking Elvey to abide by his TBAN? I provided nearly half a dozen diffs of Elvey blowing through their tban. Asking them to follow the rules doesn't work. It is time to give teeth to the community consensus and let Elvey cool their heals somewhere else for a little while.--Adam in MO Talk 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I don't have much of an opinion on the ANI thread I closed--just doing my job, I suppose. However, I agree with you that the one comment on Talk:Glyphosate isn't as unambiguous as it's made out to be. There are more diffs listed below, in a post by Adam in MO, and I don't see it there either. Maybe there's violations in an extended context, but that's too extended for me. I see the violations in the edits to the COI template, sure, but those are from October and the editor was warned. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for the reply. If we ignore the diffs from October, where he was warned, we're left with him having edited David Healy (psychiatrist) (who writes about COI in the drug industry) – and I believe mainspace editing isn't covered by the topic ban – and the disputed, I would say ambiguous, diff. Also, Adamfinmo, you seem to have focused quite a bit on Elvey recently, and Elvey doesn't respond well to that. His responses attract more attention, and so on, and here we are. If Elvey and the editors in dispute with him could minimize their interactions, that might be all that's needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: You will remember that I commented recently that you might be finding GMO-2 on your plate sometime. Let's try not to let things go that far. I'm not sure how much you read of the diffs that I posted, but please let me run this by you: "You, Drmies, must have atrocious reading skills, because we must not excuse Elvey simply because we want to cast aspersions on big companies with deep pockets." OK, I don't actually mean that, but I suggest that you look again at the diffs I posted, with that in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the diffs you gave earlier--it's a lot of diffs, but it's just one discussion. I do not see there what you want me to see, which is a violation of a topic ban. Also, I cannot really parse your hypothetical insult; too complex for me. There are reasons, I suppose, why one would want Elvey chastised--rudeness, a poor sentence here and there, an obsession with a particular former editor--but I don't see evidence for this particular charge. In addition, the way to prevent ArbCom from having to deal with this or that is not to ban an editor. If there is consensus that Elvey's behavior make them impossible to work with or whatever, propose that--but I cannot see evidence of a topic ban being violated in the Glyphosate discussion (which, by the way, does not lack editors who act like what in worms is "a pore on the worm's side"). Drmies (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I am pretty confused by what you write, as Elvey has continuously violated his topic ban since it was imposed. I reminded him of his TBAN when I am saw him violating it and that led me to go look for others. I haven't posted this before, but his response to my warning was typical - he basically copied/pasted what I wrote and thew it back at me with regard to my TBAN. When he blew of my reminder (as he had the warning from the admin before back in November) and continued dealing in COI-related matters in WP I gathered diffs going back to October and presented this case. He has clearly blown off the TBAN on a regular basis, and more recently his pursuit of an editor for socking (whom Elvey was convinced was editing under a COI), disrupted things at SPI so much that Elvey was barred by Vanjagenije from participating further. Elvey's continued disruption around COI matters and his ignoring of the TBAN is so clear... Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the confusion. Tryptofish asked me to look at some diffs, and I did. I see no violation in those diffs. Their throwing your accusation back at you--that may be rude, or maybe it's appropriate, I don't know, but it's not a violation of this specific topic ban. Now, you all should really leave me out of this: I have nothing to add, I am not aware of these conversations, I don't know Elvey from Adam (I think--certainly from Adam in Missouri). It's not me you need to convince; it's other editors, and you'll need some diffs that are stronger than a rather cryptic comment about deep pockets. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to let it go after you told me that you don't see what I see, and I agree with you that this isn't about convincing you. (And I think I parsed that thing about worm anatomy.) It's a tough thing about Wikipedia: one of us can feel like they see something as plain as the day, and someone else just doesn't see it at all. And I wasn't simply talking about the community topic ban, but also the DS from ArbCom, so see: this. But for the benefit of whoever it might clarify things, here is what my pseudo-insult was intended to convey: Elvey shouted, repeatedly, that I and other editors lack simple reading comprehension skills, on a page where ArbCom imposed DS. Set aside anything about the TBAN on COI, do we really want that kind of editing environment? Did anything I said or that Boghog said justify that? It's an understatement to pass that off as "rudeness". And I cannot imagine how anything about "protecting companies with deep pockets" means anything other than editors who are "shills" per that ArbCom link I just gave. Do editors protect companies with deep pockets because of editorial judgment? Perhaps someone would protect companies against inaccurate negative material, but the "deep pockets" stuff is clearly an appeal to think that this is paid editing. What is happening is that editors learned from GMO-1 not to say outright that an editor is working for Monsanto, so they have cleverly figured out that if they say it more vaguely, then folks like Drmies won't get it. But that is clearly what happened. And I sure hope that we will nip it in the bud. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Drmies didn't review the case from the very top. Makes sense now. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct: I looked at what I thought I was asked to look at. I see your points about the "deep pockets", of course, but it's vague--that companies have deep pockets is no secret, but a COI allegation should not be about who has the pockets or how deep they are, but about who receives what allegedly comes out of certain pockets of a certain depth. And I am loath, in this case, to impose a harsh penalty on a phrase like that. Again, I understand some of the frustration, I think, and it is entirely possible that some kind of restriction needs to be imposed, but I can't impose this restriction for this offense. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that Drmies. If you are willing, I would appreciate it if you would review from the top, and I think that given the context what Trypto is saying might make more sense to you. Thanks for tolerating the request, even if you don't want to. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watching this from a distance, i am happy to hear this sentiment from Drmies. A specific accusation of COI is one thing, whereas a general statement that there may be an industry agenda at work somewhere is another thing. However, in the course of a dialog about article content there is no place for either, i would think, except for general comments on the shape and trajectory of an article through time. Same would go for saying that "activists" are working on an agenda, as well, for accusations and aspersions of these kinds definitely go both ways. Whether or not the accusation involves money, it still refers to motivations other than good encyclopedic work. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, Tryptofish, I see the problem with the three or so edits from early January. I do not agree that the Healy edits are a violation, and I do not see the problem with this edit and this edit. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'll try to provide more context.

First let me just note on Elvey's perspective on his topic ban, here:

And Jytdog got me topic banned because I kept on accurately describing what a policy said and people who didn't want me to do that called that disruptive.

So in his view, he did nothing wrong. Which is why, I reckon, he has ignored the TBAN.

One set of his TBAN violations (not all of them) arise because he thinks Formerly 98 is a "pharma shill". (Formerly 98 no longer edits here, for reasons external to WP that affected his ability to be present here, and led him to try (badly) to "vanish" - he ended up violating SOCK) Elvey pursued an SPI against Formerly fiercely, driven by his conviction that Formerly (and I) are pharma shills. Elvey brought up COI matters explicitly in the SPI: dif. As I linked above, Elvey pursued the SPI so fiercely that he got banned from the investigation by Vanjagenije. The discussion where Elvey became disruptive is mostly on the Talk page of the SPI, here.

in this dif at the SPI he makes it clear that he is movitated by fighting pharma shills, which in WP is all about COI.

and here again on SlimVirgin's Talk page where he wrote:
What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary". It took many users and months of edit warring (not by me) to get any info at all about the incredibly lousy PARADIGM-HF trial despite lots of damn reliable media coverage of this very important topic.

and that leads to the first dif you said you don't see as relevant, where he wrote:
I've removed some promotional material that Jytdog had just added.
The PARADIGM-HF trial made big news, and is the trial that was eventually used to get Valsartan/sacubitril approved as a drug. There was ~some~ controversy about the design of that trial, and the anti-pharma brigade tried to make a big deal out of it in the WP article about the drug. Formerly and I tamped that down. Elvey later came by and opened a section on the Talk page called "This reads like an advertisement, but it's for a very controversial drug (that is a dif to the Talk page) - it is the only thing there. And you can see that Elvey is in pursuit of pharma shills - in other words, COI editing in WP. So that is what the first dif is about. btw The material I added that Elvey called "promotional" was a quote by Steven Nissen, a fierce critic of the behavior of pharma companies, who said the drug was a "a truly a breakthrough approach" and its approval was the most important event in cardiology last year.

about the second diff, he wrote there
The way in which Jytdog stubbornly refused to acknowledge, well, anything, at the discussion you linked to (that he, oddly, excised from an article talk page!!!)) shows how extreme his editing is. ....“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
— [[User:Upton Sinclair]]
With what I have written here, can you see that he is accusing me of being a paid editor, on the pharmaceutical industry's payroll? I struggle to see how that is not within his TBAN.

About Healy... that is arguable. Elvey's TBAN is for COI, broadly construed. Healy writes about COI in medicine all the time, and thinks that is why SSRIs are still on the market. Elvey's edit to the Healy article was adding a "bombshell" (his words) article by Healy about COI in medicine. The exact thing he has been focused on here in WP for the last month. In my view it is all of one piece.

Finally, here is a random diff (of the many that exist) of Elvey stomping right on his topic ban, addressed to me, ironically, under the section header "Paid Advocacy Editing by SPA HealthMonitor":
Jytdog - Belated ping. I bet you can't get the community to take action against SPA HealthMonitor, who has a disclosed FCOI and blows off that "should not"

Do things look at all different now? Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC) (note, added a bit. not REDACTing since no one has responded Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose Unclear why SPI ban, and 3 month ban for 2 talk page comments, after warning, proposal to far reaching. prokaryotes (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done your homework. Here is Elvey's very first edit upon coming back from a self imposed break, a violation of the TBAN. Here is another. Three more times, in the same conversation. Then I warned them. An Elvy continued. How much evidence do you need that Elvey doesn't give a hoot about their TBAN or the consensus of this community? --Adam in MO Talk 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, Jytdog who brought this here, gave E a warning on Jan 14 2016, after this i saw two comments on a talk page, as discussed above. After this i am not aware that he/she continued. prokaryotes (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the original post, Elvey blew off the TBAN early and never stopped - not after he was warned by and admin and not after I reminded him, and even just a few hours ago per this. He cannot let it go. 08:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there are gabs, [redacted, do not link to external archives of deleted content this here is evidence for COI], which should be investigated by SPI, see also this IP edit. also i see that you seem to be involved. prokaryotes (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact many of the people who are involved here are also very much the same people involved in the related ANI/COI thing. prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic from Elvey's behavior and this proposal. You are not addressing his behavior. Of course I am subject to boomerang; please address that above if that is where you want to go. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't "many" of the people here come from the COI venue? That is his most recent area of activity and where the topic ban came from, and it is to be expected that the people there are most cognizant of that situation. (I note that one of Elvey's frequent complaints is being judged by editors and admins who are "involved", as if any kind of adverse interaction with him should preclude future comment.) On the other hand, I have absolutely no prior involvement with any COI or pharam topic. My involvement here arises out of similar behavior by Elvey in a totally different topic. Note also the new (23:20) comment by 80.44.144.26 at the bottom of #Related problems, alleging similar conduct at Carlos Castaneda. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Johnson (JJ), I went to the page and guess what. There is this edit which seems to have been contested by 2 IPs. And then wasn't contested later by other editors, talk is only brief, and besides that appears to be a valid content addition. That people are involved here and in similar disputes is foremost an observation. I value the judgement of uninvolved editors more, given the conflicts and degrees of involvement. prokaryotes (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is uncivil behavior acceptable if one happens to be "right"? I take no position on the content disputes at Carlos Castaneda, or on the clean-handedness of the editors involved, but point out that on the talk page there Elvey exhibits the same uncivil behavior that got him into trouble at COI. I quote some of his comments: "Amazing tortuous justifications for what's really just sanitization."; "There is no excuse for your removal .... What blatant example of bias that is. Thanks for making it so blatantly obvious."; "What part of ... do you not understand?"; "I don't believe a word of what you've said, either about the article or Sampson and I don't care to spend the time to verify it."; and (again) "Amazing tortuous justifications for what's really just sanitization."

Your position has a tautological exclusion problem: totally "uninvolved" editors, having no interaction with Elvey, likely have no basis of complaint, and thus no reason to be here, while anyone who has been "involved" is (in his view) tainted, and shouldn't be listened to. While most of the people here might have a bone to pick with him, that is very the point: the community finds him to be very aggravating. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, prokaryotes. All the misrepresentation makes the closer's job a lot harder and a lot more time consuming. I don't envy their position. I ask the closer to speak about the accuracy of the accusations each participant has made - where did and didn't context make what seemed like a valid accusation turn out to be invalid, when investigated? I see allegations by supporters and opposers being challenged on this front. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What misrepresentation? The quotes are accurate, and your comments are prima facie uncivil. If you think there is some context that justifies such language you are free to demonstrate that, but you have not. And without that you are just blowing more smoke. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The above conversations show continued poor behavior across the board even being under topic ban. That this has occurred in multiple topics drives that point home. In the instances pointed out at the glyphosate article, their behavior also violates the spirit one of the ArbCom principles related to aspersions.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions. Issues in other topics unrelated to that only compound the issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the wording community banned for 3 months with the standard offer confusing. I can interpret it in two ways:

The user is banned for three months. During that period, accepting the standard offer may result in the user being unbanned immediately. If the standard offer isn't accepted, the user is automatically unbanned after three months.
The user is banned indefinitely. After a period of three months, he may be unbanned if the standard offer is accepted.

If the original topic ban conditions are unclear, then it would be good if this discussion clarifies these conditions. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, Case number 1 was my intention. When Elvey was initially TBAN they placed themselves on a voluntary block for 2 months. It was my intention to mirror this.--Adam in MO Talk 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)--Adam in MO Talk 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard offer is that, after six months with no socking, the user can return if they "promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban [and] [d]on't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return." The six-month period can be adjusted, but what does it mean in the context of a three-month ban proposal? If he says after 12 hours that he promises to avoid, etc, could he be unblocked? And given that he has already said it, can the ban not be avoided altogether?

Adam, it seems to me that, if Elvey says "I did not intend to violate the t-ban but undertake to make stronger efforts not to appear to do so in future," and if the editors he's in dispute with would reduce their interactions with him, then perhaps all will be well, and we can close this. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV that statement would not be an accurate representation of his past behavior. He has disregarded the ban, clearly discussed and brought up and tried to address COI matters, and in addition has disrupted SPI while doing so - and disruption when dealing with COI matters is what got him banned in the first place. The community might want to consider closing this without action if he wrote something like: "I acknowledge that I have violated my topic ban multiple times and that I disrupted SPI while trying to get an editor blocked who I am convinced was editing under a COI. I should not have brought COI into those discussions. I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward, and I will not argue about the community taking action if I violate my topic ban again." And by the way I do not seek Elvey out - he came after drug articles that have been on my watchlist for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, applying or reversing blocks are always up to the administrators. When Elvey first received their TBAN they went on a self-imposed 2 month block. The 3 months, here proposed, were mean to mirror that. I have no intention of interacting with Elvey going forward, as long as their edits remain within community consensus. That consensus appears to be that Elvey should not discuss, comment on, or edit anywhere near COI issue, nor should they be involved in any SPI related discussion, at all. Elvey is a good editor. They have a contentiousness and attention to detail that I'd like to see more widely utilized. But until they are willing to work collaboratively and to stop the contentious edits, it won't be possible for them to utilize their full potential.--Adam in MO Talk 15:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, he didn't (so far as I recall) mention COI during the SPI, and indeed didn't at first realize who was behind the IP addresses. The concern was advocacy and the use of several accounts/IPs.

Adam, quite a lot of your edits seem to be related to Elvey, so it would be a good idea to reduce that interaction. At Clear aligners, for example, Elvey added a section on price, which was helpful. You arrived shortly afterwards and removed it, along with a section others had added on the same issue, even though you hadn't edited that article before. [47] (I noticed this only because I've edited that page too, so there may be other examples.) If Elvey sees himself as being pursued, even if you don't intend that, he'll respond poorly and we'll be back here again soon. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah: doesn't your suggestion that "if the editors he's in dispute with would reduce their interactions with him, then perhaps all will be well" also run the other way? That is, why not have Elvey reduce his interactions with others? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Johnson, yes, indeed, it works both ways. The diffs I've looked have involved people arriving at pages Elvey was editing, but if he's doing the same thing to others, that should stop too. If everyone involved in this keeps interactions to a minimum, things will improve, and if problems continue despite that, you can always raise it again. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He does, where he typically charges the other editor(s) that object as WP:OWNing the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slimvirgin Elvey brought up COI matters in his pursuit of Formerly (I just mentioned these above, but am repeating them here as this has become a sprawl):

dif. That one is dead on:
This person has claimed to be a retired PhD Medicinal Chemist and yet recently claimed working (per User_Talk:Vanjagenije) in pharmaceutical development as a medicinal chemist, but now at UCSF, from whose IP space he sometimes posts AND has claimed to have never been paid for editing AND have no COI with respect to pharmaceutical companies.
Elvey's focus on what he believes to be a COI issue with Formerly is explicit there.

in this dif he brings the "pharma shill gambit" which in WP is all about COI.

and here again on your own Talk page where he wrote:
What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary".
That is also pharma shill gambit, which is about COI. I know you agree that Formerly was a pharma shill, as you wrote here at the SPI. But you are not topic banned from COI matters; Elvey is. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, my concern at the SPI was the combination of advocacy and avoidance of scrutiny. Whether COI was behind it, I don't know ("editing in the interests of" was in the sense of "for the benefit of").

Regarding Elvey's diffs, I don't see it in the second or third, but I do see it in the first diff. That seems to be a topic-ban violation, if the ban was on discussing Wikipedia and COI. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SV, thanks for acknowledging the TBAN violation in the first dif (and btw his TBAN is "COI, broadly construed". Here is the closed ANI if you need to review that). The 2nd dif I cited was sprawling, and I should quoted the relevant bit which is "

the sock, which is infamous for scrubbing articles of information critical of big pharma,...

". In my view, the 2nd and 3rd diffs clearly describing the "pharma shill" claim, in light of the first, show clearly that Elvey was in pursuit of an editor he believed was editing articles under a COI (in the pay of the pharma industry). About your comment, where you wrote

This user edits in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, and avoids scrutiny by swapping accounts and IPs.

....you are very well acquainted with the COI guideline as you have made 459 edits to it. You know very well the distinctions we make between advocacy and COI, and the language you elected to use there, as you attempted to persuade the people to working at SPI to take action, is very much the language of COI.

As I said, you are free to do that, as you have no TBAN for COI matters. And in any case, sharing a perspective with Elvey, that Formerly was harming WP by editing in the interest of the pharma industry, should not affect your judgement with regard to the fact that Elvey has continually violated his TBAN and, as he did before, was disruptive in doing so, now in yet another venue.

The community has found that Elvey becomes disruptive when he deals with COI matters and it has become clear that he cannot seem to be restrain himself from addressing COI matters. Proposal two is entirely normal in this kind of situation, which is why the consensus of !votes actually looking at his behavior is supporting it. Please reconsider yours.

Editors like Elvey who cannot deal with COI matters well and become disruptive in addressing them, harm the overall effort to address COI in WP, as their behavior gives fodder to those in the community who oppose efforts to better manage COI here. That is why I care about this. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, please don't tell me what I'm thinking or what I know very well. If I felt convinced that that editor had a COI I would say so; at times I've thought so and at other times not. And that is not the topic of this discussion.

Re: Elvey, I couldn't support a three-month ban on the basis of that. Bear in mind that when Elvey opened the SPI, he didn't know who was behind the edits. The issue with Elvey is not that he doesn't deal well with COI. It's that he doesn't deal well with issues he feels aren't being addressed properly, or where he feels he's being ganged up on. During the SPI, he began to think that it wasn't being handled the way SPIs normally are, and his suspicions led to repetitive posts and being shrill. And so I do agree that he needs to learn how to handle disputes differently, not become so upset, not be so repetitive. But going straight to a three-month ban is too much. The usual practice is a series of escalating blocks.

He has written below: "I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward." That should be enough regarding the COI issues, and if he mentions COI again, the topic-ban violation will be clear. What should be clarified, though, is whether it applies to mainspace. I don't think it does or should. In addition to clarifying that, whoever closes this, assuming it is not to ban him, might consider asking Elvey to practice removing himself from a discussion when he starts to feel very upset, or when other people say his posts are becoming repetitive. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SV. Per the notes on the case, he opened the SPI under Formerly's renamed account name. See here at 22:38, 5 December 2015. If you look at his contribs, all that day he had been edit warring and arguing with Formerly on the Valsartan/sacubitril article and its talk page, and his last edit on the talk page that day was here where he wrote:

Good. Now log in and stop avoiding scrutiny by, e.g. using multiple accounts/IP addresses on multiple networks

He did know whom he was pursuing. While Elvey may have broader behavioral issues, the point issue that he seems to get especially out of control/emotional when dealing with COI matters. That is why we was TBANed in the original case and why he was yet more disruptive at SPI. I understand that you don't agree about that nor the remedy. And in my view Elvey's TBAN is standard per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban -

"Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic."

I don't see what he has done to deserve actually narrowing the scope of his TBAN, nor why you would propose that. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing that the topic ban be changed. You opened the topic-ban discussion in August. You requested that Elvey be "topic banned from discussing COI in Wikipedia (he is not competent to deal with editors with a COI ...)." You also asked for an interaction ban. The discussion was closed by Drmies as "Elvey has exhausted the patience of the community and is topic banned from COI, broadly construed." Drmies has said in this discussion that he does not see the Healy edits as a violation. [48] Whether he meant that mainspace is not part of the topic ban or that those particular edits weren't problematic, I don't know. I'm arguing only that we should clarify whether the topic ban covers mainspace. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the SPI, there's no indication that Elvey knew who it was at first. He opened it under one of the IP addresses. MikeV archived the case on 6 December under that address. Berean Hunter moved it to the name on 20 December. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the history of that case is really confusing. I do know where Elvey was just before he opened it, and I can see on this this page a big note that says:

Please note that a case was originally opened under Renamed user 51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/169.230.155.123.

. All this is weeds. The key thing is that the case arose at the Valsartan/sacubitril article where Elvey was already concerned about COI/whitewashing editing, per the header he placed on that page. Elvey knew right away, or soon after, that his target was Formerly, whom he believed had a COI, and he acted in a disruptive way as he was told by two SPI clerks there before he was finally banished for disruption on the associated talk page. (those two warnings here and here). Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (amended this; didn't redact since there has been no reply Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Support per OhNoItsJamie. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first of this IP's 2 dozen edits (edit summary "Warning of copyvio" using {{Copypaste}} and then many ANI edits) suggests this may be an experienced (banned?) user socking and performing administrator -like tasks. But my hands are tied; I'm banned from opening an SPI case. Can someone do something? (Also, voting in an archive!) --Elvey^(t•c) 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boohoo. Complaining about an IP who likes to help out across this encyclopedia. Not connected to any accounts whatsoever. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it's all the community can do in the face of the TBAN violation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per SarahSV. I see serious issues in this case, with many of the same editors in the recent ArbCom GMO case in alignment here to "punish" an editor they don't like. I call on a completely uninvolved admin to close this, and dispense trouts as needed. Elvey has issues, but those casting the stones are not without their own. Jus da fax 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax your vote doesn't deal with the fact that there was a topic ban nor with Elvey's ignoring of it nor with the actual disruption he caused (again) while pursuing the topic he was banned from. As you wrote there, clearly the politics are what are important to you here. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last time you directly addressed me, in a disingenuously-worded, vaguely threatening reply to a notification on your talk page, it was already clear you were cruisin' for a bruisin', and indeed, after your spite-naming of me as a party to the GMO Arb-Com case, which you have never supported or had the common decency to explain, you have been blocked, as well as admonished by ArbCom for abusive editing and topic-banned. "What's important to you here" you say. How dare you. It's very clear, given the record, what you are up to, and I have warned you before, which you saw fit to ignore, so I now formally warn you to stop harassing editors who don't think or edit in a way that you personally approve of. Your attacks on Elvey, in my long experience since you first posted on my Talk page, are demonstrably motivated by bad faith editing, which, again, I have pointed out to you before, when you have attacked others. You face further blocks and sanctions if you do not stop. Get real, dude. Jus da fax 20:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments only reinforce the validity of my remark that your !vote did not address Elvey's behavior regarding his existing TBAN and clarifies that it was really about your dislike of me. Thanks for clarifying that. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judasfax: The specific "issue" here is violation of a TBAN, which (aside from Elvey's counter-charges against Jytdog) is not an issue with anyone else. Perhaps you would excuse his general incivility because he doesn't feel enough love, but I think cause and effect actually runs the other way. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This appears to be personal for Jytdog. Look at the way he attacks here just now, where he joins a discussion where I am mentioned just to spend nearly 500 words on an ad hominem attack on me. Opening and pursuing the (valid!) SPI on his banned friend, Formerly 98, was appropriate; 99% of my edits in that regard are not a violation of the TBAN, as I see it, but I acknowledge that my discussions with V in and about the SPI, I pointed out what I saw as numerous policy violations by him and that he saw those as disruptive and he used the mop to ban me from SPI. (I opened #Questions, which I urge the closer to address, and later realized V doesn't have the authority to make that unilateral ban there, though I'm still respecting it as he could probably still get away with enforcing it.) Here is the comment Jytog proposes I make, corrected for accuracy: "I acknowledge that I have violated my topic ban multiple times and that I opened an SPI (on a user Jytdog is so close to he shares their private communications) and that at one point (this was a very long discussion) mentioned, in a quote, that another editor was convinced Formerly 98 was editing under a COI. I should not have brought COI into those discussions. I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward" --Elvey^(t•c) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

elvey, this ANI thread is about your behavior violating your TBAN. Bringing evidence of your behavior, is not an ad hominem attack. About the SPI case itself - there was a valid SPI case against Formerly as I have acknowledged; however your pursuit of Formerly was due to your conviction that he was editing under a COI - that he is a pharma shill. Could you have done all that work on the SPI without explicitly violating your TBAN? Probably.... But would you have launched that SPI to shut down a "pharma shill", if you were really honoring your TBAN and not dealing with COI in WP? I don't think so.

None of this is "personal." You are disruptive when you try to deal with COI in Wikipedia. You have shown that yet again by disrupting SPI - and you are still not accepting that you were disruptive at SPI. It is not good for the project for you to try to deal with COI in Wikipedia. That is why the original TBAN was put in place by the community and why the community is proposing to extend the TBAN to include SPI. You have not heard what the community is telling you. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I looked over the original ANI discussion again. The first proposal, by Jytdog, specific "topic banned from discussing COI", and I think that phrase guided the rest of the discussion. The actual proposal I cited, and you'll note I cited it since I did not know how to rephrase it, said "topic banned from COI"; this was Georgewilliamherbert's phrase, and I wonder if they simply forgot a word. Now, on the one hand, I think that when it's not so clear we should be conservative, and thus limiting the topic ban to non-article space makes sense. On the other hand, if the editor were to start slapping COI tags on articles, I have no doubt that to other editors this would be as disruptive as the other edits were. After all, planting a COI tag on an article is basically saying "there's a COI here", and one would expect the tag to be explained on the talk page.
To put the whole thing in another way, it would be very unwise for Elvey to skirt around the boundaries of the topic ban. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, my understanding of the discussion in August was that Elvey had become disruptive around COI editing on Wikipedia. That was the ban that was requested. Content editing is not related to discussing COI editing on Wikipedia. Adding a COI tag to an article is another matter: that involves stepping out of content and going meta, so it would be covered by the ban. Someone might argue that these distinctions are easily missed when someone is upset, so to avoid future mishaps the ban should cover content. I suppose it depends on how much self-restraint Elvey can exercise, and in fairness to the complainants here, his track record isn't good. Still, it seems to me that if COI is one of his interests, and if there are articles about COI that need work, that would be a useful thing for him to do, so I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but to extend the ban to content at the first sign of a boundary violation. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a question of being smart about it. I removed what I am sure is a kind of COI edit earlier tonight, but an edit summary could just say "not properly verified" or "far from neutral" or something like that. "Rv COI edit" would be the worst thing they could do. (This is what I was referring to: a kind of overlap between content editing and discussion.) And for those who think I am proposing a kind of cheating--no, from what I can tell the disruption was caused by their way of discussing COI and suspected COI. Either way, the area Elvey apparently needs to strengthen their skills in is control and diplomacy. Goes for a lot of us, of course. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a question of keeping his eye on the ball if he edits in those areas, and not wandering into "rv, but I'm not allowed to say why." SarahSV ^(talk) 05:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Looks like another attempt to silence the opposition, as happened before in that field. The Banner talk 04:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of anyone other than Elvey who has been topic banned for COI matters. Weird. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mostly per Sarah's thorough analysis appearing in the above discussion. Generally, I'm not impressed with the claim there's a violation of the topic ban. At worst, it's a technical violation that should result in Elvey being instructed that the conduct violated the topic ban (and it looks like there's some question as to whether it does). Going this far on the basis of what's been presented just looks punitive. I disagree with the assumption that a siteban is the next step in the ladder. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mendaliv did you read the difs at the very top? In every one of them, Elvey explicitly discusses COI of editors and they all came after his TBAN was imposed. I feel like i am in the Bizarro World where a thing is its opposite. Here they are again:

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.

How can you call each of these not a violation? And that is just a partial sample. And doesn't even get into his disruption of SPI. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should "result in Elvey being instructed..."?? How much instruction does he need? Do note that in this reminder from an admin Elvey was told: "all the relevant issues have been explained to you in the past, some of them repeatedly, and that you have a frequent habit of contemptuously dismissing messages from other editors about their concerns regarding your persistent disruptive editing, so there is no point in explaining them to you yet again." Note also in Elvey's last comment (above) how his ostensible apology is "corrected for accuracy". It seems to me that all of the instructions and warning he has been given he interprets "corrected for accuracy". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant support I appreciate Sarah's general emphasis on mediation and de-escalation, but at the end of the day, I just don't see Elvey's violation of his topic ban as being as ambiguous as she (and some others) view it. There are instances of Elvey making direct reference to COI/COI discussions and other comments about "salaries" (be they even quotes) are hardly oblique. Topic bans are not trivial sanctions--they are only issued when behaviour has become deeply disruptive, and then generaly as a last-ditch effort to preserve an editor's positive contributions while curtailing the disruption which accompanies their involvement in a given topic area or process. If a contributor violates the community's effort to isolate their disruption in order to facilitate their continued involvement, then the community has run out of intermediary options and must default to the more general ban that we hoped to avoid as necessary to demonstrate that the balance of the editor's involvement no longer favours the good of the project.

We can parse Elvey's language at length here on technicalities if we really want an excuse to keep them on, but assuming that we view the original topic ban as a valid community sanction, many of the diffs above do represent a continuing inability in this user to disassociate from the area the community clearly directed them to avoid; that is, a self-directed personal mission to counter behaviours in other areas which they perceive as the result of financial motivators. Whether (or how often) they use the exact words "conflict of interest" is really rather incidental here. The question is whether they still feel compelled to root out the influence of corporations on this project, by either providing or commenting on "evidence" of these influences, an activity the community has explicitly directed them (Elvey) to desist from. I hate to oppose concilatory efforts like those SV is proposing, but, in this instance, I think the user in question needs a firm reminder that they cannot just defy community will on a whim, especially when that will manifested in an effort to try to preserve their participation here. A one- or three-month ban seems the appropriate means to make that point. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that comment does an excellent job of laying out what really matters here. Well-said, and thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that what "really matters here" is not Elvey's apparent obsession with COI or supposed sockpuppets (and for all I know these could be legitimate issues), but his mode of interaction with the rest of the community (ss demonstrated on these and other topics, and even in this discussion), and his persistent failure to hear this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to say that I have read most of this discussion and the diffs and all and I really don't have an opinion. Also, I have eaten the plums that were in the icebox. Good luck to the closing admin. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, commenting, and providing charm, Drmies. The community does however depend, so much, upon Admins using their judgement.... or red wheel barrows. The chickens are beside the point, as the poet notes. Mostly it just seems to keep raining. So I hope another admin will pick up the bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of reviewing this discussion and will be closing it in the next few hours. There is a lot to review here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uncited ethnicity categories added again by User:Eruditescholar

Last February, I brought the issue of uncited ethnicity categories being added to BLPs based on very flimsy evidence by Eruditescholar. It has come to my attention that this is happening again, again and again. This is at least the second if not third time that this editor has been notified that WP:BLP requires that BLPs require affirmative proof of ethnicity.--TM 02:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TM, This is beginning to look like you have a personal issue with me based on past discussions on this topic. Your basis for bringing this issue here is unwarranted for because I have observed that you make hasty revertions to some of my ethnic categorizations without checking the references first. For example, Candido Da Rocha and Sola Abolaji. I don't need to remind you that only Yoruba people use their native Yoruba language names for their ethnicity. Sometimes, I cite any of the first, middle or last name for males and only the fist, middle or maiden name for females. This is usually evident from the fact that they have multiple names in the Yoruba language. This is sometimes reinforced by the fact that they or their ancestors either have Yoruba ethnicity or originate from Yorubaland which comprises about 1/4 of Nigeria's population. If I can't find name sources, I look for other sources to cite their ethnicity. I don't add ethnic categories to BLPs unless I am sure of it. I have recommended before and I re-iterate that you keep away from Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk)

Adding ethnic categories based on a name is Original Research which is not permitted. It is also not permitted to try to enforce ownership over articles or topics by telling other editors not to edit. So stop doing both of those things Eruditescholar, or you may face sanctions. It is not a requirement that articles be categorized by ethnicity, and policy is to omit such classification in the absence of explicit support in reliable sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@·maunus. Thanks and I understand your explanation but Wikipedia's rule for ethnic categorizations easily applies to ethnic groups outside Africa. Africans have unique ways of identifying with their ethnic groups and it may not be in concord with non-Africans. Besides, there's too much under-representation of African ethnic groups in Wikipedia. I have not claimed ownership of any article but only gave my recommendation regarding the other editor's unwarranted edits and reverts on Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Wikipedia does not have special rules applying to African ethnicgroups you will have to follow the rules we have in the way you categorize African people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eruditescholar has persisted with this form of disruptive editing even since this issue was brought here. I think we need administrative action since clearly the editor is unwilling to stop.--TM 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is now clear that inspite of the glaring evidence of ethnicity stated in most of these articles, especially on Abayomi Olonisakin, you have decided to be irrationale. You happen to be the only editor who brings this issue here for discussion. This a continuation of your grudges on past admin discussions regarding this topic and not necessarily because you want the articles in question to be good or informative. If you have personal issues with me or my editing, this is the wrong place to let it out. Eruditescholar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 5:00, 2 February 2016

I have some sympathy with Eruditescholar's POV in the sense that it is true assumptions are commonly made and accepted in certain places based on name, look, place of origin or whatever and so it's often simply not stated as it's considered unnecessary. However our standards for living people are clear, WP:BLPCAT and Euriditescholar needs to follow them. If they wish to make exceptions or change the general guidelines, they'll need the WP:RFC before, not after. (And frankly despite my sympathies, I don't think I'll support any such exceptions.) BTW, if you are persistently adding WP:OR to WP:BLPs despite clear requests to stop, this is indeed the right place to deal with it. You should also learn to WP:AGF as even before you were replied, you were already told by another editor who isn't Namiba that adding cats based on OR was unacceptable. Also remember it is your responsibility if you are adding ethnicity categories to ensure that such categories are supported by the article with references. The fact that it's in one of the references somewhere, doesn't make it acceptable to add categories to the article if it isn't actually mentioned in the article (at least in the infobox) with references. Mentioning some references in the edit summary also isn't the way to handle it. People should be able to see the support for the categories by looking at the article, they should not need to look through the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see in the previous discussion you were warned about our requirements by multiple people Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#Continued addition of uncited ethnicity categories by User:Eruditescholar. Personalising this as some sort of grudge by Namiba, when you were not only already informed of our requirements by someone else here, but the 'grudge' you refer to was actually your failure to follow our sourcing requirements which you were warned about by multiple other people, is extremely disappointing. It's entirely reasonable for people who've observed your poor behaviour before to follow your contribs to make sure it isn't happening again. And I suspect Namiba probably wasn't even following your contribs but happened to notice the problem when you edited an article they were watching. Problematic behaviour that an editor isn't willing to change is generally an appropriate topic of discussion at ANI. If it's repeated bad behaviour that they've already been warned about it's even more appropriate. In other words, the only "grudge" that anyone has is that we want you to stop adding categories without appropriate sourcing because consensus is that it does damage wikipedia and our articles when you do so. While you're welcome to disagree with out sourcing requirements for ethnicity categories until and unless you get them changed, you do have to follow them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still more of the same adding of ethnicity categories without reliable sources saying that a BLP is in fact of a certain group. Will an admin please take action against this user who refuses to comply with WP rules?--TM 22:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if @EdJohnston: has anything to say, as they warned EruditeScholar last time. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eruditescholar is unrelenting despite being warned over and over again.--TM 14:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please bring TM to order? His recent reverts to some of my edits (even when ethnicity is obvious and sourced) are getting on my nerves, most especially on Mosun Filani. Eruditescholar (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you are the one who needs to be "brought to order", you simply cannot add claims of ethnicity without a reliable sources specifically stating that. Having a Yoruba name, speaking Yoruba or appearing n Yoruba films is not enough for the purpose of Wikipedia's ethnic categorization. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@·maunus: The sources are not only based on her Yoruba names or the fact that she can speak Yoruba! Please see her talk page. The sources extracted either specified her family s' native roots as Ekiti State which is part of the Yoruba cultural region or call her a Yoruba actress. What other proof is needed? Eruditescholar (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from the Yoruba region is also not evidence of anything. Only a source that specifically states that she is Yoruba is enough. I would probably accept a source saying that she is a Yoruba actress. But if there is any reason to believe that that may not accurately reflect her own sense of identity - for example if there is a conflicting source calling her an "Igbo person", then it would not be enough. And in all cases, when your edits are contested you need to start discussing it on the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with you, coming from a Yoruba region is not sufficient proof of origin. It is possible for a non-Yoruba person to be born in Yorubaland but in all cases, it is simply stated that they were born there. It is only the Nigerian state that they or their ancestors hail from, coupled with their Yoruba names which qualifies their ethnicity. For example: former Miss World, Agbani Darego and British actor, Hugo Weaving were all born in Yorubaland but their family's roots are in Rivers State and Europe respectively. Neither of them bear Yoruba names. That's why the Yoruba names and other sources are used with their places of origin. I have never encountered anyone with a Yoruba name, hailing from Yorubaland who isn't a Yoruba person. Babatunde Fashola, Folake Solanke and Adekunle Fajuyi all fulfilled this criteria before citations were added to support their ethnicities. Eruditescholar (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also relevant to refer to past editing related to this topic regarding the other editor in question: (User:Ukabia). This past discussion revealed his disruptive nature especially on some Yoruba-related articles. He edits mostly Igbo-related articles but he had a history of removing sources from Yoruba-related articles. This was also mentioned by another editor on his talk page:User talk:Ukabia#Yoruba Page. Eruditescholar (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EauZenCashHaveIt

Seems this user at Talk:Harold Holt has very strong opinions about me personally. He has multiple times insisted on placing my name in an unflattering manner in a section title ("‎Sources confirm Gillespie was his lover. It has been User:Collect vs. formed consensus for the past two discussions. Move to close please") on the article talk page, has told me in crude terms to go away, and has ignored my posts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#smithsonianmag.com where another editor specifically agreed with me that where a person says an affair was not "intimate" that using the term "lover" about that person as a fact in Wikipedia's voice where the sources make clear the use is not implying sex, that there is a misuse of the sources. He refuses to allow the word "rumoured" in the article. And the posts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_202#Sydney_Daily_Telegraph_.22Sydney_Confidential.22_article about the same claim in the past, sourced to a self-described "gossip column." By the way, there is no sound reason at all for any of this speculation in the biography of Harold Holt in the first place.

[49], [50], [51], [52] etc. etc. I pointed out that using an attack in a talk page section name was improper, and you can see his response. Collect (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of the late great Abe Vigoda, nothing personal here. Anyone reviewing this, please note the length of the section with all its subsections. Then please note the amount of editors who repeatedly displayed an array of sources to reach a consensus. Then please note the amount of replies by Collect which ignore a good chunk of those sources in favor of making their point at all cost. Then please note the amount of times Collect was asked to quit fighting against consensus. Then notice my own polite replies, reminders of policy, and bringing of actual sources to the article. I could go on for a while, but the reality is that Collect has been exhaustinfont color="000FF">Electricg the editor community on that talk page for days now, and someone needs to put an end to it. What I am noticing is that this very report is a staggering display of stubborn and warrior-like behavior, since each and every point they are currently raising has already been disproven on the talk page, and all of us found a plethora of other sources. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as for the matter at hand, "lover" is her own quote from several reputable sources, brought up numerous times by myself and every other participating editor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" can never allow any source to be misused. The source provided specifies that the person denied being in an "intimate" relationship. In the US, "lover" is generally reserved (as a claim of fact) to "intimate" relationships and not to "intellectual" relationships, which is what the source specifically states in pretty much the next sentence. Cheers. And yes - I am known for loathing abuse of sources, especially when the claim has no encyclopedic value to the subject of the article. Collect (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a content dispute, with no real call for admin intervention. It's understandable that there is frustration among editors in that discussion, but I see nothing that requires use of admin tools. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the use of a section title as a place to make a personal attack on another editor, etc. And there remains an issue about misuse of sources (including use of a "gossip column") as detailed in the two RS/N discussions as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other users pointed out, and justly so, that you have been trolling that page for a while. The section title merely states that it has been you vs. a formed consensus, which is far from a personal attack. The gossip column is ancient history - I personally replaced it a while ago. The "misuse" of sources has been disproven to you numerous times. The RS/N discussions were not brought up until right before you went here. You accuse other editors of canvassing (without a valid reason), yet you keep canvassing across multiple noticeboards in spite of a formed consensus - now you are here. Just accept that the consensus exists and move on. Your obsession with this issue is affecting other editors, and is detrimental to our community. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the RfC. I doubt wither side will like the close much. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[53] is the close - which is exactly what I was asking for. "There is a remarkable degree of heat given that this is basically tabloid tittle-tattle. As Collect notes, agreement of various editors cannot trump policy: independent sources establish that the term is at least somewhat speculative, and even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it." (more follows which does not alter the basic premise for the close). Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"[T]he subject of the claim appears not to have used it" - another false claim that has been disproven by a direct quote. Christ, do you have anything new to present? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be noted that Collect reverted back to his desired version after the discussion had been officially closed and it had been determined that the RfC was not in his favor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket to Sydney, anyone? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to post the RfC close in its entirety below so that there is no question of what it says. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a remarkable degree of heat given that this is basically tabloid tittle-tattle. As Collect notes, agreement of various editors cannot trump policy: independent sources establish that the term is at least somewhat speculative, and even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it in the unambiguous sense supported by some editors here. The solution is to use attribution and to take care not to exceed what is stated by the sources (e.g: "Mrs Gillespie was once the secret lover of Australian prime minister Harold Holt - or the alleged secret lover, as has frequently been recorded in the years following Holt's disappearance and prior to her own - as is reporting convention." from the Aus. Daily Telegraph). Terms such as "claimed lover" or "alleged lover" would not violate policy, an overt claim of "lover" probably does, from my reading of this debate, the sources and the relevant policies. And omitting it altogether? That would be perfect. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted, again, that the quote "Harold Holt's lover" comes directly from Gillespie herself, through a book published by the Australian National University. Whoever closed the RfC probably missed this, along with the fact that the fact was printed by numerous respected publishers, and is therefore notable by Wikipedia's standards - not "tabloid tittle-tattle". More importantly, we cannot and should not reward lone warriors who go for days or even weeks after the community had reached a consensus, constantly thwarting everyone's collaborative efforts because they don't like the edit. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not here to fight windmills. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Collect's behavior has been the same throughout this ordeal, see User talk:Collect#Holt: sticks to the same source that was replaced ages ago in order to disprove claim as "tabloid", while completely ignoring ample new evidence. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his tone has indeed been consistently moderate throughout. Yours, not so much. Are we done here? Guy (Help!) 11:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are called civil POV warriors. Pushing their point in a very moderate tone, but consistently repeating what was disproven to them as if no prior discussion happened. This is the one case where moderate tone is not the virtue you look for in an editor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that, do you? And what's your analysis of your own behaviour in this matter? Guy (Help!) 01:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, a natural reaction to a deliberate waste of my (and others') time by what I just described. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:NMMGG. Persistent refusal to stop suggesting my editing at Ezra Nawi has personal motives.

At Ezra Nawi, I thought on a WP:BLP article, it was obligatory to get the precise nature of the conviction clear as given in reports of Israeli court records which judged the relationship ‘consensual’. Every attempt to explain this necessity has been met by personal innuendoes as to my putative motivations. In repeating these innuendoes User:Bad Dryer was indeffed (see here).

The author of the innuendo, User:No More Mr Nice Guy persists in alluding to this, and suggests I am embarrassed by what I have written, embarrassed to the point of backpedalling, and too embarrassed to report him. The record is:

WP:NPA Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. . . Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks.

These insinuations, fishing expeditions, challenges, and suggestions that on the topic of statutory rape I am 'embarrassed' or 'backtracking' and 'justify' it are as repetitive as those made by Bad Dryer. The editor some years ago tried to put it over I was an anti-Semite, and the case led to his banning from WP:AE. In both cases, the behavior is the same, language crafted to provoke some personal exchange by insinuating I have some dubious personal fixations. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the statement I was responding to. The discussion is about a minor who was the the cause of a statutory rape conviction against the topic of the article. I think the statement speaks for itself. I will only note that there's not a single source that makes this argument (unsurprisingly) or that puts the word "victim" in quotes (again, unsurprisingly).

As for the AE case, if someone wants to look into how a single admin closed an harassment case within 24 hours based on an assumption of bad faith, I would welcome that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG's diff shows Nishidani adding a comment, but let's start from the beginning of that section, namely the first post at Talk:Ezra Nawi#NMMGG WP:OR. That post shows this diff of NMMNG editing the article to insert "statutory rape" at the beginning of a list of reasons for the BLP subject being convicted. Problem: the source does not mention "rape", statutory or otherwise. The source (nytimes.com) uses Nishidani's text that NMMNG replaced with rape in primary position. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG construed (a) as personal advocacy (b)and said I repeatedly asserted this (putative)personal advocacy when I was, on the talk page, justifying an edit by citing what the sources stated (not my views). He then furthered suggested my position was identical to that of NAMBLA, an organization I'd never heard of.

The text he cites for my views is a patchwork of paraphrases and quotations.

'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him. And it was consensual, as his minimal sentence indicated. A victim is 'person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else. : a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else. : someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)', which, from the sources does not appear to be how the Palestinian saw this. In five years he never laid a complaint.

I let this pass, but leaving it go, has only lead to a follow-up train of nudging insinuations about what he fantasies to be my personal views. I can't see how this is not talking about the editor, rather than focusing on the content, as is required under WP:NPA. I am not calling for a ban. I am asking the board to get him to drop his puerile attempt to be a psychologist, which is proving disruptive to editing that page.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. Those are indeed your views. Not a single source says the minor was not a victim or puts quotes around the word "victim", not to mention argues about the dictionary definition of "victim". B. Anyone following the diffs above can clearly see that every single time I was responding to you bringing the subject up. All you have to do is drop it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'?Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have consensual sex with a minor, so regardless if it was "consensual" and the victim allowed it, and there was not enough evidence in the court of law to convict, just because the victim didn't testify doesn't mean there was no victim. What is the age of consent? Victims often times don't testify because they are scared or because they don't want to relive the rape. That doesn't mean that there was no victim. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the point. It is obvious Nawi broke the law and deserved a prison sentence of at least 6 months (unlike the 30 IDF soldiers who had 'consensual' sex with a 12-13 year old Israeli girl for 2 years, and got 3-6 weeks camp detention. They got off lightly, being neither homosexual or human rights activists.)

NMMGG said I repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old (sic=37-8 year old) having sex with a 15 year old.All we have is a link to my summary of sources. He is obliged to document where I (suppoadly) repeatedly did this. If he can prove his claim is validated by several remarks I made, fine. If he can't then he has been engaged with a decidedly serious piece of calumny, which he repeated above, in the face of my objections ('Those are indeed your views.').Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could be because you still say you should put victim in quotes. Just because the kid didn't testify doesn't make him not a victim. That is all I'm saying. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief. I made an argument for that proposition. When the consensus said no, I didn't engage in a revert war or persist ('still'). I think the word 'victim' contradicts the word 'consensual', since it implies 'violence'. But, nota bene, I did not erase it, or substitute it with another term. It was a WP:BLP fine line call. Everyone in this area should know I am extremely finicky about niceties of usage. If, we have only Nawi's word for it, the 15 year old persisted in phoning him and wanting to stay at his home, then that doesn't fit the normal sense of 'victim'. Massie for one says there was 'no real victim'. John Costello and Dearbhail McDonald instead say the minor was a victim. You have a split in opinion in the sources, and when that occurs one has a simple choice, battle over 'victim' to keep or excise it according to a POV, or, as I did retain 'victim' in inverted commas, to signal the controversy. It's as simple as that, so simple NMMGG, convinced he has some specialist insight into my personal outlook, thinks he can smear me as pushing some NAMBLA agenda, when I am simply trying to edit a difficult article according to commonsense. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bad Dryer was blocked indefinitely by Drmies, and the block upheld by both Liz and HighInBC, for insinuating that Nishidani's BLP concerns at Ezra Nawi are motivated by some kind of paedophilic tendency.

Sir Joseph maintains the blocks result from Wikipedia's "shameful" bias against "pro-Israeli" editors [54], and No More Mr Nice Guy agrees. Despite this, NMMNG has themselves, at talk:Ezra Nawi, three times repeated the gross and insulting ad hominem that insinuates Nishidani's somehow pro-NAMBLA editing. NMMNG also defended Bad Dryer's insinuations before that user was indeff'd - which isn't surprising since they've repeated this themselves.

If NMMNG can't accept how disruptive it is to approach this topic while accusing other editors of some kind of paedophilia, they should not be editing here. -Darouet (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming here in response to the ping. In my opinion trying to gain advantage of a content dispute by accusing someone of child abuse is about the most egregious violation of WP:NPA that I can think of off the topic of my head. This includes hinting at it and slyly(or not so slyly) insinuating it. It was an easy decision to decline that unblock request.

I find it difficult to imagine a context where this would be appropriate, however as I have not looked into the context I will leave it for others to decide. HighInBC 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA when someone is using scare quotes around 'victim' in order to whitewash someones criminal acts. That last diff you posted was in response to this comment - "'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him." - that is straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of what happens when persistent loose insinuations by one established editor feed in to our work, and set up a whispering campaign. Now I am accused of 'whitewashing' a criminal act for using an orthographic device to bring people's attention to an issue requiring discussion.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Scare quotes'?!! Oh dear me, look I'm a philologist. One of the primary functions of inverted commas is 'to mark off a word or phrase that is being discussed' My edit suggestion was accompanied by opening a discussion on the talk page, for which I was insulted. Has the precise instruction on grammatical and verbal niceties been wholly lost in the past decades? It looks like it, and one of the consequences is that, not reading closely, editors tend to read into innocent words or devices all sorts of weird psychological conjectures, as here.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In an isolated environment you would probably be correct. When you follow it up with arguments that seek to deny victimhood and excuse rape of a minor, I am more skeptical of the motives involved. "They didnt make the complaint" is not an argument you want to be making when talking about rape victims. Oh and "Its a philogical matter" is also equally suspect. When you fall back on grammatical technicalities in order to advance an argument, it generally indicates the actual position has very little weight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Fall back' (i.e. NMMGG's 'backpedal').In a WP:BLP article. I used no arguments to excuse the rape of a minor, and I would ask you to retract that. I cited sources that state the minor, throughout the case, was 'reluctant' to testify against the man with whom he had a 'consensual' relationship. Nawi himself admitted immediately he was guilty, apparently, so it would be absurd for someone like me to deny what sources confirm. You, like NMMGG, are attributing to me positions in the source literature which I cite, which is slipshod reading and, worse still, damaging. You are not helping clarify this issue by making frivolous and offensive quips that pretend to 'read' into my remarks some private bias in favour of abuses of this kind.Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to maintain to make arguments that because a minor didnt make the complaint and was reluctant to testify it means their victimhood is in "discussion", feel free. You will however be judged accordingly. You have a preferred content version, you have made arguments as to why it should be that version, if it wasnt your opinion you are either playing a devil's advocate or you are misusing sources to push a POV. Since none of the sources deny he was a victim of a crime, using sources that indicate he was unwilling to testify to imply he wasnt a victim is OR. Either way muttering about orthographic devices just makes you look like you are making excuses to distance yourself from your previous remarks. I suggest if you dont want to be seen to be a rape apologist, stop making arguments rape apologists make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'stop making arguments rape apologists make.' That makes you at least the fourth person to take up the slur introduced by NMMGG, and further evidence as to why he should retract an insinuation that questions my integrity. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should listen. Generally if multiple people have an issue with you, the problem is not always with them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this kind of mudslinging against Nishidani would occur. This is why I suggested that these things be not treated with a sledgehammer. This is a delicate matter, and discussion should be focused on content, which was mostly what was happening on the talk page. In such an issue, it is hard to separate out personal feelings from the issue, some of which happened.

I have opened a block review of Bad Dryer on WP:AN as well. In my opinion, the block was unfair and harsh and only serves the drama god.

In contrast, in this discussion, Only in death has stated multiple times that Nishidani is a "rape apologist", or is simply mouthing arguments that "rape apologists" make, and cast aspersions on Nishidani's motives. This is much more of an NPA that Bad Dryer has engaged in. And more importantly, it only inflames the issue. Only in death is free to think whatever they like of Nishidani, but commenting at ANI does not give one a license to engage in serious personal attacks with abandon. There are many people I don't like here, and there are others who don't like me.

No More Mr Nice Guy should be warned (at the very least) about personalizing disputes with Nishidani. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. It is well known that NMMNG does not like Nishidani (some of the background has been given by Nishidani above), but there is no reason to be needlessly inflammatory, especially in a delicate matter like this. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nishidani is making the exact same arguments people who try to excuse sex with minors make. If he doesnt want to face accusations that he may be editing from a sympathetic viewpoint he shouldnt make the same sympathetic arguments. NAMBLA always bring up the victims lack of 'victimhood' in this situation because the argument *only* serves their agenda in attempting to push the viewpoint sex with minors is permissable. Just because Nishidani supposedly has more integrity, does not excuse him when he makes the same sympathetic arguments. Like I said, dont want to be accused of being sympathetic to a point of view? Dont make shitty arguments that proponents of that POV make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death: Have you heard of the term "guilt by association"? You can address the argument without associating people with organizations they have never heard of, who happen to make the argument for their own reasons. If I oppose smoking due to cigarettes causing cancer, are you going to associate me with Nazis because they were among the first to make the argument? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt by association is not the same as sharing a sympathetic viewpoint. If you started editing articles in a manner that suggested Jews were not victims because of <insert Nazi argument> I would expect you to be called out as being sympathetic to the Nazis. Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments. If they didnt expect to get grief over that they are either unaware of what NAMBLA advocates (in which case they shouldnt be touching content that involves sex with minors) or they are just incredible naive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time you have asserted:' Nishidani made edits that advanced the viewpoint the minor was not a victim and used NAMBLA arguments.' Retract it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you what, I won't say you are using NAMBLA arguments and in return you stop trying to justify a minor wasn't a victim because he didn't complain about it, deal? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After being warned multiple times by multiple people, Only in death refuses to comply. Admin action is needed, this is WP:ANI after all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's clear that both No More Mr Nice Guy and Only in death need to stop their aspersions, comparisons, and personal attacks immediately (including here and on that article and talk page and anywhere else on Wikipedia), or face immediate blocks, topic bans, or IBans. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC); edited 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still asking for a reply from NMMGG to a legitimate query. He said:

Not a single source says the minor was not a victim. No More Mr Nice Guy 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was implying that many sources used in the article state the minor was a victim, and that I was evidently in flagrant defiance of that source consensus.

I therefore requested him to clarify:

'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'? Nishidani 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from clearing my record of an ugly insinuation that has gathered some converts to the calumny, the point is that whatever language goes into a text must reflect the balance of sources.

So NMMGG. Please address this query, and possibly explain why, in a compromise edit when I reintroduced the word victim without inverted commas, your next edit erased it.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is why people are questions things. A minor can't be not a victim. There's no such thing as consensual sex under the age of consent. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are people expected to believe that the likes of NMMNG and the person who operates the Bad Dryer account or the kind of right wing Israel supporters who are attracted to Wikipedia, editors with long histories of advocacy and patently biased editing, are showing concern for the well being of a Palestinian child, their treatment in the real world and here on Wikipedia? I hope not because that notion is absurd as anyone familiar with these editors should know by now. None of this drama would have happened if Nawi had been an Israeli soldier and shot and killed the boy. What we have here is faux concern for the way Wikipedia treats a Palestinian child used as cover for the cynical exploitation of an opportunity to target a BLP of a perceived enemy of the State of Israel and harass Nishidani in a vindictive and cowardly way, all done behind masks of anonymity. Genuine issues with the content will not get sorted out in a drama-free way by collaborating with people whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Only Palestinians should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not right wing, or an Israel supporter and have no history of advocacy (or even editing in any meaningful way in the IP area), so I guess I'm exhibiting faux concern too? I assure you if Nawi had shot and killed a boy and editors started scare quoting 'Victim' in Nawi's biography we would be having a very similar conversation about their motives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you or your editing so there is no reason to think you are exhibiting faux concern. Maybe you can help improve the article since your priority is not to advocate for the State of Israel in a BLP about an anti-settlement activist. If Nawi had been an IDF soldier and shot the boy there would be no biography. But if there were, it would be nominated for deletion by an editor whose priority is to advocate for the State of Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony of Sean's statement above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is drifting. Stay focused, and kindly reply to my request above. Chat just buries a serious issue.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which request? For sources that call the minor a victim? Here you go: victim, victim, Nawi's friend Norris calling him a victim, and a Norris supporter calling him a victim. That took one google search to find, and some of those are already in the article.

The reason I thought you were discussing your opinion rather than that of sources in this edit is because of the fact the only source you reference is a dictionary, your use of "ostensible victim", and your claim that it doesn't "appear" the minor saw himself as a victim, when no source whatsoever brings any kind of statement from the minor, only the fact he didn't testify. Rape victims often don't want to testify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's replying to something I did not ask. You wrote:Not a single source says the minor was not a victim.

You can't see the equivocation in your sentence. This place is the despair of grammarians or precisians. You sentence implies:'every source says the minor was a victim', which is obviously untrue.3 small circulation Irish sources (in a country whose press never breathed a word for several decades of their own dirty linen, the widespread abuse of children by priests and Christian brothers) and one by an Irish correspondent for the English tabloid The Daily Mail, limited to the period of one week in 2011 when the aim was to shipwreck Norris's bid for the Presidency of Ireland use 'victim'. The numerous English-language Israeli sources for Nawi we use do not adopt 'victim' as the default term. They say:'statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy/minor'. Sources say the Israeli court found the relationship 'consensual', correct or not, and I stand by my point that, however morally contemptuous sex by an older man with a 15 year old may be, using from a short list of sources the word victim, when the indication so far is that it was consensual, is improper. You of course never explained why, when I reintroduced, after talk page discussion, the word 'victim', you immediately elided it from the lead.

It is true that Palestinian minors sexually abused or sodomised by Israeli soldiers while the latter hold them in detention are reluctant to denounce the fact for fear of retribution. In 1990 the boys' parents had no qualms about reporting it to Israeli courts, but the boy wouldn't apparently testify against him. When S.Hoyland talked of editors' nationalism, I presume he means that when an Israeli civil rights activist has a dark mark in his distant past, it is played up by many editors with a nationalist POV agenda for all its worth as they express outrage. But when the same kind of abuse (mass rape of a minor) is reported in army bases, of eminent diplomats, the same editors keep mum: it is not for our Wikipedia. They don't rush to edit in the scandal, as they do if the issue touches an activist for Palestinian rights, even if it occurred 25 years ago, and, since then thousands of Palestinians have trusted him not to molest their children as he takes them on those summer camps which the Israeli army would otherwise forbid them to enjoy. Unlike Sean, I think it both inevitable and not necessarily all bad, that many editors will defend their own countries' image and interests, and don't object if they have sharp eyes and high standards for sources and texts. I object when their concern spills over into patent smears, niggling, jabbing away, trying to play on the nerves (pointless at my age, when most of them are dead) which is the case here.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm required to engage with that long SOAPBOX. You asked for sources. I provided them. I explained why I said what I said. At least one person who has no connection to the IP topic has also said he found your comments, shall we say, outside the mainstream, so all these attempts to claim there's some kind of nationalistic background for this fall flat. If any uninvolved editor has any questions for me, please ping me. Otherwise I'm done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you refuse to listen. All I am asking for is that NMMGG be asked to strike out or retract the personal insinuations he invented from his fantasy about my ostensible ulterior motives. The adoption of the calumny he started led to one indeff, because the person kept repeating it until well past the brink. Two other editors here have taken it up. He is responsible for this crap, and he should shut up and focus, and do useful editing, like finding this source which I found to be deadlinked. It's worth reading. The man who wrote it lost his bid for the Presidency of Ireland, just for expressing an informed clemency for Nawi. That smear was big time, and NMMGG's is peanuts. But I have to work here, with him, and this means he must learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos every other time we encounter each other,Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Learn to focus on content, and not sneer with sleazy innuendos" like the time you told a group of editors that we lack "capacity for pity and horror" that is not "ethnic-exclusive"?[55] That's a fine thing for one editor to say to another. Not sleazy at all. Would you like to elaborate on what ethnicity you were referring to, before you take the beam out of your own eye? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content issues are not usually discussed on WP:ANI - the article talkpage should be used. Regardless of who is right, stop saying that Nishidani justified child abuse or use guilt by association with NAMBLA. That is the bottom line. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's a content issue? My capacity for pity and horror that is not "ethnic exclusive"? Was that a joke? The bottom line in this case is that your concern about NPA seems to be quite selective. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're under an obligation to edit in such a manner that both sides are duly represented. Thus, I, for one, am obliged to edit in tragic material not only re Palestinians but Israelis as attested in RS. I've done that everyday for years, i.e.,here,here,and here. It may be a defect of cursory knowledge but I only see you editing to minutely control material deleterious to Israel or editing articles re Palestinians when there is something negative to be showcased (Ezra Nawi, 2000 Ramallah lynching. You're not alone, and it reflects the fact that mainstream Israeli papers focus intensely on whatever violence affects Israelis or settlers, but generally ignore what happens to Palestinians. This exclusively negative or defensive focus in editors breaks no rule. But the pattern of refusing to consider that there are two sides to any question and accept that one must strive to see both perspectives, is obvious.

In the present case, you made an extraordinary set of claims about my bias.You stated:

Not a single source says the minor was not a victim.
I came forth with a disproof of this:Alex Massie in The Spectator specifically wrote:
though in a technical sense a crime had been committed there was no malice involved and no real victim.

You asserted a claim re sources which I showed was false. What was your reaction?

Excise;revert out;delete;erase

No real argument. Just repeated removal of information that contradicted your assertion. In an empirical world, one adjusts one's ideas as new information shows them to be inexact. In a partisan mindset, one suppresses any information which contradicts one's beliefs. At least do me the courtesy of retracting your assertion that I repeatedly justify sex with minors and the insinuation I act as a proxy for an obnoxious paedophile organization. Two people who took this up have since retracted. You ran that hare and ought to do the same. There is no evidence for it. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good laugh when you said you strive to see both perspectives, considering I caught you more than once falsifying sources to push your POV. As I said above, I'm not going to engage with your soapboxing, and you can add strawmen and self-righteous bullshit to that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That tone and misrepresentation only serves to underline my point that some admin should sum up the general community comments here, take notice of the fact that you refuse to withdraw a remark one person was indeffed for, and 2 others withdrew or dropped from repeating, and ask you to simply retract it. That done, one can get back to serious things, like editing. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin can read the discussion that resulted in your personal attack against me here and see if what I said above is a misrepresentation. It includes two quite straightforward examples of source falsification to push a POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's a content dispute involved, but Nishidani should not be expected to have to continue participating with respect and patience when doing so means being repeatedly slandered with allegations of support for paedophilia, and a generally sneering attitude. That is the cheapest and most egregious form of ad hominem, obviously contrary to WP:NPA, and it rightfully got Bad Dryer banned. Kingsindian, HighInBC and others have requested that you quit it, No More Mr Nice Guy, and you refuse. Unfortunately your conduct is living up to your chosen user name. This kind of behavior is rare among regular editors but when it appears makes Wikipedia a toxic, unpleasant and unproductive place. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look up where Nishidani quoted someone who wrote that there was no real victim. That is the issue, that while it was consensual, there is still a victim becasue the kid was underage, even if it was consensual. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My attitude towards Nishidani reflects his attitude towards me. I can give dozens of examples like the personal attack I mentioned just above, which you for some reason are completely ignoring. Also nobody said he's supporting pedophilia. That's ridiculous. Pedophilia involves prepubescent children, not 15 year olds. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact my point is not about personal attacks, which are a dime a dozen in I/P area. I know that, you know that and Nishidani knows that. But there is a world of difference between different kinds of personal attacks. It is routine to have personal attacks accusing that someone is biased to one side, people just shrug it off. What is not acceptable is to use guilt by association with a pedophile advocacy organization and saying that X tried to justify having sex with a minor. That is a low blow. Please don't give me any stuff about pre-pubescent children. NAMBLA advocates pedophilia in general. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think telling another editor they are incapable of human emotion towards anyone who is not of their ethnicity is an accusation of bias rather than an outright accusation of racism (with some pedigree, but never mind), then you may need to step back a little. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be digging up a single one of Nishidani's edits from 8 months ago to justify your repeated, unrepentant, ad hominem slurs against them now. And if nobody is particularly convinced by your invocation of WP:BLP to slander an Israeli anti-settlement activist, or your loud indignation on behalf of the Palestinian boy who refused to testify against him, your own tone and editing history speak for themselves. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify. This is an Aristotelian distinction, as I recall noting at the time, related to the intensity of affect caused by kinship bonds (and all mankind is prone to the bias). That you are still twisting this into an accusation I was being 'racist' (your gloss, 'with some pedigree' in context means 'the history of anti-Semitism) is another example of misreading and your apparently obsessive conviction about my putative ulterior motives. Your accusation in this regard was examined and dismissed. Your continual returning to this, and insinuations I am pushing an agenda of sexual license with minors, suggests to me you have a problem in editing with me, and need to be told to retract the statement, and focus on editing.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion of KrazyKlimber and IP 101.182.100.189 as IPs 203.17.215.22 and 203.17.215.26

Both users make repetitive similar edits of Jonathan Mitchell that contribute nothing. Both are from Australia. Is there anything that can be done about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=KrazyKlimber&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.182.100.189

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.17.215.22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.17.215.26

Yes, I am aware that I shouldn't have directly edited the article as a CoI, but he put undue pressure on me as KrazyKlimber to disclose it when I didn't think it was necessary, as my relationship is tangential. Also, KrazyKlimber has a CoI with him, but I will say no more on the matter.

Ylevental (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, he is making personal off-site accusations about me as he did under KrazyKlimber at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=702879655 Namely "I know however where he's going otherwise and that I admit to. He's trouble with a capital T and is creating a reputation for himself as a troublemaker within the Autistic community. I am quite entitled to pull him up on it" Ylevental (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this looks like an issue for SPI. The fact that the Australian IPs mentioned what you do outside of here in a discussion on-wiki is something of a problem, but SPI seems more useful here. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 04:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fastifex

Can someone please take a look into Fastifex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? (I'm off to sleep.) He has been around since 2006, reactivated recently, and seem to have WP:CIR issues. He moves pages around at a pretty high rate, creating totally uncalled-for dab pages [56] and [57]. His talk page is littered with bot notifications and explanations how Wikipedia works, but he seems to continue his Mission unabated. No such user (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I can't even follow all these moves, redirects, and double redirects. You need charts and graphs and an easel to wrap your head around it all. He was blocked four times in 2006 for this kind of thing so he definitely knows better. Katie^talk 02:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is definitely concerning. I suggest warning the user to stop all of these moves and redirects until all of the concerns are resolved in this ANI thread. If the activity continues despite the warning and request for a discussion here, I'd almost say go ahead with a block until we hear back. The rate in which this is occurring is too high for comfort in my opinion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Burca dab page seems to be erroneous as well as unnecessary. The first entry appears to be an error for Barca (ancient city), making the only valid entries the genus and the Romanian village, which is already linked via hatnote from Burca (genus). (The hatnote made more sense when the title of the article was plain "Burca".) Deor (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've encouraged Fastifex to participate here, because I'm this close to giving him an indef block for disruption until he realizes the damage he's causing. Katie^talk 13:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BD2412 who has dealt with Fastifex before, and issued several warnings already. No such user (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this underscores exactly why we should revive the idea of having a page at Wikipedia:Disambiguations for discussion, for consensus-based resolution to propositions that a given title should or should not be a disambiguation page. Disambiguation is a big deal, potentially very messy, and should generally be discussed in a single place before that mess is created. bd2412 T 13:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

66.94.202.246

IP editor previously banned 2 weeks (Jan 18) for unsourced changes, no edit summaries, and not engaging on Talk. Block has now expired and IP immediately resumed prior behavior. User talk:66.94.202.246#February 2016. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption caused by this editor is tremendous. We'll need an army to go through his numerous year and number changes to check for the many, many errors he's introduced into articles. 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been policing this user's edits (their IP address seems to change every few months but the editing style is identical, one IP address was blocked for a month) on and off for over a year now and while the user has gotten somewhat "better," they continue to be unresponsive. The editor has actually found some factual inaccuracies and recently has seemed to be acting in good faith. Unfortunately, they also don't seem to fact check many of the dates and have never used the Edit Summary to explain why they are making the changes. With their continually switching IP address I am not sure how long a block will last, but it is better than nothing. (see User talk:66.94.206.60, User talk:66.94.209.81, User talk:66.94.195.79, and User talk:66.94.205.235 in reverse chronological order) Yosemiter (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's 66.94.192.0/19, too much collateral damage for a rangeblock. If he doesn't respond here during his usual editing time today, I'm willing to block this single IP for as long as three months. (Am I the only one thinking that someone editing from 'Family Video Movie Club' is a guy sitting in the back room of a video store who's bored out of his mind?) Katie^talk 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And he picked up right where he left off, so he's on a 90-day vacation. Katie^talk 03:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez

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

Golbez wrote, "What should happen: People ignore Victor and return this talk page to the business of discussing the page instead of politics. What will happen: TheVirginiaHistorian, The Four Deuces will respond to Victor telling him how wrong his babby's-first-libertarian politics are, Victor will respond back with another couple paragraphs about how awesome Republicans are and how evil liberals are, and this bullshit will continue unabated.[58]

I told Golbez to remove the personal attacks,[59] and he replied, "Yay, adult supervision!"[60]

This is part of Talk:United States#Edit break for Proposals, where VictorD7 asked editors to choose between two alternatives. I opposed both.[61]

Golbez's comments are not helpful and I would ask other editors to explain that to him.

TFD (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this are pretty uncivil, but I'm not sure it's a personal attack. I also think this is a content dispute, not a matter for ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since we're here... There is a discussion on the talk page as to how to describe the political parties. I'm guessing that roughly 90% of it is incessant political arguing, mostly from VictorD7, but then people - sometimes TheVirginiaHistorian, sometimes our friend TFD here - will respond, and the cycle starts again. It's less a content dispute and more a massively-off-topic dispute that is really monopolizing the traffic of the talk page. It's clear I'm over it. I just don't have the energy or, frankly, knowledge to do anything about it; where does one go to complain that a talk page is being abused? Here? Hardly seems like an admin issue at this juncture. But it is an issue. So, I offer my pointed complaints as to how they're conducting themselves. I know my remarks are not helpful, but yet they are somehow more on topic than what the remarks are snarking against. But considering I have an intense dislike for the three loudest voices in the talk page, I suppose I should do what I said I'd do, hit alt-W, and go on with life. I was once the top contributor to the article, but it's moved on, though not in a direction I'd like (well, the talk page has moved on... the actual article, very little gets accomplished there, in large part because the talk page is so toxic). --Golbez (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old-as-dirt content dispute. Golbez is right that the talk page is toxic, though. Nevertheless, definitely not an ANI matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a conduct issue, such as toxicity on the talk page, anyway, arbitration enforcement is a better forum than here for matters that are under discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez maybe could probably stand to phrase his commentary in a fashion less likely to bait acrimony (especially given how disinterested he claims to ultimately be in the proceedings), but I'm not seeing a behavioural or civility issue here that even remotely rises the the level of requiring community intervention; certainly I see nothing which rises to the level of WP:NPA. I dare say, on the basis of what has been presented here so far, that there is more disruption implicit in bringing such a minor personal dispute to ANI than in anything Golbez has said or done. Again, in so far as the complained-of behaviour is concerned. The only action that seems appropriate here, insofar as ANI is concerned (other dispute resolution forums may be useful, as others have suggested) is a therapeutic trouting with the hope that it might promote the growth of some thicker skin. Happy to revisit my opinion if the community is presented with more diffs or context, but that's how I see it presently. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious account holder

I keep seeing on music articles that I patrol an account name which consists of just numbers and letters, and it only ever makes a small amount of edits over a few days, or just one edit. After this, an account name of the same structure but different numbers and letters makes more edits in same fashion. They are usually unhelpful edits, but I can't work out why there are so many accounts like this. For example, on S&M (song), the account 2601:84:4601:84d1:9982:78f0:7f71:2b made two edits on 2 Feb, I reverted them, then the next day 2601:84:4601:84d1:b059:aea0:18f0:eb67 tried adding the content back again. I've seen this for months now. Someone must be creating multiple accounts and using them for a day or two, or it's a sock puppet. The same thing happened on 15 December 2015 on The Sweet Sweet Fantasy Tour by 2604:2000:9080:9100:703F:1F08:143F:8F49, and on 3 November 2015 on Rated R (Rihanna album) by 2601:86:400:2A61:C055:47D0:7F0A:ECF9. I'm sure it's the same person, the pattern is too regular in how they edit. — Calvin999 09:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See IPv6 address. Keri (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what does that mean in simple English? — Calvin999 10:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fancy new IP address. It's just like a normal IP address except it's bigger. --Tarage (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the same person and the same account? Or the same person using multiple accounts? — Calvin999 10:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each one is an individual IP, so either it's one person using multiple IPs, or a bunch of users using different IPs. Ask yourself the same question if they were just editors with IPs that looked like 123.345.583.574. Would you be worried? --Tarage (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there were octets like 345, 583, or 574, I would be worried, but we know what you meant. :-) --David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If different IPs kept editing the same articles making the same kind of edits, then yeah. — Calvin999 10:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what it is. They're just IP addresses (in an unfamiliar format) rather than registered accounts' user names. Keri (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's really irritating. — Calvin999 11:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, if things get too bad then a request for temporary semi-protection at WP:RFPP is the way to go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The IPv6 addresses in the S&M article geolocate to the same part of New Jersey and to Comcast ([62], [63]). It's safe to assume that's the same person. The IP address at Rated R is also from New Jersey (though in a different but nearby part) and Comcast again, so maybe the same person. The IP address at the Sweet Sweet Fantasy Tour geolocates to Kansas and a different ISP ([64]), so probably not the same person (although my IP address does currently geolocate to Columbia, SC despite being in Hangzhou).

To be completely clear, they are not accounts, those are just a new IP address format (in other words, same ol' anon users as before, different packaging). As such, if things start to get really problematic at S&M (Song), the only real option will be page protection of some sort, since their IP address is about as stable as a drunk elephant on stilts. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your S&M (Song) IP is one person. See how the first four sets of numbers are the same? That's one network, or one end user. The other two IPs you're talking about, though, are two different networks than the first. We can rangeblock 2601:84:4601:84D1::/64 and get the first guy if he continues, but I don't think we're there yet. Katie^talk 14:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: - you said the edits are "unhelpful", if the edits are vandalism or otherwise disruptive, you can file a report at WP:AIV. - ^theWOLFchild 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog's bullying over editing Craig J. N. de Paulo

It appears that the OP is forum shopping. As has been suggested, WP:RSN seems to be a more suitable forum for this issue. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

As per endless discuss on the talk page of Craig J. N. de Paulo, and at the suggestion of another editor, I found serious sources to support the information on this article's page, which were summarily dismissed as "garbage sources" and removed eight citations, including one from the Pennsylvania Council of Churches and the Newsletter for Phenomenology. These are credible sources that support the information on this article's page. Need some help. JustTryintobeJust (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a dispute over suitability of a source you can ask about it at WP:RSN. I think you are at the wrong noticeboard. – Brianhe (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't bullying at all. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JustTryintobeJust: You are also obliged to notify people when you report them here, which you appear to have failed to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not again! Not here now! A Third Opinion was requested about this article. I removed it for two reasons. First, there were more than two editors. Second, the issue appeared to be a question about whether the individual is notable, and therefore whether the article should be deleted as not notable. Since there is a specific forum, Articles for Deletion, for deciding that issue, the lightweight procedure of Third Opinion wasn't the best approach. If there is a dispute about "garbage sources", go to RSN. If there is a question about whether the individual is notable, try WP:AFD. (By the way, see deletion outcomes about clergy. Bishops of major denominations are almost always kept.) If there are claims of bullying, support them with diffs. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old Catholics - probably worth a punt at AFD. OC's could be argued against being a 'major' denomination. I am pretty sure there are more people who identify as Pastafarians or Jedi than OC's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Troll IP

86.187.167.167, related to this. Eik Corell (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.187.160.0/21 blocked one week for disruption. Very few good edits from this range for the last month. Katie^talk 16:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like the filter is working; [New troll IPs here]. Eik Corell (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's working, but the new edits are from outside the rangeblock. I've looked at the contributions of this expanded range, 86.187.128.0/18, pretty hard for the last half hour and while there are more editors, and some good edits, there's also more vandalism of a different type than this hounding of Elk Corell. Based on that, I've blocked the /18 range for one week for disruption. I work UTRS and ACC also so I'll try to catch any problems that might arise. We shouldn't put up with this jerk, but anything bigger than the /18 range might not be possible. Katie^talk 15:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing resumes as soon as last incident is archived

The best thing to explain this I suppose is to link here [65] and then here [66] and then here [67] and here [68]. At least as long as there is an incident on this board the user seems to be more polite. Any advice on what to do would be greatly appreciated. YuHuw (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's not the best way to explain "this". Please don't send us on fishing expeditions. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, I'm still new here but I should have thought through more and pinged the administrators who are already familiar with the history of this case. User:Wbm1058, User:Dbachmann, User:Tide_rolls, I am also sorry I can not get the Archive link to work better than that. It seems to arrive in the right place initially then suddenly jump three or four cases down for some reason. But the title is correct (Harassment_on_Talk_Pages_and_edit_summaries) Since nothing has changed, shall I copy and paste the whole thing here again? YuHuw (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, linking to the prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive912 § Harassment on Talk Pages and edit summaries should be sufficient. Sorry, I see that nobody else besides me responded after you listed the diffs that concern you, as requested by Tide rolls. I don't like to see talk of "lining up the ducks on this meatpuppet." I view the term meatpuppet as derogatory and that should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. - Wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond here to avoid a perception that "no comment equals disregard". I still see no harassment. I do see brusque language and what could be construed as less explanation that could be required for a newcomer. To be honest, the OP exhibits a rather oblique manner in which they communicate. This could be due to a failure on my part; I've been speaking English for over 50 years and still discover that I fall short on occasion. I'm simply not seeing anything actionable here. Tiderolls 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know what I was supposed to see where. Where'd you learn that English of yours, Tide? Drmies (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That'd be L.A. Lower Alabama. Tiderolls 21:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At 23:27, 26 January 2016 Warshy asked YuHuw not to post on his talk page again.[69] Since then, YuHuw has made four edits to Warshy's talk page.[70] In this edit[71] to Warshy's talk page, YuHuw accuses @Vadcat: of being a sockpuppet of Warshy. When Warshy objects to this,at 15:24, 4 February 2016, YuHuw responds at 15:43, 4 February 2016 by posting a complaint at WP:ANI. If admins wonder who Vadcat is - try his contribution history on Russian wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, meatpuppet sounds pretty nasty to be honest, at least certainly not civil :( but I suppose I should also just stipulate having revised my knowledge of WP:Meatpuppet that I am not "friends, family members, or communities" with that user. Yet it seems a group of friends from the same community appears to be ganging up on me though (or perhaps even on anyone/everyone who tries to disambiguate/clean up some of those messy articles).

I thought making a user account would be a fun way to engage with intelligent people on such topics, but am starting to think perhaps the socializing might not be as jolly as it seemed it might be. User:Tide rolls you did see that by equating me with that User over and over again they are calling me a pedophile right? YuHuw (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see that, no. Tiderolls 21:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was the very first diff I posted in response to your request at that time. Here I will post that reply again and bold it for you. But it is just a needle in the ever-increasing hay-stack so I won't including today's insults yet because I am tired and need to go to bed now but will add them tomorrow since it looks like the insults will continue all night with some more coming on my talk page now as we type. I will wait till they finish before adding them tomorrow.

Quoted text: "If someone continues to make references to you being a sockpuppet in talk pages and edit summaries again and again even when you ask them again and again to stop that is an harassment designed to prejudice other users against you (which has worked in this case with Warshy). Especially considering the things I discovered were suggested by the same users about the sock in question[72] the references are exceptionally insulting.

Here are the examples: edit summary insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult edit summary and talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult talk page references to suggest I am that despicable person discussion board insult apparently from Toddy1's IP based upon this dif [73] and the fact (s)he signed later [74] although he also completes User Nepolkanov's work sometimes too [75] talk page insult edit summary insult talk page insult anotther indirect reference to sockpuppetry more talk page insults same again edit summary insult talk page insult & canvassing more of the same more of the same more of the same canvassing refactoring my comments on talk page to confuse order suggesting need for more canvassing finally Warshy is convinced by Toddy1 and joins in the insults more of the same baseless prejudice suggestion that there is some sort of business agenda behind their aggression against those of us who might ask for un-sourced musings to be deleted strange comment in light of the business agenda about this being a nightmare

These Users' edit histories shows they does this type of conduct is his normal way of dealing with random users who challenge her/his edits or post things they do not like. If you want me to provide diffs it will take a long time since they appear to have done it really an awful lot of times but I will make a start collecting diffs if asked, although my objective is not to attack them for their conduct in general just get them to stop doing it to me. Afterall, there may be instances where their suspicions have paid off. Although other times they seem pointless [76]. It certainly seems Toddy1 has been misleading others but Nepolkanov (whose edit history shows only appears to deal with people who are not anti-Polkanov -a Crimean author- which is what Nepolkanov means "Anti-Polkanov") has not exactly been angelic in regards to being beyond hurling the insults -even though I had no idea about Polkanov when this began and don't even agree with Polkanov's ideas now that I know them. It seems Nepolkanov who decided that User:31.154.167.98 was User:Kaz for some reason simply got confused and thinks that is my IP. As a result he continued his insults towards User:31.154.167.98 [77], firstly against User:Wbm1058 [78] [79] and then became fixated on me after I agreed to take on the role of second author for the article as per his suggestion. For example: first apparent reference to me by use of phrase "your claims" as the despicable user again by use of term "your fake" same again canvassing support, trying to guess meaning of YuHuw while desperately concocting link to the despicable user this is difficult to understand because the URL is fake but it seems more desperation and he is calling me a "thief" in Russian although I may be wrong on this one another reference to the despicable user more canvassing and another ref to that user refactoring my comments another insulting ref to me as that user again declares his suspicion that I am the blocked user more refactoring my talk and more reference to me as the despicable user canvassing and still the same insult while apparently also saying I am so wealthy that I control the internet 0.o directly insulting me again by calling me that user again trying to claim I am not what I say I am

But at least Nepolkanov has engaged in (even if he is aggressive and belligerent editing) some useful discussion on the issues which need to be discussed, unlike user Toddy1 who does not really engage much at all. I don't want anything but to reassure them I am my own person and make sure they don't try such tactics again just because they don't like the challenge. I don't mind fierce debate, I believe thrashing out diametrically opposed views can lead to a clearer picture on foggy issues, but preferably without the insults to intelligence and without the horrendous and potentially damaging references. I didn't create an account to hide my light. I hope I have something that given time will shine here. Best regards. YuHuw (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

But the behaviour YuHuw complains of, is behaviour he exhibits himself:

15:21, 4 February 2016 accuses Vadcat of being a sockpuppet of Warshy on Warshy's talk page.
13:31, 4 February 2016 edit summary accuses Vadcat of being a sockpuppet of Ancientsteppe.
21:07, 30 January 2016 edit summary accuses Vadcat of being a sleeper.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For admin attention :the wrong YuHuw's translation above of nick Nepolkanov as Anti-Polkanov (while actualy means not Polkanov) is erronious argument of blocked User Kaz.This charectirizing Kaz only repeated mistake is additional argument that YuHuw actually is Kaz's clone.Неполканов (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I got the translation from the number 1 hit when anyone googles your user name [80]

Concernign the "four edits" to warshy's wall which Toddy1 mentioned here they are a mandatory call to dispute resolution notice board, a mandatory call to ANI, my polite response to his resuming attacks against me based upon the insulting edit summaries since no one gave me any advice on how to deal with these things from last time I simply copied Toddy1's method as he seems to know how things work around here. If his method is bad please tell me and him so that other new users do not pick up bad habits from his style. I also understand that one should attempt to initiate a discussion before returning things to ANI. The response was that I should P***-off as he thinks I am a plague. I am really quite shocked at the level of instant hostility to me simply because I have been asking for discussion on sources. Finally number 4 is just another mandatory call to ANI. So whenever Toddy1 presents a link from now on I think everyone should definitely check the details which he tries to hide with spin. YuHuw (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for Vadcat, judging from the user's edit history [81] he is indeed *very* sleepy here on English WP (a bit like Not-Polkanov). I doubt the two accounts are the same person. Unless someone who speaks Russian recruits him from Russian wikipedia as and when required for support? YuHuw (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here are the incidents of insult to me which took place last night while I was sleeping (as I expected very rude rant the user who says Dunlop is not RS says in this edit summary and this comment that I am faking sources which he knows are just direct copies from Russian wikipedia. Just another couple of straws on the haystack mission to paint a bad picture of me to other users. here he refactors my talk page again here he lies in the edit summary to make it look like I am breaking rules which I have not. Not even Edit warring since the extensive discussed context of the edits he there pretends do not exist. again he calls me a thief in russian he calls me that pedophile again here he calls me the same pedophile again in the edit summary he makes reference to me as that pedophile (albeit mis-spelled) again. I'm getting very depressed as the incessant abuse is really grinding me down. My post here last week was to ask for advice, and this week too. Please Admins, I really want some amicable resolution which can make this constant abuse and harassment stop once and for all. Yours faithfully. YuHuw (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding what you call refactoring of your talk page...

10:56, 29 January 2016 Неполканов created a new section under the heading: "YuHuw's " ridicilious Edit Wars.
11:03, 29 January 2016 YuHuw changes the section heading above Неполканов's post to: Rant from barely literate Disruptive Editor who supports User:Ancientsteppe's work
11:08, 29 January 2016 YuHuw changes the section heading to: Nepolkanov's complaint
11:14, 29 January 2016 Неполканов restores section heading
11:20, 29 January 2016 YuHuw changes the section heading
20:51, 4 February 2016 Неполканов restores section heading

I think that he made it clear that he strongly objected to your putting your heading above his text.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if Warshy tells me not to touch his talk page (even though I must by wiki policy) that is fine, but I am not allowed to organize my own talk page? It means anyone is allowed to post any title on anyone's talk page and no one is allowed to correct it? I'm sorry I'm still new here, where is the wiki policy on this? YuHuw (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wbm1058, User:Dbachmann, User:Tide_rolls if any of you might be around to catch up that would be gretly appreciated. YuHuw (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have my assessment. Tiderolls 17:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you were the person who had been being equated with an alleged pedophile I think you might understand better how horrible that feels User:Tide rolls YuHuw (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YuHuw, I see that you have given ~four diffs accusing other editors of "refactoring" your comments above. Please explain to me what that means in the context of editing Wikipedia, and what are the rules and guidelines on that. I see you are asking what the policy on this is; can you search for it and link to it here? I'm wondering why you use the term refactor here, if you haven't read the policy, as it's not an everyday word outside this community (kind of like "disambiguate" in that regard). Wbm1058 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wbm1058, I understand the term re-factor to mean change the factoring. for example I recently tried to "factor" my talk page to be less rude (the first time I factored it I felt my heading was uncharitable so I changed it again) by finding the "factor" at the base of what the problem was but he changed that. So that is what I mean by re-factoring my talk page. Is that what you wanted me to comment on? I was trying to find a more polite and charitable heading. googling Wikipedia refactoring policy as you requested has given me this result WP:RTP but I can't understand if that is what I mean when I use the term or not.

In other cases my comments on talk pages have been factored somehow resulting in a slightly different presentation or outcome. For example Toady1 changes the base of what I did here [82] to make it look like something different had taken place. This example [83] is quite a bit more complicated than that which led me to miss some of his replies until I went through the history, even though my intention is to deal with every issue raised. I do not ignore. It might be a small thing but just like them appearing on every page I touch. It seems it would be better to quote me rather than chop about my original posts like that. I don't mind Warshy deleting my comments from his talk page (as I saw another user do that in the past without answering my comment I can't remember his name and am too stressed to go through and check) because after-all it is his talk page and replaced with uncivil language about me [84] [85] (besides equating me with an alleged pedophile of course e.g. "plague" "psychotic" "sh*t" "religious fanatic" (though I have never state whether I have a religion or not) etc, and so anyway it is his wall, it seems he can do what he likes there am I right? But when my comments have been altered even though slightly on a talk page it is a bit unpleasant when the same users are equating me with a pedophile over and again as well as appearing on almost every page I try to edit. It really feels like I am being singled out or targeted. It is also weird that some of these users are IPs which appear once or twice then vanish or User accounts which checking through the contexts of their history only appear when Toddy1 needs support for some crusade or another on Ukraine-related topics. Is there a way to remove all these insults from wikipedia by the way? Being equated to an alleged pedophile is really a dangerous insult to throw at anyone. YuHuw (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm struggling to understand the meaning of "change the factoring". Factoring (disambiguation) offers three options, and none of them seem to fit this context. Factor (disambiguation) leaves me guessing, too. Is English your first language? How did you come to understand this meaning of "factor(ing)" – somewhere outside of Wikipedia, or is this something you learned from Wikipedia? I'm certainly uncomfortable with seeing that "p" word flying about here, but can we focus on this first? It's hard for me to follow all the accusations without investing a lot of time into research. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valencian Country, Basque Country and Catalonia (nationalities of Spain)

I request to block User:Satesclop and his IP address as he keeps edit warring with several users just because he doesn't recognise Spain is a diverse country integrated by different nationalities (nations) and regions. He is trying to mix terms, he refuses to use the green map some users agreed to display (this type of map doesn't mean these territories are independent), and also I don't think he is a good user as he also attacked the Catalan / Valencian cultural domain. — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 16:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I also request to protect those articles due to constant vandalism — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Spencer told Satesclop at WP:AIV: this is a content dispute. You're both experienced editors; consider dispute resolution. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a big Spanish flag for him on the Spanish people article — Jɑuмe ^(dis-me) 18:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do be careful that you're not being disruptive to make a point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attack pages by User:His Ogreness

Issue resolved. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't see the content of the previously speedied articles Nate Miller (Reptilian Overlord) and Nate Miller (Reptoid) but based on the titles and the content of User:His Ogreness (which I have tagged for speedy as an attack page aimed at Nate Miller) it seems likely that the other articles were also attack pages. Since the user has no other edits the user's name appears to be another attack aimed at Nate Miller. Meters (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, in some US youth cultures, "dank" is a good thing. No doubt this guy is a troll but I wouldn't class this as an attack. His Ogreness should probably be indeff'd as a troll. John from Idegon (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)¿[reply]

And the user's been indef'ed RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Personally, I would consider being called a reptilian overlord and an ogre an attack. Maybe Nate Miller would feel differently. Meters (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Meters. I'd rather be a reptilian overlord than a mammalian peon. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's from the upcoming 2016 science fiction reboot of Paradise Lost, right? Starring Channing Tatum as Lizard Satan? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bishzilla notified. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mammalian peon? Please, I prefer to think of myself as a "man thing," scuttling through the underbrush hiding from John Travolta in Battlefield Earth. Meters (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Zilla can't read deleted pages either, no longer admin. (Sadness! And frustrated curiosity!) But "Reptilian Overlord" obviously compliment as such. Please all bow down to Overlady Bishzilla. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

But are you dank? John from Idegon (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to close this thread, but then I saw this question. The court will await an answer ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's time, but the best laugh I've had for some time. Meters (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary clarify 'Zilla is "the dankness". Now free close, little Oshwah! bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I just want to point out that the admins ought to take a long, close look at any editor who prefers to think about Battlefield Earth, for any reason. Sanctions would be appropriate, and should be severe. Now please excuse me as I go floss my brain as a result of having mentioned that travesty. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

'Wikihounding' by JBL

OP blocked by Bishonen as a timesink.

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

'Wikihounding' by JBL

I recently read a book by George Watson, Lost Literature of Socialism. George G. Watson, MA, Fellow of the St Johns College at Cambridge since 1961. Watson, “[o]ver a period of more than half a century … published a number of books on literature, literary criticism, and political thought.” Watson’s argument is based on some interesting facts about Adolph Hitler and Friedrich Engels. I verified those facts from independent sources, and then sought to introduce those facts into two Wikipedia articles: “Nazism” and “Friedrich Engels”. In each instance, I was immediately reversed by other editors. One DanielRigal reversed my edits in “Nazism”, and one RolandR reversed my edits in the “Engels” article.

My confrontation with DanielRigal subsequently centered on the biased language in the “Nazism” article. I maintain that phrases like “Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements” are not presented from a neutral point of view, because 1) it imputes that only ‘far-right’ groups hold such beliefs, and 2) all ‘far-right’ groups hold such beliefs. Those notions are blatantly false, and I provided examples that there is historical evidence that demonstrates how those notions are false. To perpetuate a falsehood is to lie.

After sending me two PMs threatening to have me barred, DanielRigal dropped out of the discussion and was replaced by one TFD. I have substantively dealt with each and every excuse TFD has used to reject any changes to the article, but I maintain that the article, as written, is biased and perpetuates misinformation, which is counter to Wikipedia’s policy of being fair and unbiased and presenting material in with neutral point of view. That is the focus of my concern with that article and with DanielRigal and TFD.

I do wish to add that both DanielRigal and TFD followed me to the Engels article and made comments on my proposed changes there. Two of three comments addressed to me by DanielRigal are on my Talk Page. In the first comment, DanielRigal threatened to have me barred for the changes I made to the “Nazism” article, and the second comment addressed edits I made to the “Engels” article – where there is no record of DanielRigal being previously involved in editorial changes to the "Engels" page.

I was surprised to receive that second threat from DanielRigal in regards to the “Engels” article, and I was disconcerted by the knowledge that I had been stalked or informed on by someone in an oppositional clique of editors. Let me be clear that I am not seeking any administrative action against DanielRigal, TFD or RolandR, I just want everyone to be aware of the interactions I’ve been dealing with these past three days.

Regarding the “Engles” article. After RolandR reversed my edits in the “Engels” article, I directly addressed his concerns with a revised edit with the changes he deemed necessary to make the edit worthy and credible. That edit was immediately reversed –out of the blue and without comment – by one User:Joel B. Lewis (JBL) who happens to be an editor that I had confrontational dealings with last year in another article. It was at this point, after JBL reversed my edit in the “Engels” article, that I received the second threat from DanielRigal to have me barred.

Another editor, FreeKnowledgeCreator, started a Talk Page on the “Engels” article entitled “Engels and the Slavs” wherein he requested that JBL explain why he reversed my edit. I joined the conversation and likewise requested justification.

I ask that everyone read JBL’s response and all of the exchanges that follow in that section.

I feel very confident that I provided ample evidence and credible citations to support my edits in both the “Nazism” article and the “Engels” article, and that a certain clique is refusing to allow my edits is doing so for partisan political reasons.

It’s evident from their posts that DanielRigal, TFD, RolandR and JBL are acting in concert and that at least one, and maybe all of them, are guilty of stalking my posts. DanielRigal and TFD comments show that they followed me from the “Nazism” article to the “Engels” article. There’s no indication that either DanielRigal or TFD were active editors of the “Engels” article before I had proposed changes to that article.

RolandR’s comment reveals that he followed me to – or was made aware of – my post to FreeKnowledgeCreator’s talk page and then wrongly accused me of violating Wikipedia policies. However, my real purpose for bringing all of this to the attention of the administrators is to report JBL for engaging in “Wikihounding.”

As reported above, JBL appeared out of the blue and immediately became confrontational in the “Engels” article, and this is notable considering the confrontational exchange we had in regards to another article last year. There’s no indication that JBL had been involved as an active editor of either the “Nazism” article or the “Engels” article before I had proposed changes to both. Yet, miraculously he suddenly appeared in both! How he knew or was made aware of my edits to those two articles is worth investigation. Subsequently, JBL has made it abundantly clear that his sole purpose for being in the “Engels” article is to prejudicially frustrate and deny my proposed changes to that article and any subsequent article I should try to edit in the future.

Let me conclude by reporting that JBL’s latest comment was to belligerently challenge me to report him.

So I did. Aspencork (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected all instances of "JDL" above, as well as adding some links so that other users can figure out who you're talking about. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"One link" to your page. Aspencork (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An example of this editor's work is found at Talk:Planned_Parenthood/Archive_15#PPH_Funding--an almost interminable talk page discussion that followed a severely problematic article edit. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I invite everyone involved to actually read the Politifact article and determine for themselves who was 'severely' misrepresenting what the Poltifact article actually reported. Aspencork (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, and does not belong at ANI, but I will briefly reply to your posting. Wikipedia articles are supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Watson was a professor of Victorian literature not an historian of Nazi Germany. His books on politics were not published by academic publishers and while they may have reached a small audience of readers, have not influenced scholarship. As you say, "[his] argument is based on some interesting facts about Adolph Hitler and Friedrich Engels." Therefore we are supposed to treat it as fringe: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." It has so little coverage, it should be ignored.

Your walls of text, failure to listen to other editors, accusations of bias, misrepresentation of sources and continuing to post the same arguments after they have been addressed, as well as arguments based on original research is tendentious and I suggest you either follow established content policies and guidelines, work to get them changed, or find another forum to promote your views.

TFD (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a mere content dispute. I was promptly besieged by an individual who stalked my posts and literally admitted that he was there to block any edits I made. Furthermore, your definition of 'fringe' is too conveniently malleable to your POV to have any legitimate meaning. When you are presented with the fact that some of your sources voice the same opinion as my source, you dismiss both and conveniently ignore both. Aspencork (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"literally admitted that he was there to block any edits I made" - do you have a diff showing that literal admission? An accusation of "Wikihounding" is the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin's Law. However, of course cartels of editors exist who consider that they own certain articles and hate nothing more than newcomers arriving who upset either their hitherto unchallenged control of content, or their hard-fought-for control of content, or their complacency about errors or omissions in content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"You are a crap editor making crap edits. As long as your edits are poorly thought out hackish attempts to push a particular point of view, I will be happy to revert them. If you were to stop making crap edits and instead were to make constructive additions to WP, I (and everyone else) would be considerably less likely to revert you. --JBL (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)"

Aspencork (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to observe that the response here shows a typical level of comprehension and responsiveness from Aspencork. Also, the actual diff (rather than a copy of what I posted) is here. --JBL (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not any edits that you make other editors will revert, only ones that violate policy. BTW you wrote, "Watson's expertise trumps your predisposed, wrongheaded and biased opinion."[86] That is no way to speak to fellow editors. TFD (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the top of this page, in big red letters, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page". I await with keen anticipation Aspencork's notification on my talk page. This is purely a content debate, where several editors have explicitly opposed, or reverted, Aspencork's tendentious edits, and despite his canvassing not one has supported them. There is nothing to discuss here, the talk pages at Friedrich Engels and Nazism are sufficient. RolandR (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Since this discussion was to be about JBL, he is the only one I informed. BTW, you really do need to read the policy on "canvassing". Contacting someone already engaged in the forum on their Talk Page is quite okay by Wiki. Aspencork (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am cautiously optimistic that someone (perhaps, an administrator not involved in the ongoing discussions) might explain things to Aspencork in a way that will end the huge, pointless walls of text on the talkpages. --JBL (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe that all editors mentioned in the initial complaint are now aware of it. (I notified the two who have not already commented.) --JBL (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aspencork, as RolandR rightly points out, you had a responsibility to notify all editors you are discussing about this complaint so that they have an opportunity to respond. There are several BRIGHT notices informing you of this obligation. Also, this is an administrator's noticeboard, you are not speaking to arbitrators here and this complaint would not be an appropriate one to take to arbitration case requests. Please try to work out your differences on the article talk page and, even belatedly, post ANI notices on the user talk pages of everyone you mentioned in your initial complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: As I explained above, I informed JBL because he was the one who is at the center of this discussion, and I apologize to the others for not informing them because, though mentioned, they are not the focus of my complaint. What has happened here has moved beyond the Talk Page of any single article. Author George Watson is the reason I went to the “Friedrich Engels” and “Nazism” articles. Watson is the common thread that ties me to both articles, and any outsider looking in should be able to see that. Meanwhile, in regards to most of the others mentioned here, the only visible connection between them and both of those articles is me. There’s no indication that JBL edited or posted in any area of either of those two articles before I did so; hence, it’s important to discover how he knew I posted in both places and why he found it important to become involved in two articles where he had previously never actively indicated that he was interested -- until after I was there. The only thing those two articles have in common would be his animus towards me which stems from our interaction last year. That is my reason for bringing this instance of Wikihounding before administrators. Aspencork (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aspencork that the issue here is behavioral. I recommend anyone to look at the Engels talk page, and Aspencork's contributions to it, to see what I mean. Or check out the Planned Parenthood discussion that Drmies mentioned if you want a short version of the sort of issues that are involved. (To the extent that this is a content dispute it has been settled by a clear consensus.) --JBL (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything wrong in pointing out that the quality of someone's edits stinks. Some editors are indeed "not here to build an encyclopedia". There's nothing wrong in "hounding" these editors and asking them to either improve their work or tone it down a notch Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's evident from your posts that you are well informed on the subject we've discussed at length. My edits were to a subtopic already introduced: "The Magyar Struggle" by Friedrich Engels. After my original edits, I became aware that Watson wasn't the only one speaking to the overt racism and the call for the extirpation of the Slavs in that Engels article. W.O. Henderson -- already cited as a source for the Wiki article on Engels -- also noted Engels' overt racist remarks and how he advocated that the Germans and Magyars had the right to exterminate the Slavs ... concluding with: ‘And that will be a real step forward.’ I believe the subject of that Engels article should be public knowledge; whereas, you actively wish to suppress that bit of knowledge. Aspencork (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of incoherence, bordering on TL;DR, in the initial complaint here so I'll just make a few points more or less randomly.

Using the standard warning templates to warn an editor who has made some seriously bad edits is not hounding, stalking or anything remotely like that.
Nor is checking their contribution history to see what else they may be doing to see if it fits a bad pattern. This is a perfectly normal way to discover whether other articles also need cleaning up and also to form an opinion as to whether the editor in question is misguided on one topic, misguided on many topics or may be deliberately causing trouble.
Several people all noticing an editor's bad behaviour when they blunder into a very high profile topic like Nazism (I mean it doesn't get much more high profile than that!) and make obviously poor edits is not evidence of collusion. It is exactly what is to be expected. A lot of people watch those articles. They need to be watched and this is exactly why they need to be watched.
I am heartily fed up with people with axes to grind coming onto articles like Nazism, and other articles about far-right topics, and trying to censor them to hide the settled academic consensus of the far-right nature of these topics, and then acting like they are the victims when they are called out for trying to replace the historical consensus with original research, improper synthesis and fringe theories. This is happening regularly enough that I suspect that there may be some collusion in this but also I believe that in most cases the editors involved are just very misguided people who are completely divorced from any mainstream political or historical understanding. I am not able to say when/if there is such collusion and I have not accused anybody of it. I do try to assume good faith with these editors, and to explain why they are misguided, but in really blatant cases of political propaganda pushing, or when they ignore multiple warnings, I am perfectly comfortable to call this behaviour vandalism and warn accordingly. I never want to bite the head off anybody who is merely misguided, and I acknowledge that it is not always easy to tell which editors are feigning indignation and which are genuinely unsure as to what they did wrong, but I have no time to play games with those who repeatedly insert fringe nonsense into our most important articles knowing it be be invalid. That is not just an attack on Wikipedia. It is an attack on history and an insult to the memory of everybody who suffered in the events these articles cover.

For the record, I refute the unsubstantiated accusation of collusion insofar as it applies to me. I have had no communication with the people mentioned other than on publicly visible Wikipedia talk/project pages. I don't know any of them in real life or know any of their email addresses or phone numbers. I also do not believe that JBL or any of the other people mentioned have colluded with each other. I invite anybody who actually believes that there was collusion to show any evidence that they may think that they have. Absent that, I think we can dismiss the whole thing unless anybody thinks that Aspencork merits a boomerang of some sort. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it's understandable that someone previously involved in one forum would become involved in a discussion, as you did in the "Nazism" article, and that's not the issue here. That you troubled yourself to follow me to another article and threaten me with the false accusation that I was "vandalizing" any article is quite another. Plus, JBL inexplicably showed up out of nowhere in both articles where there is no evidence that he was ever involved in editing on either subject -- until I was there. Aspencork (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk being accused of stalking, I took a look at User talk:Aspencork#Random Edits where he replies to an IP editor in a way that clearly demonstrates that he has decided what the "truth" is already, without having read the sources, and intends to look at the sources with a view to cherry-picking anything supports his "argument". What is our line on this sort of thing? It is legitimate to verify that the sources support the text but to do so with an prior agenda to support the insertion another "argument" seems worrying. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2016

That would be at least the third time you've visited my Talk Page, whereas, I've never scoped out what's on your page. BTW, the Fritzsche book arrived this afternoon. So far, the author is offering an interesting discussion of how Germany's nationalists and socialists worked together during WWI, since you're obviously interested in keeping yourself apprised of what I am doing. Aspencork (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am amused by the idea that reviewing an editor's contribution history or User Talk page is in any way a misdeed. Would we be openly discussing doing this on an administrator's noticeboard if it was? I mean, we'd have to be pretty dumb to do that. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is amusing how you've incriminated yourself by publicly admitting that you are stalking my activities on Wikipedia. Aspencork (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we think that he has noticed that there is a link to his talk page in his own signature yet?

Seriously though, stalking is a very serious accusation, even if he seems to have no idea what it actually means. I can't see how we can allow this drama to continue. I regret to have to say that am now changing my mind. I now feel that a block is possibly in order. Does anybody else agree? Has anybody else even been able to read this without losing the will to live? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence stands against you. You indicted yourself when you followed me to the "Engels" article and unjustly threatened me. Subsequently, after stalking my activities yet again, you then remarked on an exchange I had with another party and tried to impute something improper about that exchange. Aspencork (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading a book by Diane McWhorter, which is fascinating, although I frequently disagree with her sentence structure and, worse, I think the book is needlessly detailed. Also, I cannot find real evidence of real hounding here, and suspect that Aspencork a. loves to hear themselves talk and b. has discovered ANI as a forum for said talking. Unless Aspencork can lay out, in three sentences or less (fewer), the case for hounding, I suggest someone close this novella before it needs to be printed in multiple volumes. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This might prick your ego, but I've never entertained any interest in who you are or what you've read, nor have I followed you to your Talk Page to scope out what it is you do to keep yourself busy ... other than seeing you make snide remarks in this thread. Aspencork (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is becoming clear that Aspencork has serious problems collaborating with people within a framework that is not of his own devising and in interacting with people who do not agree with him. He cannot separate his own opinions from the general consensus on a subject. He can not tell legitimate oversight from hounding. If he was able to separate his opinions from the facts, and direct his opinions towards a personal blog and the facts here, then that would be fine. We all have opinions. Nobody has a NPOV in real life. NPOV is something we adopt here in order to be good Wikipedians. It isn't always easy and sometimes we do make mistakes but I don't believe that Aspencork understands NPOV well enough to make a reasonable attempt to adopt it. I am not sure whether his actions justify a temporary block but I do think that he would be a lot happier somewhere else where he can publish whatever he likes, as his own opinion, without us pointing out that it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. The best outcome would be for him to take his opinions elsewhere. If he can remain neutral and civil when writing about other subjects, he could still contribute to Wikipedia on those. I guess a topic ban might be appropriate. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously fully familiar with the term "collaboration", but you're obviously not so familiar with the definitions for "neutral" or "civil" in that you wrongly advocate biased phrases in the "Nazism" article in lieu of more neutral phrases, and it was you who threatened to have me banned and leveled against me the inflammatory and false charge of "vandalism". FYI, Webster's defines "genocide" and "racism" from a truly neutral perspective, in that it doesn't identify either term as a tenet of "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideology as you so fallaciously insist. Your definitions for "opinion" and "facts" are likewise suspect, because I made no edits that I did not back up with citations from sources written by noted scholars. Aspencork (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I was reading through this I assumed Aspencork was simply a new user suffering from lack of clue. Instead I find they have been editing since 2013 [87]. No one can be here that long without knowing that reading a user's talk page is normal. From this I must conclude their carrying on about this is simply to prolong this thread ie to disrupt. My suggestion to Aspencork is to withdraw this farse and take their content issues to WP:DR if they feel strongly about it. If they do not, based on what I have read here, I think we are, regretfully, dealing with an editor who is incapable of working on a collaborative project. Jbh ^Talk 19:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Well put, Jbhunley. I have blocked the user as indeed incapable of working on a collaborative project, and for bootlessly taking up too much of other editors' time. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

User:FL or Atlanta

This is the second time I've been here about this guy. The last time resulted in a firmly worded warning, which he took to mean that the admin didn't know what he was talking about. Since then, the same admin advised me to come here (advice I initially took as him saying he didn't feel admin attention was necessary, but which he later corrected me on), then warned FLoA about his attitude. I didn't want to come back here, but after my latest exchange with FLoA, I'm at my wit's end. He seems so removed from reality, and is so condescending in his tone that I have trouble believing he's not trolling. The core issue is that he's been editing tendentiously to push the unsupported view that an Argument from authority is always a fallacy, and engaging with me and others with absolutely no respect for honesty whatsoever. Below are diffs (and some points) illustrating the problem.

Content issues

Introducing a paper on cybernetics as a reliable source on philosophy.
Claiming a professional martial artist (who has a degree in medieval history) is a reliable source on philosophy.
Giving a false quote from a source which doesn't directly address this issue, while presenting it as one that does. (You can see here where I pointed out that this quote does not appear in that source and provided proof of this.)
More insistence that the martial artist is an expert on philosophy subject, due to his degree in history
arguing with the reliable sources I presented, essentially advocating his own WP:OR instead of these RSs. Also note that he claims none of the other sources agree with the one he argued with, despite several of them explicitly doing so.
Cherry picking quotes from sources. (As evidenced by the further quote from that source I provided later on.)
Claiming that the RSs showing he was wrong represented the views of a 'a minority of philosophers'.
Citing sources for claims they don't support and citing non verifiable sources. The only source which supported his view was an article hosted on a geocities account which was attributed to a newspaper that has no accessible record of such an article having been published. You can see the outcome of my request for help in verifying that source here. Note that Original Position also tried to verify the article, without luck.
Cherry picking quotes and using non RS sources to advance a WP:SYNTH interpretation that he insists is true.
None of his sources are philosophers. This has been pointed out to him numerous times, but he insists that environmental scientists, martial artists (with a bachelor's degree in history), computer scientists and neurologists are all reliable sources for the definition of a term in philosophy. You can see this in this diff.

Honesty issues

Drastically mischaracterizing the content dispute in an RfM in which he mentioned none of the other editors. You can see at the current version of the page that Original Position also pointed out the problem with the wording used (once the Mediation chair invited him to participate, as FLoA didn't bother doing so).
Claiming that 'progress is being made' when the only edits to the article they'd made were either reverts of my edits, or edits which pushed the article further into falsehood.
Questioning the admin's competence.
This diff represents a number of problems. In it, he repeats a false claim that the page is currently on "my" version, due to the fact that he had reverted himself once. However, he made several edits to the page since, and reverted an edit I made that brought it closer to the version he considers mine. (I had previously pointed out that if he reverts to the version he considers mine, then keeps editing, that it is no longer "my" version, but to no avail) Also note that it is not, in fact my version, but that the Editor Original Position was primarily responsible for the differences between "my" version and the older, factually inaccurate version. He also repeats an earlier assertion that the admin "...said my behavior's alright." in the very section of his talk page which the admin created to warn him about his attitude (a warning to which he replied, so I know he got it).
It has been pointed out to him many times the irony of him quoting "experts" to support his case that appealing to authority is always a fallacy. He said once that he was aware of the irony, but has since refused to even attempt to justify it. What's worse is that he appeals to illegitimate authorities exclusively. Whether he is right or wrong (and he is wrong, indisputably so) about the nature of the argument, he's still knowingly engaged in a fallacious, dishonest method of advancing his case.

This is just a sampling of diffs. There are many more to illustrate the problem, but including them all would get unwieldy. If any admin doubts my interpretation of any of those diffs (or just doesn't see what I'm referring to), I will happily provide more diffs and quotes to illustrate my case.

I've been trying to be patient with him. I started by discussing the issue on the talk page, and when that failed, I initially tried for mediation. After an extremely fishy (I can provide diffs to illustrate why, but don't think I need to get into it now) opening of the mediation case, I declined to continue further and came here. Since then, the problem seemed to have been resolved (with some admin attention wrt another user who supported FLoA's interpretation), until FLoA returned the other day to begin making sweeping changes to the article and reverting any attempt on my part to edit it. Even then, I elected to follow through on an RfM he filed in lieu of returning here. I had every intention of doing that until I logged on tonight, and saw the latest round. To say that there has been no indication that he intends to comport himself reasonably, honestly, and with respect to WP's standards of evidence would be a massive understatement. I've just reached a point where I can't bring myself to humor him any more. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Won't the source and content issues be resolved in our mediation? There's lots of stuff I could point to, and lots of stuff I could and have said about your view of my actions and how you describe them, but I think the main issue is just frustration about the long-running impasse we've reached as far as the article's content goes. I know hammering out a good version of the article's been slow and tough, but we're almost there! The page and our understanding of each other's positions is getting much better than it was at the beginning and a bit of mediation's all we need to get it fully sorted. FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, what exactly do you mean by "latest round"? The last edit I made to the article in question was days ago, you've edited it since then...No one's making substantial edits until mediation's done, and that'll just be someone adding the consensus version at last!) FL or Atlanta (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It appears that the reported editor, User:FL or Atlanta, is trying to resolve the content issues, by having requested formal mediation. Requesting formal mediation is not characteristic of article ownership. However, the filing editor, User: MjolnirPants, by filing here, is blocking the effort to resolve the content dispute. The rules concerning mediation include "8. No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums", and this is a conduct dispute resolution forum and so a form of dispute resolution that precludes mediation. This is not the first time that the filing party has declined content resolution. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_130#Talk:Argument_from_authority, in which I tried to conduct light-weight mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard. User:MjolnirPants disagreed with my approach to moderation (in particular, my hatting of commentary on contributors), and requested to close the dispute resolution. They could instead have asked for a different moderator. If User:MjolnirPants actually wants to resolve the content dispute, they should request closure of this thread as withdrawn. If they actually insist on treating this as a conduct dispute, they should read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: You have mischaracterized and over simplified the events surrounding the closure of the previous mediation case. You never mentioned that the mediation case had been accepted, before you appeared to hat commentary of mine (while ignoring similar commentary of FLoA), and finally declaring yourself the mediator after I disputed the hatting. I am further left wondering why I had to search for your reason for taking over the case myself. That is the sort of information one thinks might be important to pass on to the participants, especially when the case has been taken over by someone who's already butted heads with one of the participants, a fact which is, itself, more than a little improper. I understand, having gone through the effort of tracking down the cause, why another mediator needed to take that case. What I do not understand is why that mediator should have been someone who'd just been in conflict with one of the participants, and why no effort to explain the situation was made. If that is the way in which you normally comport yourself as a volunteer, then be assured that I would never participate in a case with you as moderator, nor advise anyone else to do so. It was just poorly handled.

This is not the first time that the filing party has declined content resolution... Nor the second, third, nor any other ordinal number. I did not refuse to follow through with the mediation. I explicitly agreed to continue with it. That's not all, however. You stated that FloA was trying to resolve the issue through formal mediation, but left out that he had explicitly posted a refusal to proceed just yesterday. I would provide diffs of this, but naturally, the page has been blanked and its history deleted.

In fact, you have yet to offer even the slightest hint as to why our entire history of interaction has been you inserting yourself uninvited into discussions in order to align yourself firmly against whatever position I've taken. I don't know why this is, and I don't care to speculate, but it's quite apparent.

Finally, I have read the boomerang essay. It's part of the reason I didn't come back here the moment FLoA began arbitrarily reverting my and Original Position's edits to the article. It's part of the reason I explicitly told Nyttend that I didn't want to make a new filing here. I don't like posting here, and I don't want admin intervention. I've just come to a point where it's impossible to converse rationally with FLoA, and his behavior is making it impossible for me to edit the article [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The filing party writes: "I don't want admin intervention." This noticeboard is a place to request admin intervention. What is the purpose of this post if not to request admin intervention? Is the filing party willing to withdraw this post and allow formal mediation? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to pay taxes, either, but I do. Because I want to stay out of jail, more. In this case, I want to improve that article more than I want to avoid getting admins involved, so I came here because I've reached the point where I strongly doubt anything short of admin intervention will get through to FLoA. If that attention consists of something as simple as an admin reiterating that he should not be editing that article, I will be happy. It may be necessary to ban or block him to enforce that, but again: I don't care about that. I care about the article.

I am willing (as I've stated multiple times now, but which you seem to keep missing) to go forward with mediation, though I have serious doubts as to whether it will work. FLoA has already contradicted himself and made blatantly false claims multiple times in his mediation request, which I remind you again; he opened in a highly dishonest way.

Don't take my willingness to engage in mediation as a willingness to engage in any mediation in which you are involved, however. I don't know why you have a problem with me, but it is clear that you do, and as a result I don't trust or respect your judgement at all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a formal mediator. If there is formal mediation, it will probably be conducted by User:Sunray. However, the request for mediation is on hold (and blanked) because of your filing here. You can't pursue mediation and WP:ANI at the same time. Do you want to withdraw this filing and pursue mediation, or do you want to request admin action such as a topic-ban? You can't do both at once. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice that for the very first time, you've actually addressed me directly. I'm not sure what to make of that. I have some hope that a formal mediation deciding the issue might convince him to knock off this sort of behavior. It's not much, but it's some. Admin intervention however, comes with a mechanism of enforcement so that it doesn't matter whether he agrees with it or not. If I can indeed only pursue one course, then I must balance my options and when faced with the choice between a slim chance and what amounts to a sure thing... Well, that's really not a choice. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term problematic IP editor

45.26.44.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their previous IP's have a long history of problematic editing, with lots of mildly constructive edits mixed in with occasional additions of blatantly unfounded info, POV pushing, and name calling. Their only response is typically to blank any warnings from their talk page. They were most recently blocked in October for a month, but that has not changed the behavior. Some examples since then:

Trump Hotel Las Vegas: [93]
Jessica Moore: [94] [95]
Reed Cowan: [96]
Repeated strings of adding unsourced info and being reverted:
- Democratic debates: [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]
- Republican debates: [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]
- Brian Kelly: [111] [112]
Labeling local broadcasting companies as ISIS affiliates: [113] [114] [115] [116]

I think a longer-term block is in order. Toohool (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the ISIS stuff alone merits the longest possible block. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked three months. Katie^talk 15:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the nature of the disruptive editing, and the fact that it has been going on for almost 7 months (counting only edits from this IP address), I might well have blocked for longer, but block lengths are always a matter of judgement, and KrakatoaKatie has gone for three months. However, Toohool, you refer to "their previous IP's": can you give some or all of the other IP addresses? If you can, I will look into the editing history to see whether there seems to be a case for a rny range blocks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that longer block is warranted, but the dynamism of the IP was my concern and I don't have a list of priors. Toohool, list the IPs here and one of us will look into a rangeblock. Katie^talk 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the edit histories and geolocation I think Special:Contributions/108.233.161.0 is possibly them. Again based on edit histories (but not geolocation) in particular to the same draft articles, I think Special:Contributions/2602:306:CE9A:860:7880:862D:4FB4:1D6B Special:Contributions/2602:306:CE9A:860:DC9A:75D3:8CA5:A080 Special:Contributions/2602:306:CE9A:860:11A6:812B:33D:A2AE etc are them too, but I guess not surprising since these are IPv6, they change a lot more and in any case it looks like the IP changed ISP (and possibly moved if the geolocation is accurate) so not particularly helpful for a range block. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, those are some of their older IP's. Haven't seen any others in the 45.x range so not much use for a rangeblock. Toohool (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge-reverts of multiple unrelated articles

After the latest episode in a debate that saw Lipsquid repeatedly reinstate content which he had previously even himself agreed didn't belong in the lede of Laffer curve, he now seems to have decided to "retaliate" against me for the revert (which, of course, is being discussed on the talk page) by making three of completely unrelated reverts to articles I had not seen him ever touch before; in all except one, he is undoing changes where I had removed non-lede-worthy content according to an actual incident here at ANI.

This is outright unacceptable and the editor in question isn't even trying to thinly disguise the fact that these consecutive reverts, all in one night's spain, are a simple retaliation (I suppose he hasn't read WP:HOUNDING maybe). It's made more blatant by the fact they include reinstating of things that were reported at ANI as bogus/disruptive edits.

The reverts in question are [117], [118] and [119] (about this last one, I note that primary sources are of course fine for showing the existence of something, and that they are being used right next to the things he reverted for similar things, but he didn't have a problem with those apparently; just saying).

LjL (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make serial reverts, I undid edits that I saw as disruptive. I was unaware of the ANI discussion, but have read it now and still believe my reverts were good faith. LjL marked his edits as WP:UNDUE in the lead and removed the content. If someone believes that sourced content gives UNDUE in the lead, normally they move the sourced content out of the lead and into another section. LjL did not move the content, he deleted it. This is a pattern with him and disruptive behavior. If he had marked the edit as VANDALISM, I would not have reverted it. I actually still see the deletion of sourced content as disruptive and the better policy would be to move it elsewhere in the article or don't tag your edit as UNDUE. In the ANI itself, an Admin makes the statement about the alleged vandal "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" Yet LjL did in fact mark his edits as UNDUE. As far as HOUNDING, which makes me chuckle, see my edit below. LjL isn't incompetent, he is a vindictive serial reverter with a long memory of past arguments. Lipsquid (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Lipsquid did anything wrong or if they simply noticed that User:LjL was being disruptive on one article, so they decided to check the history of their contributions, but I think it's hillarious for LjL to come to AN/I to complain about WP:HOUNDING when they don't have an exactly clean record on this score themselves. In Nov 2015, I got into a dispute with LjL on the article November 2015 Paris attacks. He claimed consensus when they didn't have it (IMO). After about a week I shrugged my shoulders, dropped it, and moved on. LjL kept trying to make drama out of it but the whole thing died out simply because I ignored it. But then, almost two months later, when I had an argument with another user which wound up at WP:AE, LjL popped out of nowhere claiming that s/he was "at his wits end" in dealing with me (even though we haven't interacted for two months! even though I let them have their way on the Paris attacks article!) and demanded I be sanctioned [120]. The request was actually closed with no action.

Point being, if you act in a petty, immature, vengeful way yourself, you don't really have much of a right to show up at AN/I complaining that someone somewhere reverted you and you think that was "revenge".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(and for the record I'm involved in the article Laffer Curve which is how I saw this posting).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can come up with ad hominems based on past incidents (the funny thing being you still insist there was no consensus for the thing you are hinting about, even in the striking presence of this, but whatever); what matters here and now is that Lipsquid literally reverted previous ANI consensus against edits universally agreed to be inappropriate (though possibly in good faith, yet with a potential COI), and did it just based on the fact that I was the one undoing them (since obviously, unless he's incompetent, which I don't believe, everyone else was in agreement those edits were obviously bad: do look at the report against JoeSakr1980 if you want to comment further).

Anyway, since this has resulted in the reinstatement of some of those "bad" edits, I'll be pinging the editors who intervened in the previous ANI report: @JoeSakr1980, EtienneDolet, Liz, Elie plus, Ian.thomson, and Jbhunley:. LjL (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not engaging in "ad hominens". I am describing your actions. The fact that they don't look good is your problem not mine. Oh, and good luck with that disruptive WP:CANVASSing you've got planned there. Maybe it's WP:BOOMERANG time here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow is this pot calling the kettle black. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=685861157#Lipsquid_edit_warring_just_short_of_WP:3RR_with_very_personal_application_of_WP:RS_principles

"First reverts"? What are you talking about? I've been reverting countless edits on many articles. I also had started participating in the Laffer curve-related debates before this ANI. I am also pretty much entitled to see if someone who, in my opinion, is breaking policy (such as edit warring) in one place is doing the same in other places - that's not WP:HOUNDING, in fact it's explicitly mentioned there as not being. Note also WP:AOHA please. LjL (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I also am entitled to review the edits of someone, who in my opinion, is breaking policy... Lipsquid (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who follows whom, but at least on page Laffer curve User:LjL appears for the first time on October 9 to fix edit made a few hours before by User:Lipsquid [121]. No judgement about content; I never edited these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, this is getting even funnier. So apparently after getting into a dispute with Lipsquid on Flat Earth, LjL followed them to cause trouble on the articles Supply-side economics and Laffer curve (I've been wondering what LjL was doing there as that's pretty out of their usual topic area - this explains it). And now they're complaining that they're being followed? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that LjL has a long track record and pattern of bringing baseless accusations to the WP:ANI boards rather than appropriately using the {WP:TALK]] pages to gain consensus. When any user reverts an edit (and if he had bothered to ask for reasons, he would have received them) such users are either brought here as WP:BOOMERANG or they are called "trolls" among other ad hominem [[122]]. As you will see from that last link, LjL has abused the WP:TALK pages to "grand-stand" and states repeatedly there are users he is unwilling to " engage with, because of previous personal reasons" rather than discuss the article. This user needs to realize when others point out his errors in English grammar or disagree with his reverts it is not a personal attack, and stop the disruptive behavior of taking everything to the WP:ANI simply because he is not mature enough to talk things out. Frankly, if he is unwilling to participate in discussions resulting from his edits, then he does not belong here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All there if you follow the contribs, I angered him on an edit on October 9th on the Flat Earth article and he has been following me around and reverting me since... Can't hide from the logs. I would like to see a BOOMERANG topic ban on Supply-Side Economics related pages for LjL to discourage bad behavior.. Lipsquid (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. He initially followed me around (wouldn't call it WP:HOUNDING and did some reverts, ask for citations (already mentioned in previous sections of an article) etc, then got upset when I took a look into what he was up to (which was essentially a lot of bad English grammar and intervening in disputes which he had no part in to antagonize other editors). I would support your topic ban, but also feel based on his constant abuse of WP:ANI, ad hominem, unwillingness to discuss topics appropriately, and misuse of WP:TALK pages that he should get a 72-hour "cool-off" WP:BLOCK.Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lipsquid:, Trinacrialucente:"I would like to see a BOOMERANG topic ban . . . for LjL to discourage bad behavior." That sounds like you want a ban on the user as punishment. Isn't that not allowed? --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you assume that a BLOCK is? A reward? Incentives, both negative and positive, are used to alter behavior. People can make up nice wording (labels) for concepts if they like, but that is still how the world works. A BLOCK is a means to alter bad behavior, the label we use (punishment, cool-off, whatever) doesn't change the root concept. A WP:BLOCK is in order Lipsquid (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A topic-ban from starting AN/I threads would be a good start as a preventive measure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban to give some space and allow things to blow over, assuming the person is capable of letting things go, would certainly be welcome. Lipsquid (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, any admin at this point is of course free to do what they want, including a "topic ban" (from just about everything? so a block, I guess) on me, since really, my ability to edit Wikipedia is not worth losing my sanity over these three particular people, Trinacrialucente constantly mocking my English just because he saw I used to have an "Italian native" user box on my page (his Italian is horrid but he kept talking to me in Italian even though I repeatedly asked him not to, and he also kept writing to my user talk page after I said he was NOT welcome there, and the other two jumping on any chance to bite back, and Lipsquid reinstating disruptive edits against ANI consensus (note that they have been reinstated again now by Someguy1221: [123], [124]; are you going to revert them again, Lipsquid?). I throw the towel, I give up, I wish one of the reasonable people I've met here, namely NeilN, could have a look at all this, but he isn't around, and that the people who previously handled the incident involving Economy of Uruguay etc. showed up to object to these arbitrary reverts, but they aren't, so really, do what you want. I honestly wish what you wanted is to go to hell, but that's not up to me. I'm done. LjL (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What more does anyone need to see to know the community needs to be protected from this guy until he can get his head straight? Lipsquid (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, now we have one more gratuitous revert where he re-adds material that I had removed from Popcorn Time because it was purely sourced from a blog (and there is an actual danger as there currently appear to be two competing Popcorn Time "factions" accusing each other of shipping malware, so we definitely don't want to endorse one as legitimate without very very valid sources). Who's damaging Wikipedia? You really have no shame. LjL (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention you first had another gratuitous revert on the same material that brought us here. More pot calling kettle black. At what point is enough, enough? Lipsquid (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminative addition of articles to language-category

Can someone block User:Vivek Sarje right now? He's indiscriminately adding a massive amount of articles to Category:Hindi words and phrases, despite three requests + explanation by Uanfala not to do so.

NB: maybe he already stopped; the times given at his contribution-list seems to be dated one hour later than the times that I see at his talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

campaign to undermine the Wikimedia Foundation on behalf of an organisation whose interests are in direct conflict

I've just had an "interesting" message on my talk page [125] "You have been chosen at random as the next target for vandalism and trolling. Fear not, it is nothing personal, merely a campaign to undermine the Wikimedia Foundation on behalf of an organisation whose interests are in direct conflict. As such, I have been commissioned to select Users, in this case yourself, and to continually harass them until they leave before selecting a new target."

I've blocked the IP as a vandal, but does anyone know anything about this? Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a troll I'm thinking, trying to act "tough" RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem likely as the block seems to have shut them up for now, but we'll see. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously English form the text and the IP is a UK mobile gateway, are you in the UK? Guy (Help!) 18:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am. However the last troll I pissed off (to my knowledge) was from Texas. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the IP made some edits to the talk page for Comeonbrowhy. They also edited Fraternities and sororities, which was edited from the same account. Here's one by Comeonbrowhy and one by the IP. Apparently they were both trying to add File:Alpha Delta Gamma.jpg to the article. I'm not entirely certain if they're the same person or not, however, but this is a little too random to really ignore. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple IPs adding copyvio images and completely unverifiable information to articles

At Nevzat Halili, multiple IP addresses have been adding an inappropriately-uploaded image to the article. The uploader of this image has been blocked on commons for uploading such images as his own work. It would seem that the uploader and these IPs are the same individual. Also at Republic of Ilirida, the same group of IPs have been adding an infobox containing a flag and coat of arms that were uploaded with no sources backing their validity. It also contains unverifiable information since the "republic" is more of a concept and has no defined borders or official languages, etc. --Local hero ^talk 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that the uploader of these images that was just blocked on commons, User:Sinani milaim, is banned on the English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. Therefore, all these IPs are likely sockpuppets. --Local hero ^talk 19:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local hero, have you filed an SPI? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, Oshwah. It's still open. The problem going forward seems to be his ability to use an infinite amount of IP addresses. --Local hero ^talk 16:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur messing with my postings in a discussion

In a discussion on WP:ANI, editor Hasteur—with whom I indeed have not always agreed in everything, in that discussion—on 5 Feb 2016 started to hide parts of my postings. That feels like a major invasion of my freedom of speech and discussion. I can only assume that he either is not happy with some comments etc. of mine, or disagrees with them. That can’t be valid reasons to obscure parts of postings from others, I guess? I’ve asked him why he did it and what his right is to do that, and have restored my postings as they were; but I fear, he or a colleague will repeat that obscuring-edit. Can someone have at look at it?
A remarkable ‘coincidence’ is, that the whole discussion there on ANI came about after another colleague, Legacypac, seemed to also obstruct/frustrate a discussion I was holding, on another page: Talk SCW. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You do not have freedom of speech. Wikipedia is not a government. You have no rights here. --Tarage (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, rights...let's talk about manners. "questionably impartial judge" is not great word choice on Hasteur's part: such headings should be neutral of course. Then again, whatever is being proposed by Corriebertus seems to gain little traction--perhaps someone who is not about to play a board game can look at it and maybe close whatever needs closing. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srsly Drmies, priorities much? UPDATE: Oh wait, you came back and closed it. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, my marriage and my children are more important than this website. In the event, we didn't actually play any games, but I did clean the kitchen--and later watched High Society with my daughter. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corriebertus:, the general purpose of collapsing a section is when a discussion veers more or less off course or is at least mildly unconstructive. There's nothing we can do to prevent people from making that judgment call in general, but it shouldn't be done if you're not detracting from the discussion. I think it's fine to make proposals, but it becomes disruptive to assess all or most comments that are contrary to your position. Also, I don't see where you talked to Hasteur directly about this (edit summaries do not constitute actual communication), did that happen someplace other than your talk pages? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your postings were collapsed because you were nitpicking every last point of view you disagree with constitute the prime case of Harassment and trying to misrepresent the will of people. I stand by the collapses (which I see that 2 other editors in good standing agreed with) if not the message I put at the top of the collapses. I further enddorse the general close of your attempt to water down the discussion by proposing something that is a complete non-starter. If I was feeling less calm right now I would describe your actions/editorial decisions as wikilawyer/wikitrolling, but we're obligated to Assume Good Faith, so I'll simply say that "I think the editor doth protest too much". Hasteur (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated personal attacks despite several warnings

An IP has reiterated personal attacks despite being warned several times by at least three editors about it. His most recent attack: [126]. This might be interpreted as begging to be blocked. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is likely the same person as DifensorFidelis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He falsely promised to take heed of those warnings: [127]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admission that he is the same person at [128] (talking about his former talk page). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake apology (nothing but another attack) at [129]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like his registered account has replaced his IP editing; therefore it may be too soon to file this ANI (he's only made 15 non-userpage edits and you haven't provided any diffs of the new account's behavior). If the behavior continues, then that would be the time to either file an ANI or notify the user or Doug Weller. Softlavender (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- There is this where DifensorFidelis wrote an edit summary including "; most likely another deliberate misrepresentation of the source material by an anti-theist, anti-Jewish or anti-Christian contributor". Doug Weller talk 14:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - The IP was blocked at 18:04 UTC today, but the account was created earlier yesterday. It's my opinion that the 72 hour block should be placed on the account, and yes, they are the same. Doug Weller talk 20:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - To be exact, DifensorFidelis started editing at 17:12 yesterday. Interesting that they quickly found userboxes for their userpage. The attack I mentioned above was made last night at 21:29, so the editor was editing as an IP and with the account at the same time. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a new user, the IP got blocked in 2014 for edit warring at The Exodus, and he has recently edit warred at the same article before being blocked. See [130]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlabKernan making copyright violations

IDHT

User indeffed by Diannaa. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

SlabKernan appears to be adding large amounts of referenced text to articles but what is actually happening is the editor is just cutting and pasting from the references into the articles. I have reverted a few but they keep adding them back. Just take any of their edits, take a random sentence and copy it into google and you will find the original source. I have yet to find an edit by this editor that isn't a copyright violation. Emotionalllama (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an immediate indef block and a nuke of all their contribs. Blackmane (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through all their contribs and issued a final warning. — Diannaa (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violations at WVU Libraries articles

Editor Melissarogue has been repeatedly adding promotional copyvio from the WVU Library website to a few articles, notably to the article currently titled West Virginia University Libraries. Repeated warnings and explanations at her talk page have been ignored; her only reply so far is a claim that she's somehow being victimised by me, or by Wikipedia policy. The latest addition is this edit with copyvio from https://lib.wvu.edu/evansdale/about and https://lib.wvu.edu/healthsciences/. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's also uploaded at least one blatant copyvio file, which I've tagged for speedy. Her other two uploads, which are less blatant, I've sent to PUF. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she hasn't edited since February 1, so I'm inclined to wait to block for copyvios until she responds here or on her talk page. I think she's trying to do the right thing but she simply doesn't understand that she has to rewrite the content. She claims to be working with a Wikipedia librarian - is there a Wikipedian in residence at WVU? Paging the GLAM folks. Katie^talk 01:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the copyvio clean-up on the article and given it the once-over copy-edit-wise. — Diannaa (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The clean-up looks good to me. Good work, Diannaa :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing

Article has since been protected for one week by Only. Doesn't look like anything else needs to be done. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wish to highlight disruptive editing on Filmfare Award for Best Female Playback Singer where an unverified editor Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia is indulging in edit warring with me despite my repeated warnings. Request for action on this editor who is using this site as a fan page. There is no practice of having three singers as superlatives in any awards page, maximum of two . --ANKMALI (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're both indulging in edit warring. Figure out how to resolve this through dispute resolution. If only one of you were edit warring, I'd have suggested the edit warring noticeboard, but you're just as likely to get yourself blocked as Ayush. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"You're both indulging in edit warring." Actually, that's exactly what the OP said when s/he filed. ;) But the article has since been protected, so hopefully that will end things. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Legal threat by User:178.167.254.51

IP blocked for 72 hours by HighInBC. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The IP address editor mentioned above has threatened legal action at Barbara Naughton: [[131]]. There is a policy on legal threats - WP:LEGAL - which the IP has violated. I would appreciate an admin's input on this matter. Ches (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usual SoP for that sort of thing is to block the offender. Since it's an IP, the block won't be for overly long - I'd say a week - but if they were using a regular account it would be indef'd until the threat was rescinded. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's just warned them about it. No block notification on their talk page yet though so presumably the IP has yet to be blocked. Ches (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for making legal threats. I did it for 72 hours, however this is because IPs tend to rotate owners. If there is any indication that the same person is using the IP after the block expires let me know please. HighInBC 17:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC, will do. Thank you sir. Ches (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ibkib

User:Ibkib has clearly admitted a conflict of interest here "we are Abdul Aziz Saud Al BAbtain company, we are the responsible for inserting or modify the information for Abdul Aziz Al Babtain"

The article Abdulaziz Al-Babtain was started in October 2011 by an SPA User:Amadah and massively expanded by User: Zagreat who also started the article Foundation of Abdulaziz Saud Al-Babtain's Prize for Poetic Creativity, The article was fairly stable until 21 December 2015 when User:Ibkib started adding massive, promotional and copyright additions. These were reverted by several editors, including User:Diannaa who deleted 407Kb here with an edit summary "not the kind of content we are looking for, and at least some of it is a copyright violation". Since then there have been several attempts to re-insert this unsourced, promotional, "information", which were reverted by several editors.

I have explained to the editor about COI, and what the editor should do, rather than edit the article itself, at User talk:Ibkib#Abdulaziz Al-Babtain, at Talk:Abdulaziz Al-Babtain#Unsourced additions and Conflict of interest and at User talk:Arjayay#Abdul Aziz Al Babtain. This advice has been totally ignored.

On 4 February, User:Ibkib created Www.albabtainprize.org, a WP:COATRACK article, into which was pasted a 52Kb version of what he is trying to push. I changed this to a redirect to Abdulaziz Al-Babtain, so he created a 60Kb version at AbdulAziz Saud AlBabtain which I also turned into a redirect.
On 6 February he created Abdulaziz saud albabtain (330kb) which was turned into a redirect by User:NeemNarduni2, reverted back to an article by User:Ibkib⋅and re-reverted to a redirect by User:NeemNarduni2, He then created Abdulaziz saud AlBabtain which was also turned into a redirect by User:NeemNarduni2 ⋅

It seems that this user, who is "responsible for inserting or modify the information for Abdul Aziz Al Babtain" is determined to get his/their version of the article into Wikipedia, even if it is under a different title, and is unwilling to take advice. There have been other SPAs, such as User:Sul59 and User:TurnBrain who appear to be sock/meat puppets. Could someone please look at this, and take action to prevent this "information" being forced into an article - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(YET ANOTHER) Incident of WP:VANDALISM and WP:POV and WP:EDITWAR from FreeatlastChitchat

Consensus seems to be that there's nothing worth actioning here. Everyone go and write some articles or something. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

FreeatlastChitchat has yet again created an edit war environment, not only under the guise of taking off galleries due to an on-going (note: NOT CONSENSUS) discussion re WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES on a page which has nothing to do with ethnicity, but religion (the topic unfortunately says "large populations" which is currently under debate...but nowhere does it say "religions"). He has also reverted sourced material to a WP:POV which states a figure underwent "forced conversion" when the citations say the opposite. He has had countless (and I'm not being facetious...I seriously cannot remember how many) VALID WP:ANI cases against him this last month alone. I have already requested page protection for the List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_Islam page and I also am requesting a ban for FreeatlastChitchat from this topic, as he has exhibited disruptive behavior ACROSS Wikipedia. A quick browse of his activities will confirm this. In ALL cases, under the guise of "no ethnic galleries" he has reverted to a WP:POV which deleted sourced material and claimed unsourced "forced conversion". He never cited this change, which is a miscategorization/misrepresentation.

first incident here [[132]]
second incident here [[133]]
third incident deleting cited sources in favor of WP:POV here [[134]]
another "edit war"/case of WP:POV on yet another article I have participated/followed previously. As I have stated twice, saying shi'a "do not trust" is clearly WP:POV so I reverted to the original...but the user insists on another WP:EDITWAR [[135]]

NB: he also has what I can only assume is a "friend" if not a WP:SOCKPUPPET which follows him around and tag-teams his "work". You'll know immediately who this is.Trinacrialucente (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"NB: he also has what I can only assume is a "friend" if not a WP:SOCKPUPPET which follows him around and tag-teams his "work". You'll know immediately who this is." Trinacrialucente, you absolutely cannot make such an unsubstantiated accusation and aspersion without experiencing a boomerang. Either name and substantiate that accusation, or strike it. Softlavender (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD Trinacrialucente (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Reply, Boomerangs should fly

Other editors agree with me on this. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a sockpuppet is childish and foolish(yes sadly this is one guy going against established consensus and calling everyone a vandal)
Our edits are based on wikipedia policy
Neither I nor the other editors who reverted this guy have exceeded 3pr limits.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current consensus is Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members (point 4 of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES). Until that changes, the galleries in these articles should not be included. You're focusing too much on the ethnicity part. The whole basis for removing these galleries is that it's impossible to decide which individuals should represent an entire group. Galleries were most common in ethnic group articles but not confined to them. clpo13_(talk) 19:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you link to the current discussion about galleries you referenced? clpo13_(talk) 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the wording and application of this policy here. While the discussion is still on-going, there has been general agreement that the policy applies to religions as well as ethnic groups because the problems associated with such galleries are the same in both cases. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I see here is a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. I've lost count of the number of times FLCC has been taken to AN/I, and quite frankly I'm sick of it. Ches (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Trinacrialucente, I heavily dislike your "shouty" attitude which has been made clear in the several filings against FLCC - your use of ALL CAPS makes it difficult for me to take you seriously. As I mentioned before, this isn't the first time you've done this. I think you need to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. Ches (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What "you are sick of" or "dislike" is irrelevant, as are any other of your personal feelings (and "shouty" isn't a word, so can't even speak to that). If you can't address the topic at hand, I suggest you move on, as you are simply giving your WP:POV and disrupting this process. Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 4, I'm not sure why you think [Shi'a] do not trust many of the Sunni narrators and transmitters is POV, while Shi'a Muslims do not follow a consistent and reliable Hadith methodology is okay. In fact, it seems like common sense that Shi'a wouldn't trust Sunni in religious matters, considering their history. At any rate, you've also been removing a sourced paragraph in your reverts. Remember, it takes two to edit war. Hash it out on the talk page instead. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

uninvolved non-admin Speedy close I'm sick and tired of all of these discussion about FCC. I see nothing blockable or worthy of ANI's time here. I've been critical of FCC at some points in time, so take my word for it when I say that there's nothing here against FCC. Removing the galleries is fine, no problem there. Removing unsourced persons in the list could be done by first tagging them, I think that would be better, but removing them outright is hardly blockable. Trinacrialucente, we often agree on content so please believe me when I say that reports like this one only hurt yourself. Please let me give you some sound advice.
1. Never use capital letters.
2. Never accuse someone of sockpuppetry based on one common edit.
3. If you file cases, make them short and factual, not long and emotional.
4. Don't file any case against FCC for the next six months. If FCC does something wrong, there are other people who will notice.

I hope some admin will close this fast before it spirals out of control once again. Nothing to see, now back away. Jeppiz (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not this shit again. This has been like the fifth report about Freeatlastchitchat from Nov-Dec to today. I agree with Jeppiz. Everyone is tired of the same editors commenting on the same user, which proves some battleground behavior. Why can't we all move on already? This is just a waste of time. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Akash3141

Concerns were outlined by multiple editors in this version of the page, but weren't acknowledged. The user has returned to further edit war, adding to a long legacy of warring, puffery, article ownership and highly abusive edit summaries. B. Mastino (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed B. Mastino's link above to link directly to archived thread.LM2000 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How am I being abusive?? I'm being so polite, and all my edits can't be dismissed as irrelevant yet you're still getting raged!?!? WHy?? User:Akash3141 —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your serious abuse is detailed in the link above. B. Mastino (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivility has ended but your problematic edits have not. I'm disappointed that no admin stepped in during the last thread, Akash3141 has continued adding the exact same material that brought him here a few days ago.LM2000 (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: not to mention Akash3141 always blanks their talk page when a warning is posted. They don't discuss anything, they just edit to their hearts content without discussion of issues. CrashUnderride 03:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor copying plot summaries from IMDB

183.81.9.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been copying plot summaries from IMDB despite having been informed of policy on their talk page. Most have been wholesale copying of short summaries but there are also two blatant cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sapho_(film)&diff=703239775&oldid=682743476 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Almost_Married_(1932_film)&diff=703241505&oldid=685590583. To make sure that they weren't the original authors, I looked at the Wayback Machine version of two IMDB pages and found the plot summary already present. I've already gone through and reverted all their plot edits, the rest are just additions to actor filmographys or infoboxes. Opencooper (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MFD relistings

Ok, I'm taking this here for outside discussion. I've been closing and relisting various discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion based on non-participation. In the past, a no-comment, nomination-alone discussion such as this would have been grounds for deletion but there's been numerous views expressed that there should at least be some discussion. Because of the odd behavior of the bot, relisting involves both the template and a notice which will move the listing up at the page. For whatever reason, User:SmokeyJoe has found it disruptive and brought up at MFD talk and has removed a notice which leave them at the bottom of the log indefinitely until such time that someone else goes down there and sees it. This seems counter to what is done for closures I've done at AFD, CFD, TFD, everywhere else but MFD has always been a bit odd. Please advise. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update And the bot has returned the discussion to the bottom of the page under old business. I do not see how keeping "old business" full of either relisted discussions or just keeping them empty for weeks (which was used to happen) until someone else commented is better than just relisting as per policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2¢ .... MFDs never ever gain any !votes like RFD or AFD so personally I have to agree it is a waste of time not only for you but for the nominator aswell, From what I can recall even the "no !vote-MFDs" were simply being deleted which IMHO is much better than continuously relisting everything that everyone knows won't ever get commented on...., –Davey2010^Talk 01:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted like six things and most have more comments. Review MFD, almost everything has at least one or two votes. It's either 1-1 keep/delete or no comment ones. The issue isn't relisting, SmokeyJoe isn't asking for them to be closed as no consensus. The entire argument is that the discussions should remain buried hidden below the current day discussions. This isn't done for relisted discussions for AFD, CFD, TFD, wherever so I don't see why MFD discussions should be conducted in that manner. And yes those were deleted in the past but people have been complaining at DRV that they should have other people discussing it. I'm tired of going out on a limb closing them as delete and then getting dragged to DRV by trolls demanding further discussion and then being told I should have allowed for more discussions. Classic admin work: damned if you do, damned if you don't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I wasn't aware of the DRV thing sorry, To be fair it's the same for all admins I think - Whatever you do noone will be happy!, Anyway I personally believe it's all a waste of time but hey that's just my 2c, –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't relist without a good reason to relist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting so as to send random old things to a new date stuffs up the ability to review the backlog from the tail end. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that they should have been closed? Then which way? Or is your issue that where they get placed on the MFD log? If deleted, then I should just wait until I'm taken to DRV again and told there should be a discussion. If no consensus, then just wait and see if it's re-nominated with a new discussion? That's a lot of worthless work on my part. Relisting because there's no discussion at all and I want to get others to talk about it and get some idea is what's required. There's fights everywhere over G13, stale drafts, when they should be deleted. There's literally no consensus on any of this. If you wanted them closed, then you should remove the entire relisting notice, not just the tag to move them around. This is the reason why literally no other admin does that work and why the only things left right now is everything I've voted in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on whether they should be closed, just that they are not new discussions.
The whole issue is the shuffling of the log, so that they are no longer in order.
Relisting is a very poor advertising method. And it disrupts the review of the backlog.
G13 and "stale" things are already subject to current discussions, let them play out. MfDs do not need to be closed at seven days.
Most other admins with a history of working at MfD have given up because of the preponderance of busywork. You have been adding to the busywork, but at least you close discussions, including difficult discussion, which is very very good of you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke Drummerton's access to user talk

Resolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Special:Diff/703633317. Esquivalience ^t 03:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked and the offending diff has been deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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