Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ymblanter (talk | contribs) at 09:06, 14 May 2016 (→‎Fomenka). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User:Vivvt

    There was some problem on Kashibai and an user reverted my edit. I started a discussion on the talk page but this user, neither discussed anything nor gave reasons but went on to revert my edit. Please, take a look.Krish | Talk 13:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Good. Your behaviour was unacceptable. Taking your dispute to the talk page is far better than launching personal attacks like you did [1]. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the discussion of whether your edit was an improvement or not has been completely lost. I have no opinion on the edit itself but agree that your use of inflammatory terms is not acceptable, and is the reason why no one is discussing your edit. Please rethink your choice of language and explain why your edit is an improvement to the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If I said a thing to A, why would B revert my edit? It doesn't make any sense. If I go and revert back then I'll be blocked because of 3RR rule? How disgusting is that? I had given my reasons on the talk page and the reasons are valid but hey, I did a wrong thing? My words were caused by that user's (Dharmadhyaksha) constant bad faith on that article. Check history and you will find.Krish | Talk 13:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you are aware of WP:3RR. Please also make sure you are aware of WP:NPA. "My words were caused by that user's constant bad faith on that article." Maybe so, but if you make personal attacks again, you may be blocked. In any case, there's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. I don't believe any further action is warranted at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a case of WP: Own and nothing else. He reverted my ediys wiithout any reasons or explainations, which shows that he owns the article. My reasons are valid. So please give a better reply and an idea to deal with this.Krish | Talk 13:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I put the content back as it was earlier before this particular user thought it to be controversial/unappropriated to the article. I agree that that edit summary was missing and thats because I am using a tool and it was a mobile edit. I dont understand how a single revert warrants for ANI. This is my single (most likely) edit to the article. I dont know how it becomes a case of WP:OWN. Are we becoming so childish in taking such edits/reverts to the board? Simple hopeless! - Vivvt (Talk) 13:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    • Krish has a history of making personal attacks and has been previously blocked in Dec 2012 for this edit summary and this comment and again in Oct 2013. Not that these two incidences should be considered in current case, but am mentioning them to show that the user is very much aware of WP's NPA policy.
      The user still continues to make PAs as noted below. (Note: I am usually very tolerant about such PAs as many IPs and newbies come barging on my talk page. Some users and admins have been kind enough to revert/revdel them on their own. In case some of these are not really considered PAs, as these are considered case-by-case with no fixed definition, please ignore those ones.)
    Towards me

    I am not sure if I should point PAs made against other editors, as it should be their case to take it up. But these are too many to ignore. Individual editors can of course comment here and ask to disregard the below mentioned comments.

    Towards others

    Am hence also pinging the involved editors @EdJohnston, Human3015, Carl Waxman, Vensatry, and Arjann: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What I do on my talk page is none of your business. If someone will threaten me than what sjould be my response. By the way, how about your behaviour? Your behaviour is not very good and its obvious by these hate you have received from lot of people and not only from me.
       "You are being an idiot." - Maunus
   "..idiots like you.." - Maunus
   "You're being ridiculous." - Calvin999
   "Don't like his stuffy attitude." - Bonkers The Clown
   "Your friend (User:Ratnakar.kulkarni) is as bad as you, dishonest and evasive." - Leaky caldron
   "..I hate Dharmadhyaksha and Vivvt for their sheer stupidity." - Vensatry
   "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha" - Krish!
   "Use at least little bit of sense" - Krish!
   "Would you please stop being a JERK?" - Krish!
   "I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name)." - Krish!
   "Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you." - Krish!
   "...I have never come across a user who is as stupid as you....You and user Vivvt are pathetic and put other users in a harrowing time. I guess, you should stop chasing users and their work. Rather spend some time in improving yourself. Dumb." - Arjann

    .Please tell why all these people have had problems with you? And, pointing out my previous maistakes has nothing to do with this incident of your beloved friend. Both of you are players and both work together.Krish | Talk 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Krish!, drop it. Your recent comments are over the line, especially this morning's "barnstar" and your edit summary calling another user a moron. If I see any more breaches of our civility policy, I will block you. This is quite clearly a content dispute, discussion should happen on the talk page of the article, not grumbling here. Dharmadhyaksha, you are complaining largely about issues over 4 months old and he was blocked (for edit warring) around that time, I appreciate that it looks like things are building up here again for you, and I will watch the article, but you need to focus on the content dispute at hand rather than past behaviour. WormTT(talk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thank you, this was a bad comment i agree I shouldn't have done that. I had stopped fighting and would rather focus on my work here. This is waht I'm trying to tell this user that putting prevbious problems had nothing to do with this. But he went on and on. Plus, this guy is not ready to discuss and would revert things like he owns the article. I would like your help on this matter.Krish | Talk 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Krish!, you were a hair's breadth from being blocked for that barnstar - I certainly see why Dharmadhyaksha brought up the past, it's your past behaviour which time and again is beyond the pale. You need to be doing the legwork here and you need to drop your complaints. I will be watching, but only as an administrator for poor behaviour. I will not be participating in the dispute. WormTT(talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and any specific reason I was brought to ANI? - Vivvt (Talk) 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User has gone on a wikibreak, for good. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You never know. Some editors take a wikibreak and never return to editing. Others' long wikibreak ends up just lasting just a week. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the first time this is happening, a few of Kirsh!'s previous accounts were blocked for similar behavior. Another incident happened last year that I was aware of; unfortunately, I took the step of page protection instead of blocking as explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive. —SpacemanSpiff 02:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This retiring-leaving-coming-back-again drama is not new with the Indian editors. This keeps happening with some of them followed by Dont-leave-us-come-back-we-miss-you-glad-you-are-back stuff! This archives nothing than talk pages full of emotional talks. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive what is this?, I saw this for the first time. SpacemanSpiff just because some editor has a similar name and likes similar subject, doesn't mean it was me who edited from those accounts. I came to know about wikipedia in 2012 (anyone can edit it). and I started writing In MY City article. My first visit to wikipedia was 2012, and I don't need to cry to prove that. I hope people on wikipedia could see the good side of an user, who despite his busy student life have given so much time here.Krish | Talk 03:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have. Your behavior on this account and your previous accounts has been disruptive; in addition to the issue of constant personal attacks against other editors there's also the problem of WP:NPOV issues where you seem to be taking your Priyanka Chopra fandom far too seriously for an encyclopaedia, not just on that particular article but also on other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A fandom? I have edited and written other FLs as well and had planned to. By the way, I don't have any problems with NPOV and I support it. KIndly please try to understand, I reported this user because he reverted an edit, when i had already opnened a discussion. I know it was too small to come her, I apolagize, sorry. Now please close this discussion I have my studies to do and I'm taking a long break for a year. Thank you.Krish | Talk 03:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Open an ANI discussion without having a solid ground and now wants to close the discussion because he has studies to do! Other people are marely wasting their time on WP. Admins, please note that this particular user shall not be taken seriously for anything and everything that involves other editors. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I said that because you said above that its small, for me its still big reason. When someone had already started a discussion then you had not rights to revert until the matter was discussed on the talkpage. So, its obvious you are the culprit.Krish | Talk 05:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You wish. LOL. This post I wrote on 23 April 2016 dont show its sudden. Check facts before accusing someone of something.Krish | Talk 05:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're going on a wiki break, go on the wiki break. Don't continue editing under the guise that you have 'studies' to do. It's one or the other, and it's quickly approaching the point where a boomerang is in order. --Tarage (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Krish!, you were editing in the past hour which undermines your claim that you are taking a long wikibreak. Liz Read! Talk! 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz Well, I'm still editing because I have an ongoing discussion about the disputed article. So, Isn't that obvious that I'll be editing? Now please close this discussion as I'm sure the discussion on the article's talk page is enough. Thank you for your time folks.Krish | Talk 15:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should it be closed without any action against you? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this is May 2016, if you want to take action for what i did in 2015 and before then i am very sorry that's not going to happen and I think you are trying to provoke me to do something with your texts but i am not interested to fight with you or anyone. This is not a place where you engage in random fights. This is an encyclopedia its better we respect this site.Krish | Talk 19:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    May 2016 stuff... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't you already had mentioned above? and the administrator had already addressed them? Give me a break. Bye Bye......Krish | Talk 06:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins should take this into account that his behavioural pattern has not changed over the years and he keeps abusing other editors with the strong words. Involved editors have seen this I-won't-do-this drama several times and its really frustrating that its always the other editor who is asked behave with civility. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the 5 edits were posted 2 days ago, it's obvious Krish! is unrepentant with regards to personal attacks. Those should certainly attract a block, preferably an indefinite one. Blackmane (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Blackmane only three edits were posted 2 days ago so kindly correct yourself. I don't think i deserve a block. I have contributed so much here. I have written an FA, 9 FLs and 10 GAs and am still working on plenty of subjects including two other FLs and another FA. You can't just take away everything from me. It's not like only I had fights or arguments here. Everyone does. By the way, did i tell you this user (Dharmdhyaksha) has a long history of interfaring with my work or should i say had a problem with me for reasons unkown to me. He tried to take me down by nominating two of my GAs, few days after they passed and he was criticised by everyone and the GAs were kept as GAs.


    Plus, he would add a maintenance templates to all my FLs, would remove well-sourced texts, tag the articles with Provide secondary souces, even where everything was sourced perfectly. So tell me what you guys learn about him. What does it mean when you do these kind of things. I still don't know what is his problem with me. My above reactions were for his this behaviour,which I think was wrong as all of my FLs and GAs were reviewed by some established and experienced reviewers. So tell me now.Krish | Talk 05:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned by SpacemanSpiff "The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have." However, this dos not give you any authority to abuse people. Everybody's trying to do something or other by taking time from their real time. You have no right to insult that time. I dont see a point why should please take your abuse for no good reason. Does not matter if you are admin or wiki founder or feature content writer or a newbie, people are not here to get abused. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, he is not retiring or taking any break for studies. He just nominated another list for FLC. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I've corrected my post to reflect this. However, the points still stands that continuing to attack another editor while your previous attacks against other editors was being discussed at ANI is just mind boggling foolishness. Editors get into conflict, this is true, but for the most part it is over content what you have done is made it personal. Regardless of what you have contributed to the project, this is unacceptable. Editors that have contributed 10 times what you have, have been site banned for just this sort of thing. You are very lucky you haven't been indefinitely blocked already. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Look, It`s time to stop beating around the bush about blocking Krish. I propose an indefinite ban on Krish for long term personal attacks against multiple users, as shown above. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Did I tell you this user is friends with Dharmadhyaksha? Yes they are. By the way please tell me if its right to remove well-sourced stuffs from articles which are featured and everything. Just because he didn't like the way article was?
    • I've been here for close to 11 years. I've made a lot of friends and enemies here. That doesn't discount my views. You have the right to remove and add stuff so long as it is compliant with policies and consensus, which isn't the issue here. The issue here is your pathetic behaviour towards others, calling them names, and abusing them, which you did and as a net result I left a warning on your talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support long-term ban. This user has, on multiple occasions, made it extremely difficult for me to contribute here. His constant bad-faith and abusive nature made me take a long wikibreak last year, and I wouldn't wish that upon any constructive editor. This has really gone on for far too long, and action must be taken. Pinging some of the other editors (Dr. Blofeld, BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, Kailash29792 and Vensatry), who have been a victim of his abuse. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support: Oh my. Look who finally replied to a text related to me. God bless you Krimuk. Please tell the administrators that you used to sen threats on Twitter and troll me there. Please tell the administrators that you have abused me on my talk page and through e-mails. You know I really don't have time for this and I don't think I will show those evidences against you, how much you have abused me here and how uncivil you are. You have finally succeeded in breaking me. I really can't take anymore and I feel like it was my biggest mistake to come here and contribute here. I have lost all the energy today and I ask administrators for a long term ban as I'm really fed up of this accusation of being uncivil and abusive, even when the others editors have been as abusive as me. I gave three years of my life to this site, three presious years of my college life. You don't need to ask your friends to come here and ask for a block for me, I am making this job easy for you. I ask for a block so that others can live here freely as I'm the only one who is making there life troubled. Well done Krimuk you have done the impossible and I wish you all the best for your future.Krish | Talk 10:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I believe Krish! would benefit from close mentoring, and Wikipedia would benefit from a mentored Krish! This is what I propose and I'm willing to act as a mentor if the editor will have me as such.--John Cline (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Am not sure and my memory is weak and there have been many user name changes and there have been many editors in similar article domains that keep confusing me.... But i think he has been mentored by @Titodutta: or was it Dr. Blofeld. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely Oppose ban I didn't realise this was still open. I don't watch ANI, it is a dreadful place. Now, having read the thread, I have some questions. Why does it matter if Krish says he's going on a wikibreak. Breaks are personal, and can come in many forms - reducing your editing, changing focus and so on. There are a number of very high profile editors who still edit despite having a wikibreak notice, or even a retired notice it does not matter. I told Krish he was a hair's breadth from a block for the Jerk barnstar and his behaviour on 1 May and when I did, he stopped that behaviour. He didn't stop editing, he carried on the discussion civilly at the talk page of the article. On the other hand, I've just had to warn Dharmadhyaksha for provocation at that same article. There are two sides to this case, I certainly don't believe that one side should be banned outright. WormTT(talk) 13:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion has somewhat veered onto a different zone. To begin with, the user in question seems to have apparently misused his rollback privileges on the page. That said, it's high time that Krish's behaviour be monitored. Because this is the nth time that his conduct has been questioned – this being the most recent one: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive305#User:Krish! reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Blocked). He's been around here for 3+ years, yet doesn't have the temperament to deal with people – a few samples (when he was a newbie): 1, 2. And this was just a year ago. I don't see much of a change in his attitude. —Vensatry (Talk) 14:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Worm That Turned, the user's claims of being the victim of abusive messages off-wiki are absurd, because he is the one who has sent me multiple abusive emails. I had then contacted Crisco 1492 and shared screenshots of those messages with him, after which I was advised to block him and the user was warned. In those emails he claimed that the actress Vidya Balan, whose article I significantly contributed to, had payed for my education. I can send you screenshots of those emails if you like. See this, where he misused the "help me" template to write: "These kind of users should be ashamed of themselves and their face should be blackened to show how much they are.." Also, he is the one who, as recently as last month, made accusations of paid writing after I spent working on the articles of three actors who work for Dharma Productions. As many of the editors who have previously interacted with him, the user has a long history of being a nuisance and resorts back to his old ways within days of being warned by administrators. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a site ban. That's a bit extreme for my taste. I'd support an absolute last warning that the next time they make a personal attack on another editor they will be indefinitely blocked. The same goes for Dharmadhyaksha per Worm's post above. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I expressed similar concerns about Prashant/Krish to Ian Rose, Cassianto and SchroCat a few weeks back. Sorry to say but Krish! just never seems to grow up. His recent behaviour is a perfect example of why he's not mature enough to edit here. Incredibly childish and never seems to change as he promises. He does contribute some good work but most of his interactions on here are negative ones and he never seems to learn how to avoid them. I think it's best for everybody if he was banned or at least something severe imposed on interacting with people to stop people having to deal with his nonsense. John Cline and some of the others clearly have little experience of this editor, all the mentoring in the world won't change him. When he doesn't feel threatened and is focused on writing he's productive I think, and at times he can even be pleasant, but as Vensatry says, too many times now and just lacks the control to deal with people. Suggest something severe imposed in terms of interacting with others, that might work, but then you'll still get the same petty squabbles over articles. Irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If the consensus is for more severe sanctions, then it is as the community wills. There may be a small glimmer of self realisation from Krish! that how they're going about things is just not right considering that a ban discussion is underway. Interaction bans are nasty business and really need some strong reform to have bigger teeth. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very Strong Support I agree Krish should be blocked just reading this ANI makes me cringe... I firmly believe that this ani should of been closed days ago... It's obvious that consensus is that Krish is needed to be blocked. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose the ban/block The discussion is too lengthy to give in time, though I have had my own frictions with Krish! but banning/blocking him isn't the solution. No one here is so inexperienced that they would do harm to the requisite Wiki page. I believe in the work and dedication by Krimuk90 and Krish!. Coming to Dharmadhyaksha, I really don't appreciate his approach of dealing with fellow users. Arjann (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Arjann also looking for Boomerang? " I have never come across a user who is as stupid as you. I mean it, literally. You and user Vivvt are pathetic" ... "Dumb." This had come on my talk page after 4 of the images this user had uploaded were nominated by me for deletion and which are eventually now deleted. File:Haider film score artwork.jpg, File:Lootera Cover Art.jpg, File:Thalli Pogathey (single cover).jpg, File:Jab Tak Hai Jaan Audio Launch.jpg. The user later also went on to remove a FFD tag from one of the files for which I warned him. Arjann also has a history of making PAs towards other editors. See this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dharmadhyaksha: In this big discussion that involves almost every user I came across on Wikipedia, I will apologise every person on whom I made a personal attack but when it comes to you and Vivvt, I will never do that. A very simple and straightforward answer is here: I agree deleting of images listed above. Let them be named 1, 2, 3, 4 in that order above. I also agree with deletion of 1, 2 and 4 but when it comes to deletion of image 3, your explanation and replies to me over here are completely out of context.
    The MOS:FILM#Soundtrack states in one of the lines: "The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for identification of the topic, and having cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous." But when there isn't a official film poster since 2-3 months, an image as cover art isn't extraneous at all. I even mentioned earlier: "Once it releases, feel free to put this claim and delete the file. As of now, it qualifies." So watch out for your own silly mistakes. Arjann (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So your best argument to retain a file was to attack the nominator and remove FfD tag? Your reason if was persuasive enough then the image would have stayed. Btw, thanks to the short term memory i have, i dont remember any previous grudges with you. Which Indian film personality's fan are you? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dharmadhyaksha: Your are now in a catch-22 situation. I respect my and others' work. I accept my mistakes openly and I learn a lot. So, I feel this is my last reply to you over here. That's it all I can say. Arjann (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why do you want to keep this as your last reply when boomerang and other behavioural things have started to come out. I was on a mobile device in my last comment and hence couldn't do a good research. I now know that your past grudges with Vivvt and probably me have been because of your obsessiveness towards a certain music director whose articles who create and mostly edit. This trend is very much like Krish. Both of you can't handle criticisms of your favorite filmy personalities and then tend to start abusing fellow editors over content disputes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support We just don't need this sort of thing. Op47 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Oppose only an indef ban. Support a block/ban for one year in duration to allow Krish the opportunity to "finish" their studies and re-educate themselves on standard operating procedure for Wikipedia. Add a proviso that the next time they fail to adhere to Civility policy they recieve an indefinite ban (as they're already a hairs breadth away from an indef already). Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    I took the liberty to break up the discussion a little. Too many sub threads and such. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • May I ask for a mentor please? I still don't know many things about wikipedia though I am 3 years old here, was mostly inactive in 2013 and 14. By the way I need someone to guide me through this. I don't have any friends here who encourage me or support me when I am right but I have people who unite when I do something wrong. I don't get it. If neutrality is the policy of wikipedia then shouldn't they support me when I do some good? Dr. Blofeld has taught me several things here, when I was new and would like to ask for help if he can help me through this. I am sure I will do 10x better in someone's guidance than I used to do alone.Krish | Talk 04:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutrality is a content policy not a behavioural guideline. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious editing by the user Oatitonimly

    This editor seems to be determined to replace all mentions of Turkish-Armenian War to "Turkish invasion of Armenia." There is currently a requested move discussion started by them but they are trying to replace all mentions of Turkish American War in various articles with their preferred POV in the meantime.([3], [4],[5],[6] [7][8][9][10]) Worst of all they even tried to alter the posts of other editors on a talk page.

    Tiptoethrutheminefield warned them about this but they seem to be continuing with deleting/replacing the mentions of Turkish-Armenian War to their preferred version as shown in above diffs. There is also evidence of canvassing, [11],[12] where they seem to be notifying the editors they think would support their proposed move. I think Oatitonimly is not here to build an encylopedia but rather to push an agenda, and I think this type of revisionism should not be tolerated. Darwinian Ape talk 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't replace all, just some where I thought it necessary. There are multiple redirect links for a reason. Not all those edits are adding the alternate name, some I was removing things that simply didn't belong.[13][14] The problem was Esc reverted many edits I made without even looking at them, he even restored vandalism that I reverted.[15]
    He warned me the name were red links so I changed them to make them work. I notified Marshal because he had proposed a previous renaming discussion for the article similar to this, so I wanted to alert him. Oatitonimly (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You thought altering talk page posts of other editors by removing the mention of "Turkish-Armenian war" was necessary? You also deleted it from see also sections of articles, those sections are for related topics which Turkish-Armenian war clearly was. Forgive me, but I find it hard to see your editing pattern anything but a campaign to remove all the references of "Turkish-Armenian war" from Wikipedia. I also recommend you read WP:CANVASS because notifying an editor because they share your goals on a matter is the definition of canvassing.Darwinian Ape talk 06:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oatitonimly keeps changing every article that has Turkish-Armenian War mentioned despite being warned and reported which is in fact is nothing less than vandalism, to add insult to injury they are edit warring to keep their changes and claim vandalism in their edit summaries just look at the contribs of the editor, there is nothing but disruptive editing, which is hard to keep up. Darwinian Ape talk 09:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Who are they? if to look on Oatitonimly last edits, he is reverting the same ip 95.208.241.193 which seems to be backed by you like here [16][17] etc. And it is a clear case of content dispute so please assume good faith and don't call it a vandalism. Lkahd (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I use they as a gender-neutral pronoun as it's common in wikipedia. Darwinian Ape talk 10:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Also, WP:NOTSUICIDE it's very hard to believe the editor doctored the talk page posts of other editors in good faith. Darwinian Ape talk 10:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just glancing over before dinner, anyone reckon WP:ARBAA2 might be applicable? Not that Oatitonimly has been warned about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware the topic was under discretionary sanctions as my involvement started with the proposed move in the Turkish-Armenian War article. But a quick research reveals Oatitonimly was aware of the sanction since they started an AE request based on the same sanction They may not be officially notified but certainly aware of the sanction. Darwinian Ape talk 10:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lkahd is very correct in that you are lacking in good faith. Just like your IP friend, you keep reverting other changes besides the name, for example you deleted a source to something additional I added here.[18] The first time I wanted to rename all uses, and it was my mistake that I hadn't realized I was doing it on old talk discussions, but this time I only wanted to add the alternate name to a couple pages in order to add some balance. And if you won't object, I'll be undo the reverts you did that took away other changes I made but I'll leave the article name as it is, in order to stop this edit warring. Though I hope you'll realize I was just trying to give the invasion redirect a couple more links and let them remain, I left the majority in the war link. Oatitonimly (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits are not actually tendentious: the article had previously been called "Turkish invasion of Armenia (1920)" and many sources have been presented in the renaming discussion that use the "Turkish invasion of Armenia" wording. I reverted Oatitonimly's edit in the AG talk archive [19] and advised him [20] that this was not appropriate editing and that it would also probably be best to wait before altering wikilinks related to the article title currently being discussed. Of course altering another editor's words is a big faux pas, but a one-off incident like this can be put down to inexperience. The same could also be said for the altering of the wikilinks. My objection to them was that Oatitonimly was deleting links that worked and replacing them with dead links (because there is no "Turkish invasion of Armenia" article or redirect). This again is probably down to inexperience. Personally, I think Wikilinks that are "see also" type links should have the exact wording of the article title they lead to, but for wording inside article content there is not a need to make an exact duplication, as long as there is no deception. A wikilinked phrase like "the 1920 Turkish invasion of Armenia" that led to the Turkish-Armenian War article could be completely appropriate wording, depending on how the containing passage is worded. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    NB, I do not think there is any pov as such between "Turkish-Armenian War" and "Turkish invasion of Armenia", however, the latter is more descriptively accurate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Had the editor stopped after your warning I wouldn't have reported them. But removing links from see also sections of clearly related articles as "doesn't belong" and edit warring to keep their preferred version in every article that mentions Turkish-Armenian war, despite not achieving a consensus in the talk page of the original article combined with the previous behavior shows a clear pattern of disruptive behavior and a lack of respect for consensus building. It's not the content itself I object to, which is just a content dispute, it's the editor's behavior in unilaterally imposing the content change in all articles in Wikipedia behind our back without any sort of consensus. Darwinian Ape talk 17:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My warning was specifically about altering other editors' words. I don't see that act being repeated. And was also about not turning working wikilinks into dead ones. That too has not been repeated, I think. The rest was just advice. I don't see what you claim to be "revisionism" in the argument about whether "Turkish-Armenian War" should be "Turkish invasion of Armenia" - both terms are in use, but I prefer the latter because it is more accurate descriptively, and because it follows the title format found on many Wikipedia articles, not the least being 2003 invasion of Iraq. And even if the former is the one that consensus decides on for that specific article title, there can still be good reasons to use the latter wording as links in other articles. I haven't gone through all of Oatitonimly's edits on those other articles to check if he has had those good reasons. But I do find Oatitonimly's edits to be rather pointless (and thus, yes, pointlessly causing disruption) because without any accompanying backing argument they can be (and are) easily reverted. He needs to be encouraged to discuss things on the talk pages, present arguments for each major edit change, and realize that not everything needs to be fixed in a day. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I outlined my reasoning for the content dispute on the talk page of related article, I wont reiterate here. The edit pattern of the editor looked to me a clear attempt of whitewashing every instances of the use "Turkish-Armenian war" to bolster their move request and I am not convinced that they were trying to improve the articles by replacing it with their preferred version. I'm glad that you also see these edits as causing disruption. Darwinian Ape talk 19:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, his editing, especially at the start when he was breaking wikilinks and editing other people's words, has been disruptive, one could even say eagerly disruptive - but I think "whitewashing" is overstating the ambition of the edits: both "Turkish-Armenian War" and "Turkish invasion of Armenia" are used by sources, and one is currently the title, the other a past title and now a redirect. "Tendentious" is also overstating things, and the "not here to build an encyclopedia" assertion you made at the start is just not justified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    When almost every edit of the editor was an attempt to replace the mention of "Turkish-Armenian war" with "Turkish invasion of Armenia" Considering the determination, bordering on zealotry, I think whitewashing is not an overstatement.(there are at least twice as many examples of this replacement campaign as I initially reported) There is also the issue of canvassing, edit warring and altering other editor's posts. And while it's possible to see each of these transgressions alone as inexperience, combined it's a clear NOTHERE like behavior. Darwinian Ape talk 15:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What, exactly, do you claim is being "whitewashed"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Instances of the usage "Turkish-Armenian War" obviously. See their comment in the move discussion in regards to the common name argument right before they started the rampage of replacement: "Less words will always yield more results. You also have to consider how many of these are Wikipedia WP:FORK"(referring to google search results) I think they believe(erroneously) that by replacing the instances of the usage "Turkish-Armenian war" they will alter the google results or something. But given that the disruption seems to be stopped for now, I am OK if the admins would like to give the editor some rope, hopefully the disruptive behavior will not be repeated, although I'm not optimistic. This is not an area I am particularly interested in so I think it's unlikely we will collaborate in other articles after the move discussion. But I couldn't help but notice there seems to be a general bias in Turkish related subjects.(though limited my experience may be) There are some editors, unfortunately, who seems to be going to some enormous lengths to cast Turks in the worst possible light. I don't doubt there are proTurkish counterparts guilty of similar crimes, but they don't seem to be prevalent. Darwinian Ape talk 22:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

    Some could think you have just revealed a pov agenda. But, I think, to have said so openly what you have just said is only revealing a failing of some Wikipedia articles to properly convey correct information. Those articles should have informed you enough for you to realize how disturbingly wrong (and actually offensive) that "to cast Turks in the worst possible light" opinion is. The Turkish-Armenian War article is not at all well written - I would like to improve it but it is currently protected thanks to Oatitonimly's unproductive edits. Maybe revisit it in a few weeks or months and see if you still stand by your opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing at the AE:

    Unfortunately Oatitonimly continues with the disruptive behavior by canvassing at an AE request that they reported. I told them in the AE request that it was not an appropriate behavior. In turn they asked me to delete my comment "out of human decency," accusing me of battleground mentality on my talk page. I told them I would delete, if they acknowledge in their request, that the canvassing behavior was wrong and pledge they won't do it again so that the editors they pinged can see there is foul play in notifications and act accordingly. As of now they did not comply with my request. They also accused me of gaming the system, which is a clear projection since they were the one who tried to justify their canvassing by trying to find loopholes in policy.(see the conversation on my talk) They also accused me of editing "while carefully avoiding the 3RR." which is a clear misrepresentation and an assumption of bad faith. I gave this editor the benefit of the doubt in the hopes that they would see what they are doing is wrong and disruptive, but the problem is they don't seem to understand what they did was unacceptable. They are coming up with excuses that are less and less convincing. Darwinian Ape talk 01:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This [21] does not seem to be actual canvassing, Oatitonimly did not place any messages on these editors' talk pages. The effect would be the same if he had said "it would be useful if they were here" rather than "I invite them". Or is there a way that those editors would have known just by having their names mentioned? However, the post itself seems rather weasely worded (by mentioning them by name Oatitonimly implies that all those editors have had problems with the editor being discusses, but without having to present evidence to prove it). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oatitonimly did not place any messages on these editors' talk pages." I don't see how that matters. The end result is the same. It's more efficient if you look at it, rather than sending each of them a message, just posting one message and ping all of them at once. Also it seems the editwar at Turkish-Armenian War continues right where they left before the page protection. Darwinian Ape talk 23:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Canvassing" is not just a word - it is an activity. He posted no invitations on the talk pages of those editors, or on any other pages, and no ping code was used in the post he made naming those editors. So I don't see how that one post can reasonably be called canvassing. 18:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)
    Here is the quote of the post:"User:DatGuy User:Ferakp User:EtienneDolet User:KrakatoaKatie User:Amortias User:Mr.User200 User:Jim1138 User:Cahk These users have all been involved with Gala19000's tedious editing and given him various warnings, both shown above. I invite them all to come here and give their thoughts if they wish to" (emphasis mine)(also editor used brackets to ping) It requires a great amount of mental gymnastics to think they did not intend to ping those editors just because they didn't the use ping code, editors were pinged regardless. Yes, canvassing is an activity that can be accomplished by pinging editors in an AE case. Darwinian Ape talk 03:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the ping code? I do not know what you mean by "editor used brackets to ping" and "editors were pinged regardless" - names alone don't ping, brackets alone don't ping, the word "ping" pings! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tiptoethrutheminefield yes it does. Darwinian Ape talk 19:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I stand corrected. What is the purpose of ping then, if annoying alerts are so easy to make with just a user wikilink? I suppose a question to ask is, if I didn't know that links did this, did Oatitonimly, is it something that would be common knowledge? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think ping tag just puts an "@" sign to the name. It's probably made so it would be user friendly, many new editors may not know the ping tag and try to just wikilink the userpage, as most likely is the case here. I think it would be quite naive to think Oatitonimly didn't know it, given the nature of the message they crafted. Darwinian Ape talk 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at linguistics articles

    I've come across a pattern of disruptive editing at linguistics articles, notably at Hruso language and Sholaga language. In both of these articles, editors are edit warring to restore various kinds of inappropriate content. Shaiful Ali is adding lengthy notes about what sort of material ought to be added to the article at Hruso language, visible here for instance, while Av1995 has added large amounts of material having nothing whatever to do with the actual language at Sholaga language, visible for example here. This is being done as part of a school project, conducted by Chuck Haberl. The matter was raised at ANI a while ago (see here for the previous discussion), but nothing has been done to stop the ongoing disruption. I think some kind of intervention is needed, as this has become an aggravating problem for editors concerned with linguistics articles. At the very least, it would be proper to request that Chuck Haberl encourage his students not to edit disruptively. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Excuse me. I am Av1995. I am not editing disruptively at all. I was told to research about the language and very little is known about Sholaga, yet however more information is known about the people who speak the language. So my research has highlighted that. To conclude, the final assignment was to compile my research onto the wiki stub. All of the information I have put on the page has to do with Sholaga or about it's speakers, the Soliga tribe. My categories are: classification of the languge(Sholaga), names of the language other than Sholaga, The Soliga Tribe which I have clearly provided information about as the speakers of the language, Geographical Distribution which is where the language is spoken, examples being words translated from english to sholaga, and current events which includes how the Soliga Tribe's children who speak Sholaga are being assimilated into society. Lastly I end with my references and external links. I have shown you how every single section relates to the language Sholaga and therefore should in no way be considered inappropriate or disruptive to the current topic of the article. Please stop deleting my edits as I have not put all of the info up as a waste of time. I spent time researching and learning about the language too. If you want to, you may reference my links to question my information. But this is a very strict request to stop taking all my edits away. Thank you.
    Av1995, there are two obvious ways that your edits at Sholaga language have been disruptive. Firstly, you have added content that has nothing to do with the Sholaga language, for instance, "The Soliga tribe used the penis of the Sambar deer to treat hydrocele. They also used the flesh of the House crow to treat anemia. The Soliga Tribe is extremely intelligent and knows much about their environment and the use of resources in its community." That is a very good example of something that does not belong in an article about a language. It is not linguistic information. The fact that it relates to the speakers of the language does not make it appropriate to a specifically linguistic article. Secondly, you have refused to discuss the issue on the talk page, and have reverted multiple users after they removed your additions. You reverted Kwamikagami here and me here. That is not an appropriate thing to do. If your edits are reverted, you need to discuss the dispute on the talk page, especially when multiple editors revert you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I did not make the entire article about that? That was one section of my edit. And I am new to wikipedia so I apologize if I did something wrong. I am unfamiliar on how to talk on the talk page. However, only the two of you have reverted me. Av1995 (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Soliga's use of the penis of the Sambar dear to treat hydrocele is non-linguistic information. It does not belong in an article about a language at all. The fact that you did not completely fill up the article with information about the medical uses of animal penises does not make it appropriate. The talk page of Sholaga language can be found here. Click on the blue word "here" and it will take you to the page. You should have raised the issue on the talk page as soon as you were reverted. Respecfully, multiple users reverting your edits is generally considered a good reason to stop making the edit on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Av1995: FHC is correct - you are being disruptive. I've left a message on your talk page explaining our policy on edit warring and the three-revert rule. We were all new here once and we understand you're a student. However, you are in danger of being blocked from editing, so stop this blind reverting and listen to what the other collaborators are trying to tell you. Katietalk 09:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the instructor in question. FHC summoned me to this conversation. I've been working for several months now with Adam Hyland and the Wiki Education Foundation, and I've noticed a pattern of disruptive behavior as well.
    • An inexperienced (but well-meaning) editor makes changes to a stub page;
    • An experienced (but overzealous) editor reverts all of the new editor's revisions, often without explanation, but sometimes with abusive language (such as claiming that edits made in good faith are actually "disruptive," "unencyclopaedic," or "graffiti," in the hopes of flagging the new editor for punitive measures);
    • The new editor either gives up, frustrated beyond hope, and never makes another edit ever again, or re-reverts the perplexing and ill-explained reverts, opening herself to punitive measures. The overzealous editor(s) then uncharitably declares this to be a "revert war" (despite knowing that they are likely dealing with a new editor operating in good faith) and use the new editor's lack of experience to get her blocked from editing.
    This is *not* collaborative. It is, in fact, the very opposite of collaboration. It's obvious to me, with all the prurient discussion of deer penises above, that you have an excellent idea of what is "unencyclopaedic" and what is "encyclopaedic," exceeding that of the average newcomer; if you had spent as much time removing only these elements as you clearly have spent trying to get my students punished, then Wikipedia would have some new editors, a few more collaboratively-edited articles, and a whole lot more good will. That is obviously not the tack that you have decided to take here.Chuck Haberl (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi folks. I'll take a look at the activity above and check back shortly. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Without a comment on the quality of the edits or the nature of the response, these issues can be defused if students don't edit to re-insert their contributions without taking to the talk page first. That's hard, because it puts the onus on the new editor to recognize what is happening, why and engage and allows the more experienced editors to wait and review changes. But if a contribution has multiple problems which might merit heavy revision or removal and it is reverted, re-inserting it will only make the communication problem harder. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam (Wiki Ed), why don't student editors simply work on Draft articles or ones in their User space? Then, their instructor can see their work but they won't run into obstacles that occur when they try to make big changes on narrowly defined subjects. Then the instructor or a Wikipedia volunteer can make suggestions or point out problems in their work and the new editors won't run into experienced, "overzealous" editors who are just trying to protect the project. Liz Read! Talk! 16:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz. That's normally our suggestion for work like this where a student aims to completely overhaul a page or create a new one. We were not involved with the course when it started up initially and reached out to Chuck in the course of the semester. I suspect that future classes where students use on our training and materials from the start will more heavily involve user sandboxes. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was originally inclined along those lines, but the tutorial you guys asked me to follow suggested that it was better to get the students involved in editing Wikipedia directly as fast as possible (or did I get something horribly, horribly wrong?). It would have gone better for these students if they had started by making incremental changes to the page first, as I suggested from the start of the semester, rather than large scale revisions at the very end, but as it happens there is currently no way for faculty to mandate that students complete their work in advance rather than submitting it only when it is due.
    This is actually the third year I've run this course, and just about every aspect of it works better each year EXCEPT for the Wikipedia part. The first year, in which there were only 30 students and I could monitor things more closely, worked quite well, but the following two years have been trying, to put it lightly. My sense is that the more engaged editors here prefer the stark, clean lines of a stub to what they perceive as amateurish edits, so they revert first and ask questions later. Students panic (because they perceive the other editors' interventions as vandalism), they re-revert, and then the veterans escalate the situation and I get emails (and the ones from Wikipedia editors are seldom very pleasant when it comes to intruders on "their" territory). It basically leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
    At its base, it's a problem with the culture, more than anything else. In future years, I'll host a private wiki on our learning management system (we use Sakai) and let the students do their thing without provoking these kinds of unavoidable conflicts.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Chuck Haberl, it is quite clear that your students have been editing disruptively at multiple articles. I have attempted, at the talk pages of both Hruso language and Sholaga language, to explain to your students why their edits have been problematic. Shaiful Ali simply ignored me at the talk page of Hruso language, while I had a short and unproductive exchange with Av1995 at the talk page of Sholaga language. Shaiful Ali and Av1995 have both edit warred to restore their changes, and in both cases they've done this even after being reverted by multiple users. That is disruptive behavior. Pointing that out is simply pointing out a fact, not being "abusive". I agree that one has to exercise some tolerance and understanding with new users, but that is different from defending disruptive editing, as you unfortunately appear to be doing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    For crying out loud... you're the one who has appointed yourself "guardian" of these pages, you should have put in a token effort to make yourself clear to the new editor, if you were going to take the responsibility in the first place. And calling a couple of reverts an "edit war" is pretty rich.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chuck Haberl: FreeKnowledgeCreator and the other editors put in much more than a token effort to explain the changes to Sholaga language, both in the edit summaries and on the talk page. The student's explanation for what appeared to every wikipedian involved as disruptive editing, was:
    "[I] was only trying to keep it as the way I had edited it because my professor had said he would grade our finals today and that page was my final."
    True, this doesn't seem to have happened on the majority of the pages edited by the other students in this project, but it nevertheless leads me to think that similar incidents could in future be prevented if it's emphasised to students that their contribution will be graded regardless of whether it sticks around or not. Uanfala (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeed emphasized that exact point at several points throughout the semester, Uanfala.Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not, however, go so far as to say that all of the other editors put in even a token effort. The stage was set when, after three days of sustained edits on the part of my student, ALL of her effort was summarily reverted by one of your veteran editors, who justified his move with only a few words in the in-group house jargon of a certain class of Wikipedia editors ("rv. non-encyclopedic edits and content forking"). This immediately put her on the defensive and the rest is history.
    I appreciate that Wikipedians have aspirations to professionalism, but this is so far removed from my own professional experience both as a writer and an editor, having contributed entries to reputable, peer reviewed journals, and edited entire scholarly volumes as well as authored monographs and journal articles, that I'm not sure what standard of "professionalism" the Wikipedian community is aiming for. If I or one of my past editors had treated a submission made in good faith in the cavalier way that he routinely does, we would likely not have a job in our industry for very long. Editing requires much more than just an encyclopedic content knowledge, it demands patience and close reading, and by reverting my students' work in this manner, he has paradoxically demonstrated that these are attributes he is lacking. Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well perhaps you should be a better teacher then. If your students are routinely editing disruptively by Wikipedia's standards, they should probably ask for their money back. Really now, one of them thought 'use of penis' was acceptable in a linguistics article? That is so far beyond a joke. Here is a quick tip: 1st lesson of editing wikipedia - if material you add is removed, do not keep replacing it without talking to someone competent. Although really from the examples listed it looks like they did speak to multiple competent editors, they just did not listen. In short, your students are required to adjust to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not required to adjust to your students. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah, hah! "You should be a better teacher!" "They should probably ask for their money back." My sides! Highly original, no educator has ever been told that before! Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite proud of my students. There were over 120 registered for this course this semester, and near as I can tell, the overwhelming majority made material contributions to the articles on a variety of endangered languages. I've just graded them. It would appear that only one or two engaged in plagiarism, and inadvertently at that (that is, they freely copied and pasted passages of text, but with attribution, which they felt gave them some degree of cover. They were wrong, but they weren't intending to deceive). Those passages were struck down rather quickly and they were informed of their transgression.
    Your criticism is where you really fall short of the mark. For all I know, Only in death does duty end, you could in fact be an award-winning educator. If that were the case, though, you'd understand that education isn't just a data dump, from a "sage on a dais" into a pool of passive and completely receptive students, but rather a collaborative process whereby the educator facilitates the students' learning and assesses their progress as they gradually acquire competency in the material. As much as I would like to give every student an "A," at the end of the day some simply won't become conversant in the subjects covered by the course, and their grades have to reflect that. That's ultimately on them, not me; my students are all adults and most of them know that they have to take responsibility for their own performance. That's really what separates adults from children, more than anything they could possibly learn in my classroom.
    That's leaving aside the question of whether you've actually ever had the pleasure of taking one of my courses. Chances are that you have not. In 14 years of teaching I've probably only had a thousand or so students. Given that you likely have no direct knowledge of my profession or of me as an educator, you're probably not in a position to criticize anything. Get back to me once you've accomplished as much as I have in the classroom or you've actually seen me in action. Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Get back to me when you get off your high horse. You are running a course that requires (and I assume gives credit for) editing wikipedia. It is not even close to being on the scale of a worthwhile use of a students time. And editing badly judging by the above. Your student's editing is directly related to your quality of teaching. Since you have failed in a not insignificant number of occasions to teach them basic editing skills, and you yourself lack a basic understanding of Wikipedia processes, from BRD through to editor interaction and civility, even the most novice of editors can criticise you. Let us not mention you clearly edited articles on which you had a blatant conflict of interest, so add COI to the list. You yourself state you have the same problems with your students editing wikipedia year after year. Well given the students change, frankly that is your fault. So please stop bleating about how great an educator you are, because all the evidence displayed so far does not support that conclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll definitely let him know. Hopefully our institution has access to that journal through our subscription to JSTOR. If not, there's always ILL.Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Chuck, these articles should be tagged as works in progress at Rutger's so that (a) people know to leave them alone for the time being and (b) we can keep track of them to clean them up later. This was agreed to last year when we had the same problem. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't that what the tags on the talk page do? If a student editor behaves as if they aren't aware their contribution will be graded regardless of whether it gets reverted, I think it might be up to us to remind them. Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who "agreed" to that, but I'm opposed to anything in articlespace being marked as a "work in progress", and even more strongly opposed to any article not being able to be edited because some student is fiddling with it. We can accommodate students by having them copy the articles they're working on into userspace and having them work on them there, or they can work on them in mainspace and the instructor can monitor their contributions (and whether they're accepted) through the article's history, but under no circumstance should we present to the public an article that we know has mistakes in it, but that we're waiting for the "all clear" to fix. That's not what we're about. Our responsibility to the general public to present accurate information completely outweighs any responsibility we may have to students and their teachers - and, frankly, students are learning nothing at all about editing Wikipedia if they do it without being exposed to the give-and-take cf communal editing. BMK (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And Chuck Haberl: Wikipedia is sui generis. Its rules and culture make it unlike any other kind of writing experience you may have had. We are not a peer-reviewed journal, we are not (generally speaking) experts, and because of that, we have rules which (we hope) help to guarantee a quality product without those things.
    If, for instance, a freelance writer used to publishing in general interest periodicals was to try to get something published in a peer-reviewed journal, I imagine that they might be as put off by the very different set of requirements in place there as you seem to be by the requirements of Wikipedia. Writing and editing here is not like writing and editing anywhere else, which really should be core of what you're teaching your students: drop you preconceptions, and learn what this new and different circumstance requires of you. No one's going to baby your students, most of us don't have time for that, but generally wew will explain things if we're approached nicely. However, if you come to us kicking and screaming because your contributions were immediately deleted because they sucked and weren't referenced (or whatever), we're not going to be inclined to lend a hand. Again, that's your responsibility to teach your students, and if you're not telling them that right off, you're not doing the job that needs to be done. BMK (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I and Adam (Wiki Ed) actually made that abundantly clear, on multiple occasions to the 120 students participating in this exercise, and I'm rather proud that most of the students successfully got the message and made substantial, positive contributions to Wikipedia. So far, two students have been called out for "disruptive editing," which is a tiny fraction of the whole involved in this exercise. Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Kwami, I actually asked the students to tag these articles accordingly, as you requested we do last year, but your fellow editors protested this time around and had taken most of the tags down within a day or two. Sounds to me like a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Chuck Haberl (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There was absolutely nothing polite about 15zulu's message, it was a condescending and unnecessary intervention, and it only went downhill from there. If he had restricted his comments to Wikipedia policy, that would have been fine, but he decided to lecture me on academic integrity, something about which faculty members and students alike are reminded multiple times every semester. It's a bit like walking into a tailor's shop and lecturing the tailor on the craft of sewing. Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, Chuck, I'm sure that's the way you remember it, but here's what really happened:
    • 15zulu: "Fyi, I have reverted one of your students edits on Martha's Vineyard Sign Language due to the edits being straight copy-paste. This is copyright infringement and against Wikipedia policy. Just like students can't plagiarize on their essays, they can't plagiarize on their Wikipedia contributions. Please encourage your students to use their own words, to paraphrase, instead of copy-pasting. Thank you"
    • You: "Holy shit, 15zulu, you mean to tell me that issues of academic integrity don't only apply to the essays that students submit in class? Say it ain't so! I've been teaching for 14 years and apparently I've been doing it wrong this whole time! I just told them to copy and paste whatever and not to worry about properly attributing anything. Thank you, thank you, thank YOU 15zulu for finally opening my eyes!"
    So, you did indeed respond to 15zulu's polite attempt to help out what he thought was a relatively inexperienced editor (not knowing about your User:Leo Caesius account dating from 2004) with flat-out sarcasm. The discussion didn't "go downhill from there", you pushed it right to the bottom of the hill from your very first comment. It's quite apparent that you see any criticism or even a helpful suggestion as an attack on you, personally, and your abilities as an educator. I don;t know why that is, but it can be seen all over your talk page. BMK (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He immediately stated that he believes that am I perfectly content with students committing plagiarism here and implies very strongly that I have been advising them to do so. I really don't see how that's at all "polite." Chuck Haberl (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Chuck, he neither said nor implied any such thing, although you may have taken it that way. Unbiased observers can see his exact words, and your all-out sarcastic blast of a response, above, or read the entire discussion on your talk page here and form their own opinions. Someone came by to help, and you hit him on the head with a shovel. BMK (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The condescending tone that he adopted right from the start (and continued throughout his discussion) was neither helpful nor appropriate. How exactly is the advice "FYI your students are plagiarists, stop telling them to plagiarize their Wikipedia assignments" supposed to be helpful? I'm just not seeing it. It's like helpfully advising someone that wife-beating is against the law.
    If there had been an epidemic of plagiarism among my students, it might be appropriate to drop a message to the instructor to see what's up, but out of roughly 120 students (this year), near as I can tell there were only one or two such incidents (ever), inadvertent rather than deliberate. Kindly help me out here! Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no "condescending tone" that's all in your mind, I'm afraid, and there's no need for you to rephrase what 15zulu said to make it sound worse, since the exact words are just above. This kind of argumentation really isn't worthy of you. BMK (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, BMK, let me explain how 15zulu's intervention first appeared to me, since that seems to be the crux of the misunderstanding here.
    I created this profile a year ago solely for the purpose of this course, after more or less abandoning my old Wikipedia profile due to an organized campaign to trash it online. I have used this current profile for one or two other projects, but for the most part I'm only interested in using it to help students in this course. I tell my students to keep an eye out for it to let them know that I'm monitoring their submissions.
    15zulu then posted an FYI on the Talk page associated with this course. From my perspective, it was if as if someone had walked into my classroom while I was lecturing, and announced to me and my students, "I can see that you're not really familiar with the Academic Integrity policy here. Might I suggest that you reacquaint yourself with it, and tell your students so they stop plagiarizing?" The visitor was apparently unaware that Academic Integrity policies are the one thing to be found on every course syllabus these days, as well as just about the only subject that gets addressed in each and every course offered on college campuses these days, from Astrophysics to Zoology. Adjudicating incidents of plagiarism and other violations of Academic Integrity are probably the one thing with which each and every faculty member will have to deal, at multiple points throughout his or her career, and probably on multiple occasions throughout each academic year. In short, it's like telling fish to be aware of the water surrounding them.
    Perhaps you begin to see why pretty much any faculty member would be shocked at being told that their students "can't plagiarize on their Wikipedia contributions," especially in so public a venue (the profile that the instructor has informed them will be responsible for supervising them). Perhaps s/he intended it to be helpful, but it just seems utterly gratuitous to me.
    When you combine this with my previous interactions with some spectacularly heavy-handed editors, and literally dozens of perhaps unnecessarily panicked emails from students who were seeing in some cases days of hard work summarily reverted without so much as a "how do you do," right in the middle of our grading period, you can perhaps see why I was simply not in the mood to be reminded for the 1,385,213th time that plagiarism is a "thing." I apologize to 15zulu for taking it out on him/her, even though I still think his/her intervention was completely and totally unnecessary. I'm willing to acknowledge that there are profound differences of "culture" between Wikipedia and a classroom, but in my defense I maintain that the space in which this intervention occurred was on the boundary between the two. Chuck Haberl (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All very well and good, but this is not your classroom, you are the teacher to your students but not to other Wikipedia editors, and you need to assume good faith about the motivations of other editors who approach you, and not treat them as if their intention is to attack you.
    In any case, your students really should have known in advance that such things could happen to them, and were even likely if their work wasn't up to snuff. Several times you've attributed reversions of your students' work to "heavy handed" Wikipedia editors, but you seem not to have taken onboard the simple fact that their responsibility is not to you or your students, their only responsibility is to make articles as good as they can be, and if that means the work of your students is wiped out (regardless of where they are in the grading period), then it was your responsibility, and that of nobody else, to explain to your students why it happened, and to teach them how to avoid it happening in the future. As I said above, sure, we're interested in assisting educators to teach their students how to edit Wikipedia, but that cannot be at the expense of the quality of the material we present to the public. It is our readers that we have an obligation to, not to your or your students, who must be secondary considerations.
    I have frequently heard it said that to a certain extent, a teacher in the classroom is like the captain of a ship at sea, and that great leeway is given them in how they go about teaching. But you must face the fact that here, you are not the master of your own domain, here you have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. You said above that you've done this kind of thing for several years, and it gets better every year except for the Wikipedia part, with the clear implication that something about Wikipedia was impeding the smooth flow of your program. I think, perhaps, you might consider that the impediment is not Wikipedia (I've been here since 2005, and it essentially hasn't changed in those years) but your apparent unwillingness to accept the precepts of Wikipedia when it crosses over into your professional domain. I would assume that the folks at WikiEd bend over backwards to make these education projects work, but it's entirely unreasonable to expect the whole Wikipedia community to change the way it does things so that your students can be graded. BMK (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I haven't been seeing a lot of good faith assumed here, particularly among some of the more enthusiastic reverted, and it is absolutely, positively not true that any of us are given anything approaching "great leeway" in the way we teach. Ignoring for the moment the vast majority of faculty who are in insecure adjunct lines and don't have leeway over anything, education, including higher education, is probably the most heavily regulated industry in the country, with faculty answerable to multiple and competing levels of authority with regard to the content and delivery of their courses. You seem to have a very strange idea of what we do. Chuck Haberl (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take your word on that, as I have no particular expertise in education. Perhaps you, in turn, might like to take my word regarding the ins and outs of Wikipedia, as after 11 years and over 188K edits to almost 35K unique pages, I think I have a pretty good handle on the place, even if I do sometimes have problems coloring within the lines myself. BMK (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm unclear on how I should take Chuck's apology to me since even though I've chosen not to speak to him since the 7th, he's continued to insult and attack me across three different pages, including this note less than a day ago:

    It is a source of some small amusement to me that, after BMK and 15zulu paid visits to my Talk page to leave highly condescending and hostile messages, I discover that they have marked this page for deletion! Funny that it has basically sat around for ten years already with relatively little attention from editors until today. I guess these guys talk a good talk about "integrity" on Wikipedia but they don't actually walk it, misusing their volunteerism here to settle personal scores. "Nice little page you gots here, it would be a shame if it were NOMINATED FOR DELETION if you knows what I mean..." Sad!

    To be clear, I only saw Charles Häberl because he edited his user page, which had the link. Since I had been conversing with him, I had the user talk page on my watchlist, thus his userpage edit appeared on my watchlist. When he commented on the lack of notability, I reviewed WP:PROF. Since I didn't find clear notability, I added the appropriate template, so references and notability would be added. I didn't mark his article for deletion, and given he voted for the article to be deleted, I'm unclear on why he's attacking me. He called my messages "highly condescending and hostile", but honestly, he should first look at his own writing. Given his continued attacks, I have a hard time believing his above apology to be sincere. 15zulu (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    So much for "needing to assume good faith" ... Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Chuck, WP:AGF doesn't mean I should assume a vandal is trying to help after he vandalizes a dozen articles. It also doesn't mean I need to AGF after you make a dozen hostile remarks against me. 15zulu (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet

    In this edit, Chuck Haberl writes:

    ...I've been creating and editing numerous Wikipedia articles since January of 2006, mostly under another account (not associated with my real name; I use this account only for my students).

    This means, of course, that either the Chuck Haberl account or the other account is a sockpuppet. BMK (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I see nothing in the Legitimate uses section of the Sockpuppetry policy which covers Haberl's situation, but maybe someone from WikiEd can clarify? BMK (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Haberl's undeclared account appears to be User:Leo Caesius, considering the reasons given here. BMK (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, BMK. I think it's ridiculous to try and get an account created explicitly and exclusively for grading class projects, using the instructor's real name, banned as a "sockpuppet," but I can see where you're coming from. Specifically, you noted on my Talk page, "None of this would have occurred were it not for your piss-poor attitude towards Wikipedia's editors, and your intransigence at working with the community to collegially solve the problems caused by your students' disruptive editing, as evidenced by the discussion above, and the one on ANI. There's no need to lash out at others, all this is entirely of your own making," thus making it clear that you are doing this for retributive reasons. "Nice little Wikipedia user account you've got here, it would be a pity if anything were to happen to it, if you catch my drift"! Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And the beat goes on, Chuck. Keep digging that hole. There is no "retribution", merely an attempt to have a wayward editor follow Wikipedia policy. If someone wants to propose that it's legitimate for current Wikipedia editors to be allowed to create new accounts under there own names for educational purposes without linking to their personal account, and the community agrees to that, it's fine with me, but at the moment, your use of an undeclared alternate account is not covered by the "Legitimate uses" section of the policy. Perhaps this case will provoke that change, we'll see. In the meantime, a less confrontational and supercilious attitude from you to other Wikipedia editors -- like the poor one who tried to give you some tips about editing on Wikipedia because they thought you were inexperienced, only to be met with sarcasm and denigration from you [22] -- would certainly be a welcome change. BMK (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said to you on my Talk page, don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. The "poor editor" in question wasn't "trying to give me tips about editing on Wikipedia," he was trying to explain Academic Integrity to me. That's a horse of a very different color. Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, you don't get to threaten me with a ban from Wikipedia, attempt to eliminate any mention of me from the website, and then suggest that I should be "less confrontational." Less confrontational than whom? You've already pulled all the stops and used the nuclear options. Chuck Haberl (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I don't have the ability to "ban" you (only the community can do that), or even block you for that matter, as I'm not an admin, I cannot "threaten" to do either of these things. I do not, in fact, have access to the "nuclear option", being a mere rank-and-file editor. I have merely pointed out to you the potential results of an SPI report, should you decline to link your two accounts, [23] while admitting that perhaps your case might instigate a further legitimate use of an alternate account, if the community wants that. As for trying to expunge you from the encyclopedia, you yourself !voted to delete the article Charles Häberl, as it was a "personal embarrassment" to you and "hilariously out of date". [24] I did think that was rather odd, since you had edited the article previously with your Leo Caesius account (which you now de facto admit is yours [25]) and therefore could have kept it up to date, since editing with a conflict of interest doesn;t seem to bother you much. (Most of your edits as Leo Caesius can easily be seen to be conflicted.)
    As for whatever is making your shoes wet, you might try considering that it's neither rain nor my urine but your own crocodile tears, considering that none of this would have occurred if you had simply properly supervised your students, and responded civilly to the complaints of other Wikipedia editors about their disruption. Instead, you chose to be confrontational - which appears to come to you naturally (me as well, sometimes) - and thus began the brouhaha. BMK (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I reiterate: dubbing an account made, using someone's actual name, for the explicit purpose of editing student submissions, as a "sockpuppet" does such violence to that word as it is conventionally understood that it loses all meaning. You might as well dub any and all accounts made for any and all purposes to be "sockpuppets."
    As far as my "supervising" my students better, I am actually proud of the work that they have done, the overwhelming majority of which have materially improved the pages that they have adopted, and therefore Wikipedia as a whole. That a few students encountered some difficulties and reacted poorly in the face of a few far-too-aggressive editors is only natural.
    Your problems with my "attitude" boil down basically to my lack of respect for a few editors who have themselves been far from respectful or collegial to their fellow editors, and have more or less embarked upon a rather personal vendetta to see me banned from Wikipedia, contrary to your protestations. Chuck Haberl (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on your talk page, this discussion now serves little purpose, as you cannot see (or admit) where you might be at fault, and are content to blame everything on all the bad guys out there attacking you, so I don't plan on participating any longer, since there's little hope of change through further discussion. I'll give you a few days to think about what's gone down here, and perhaps reconsider, and then I'll file an SPI, as you have two accounts which are not linked and which do not fulfill the requirements of the "legitimate uses" section of the policy. That may result in an amendment to the policy, or it may result in one of your accounts being blocked. If you're lucky, the adjudicating admin may see things your way and allow both accounts to stand - but since your User:Leo Caesius account has now been identified, I fail to see where linking them would cause you any problem - except that you would no longer be able to make edits with it that violate the WP:COI policy. BMK (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Logically speaking, either the account that I created under my own name explicitly for reviewing and editing submissions for this class is a "sockpuppet" of Leo Caesius (which is ludicrous, given that Sock Puppetry is by definition "the use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose"), or the account that I created over ten years ago is a "sockpuppet" of an account that was only created last year (which is ludicrous, given that it would involve time travel on my part). So, which is it? You might want to get this part straight for the purposes of your report against me. Chuck Haberl (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Chuck, when I need your advice on Wikipedia matters, I'll be sure to ask you for it explicitly. BMK (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, honestly, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I am genuinely confused at what appears to be a logical impossibility. Kindly help me out! Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your misunderstanding stems from your misconceptions about the sockpuppetry policy. We call them "sockpuppets" but what we mean by that is not "disruptive secondary accounts", as you interpret it, but "secondary accounts which do not have a legitimate purpose allowed by policy". Many sockpuppets are, indeed, disruptive, but it's not a necessary part of being a sockpuppet. For instance, a blocked or banned user could create another account or use an IP to mnake perfectly reasonable and helpful edits to the encyclopedia, but regardless of their value, these would be the edits of a sockpuppet, although the edits themselves were not per se disruptive.
    You hold two accounts which are both editing. The User:Leo Caesius account was the original one, and the User:Chuck Haberl account is a more recent creation. The accounts are not publicly linked, as required by policy, nor does the current account by the current letter of the policy fulfill one of the allowed legitimate uses for a secondary account. I have been quite open in saying that policy might want to be amended to allow the kind of use you're engaged in, and also in saying that an admin may well dismiss an SPI on the basis that while your account doesn't fulfill the letter of the policy, it is a de facto legitimate use. Until one of those things happens, though, (and the second is only going to happen after I file an SPI and it is evaluated), your alternate account is not legitimate, and therefore a violation of policy.
    Don't get hung up on the word "sockpuppet". Both accounts are run by you, but neither account is you: one is you anonymous and cloaked, and one is you upfront about your identity. There is therefore no logical fallacy in saying that User:Chuck Haberl is currently a sockpuppet of User: Leo Caesius as far as Wikipedia is concerned, because the more recent account is neither linked to the first, not is it (currently) fulfilling one of the legitimate uses allowed by policy. That could change, of course, but the easiest thing would be for you to simply link the two accounts. Of course, you could no longer make the kind of conflict of interest edits you made when you were anonymous as Leo Caesius - to the article about you, and your department at Rutgers, for instance - because it would be clear that that account is run by you, but the linkage would fulfill policy and negate the need for an SPI. You seem to not be willing to consider that as an option, although I'm not sure why. BMK (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    By way of explanation, BMK, I'd really rather not link my (now largely defunct) original Wikipedia profile to my "professional" profile, because the former has been irredeemably tarnished online. I used to link the two (see revisions prior to 2010, for example this one) but after some unfortunate edit battles (most notably over nakedly Islamophobic content on Park51) some other Wikipedians adopted the "Leo Caesius" identity (which was, up until that point, more or less unique to me online) and subscribed to a series of online forums for the likes of white supremacists and pedophiles. There was a point around 2011 when you could google "Leo Caesius" and some pretty nasty shit would come up. After that point, I more or less gave up on Wikipedia until I started teaching this course and sought to distance myself from my former profile.
    The edits on the page about me and my department can be explained by the fact that this was the only account that I had at the time, and indeed the only account I had up until last year. At that point I was much more up front about connecting it to my professional identity, as you can see from the previous revisions on my old user page. I will admit that the edits on the page about me seemingly reflect a conflict of interest, but I only made them because I was frustrated that a) the page was ridiculously out of date and b) occasionally vandalized by disgruntled former students and/or other editors. For the last five years, I haven't bothered making any edits to that page with any account. Chuck Haberl (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why not take my very first piece of advice to you and scramble the password of the Leo Caesius account (after requesting that the user page be deleted and clearing the talk page) so you can't use it, and continue to edit from the current account? Then, knowing now what the issues are, don't create another "personal" account without linking them or making sure that the policy has been changed to allow you not to link them? And don;t make COI edits with that account. BMK (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Egos all around

    Looking into my crystal ball, I foresee a Huffington Post or Slate article about how a well-intentioned and potentially useful class project, which could have brought good editors into the fold permanently, foundered on the rocks of misunderstanding, biting, posturing, pissing, dickmeasuring, and generally egos out of control. EEng 22:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Does Slate run those stories? A few things are clear to me. Egos get hurt easily. That's the students' egos, as I think is clear from the two linked language articles; understandable, since as students they are more inclined to think of their work as their work. When BMK starts using bold and italics, you know he's all worked up. Professor Chuck had a particularly nasty exchange with one of our editors where his initial satirical response to a well-intended question set the tone for the rest. (Congrats on the Berlin Prize, by the way: I'll trade you my summer classes for a stay in that lovely house.)

      How I wish that profs would all run their projects through Wikipedia:Education program, with the proper tags on the talk pages (no opinion here on whether they were placed and then removed--please don't remove those), so regular editors can figure out if someone is in a class or not. It took me too long to find https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/explore, and that list there does not tell me whether our professor Chuck is in there; he may well be.

      As for the socking, I think having the two accounts is perfectly understandable--and they should be linked of course, but perhaps a good reading of WP:ALTACCN is helpful.

      This whole thing is not an easy situation to solve. The students were disruptive and edit warring, the prof was belligerent, bad words were spoken on all sides--I propose that we consider all of it below the blockable level, because blocking would just make things worse (better for Slate maybe). I do propose that prof Chuck communicate more, and more better, and prepare his students for the social, interactive part of Wikipedia. And then there's his article--well, we'll let the AfD take its course. Good luck everyone. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing civility and ownership problems at Obergefell v. Hodges‎

    We have an ongoing problem with WP:CIVILITY and WP:OWNERSHIP at Obergefell v. Hodges‎, a page on a vital US Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage. User Antinoos69 is bullying those who would edit an article which he has admittedly put a fair amount of work into, insulting them via the talk page and via edit summaries.

    Civility

    Ownership

    Problems noted

    I've deliberately kept the listing above to the past month, but looking at the talk page will show you that this is not a new situation; the user has called editors "ignoramus", saying "I can see you're being doggedly irrational and there's simply no talking with you", "You have clearly lost your mind and need to be stopped.", etc. The net effect is the creation of a toxic environment which discourages the involvement of other editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • More "bullying". When does rudeness or incivility or whatever become bullying? Sorry, side note I suppose, but doesn't one have to be in a position of power to be a bully? Drmies (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could split on terminology; in physical world situations, I'd say that the willingness to use physical aggression is often what creates that power. In an online situation like this, it's the willingness to be uncivil. But if you wish to find a different term, I likely have no complaint. In any case, your attention is appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least Antinoos is guilty of edit warring, having made this edit three times in the past week. And there's fighting over a word, here and on a few more occasions. Antinoos, I'm beginning to think there is something to this. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Antinoos is clearly aware of this discussion, not just because it was on his user page, but because he responded to a mention of it on the article's talk page (with "Was I meant to be impressed?") During that time, he has engaged in substantive editing on a couple of talk pages. Seemingly, whatever is to be done here will need be done without his input. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And, in the face of a lack of substantive response from this board, Antinoos continues to exert ownership, undoing yet another editor's attempt to make MOS:LQ corrections, in the wake of a Talk page discussion in which he's the only one advocating ignoring the LQ standards. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I shouldn't be surprised to see there's an open case about this. Antinoos refuses to respect our consensus-based guidelines and refuses even to acknowledge the local consensus to follow those guidelines. He's still at it. I don't know about bullying, but this is canonical disruptive behavior. As Antinoos appears to see nothing wrong with his approach, administrative intervention is appropriate to return him to reality.  Rebbing  16:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ownership, incivility, and edit warring, stretching back months. The GA failure wasn't enough to persuade Antinoos to behave better; perhaps admin attention would. Lagrange613 19:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User exhibiting ownership claims

    First, I hope this is the correct noticeboard to make this report. I am here to report Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for making statements and edits exhibiting WP:OWN of article content. On Captain America: Civil War, after I made some initial adjustments to that article's "Box office" section (the first of a few I was going to do) Joseph undid that change, using the edit summary to state "please let me do all the box office edit part. I've added 100% information there. lemme handle that portion." I restored the change, telling Joseph in my summary that their summary exhibited WP:OWN qualities saying "no one editor "owns" one section or another on an article. this section needs major work, and I'm about to work on cutting it down to a more managable section." (the last bit to tell them my intentions moving forward). Joseph proceeded to undo that edit with their summary a bit heated, as well as attempting to say there is a specific way to present the information (which there isn't).

    I then proceeded to tidy up the box office section of the article, here and here, removing some unnecessary records (or "fluff" as I consider it), per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. After making these edits, I placed a notice on Joseph's talk page, where I hoped to expand slightly from my edit summaries why I made the changes I did, since I knew they would be interested in them.

    After this, in an edit to the page not to that section, here, Joseph says that they will "have to re write the box office section. all the important informations are removed. lots of work to do" Please note they feel they have to rewrite the section, not readd anything I removed, as I suggested they could do in the talk page post I made to their page. And finally, in a response on my talk, Joseph exhibited some personal attacks, additionally saying that "No one has a problem with any of my 100+ articles edit in the box office section." (their main editing focus on Wikipedia), though this is not the case, if their talk page and contributions are examined. I hope admins or others can help with this situation. I'm not saying the full extent of my tidying edits should stay, that maybe something else can be brought back. But I don't feel it is helpful when one editor is attempting to control every aspect of this section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Very clear WP:OWN problems here. I don't immediately (without much investigation) see anything leading to a personal attack, though there's definitely some edit warring going on. I think perhaps it should be made clear to the editor that they do not get to own the box office section of articles. I wonder if it's worth enforcing restrictions? I'm not sure it is at this time. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yamla: I felt their response on my talk was a little personal attack-y, but everyone has their own interpretations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is never a good idea to try to resolve disputes using edit summaries. Please bring your dispute to Talk:Captain America: Civil War where other editors can weigh in with their thoughts. Going to the article talk page, rather than reverting, should be your first course of action. Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: I don't feel that any dispute was trying to be resolved in edit summaries. The reason I started this discussion here was because of the language Joseph used which cleared seemed to violate WP:OWN in my opinion. Since your comment, they have restored the whole formatting as they had it. Not only did that break reference formatting I adjusted to be consistent with the article on the whole, again, it was the whole section, not just parts they felt should have been added back. I have started a discussion regarding it on the talk page (after restoring the section for the ref formatting and my reasons of WP:INDISCRIMINATE), so I do hope that they join the discussion, here or there, so we can make some head way regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that editor Josephlalrinhlua786 has serious issues. An even bigger problem, though, in my opinion, is his disturbing inability to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. I have pointed out to him several times, to no avail, that Forbes Contributors are not reliable sources (because Forbes Contributors are not on staff, are not subject to pre-publication editing, and are subject only to the contractual right of Forbes to fix stories after the fact) and he needs to stop citing them as such. As anyone who writes for a living knows, there is nothing like writing for an editor under a tight deadline to force oneself to write high-quality work product. Unfortunately, Josephlalrinhlua786 doesn't seem to understand that.
    Thus, nearly every film article Josephlalrinhlua786 has worked on has several citations to unreliable sources that will take other editors hundreds of hours to pull out. And no one has the time or energy to do that. So the result is that he is damaging the quality of the encyclopedia and will continue to do so until he is stopped. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coolcaesar: In regards to the Forbes contributors part, forgive me for not knowing exactly where, but there was a recent discussion regarding their reliability, either at the Film project or RSN. But more to your point, for major Hollywood releases, all of the box office information can 95% of the time be sourced by Deadline, who continually updates an article throughout the weekend with numbers. And if not, Variety or The Hollywood Reporter can also be used, most likely before Forbes. And an additional point is they don't seem to also understand that, even though data and numbers are being reported and is verifiable, it doesn't mean it has to be include (again to my original points about WP:INDISCRIMINATE). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles written by Forbes contributors can be considered reliable. Whether or not they are depends on the author's credibility in the subject he/she is reporting on. Some are paid, others are not. Also some receive some level of editorial oversight, while others receive little or none at all. So you can't make a blanket statement that "all" are reliable or unreliable. The recent discussions concerning this are: Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron#Forbes "contributors" are not RS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 207#Forbes article by credible contributor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MehrdadFR

    User:MehrdadFR is a very problematic editor, who does not appear willing or ready to reform his behavior.

    • On the article Public executions in Iran, he has consistently removed well-sourced information from the human rights organization Amnesty International[26], using edit summaries like "rv propaganda", "rv professional liar", "removed false and propagandist material"
    • On the page Violence against LGBT people, he removed an image of regarding the execution of two Iranian teenagers (Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni) that allegedly engaged in homosexuals acts with the edit summary "pedophile rapists".[27]. After the image was restored by User:Good Olfactory, Mehrdad removed it again without explanation.[28]
    • In Hijab by country, blanked non-controversial information pertaining to Iran without explanation.[29]
    • On the page Ahmad Vahidi, remove well sourced information that this individual is wanted by Interpol for his alleged involvement in the AMIA bombing, falsely citing WP:BLP in his edit summary.[30]

    What can be done regarding this problematic editor? Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid only problematic editor here is Plot Spoiler. Point by point:
    • There's an explanation Talk:Public executions in Iran#False claims about alleged "beheading in Iran" which is pure fantasy and unfounded in Iranian law (fully available online). When someone is insisting on disputable information and avoiding conversation on talk page, then we can surely speak about propaganda intentions.
    • Removing image from Violence against LGBT people was consulted with administrator Good Olfactory (here and here).
    • It was blanked because it was biased and without sources. I personally rewritten edited whole section based on first-class academic sources.
    • In article Ahmad Vahidi nothing was removed, sourced information that this individual is wanted by Interpol exists below in text and there's no any dispute about it. Only issue I see is putting it in WP:LEAD because there are much more important information for leading section.
    Issues related to Plot Spoiler's editing can be seen here on UANI history where he systematically tries to censor all criticism. Similar problems exist here and so on. --MehrdadFR (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And even after this request, MehrdadFR is engaging grossly POV editing, like this[31]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's properly sourced and factually undisputed. --MehrdadFR (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And continues to engage in WP:edit warring and remove well-sourced information on Public executions in Iran without proper talk-page discussion, edit summaries, and against consensus.[32] Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He needs to get blocked for | his BLP violating edit summary. On this talk page he shows a google page as evidence of his claim, which I won't repeat, problem is, this page doesn't support his claim in the slightest.KoshVorlon 16:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:KoshVorlon, whilst I agree that many of MehrdadFR's edits reasons are needlessly judgemental and PoV, and at times bizarre, in fact HRW and AmnInt do accept that the two young men hanged PROBABLY engaged in non-consensual sex with the 13 yr old boy (though is a 14 yr old a paedophile?). Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, Mehrdad grossly violating policy by calling using "pedophile" appellation for executed individuals, without even proper references[33]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehrdad seems to be an Iranian nationalist attempting to whitewash his country.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR, nationalist pov-warring, and source misrepresentations

    Ferakp (talk · contribs) has repeatedely violated the 1RR restriction on WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR articles.

    Other problems of this user are that he continues to insert blatant source misrepresentations in wikipedia articles, which damages wikipedia reputation, through his editorializing of anything that doesn't confirm to a nationalist pov, like anything related to women's rights or minority rights of Christians. @GGT: @Attar-Aram syria:@LouisAragon:@GGT:@Shmayo: @عمرو بن كلثوم: Some previous discussions regarding this user: [41] *[42] [43]--80.254.69.43 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

    I see user Ferakp is cited in an edit-warring case above. I would kindly ask the Admins to look at the contributions of Ferakp (talk · contribs) closely. They are removing sourced material because it simply does not conform with his/her political agenda and definition of reliable sources. Please see the Talk page for Rojava for example. Another example for their negative behavior can be witnessed in their reverts of contributions by user @Beshogur:. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told admins many times before, Kurdish articles are 24/7 under attack of Arab, Turkish and Assyrian nationalists. I have had to clean almost from same users. Users Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, عمرو بن كلثوم and two other users which use random IP are clearly black washing Kurdish articles. I have used talk page in all my edits and called users to dsicuss. I have told them about unreliable sources, WP:NPOV violations, cherry picking and WP:ORIGINAL violations. They still don't use talk pages and continuously involve in POV pushing and edit war and violate WP:FAKE, WP:REALIBLE and WP:ORIGINAL. You can talk pages of all articles I have edited and neutralized, I have mentioned and explained my edits word by word, unlike those Arab users here who are not willing to even discuss. Talk pages, [44], [45], [46], [47] and all other edits are mentioned in the talk page of articles. I would like to remind that the users who reported me are clearly violated all those WP:rules I have listed above. Ferakp (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing I would like to add, the user User:عمرو بن كلثوم has clearly involved in black washing, violating 6 times WP:NPOV and WP:REALIABLE despite warnings. The users is copy pasting some statements randomly to different sections. His edits: [48], [49].Ferakp (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, in the absence of any sanctions against him/her, user Ferakp is edit warring again reverting edits in sevral pages. Please look into this. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit clearly shows the purpose and racist agenda of this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain whic part of my message was a racist? Ferakp (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In that edit you are implying that certain editors you disagree with have a certain nationality or ethnicity, and that this nationality or ethnicity is the only reason they are making the edits and wanting to include or exclude certain content. Even if it were true (which you have no way of knowing for certain) it is not a legitimate argument to make for or against article content. You could possible make a case for that argument being used, with care, when concerning sources, but you were not doing that in the cited example. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that "There are at least 21 users in Wikipedia who are cooperating and black washing Kurdish articles. They are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians." I just said that those users are Assyrians, Turks, Arabs and Persians. I didn't say anything against their ethnicity or nationality, I said users had those nationalities. I have checked their IP addresses and edits and they really are. Read a little bit what is a racism and then what to here comment. 86.50.110.79 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually find this report quite ironic. There may be reasons to report Ferakp, so far I didn't look very exactly at his edits. But all User:عمرو بن كلثوم is accusing him he is doing himself too. He is a clear POV-pusher against Kurds and the YPG.

    Examples:

    This is not a defense for Ferakp but rather a hint to the double moral standards of User:عمرو بن كلثوم. His arab nationalism is quite obvious and I actually don't know why he hates the Kurds that much, but his POV-pushing is inacceptable in my eyes.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What are you proving here? Every day you annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan. Is Azaz part of Syrian Kurdistan? Is there any neutral source that backs this? By neutral, of course I don't mean Kurdish blogs or "news agencies". The name Rojava itself is a big scam. No self-respecting news agency or international organization uses it. They all refer to the area as Kurdish-controlled area or Kurdish enclaves, or a similar form. It seems there is a pro-Kurdish Canvassing in Kurdish related articles here. Users Ferkp and emranrich continue their edit warring here and are removing sourced information, simply because it goes agains their POV. Here is one example, and I am ready to name several more . Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone here will be blocked, it will be you . Reporter User:عمرو بن كلثوم is clearly an Arab nationalist. He is vandalize Kurdish articles since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerfulman11 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ferakp is annoying and act as if he is in a marketplace for sources.. he bargins and his idea about a consensus is him writing on the talk page and think its enough to do whatever he wants .. its specially funny when he decide that something isnt reliable!!! Yet no, he shouldnt be banned.. he has some points about the black washing of kurds, yet he do the opposite and white wash them... all involved users should balance their opinions ... on a side note, ban them for edit warrying for like a day or two so they think twice before doing that again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem behaviour/edits by User:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D.

    L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk · contribs) is, at least according to his username Lorenzo Iorio (there is a reason this page is salted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio), and is treating Wikipedia as yet another platform to promote his own views concerning frame-dragging, and the surrounding theoretical and experimental results surrounding it with the biggest WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality I have ever witnessed in a published scientist ([50]).

    Iorio has published several articles on the topic, and probably know more about frame dragging than many other people, myself included. However, this is a fairly contentious and controversial area in physics, at least in the sense there are major disputes with Iorio and others like Ignazio Ciufolini are going at each other with no holds barred (e.g. doi:10.1002/asi.23238). While I'm not taking a side in the dispute, this area and dispute between Iorio and Ciufolini has spilled over Wikipedia in the past (see Talk:Frame-dragging and Talk:Frame-dragging/Archive 1, Talk:Ignazio Ciufolini#Scientific misconducts, Talk:Ignazio Ciufolini#Legal actions by I. Ciufolini against L. Iorio, etc.), with several IP/sock puppets involved over several years (e.g. Gravitom et al.).

    So when he recently edited frame-dragging, inserting several reference to his own publications (and this despite a promise to reduce the number of citations to his own work, I reverted with the edit summary "Clear conflict of interest, while you may comment and flag issues on the article talk page, let others improve the article per WP:COI.)" This has been discussed with him before at the teahouse (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_480#Why I cannot edit the article on frame-dragging, which is a subject I have and I am actively contributing to?).

    Of course, that made me the target of Iorio's ire, calling me 'an incompetent jerk', again despite the promise to be cooperating and diplomatic. Going by the past behaviour of socks in this area, most of them pro-Iorio, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say this behaviour is extremely unlikely to subside, and we shouldn't abide such gross violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:COI, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not to mention WP:PROMOTE/WP:SELF and a bunch of others as well.

    So, here we are at ANI. At the very least an editing restriction on Iorio to refrain from editing frame-dragging related articles (broadly construed) is needed because the WP:COI here is just way too high, and I've got little hopes that the next person that make and edit that displeases Iorio will be treated any better than I was. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified WP:PHYS annd WP:AST of this discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And to no one's surprise, here are more personal attacks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    He's received a warning against personal attacks and I agree that his editing behavior is worth looking into. But when there is a talk page discussion going on, I think it is counterproductive to leap to "I'll file an WP:ANI request to get you blocked" in response to another editor.
    Wikipedia does not have a good track record of incorporating scholars and experts as editors on the project. I would hope there would be some way to benefit from his expertise while he manages his COI and that needs to rely on communication with the editor. I'd like to hear from editors and admins who have successfully worked with academics on the project in the past to see what can be done rather than immediately reacting with another block. Liz Read! Talk! 16:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Warnings are rather pointless in this case. Were this a first offence, it'd be premature to call for a block/editing restrictions. But this (combined with the socking history surrounding frame-dragging), is hardly that. Conflict of interests and civility have been explained to Iorio several times already, with little effect. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz:, one idea I at least proposed regarding Falun Gong some years ago was for an editor other than those under sanctions to create a page or pages in his or her userspace for articles/topics which had yet to be created, which would be entirely under the direction of the editor in whose user space it is contained, which other editors could edit up to the point the pages are moved into regular space. I don't know if that sort of thing would be useful here, but, I tend to think that there are likely to be a lot of spinout articles on many of the topics academics would edit, and I suppose it might be possible to do something similar with at least articles on books, journals, academics who have written on the subject, etc. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably an off-beat suggestion, but perhaps the most obnoxious of the two could be "exiled" to Wikiversity where we are more tolerant of deviant behavior. Since both are highly competent scientists, the exiled individual would be allowed to place a prominently situated sisters link at all relevant WP articles. I love writing on Wikiversity because I get to (almost) "own" what I write; then I add a sisterlink to WP when the document is ready. Just don't send us both individuals, please.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Site Ban

    On the one hand, I agree in principle with User:Liz that we should be trying to increase our outreach to scholars and experts in subject-matter areas. On the other hand, it is unfortunately very clear that this particular scholar has no intention of working collaboratively with anyone else. As the above diffs show, he persists in insulting administrators (including by pointing out that they don't have scientific credentials, when they aren't trying to comment on the science) and on calling editors and administrators "jerks" and their edits "vandalizing". I would have preferred to let the physicists and astronomers comment on the merits, and I advised the subject to ask them, but he persists in the personal attacks. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as being too patient. (My own thought is that the English Wikipedia collectively is usually too patient with editors who are net negatives. That is my opinion.) I don't see any point in further warnings. I don't see any middle ground, such as a topic ban on personal attacks (already forbidden) or a topic ban from physics and astronomy (his area of strength and interest). I have to propose a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    a) Today, I was just editing the voice with the purpose of reducing my own citations: I first restored the version including my citations to better edit it later: indeed, I specified that in the comments to the modifications. I was just editing it by removing some citations of mine, when simultaneously Headbomb again removed all and solely my citations. b) Moreover, all here ignore (why?) the long and numerous comments by the US-based editor displaying her/his IP in either the talk page of frame-dragging, in her/his own talk page and in the Spinningspark talkpage in which she/he reiterated the request to reinstate my references.
    d) The problem is that admins, who are incompetent to judge on any aspects of that voice and on my own references as well, without any reasons vandalize the voice by deleting all and solely my references. In this way, it is as if they arrogantly claimed to have some scientific motivations to do that, which is not possible. Otherwise, it is a clear conflict of interest against myself (And the users of the encyclopedia). If some of them were convinced that there were too much citations to my works, with intellectual honesty and humbleness, they could (and should) have discussed it in the talk page first instead of brutally and arbitrarilly removing all of them. It is clear that it is this behaviour by them the cause of all this mess. L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins do not rule on content (at least not as admins per se), they judge behavior, which does not take any particular expertise in your field. Nor does your own expertise give you a free pass to behave badly. BMK (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph. D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support site ban based on the grossly inappropriate comment from what seems to me to might be perhaps more deserving of the insults he gave than anyone else here. I have had some, minimal, experience with academics and others who have had widely publicized material that they produced which related to their edits. Many of those experiences indicated that the individual in question was incapable of adhering to conduct guidelines. The IP comment above makes it rather obvious that at least that individual qualifies as such as well. And, FWIW, in the few cases I immediately remember of academics who insisted on editing content directly relevant to their own studies, pretty much all of them suffered the same fate, and justifiably, much to my own regret. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph. D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You apparently have little if any understanding of civility, as per WP:CIVILITY. Noting that basic civility is also in general a requirement for the real world, your incompetent, foul-mouthed comments here make it very extremely questionable whether you are qualified to be an editor here, or, for that matter, whether you are ever competent at interacting with real people anywhere else. What I and the rest of the editors here want, is you to indicate that you are an adult by your actions here. I have seen nothing to date which leads me to believe you are capable of doing so. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Personal attack removed) 79.33.195.26 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph.D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Support Yuck! I generally think it is good to have professionals and accademics editing Wikipedia articles I am even inclined to cut such editors considerable slack because expert knowledge is important to this project and dealing with non-experts in one's own field can be trying. That said, this person's behavior here is odious - I would not put up with it from a colleague, an instructor or even a child. PS - someone please range block this guy. JbhTalk 20:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Considering the above block evasion and personal attacks.... We don't need people like this. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 20:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've blocked the IP above for blatant block evasion, and warned this editor that next time is likely to be an indef. I don't otherwise have an opinion as to the sanction discussed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Anyway, I don't think this is really Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph. D., since an actual academic expert and molder of young minds would never act so childishly. Also, his English is way below the level one would expect from a member of the international physics community. Probably it's just some jealous rival impersonating him so as to embarrass him. Someone should probably write to his institution to bring this to the attention of the authorities there, so they can assist him in preventing his further humiliation by whomever it is that's actually doing this. EEng 20:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    His own website indicates that he is currently a school teacher, not an university academic. Modest Genius talk 10:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Watch -- in a moment he'll appear to remind us that Einstein was, after all, a lowly patent examiner. EEng 11:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the number of {{RPA}} tags there are in just this thread. Whether or not the user behind the removed attacks is or is not actually Dr. Iorio, the user's behaviour is clearly not intended to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - They've been given ROPE and pretty much used it all .... It's clear that despite this being a collaborative project they're not interested in working with anyone ...., Siteban's the only next best option IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Whatever usefulness this editor had was lost in the sea of incivility. Arguments can be made for how we got to this point, and what we can do to prevent it from happening in the future, but the point stands that this editor no longer has any desire to be a contributor. The sock puppeting is only going to continue until they are range-blocked. It's a formality at this point. --Tarage (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I will accept for the sake of discussion that this person may be a great physicist. For all I know, they will soon win the Nobel Prize in Physics. If so, congratulations to them. But as a Wikipedia editor, this person is a total failure because of the destructive free will decisions they have made. Not only are they a failure here on this project, but they are actively and consciously pernicious. We are much better off without them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support had their ROPE and used it, and having to constantly remove these personal attacks proves their inability to be civil -- samtar talk or stalk 18:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Pile on support. This should be snow-closed with a site ban. BMK (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support- It's somewhat hard to believe that this user has any formal education due to their rigid unwillingness to work with other users; he is clearly not here to contribute positively or work with others. Even on the one thread you'd think he'd be civil. At this point, an IP/site ban would suit the case. They refuse to cease sockpuppeting. I'm all up for an educated, intelligent, well-versed person here; his attitude outweighs any positive addition he may have made. Zia224 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The comment has been made that the person may not really be a scientist. It doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Indiscriminate deletion tagging and utterly uncivil comments by User:SimonTrew

    A few days ago, I declined a speedy deletion proposal by User:SimonTrew (whose signature is "Si Trew". He responded by calling me "you half-arsed small brained fuckwit".[51] He also placed a second, phony speedy tag on the same redirect, claiming that a just-opened RFD discussion had reached consensus [52] and made a string of uncivil, unfavorable comments about my supposed refusal to participate in the RFD discussion even though he hadn't bothered to / lacked the simple courtesy to notify me of the discussion. Since I learned of the discussion and did respond, he refused to respond to my comments.

    Over the last few days, User:SimonTrew has made a long string of speedy nominations which are clearly inappropriate, accompanied by nomination statements which are often bizarre, incoherent, or irrational. For example (and this is nowhere near an exhaustive list):

    • Tepre Pacificum, nominated with the statement because Neelix made this up I think it is disgusting it do stink. It's not at target WP:RFD#D2 now do you see. A tepre is no kind of sea in Latin or in Greek, you'll see that this is Neelix nonsense when, I think by now you get the gen. In fact "Tepre Pacificum" is the name Magellan originally gave to the Pacific Ocean,[53], documented by even a cursory GSearch.
    • Tartaria Magna, nominated with the statement because Neelix when he felt inclined made up some Latin bad declined, this not a target WP:RFD#D2 confusing I hope my nom's a bit amusing. But said and done this should thus my CSD's a blunderbuss. It is easy to document that "Tartaria Magna" is an older term [54] that is used to refer to the redirect target.[55]
    • Utopianists, nominated with the statement The people who have such beliefs are utopians let's be brief this is a made up Neelix word so please delete it how absurd. In fact, it's in such standard works as the Merrian-Webster dictionary.[56]
    • Mar del Sur, nominated with the statement because The Southern Ocean which if you take a rough translation from Portuguese is not the Pacific Ocean this is simply Neelix nonsense. In fact, it's a standard phrase even documented in the Spanish Wikipedia.[57]
    • Orsino (play), nominated with the statement because Orsino has been played you'll find in several dramas, it's unkind but this one is not quite correct I ask delete this redirect. (Neelix). Redirecting a play to its notable author's bibliography is in no way abusive, and is generally considered appropriate.
    • Nuestra Senora de Candelaria Parish Church, nominated with the statement because Nope you can't do that. That would be like saying St Martin in the Fields Trafalgar Square parish church (despite the fact that St Martin in the Fields is a parish church and a famous one, to inject "trafalgar square" into the middle of it would be absrd. which is what Neelix is doing here. We don't have St Martin in the Fields Trafalgar Square Parish Church. You can't inject it like that. Since the redirect target is Nuestra Señora de Candelaria Parish Church, this makes no sense whatsoever.
    • Maria Sophie Amalie, Duchess in Bavaria, nominated with the statement because Neelix she was not Duchess in but of.. In fact, a simple google search reveals that the Neelix phrasing is more common than the "Duchess of Bavaria" phrasing thisw editor says is standard.
    • Guillitine, nominated with the statement because This is a Neelix redirect. A man who knows a thing or two if Guillot would dispose to chop an I for O I see that's sound but this has its head on the ground. It admittedly did surprise me that this was a plausible misspelling, but Google searches and other online dictionaries treat this as a standard redirect, and it's hardly an unheard-of usage (eg, [58]. A pretty good example of why editors whould check rather than flying off the handle about things they don't like.

    I therefore propose that User:SimonTrew be topic banned from matters related to Neelix redirects. Their editing has been grossly irresponsible; their refusal to do appropriate checks before their nominations is clear; their nomination statements are inaccurate, disruptive, and irrational; their responses to criticism have been grossly uncivil, and they have refused to engage in discussion. This behavior does not improve the encyclopedia; it has become a pointless personal jihad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to hear from SimonTrew but I have seen the code word "Neelix" being used indiscriminately in redirect deletion nominations and deletion edit summaries as if the redirect then automatically requires deletion. It's not always an appropriate or a sufficient explanation for deleting a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 17:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also ping Sphilbrick and DGG as I see they've had some recent involvement in the discussion of RfDs. Liz Read! Talk! 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant support. Si Trew's heart is in the right place, but he (1) thinks he's funny and has a tendency to belittle and insult anyone he feels doesn't appreciate his lame attempts at comedy (probably the most notorious example), (2) shoots from the hip sometimes without engaging in due diligence (as evidenced by all the above), and (3) has a tendency to flare up in really bizarre ways when people don't agree with him (example which springs to mind, but you can find plenty of others just by dip-sampling his user talk contributions). He does do valuable support in the often thankless but necessary field of cleaning up redirects, and with that in mind I wouldn't object as an alternative to a "no attempts at comedy anywhere other than on your own talk page" restriction; as one of the admins who did the original batch delete of the notorious Tumorous titties redirect-farm which kicked the whole investigation into Neelix off, I can appreciate that it's hard to deal with the sheer volume of Neelix's disruption without getting snappy at times. (As I said at the time—and was opposed by Si Trew, as it happens—I feel that in some ways it would have been better for all concerned to run a damnatio memoriae bot to undo everything Neelix ever created, even though that would mean losing good along with bad; the timesink created by sorting the good from the bad is staggering and nowhere near complete.) ‑ Iridescent 17:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      (Adding) @Liz:, "Neelix" is a genuine legitimate deletion reason when it comes to redirects (see WP:G6). The full wording is any redirects created by Neelix if the reviewing admin reasonably believes that the redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause. Without it, WP:RFD would grind to a halt; there are literally thousands of these things that need cleaning up. ‑ Iridescent 18:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, some of that is still visible, and still very inappropriate. [59]. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 18:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have deleted hundreds of inappropriate redirects created by Neelix back in 2015 so I know that they numbered in the tens of thousands and many (but not all) are not useful. But I don't think just dropping a Neelix mention in a RfD nomination is a valid reason alone for deletion but that's my point of view. At the minimum though, Si should slow down. Just yesterday, at RFD he was responsible for 18 of the 20 nominations and those are only the redirects he thinks might be controversial, he CSDs more than that. Looking at the six pages full of redirects that Anomie has put together, it's evident that more need to be cleared out but I still think that we should only be deleting or nominating inappropriate redirects and those need to be evaluated independently. Liz Read! Talk! 18:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start my comments by confessing to two biases, both in my opinion modest, but worth disclosing. First, I might have contributed to SimonTrew's approach. I'm well aware that doing a mindless task too long can be mindnumbing. Si's approach was to try to inject a little humor into an otherwise mindnumbing task. I'm probably guilty of encouraging him, as I thought some of the early efforts were humorous. YMMV.
    My second bias is that while there are not many things in Wikipedia that make me angry, seeing yet another Neelix redirect makes me see red. In my opinion, we as a community failed in the general response. Given the magnitude of the problem, and the rarity of plausible redirects, plus the observation that a missing redirect is exceedingly innocuous, I would've preferred that we mass delete all of them and let anyone create the small handful that might have been appropriate. The community disagreed and I accept that, but it is quite sad that so many, many hours of valuable volunteer time have been sucked up by this cleanup. (I wrote this before seeing that Iridescent has made the same point, earlier and more eloquently.)
    Now that I have that off my chest, I've tried to read the CSD nominations without bias, and I believe the vast majority of the Neelix nominations have been valid.
    It is possible to carry something genuinely humorous too far, and if some do not find it humorous, that point will be earlier than for those who do find it humorous, so it might be wise for side to back off on the humor attempts. (As an aside my family would find it quite humorous that I am giving advice on humor; I am notoriously bad at it.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: "Without [the Neelix CSD], WP:RFD would grind to a halt": That doesn't fit with history at all, RfD thrived long before Neelix redirects were called into question and it should continue to thrive long after (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log). If a redirect doesn't meet one of the WP:R#DELETE or WP:RFDOUTCOMES it generally isn't deleted at RfD. "'Neelix' is a genuine legitimate deletion reason when it comes to redirects": It's a criteria for speedy deletion, most of the "Neelix" redirects listed at RfD either obviously don't qualify for it (i.e. don't explicitly meet an WP:R#DELETE or seem truly implausible) or have been declined, so it actually doesn't have much bearing on RfD discussions.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no intent whatseover of trawling through all these nominations, but one that came up on my watchlist was this one. This was a redirect from a moved page, with incoming links. Had it been speedied it would have left behind a number of redlinks that have no need to be red. DuncanHill (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another one on my watchlist is this where the reason given for deletion is "because Neelix redirect. Just because someone died into the title ain't supplied, it is just normal then to state in main text, there one can relate" which is gibberish. DuncanHill (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simon is doing a thankless task. No one is nominating redirects ONLY because Neelix created them, but tagging his name at RfD is very helpful as if good arguments to delete are advanced Admins often speedy the redirect. We should have mass deleted the whole lot of the redirects but that has not been done. Instead people come here attacking the people working on the cleanup. Oh and now we find his templates are misleading garbage too - see TfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding gibberish rationales on valid redirects should go unthanked. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not quite a thankless task User:Legacypac it is a bit of a sod but that is how we make the encylopaedia better. Neelix in no way made them in bad faith he made them in good faith but we have to decide what to do with them, about eighty percent go CSD, ten percent I tag as keep, the other fifteen percent I list at RfD. (That makes 105% but I keep the shilling from the guinea if that is OK with you). Yes it is not hard work but very boring for both admins and for people like me who speak a lot of languages so have to try to explain in English why a redirect does not make sense in French and so on. I don't mind it, but considering I created things like Old Rouen Tramway and Mariniere out of WP:PNT from French I am not quite as green as I am cabbage looking and I am a bit offended if people think I am. What do I have to have a pic on my user page showing how ugly I look? Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The two that came up on my watchlist, as I linked above, were perfectly valid redirects resulting from pagemoves. They have incoming links, so are serving the proper purpose of redirects. There was no way they were eligible for speedy deletion, and the "rationale" I quoted above makes no sense whatsoever. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought one or two of his earlier comments were quite funny, but I think he has gone a bit further than that. I've just come from his talk page, after I declined an apparently irrelevant CSD request (possibly posted on the wrong page), and left a message about that and a request to tone things down. After saving, I noticed that DGG had already made a similar comment, and saw Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's link to here. I hope that Si takes notice of us and cools things somewhat before a topic ban is imposed. If he doesn't, there's probably no other way. I've declined some Neelix redirects as there are some that are valid, and the rest that aren't at least aren't totally undermining the foundations of the encyclopaedia. They're silly to us, but were probably made in good faith by Neelix. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply and I probably have it in the wrong section. I have no doubt that Neelix made them in good faith, they are a bit mindniming after you do about sixty or seventy a night. The user User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who proposed me for a topic ban I do not believe is in good faith, probably just not quite understanding that when I propose at CSD I tend to list in rhyme and such so that the poor old admins such as User:Sphilbrick can at least get a bit of fun with my really bad poetry. I am starting to assume bad faith with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz because usually it is bold, revert, discuss, with several admins I know from editing over the years (on Wikipedia not personally) the little rhymes and things amuse, when CSD is not abuse. What User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is WP:HOUNDING frankly. If you have a look at my talk page or that user's talk page any question I ask is immediately reverted by that user so I am starting to lose good faith. I was actually thinking that user was a sockpuppet of User:Neelix. I have no problem with Neelix, he in good faith edited and made the encylopaedia a lot better, that was when we didn't have a search engine that nearly worked. He has fetishes for breasts such as I have listed in CSD tonight, but he was in no manner a bad faith editor, there are plenty of top-shelf magazines if you want to do that, you are hardly likely to do it on Wikipedia are you. When I say "Neelix nonsense" that is just really Wikipedia jargon under the WP:66 Neelix concession but I do not understand why, as someone who probably contributes not only to WP:RFD but to WP:PNT and have translated articles from Latin, Hungarian, Spanish, French and some weirdo language they speak in Wales that I am not qualified, under the Neelix concession to list things at RfD.
    I believe User:Sphilbrick is an admin and I am not asking for his backup I am man enough to argue for myself, but Sphilbrick seemed to appreciate the little jokes I put in the listings at CSD, which I have been making ever more rime riche. I am not asking for any kinda special treatment, what actually I am worried about is whether User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz actually is an admin or not, which seems something that user will not say. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hullaballoo has been accusing quite a lot of people around wp and does not respond to queries posted on his talk page.This user does not assume good faith and has been known to disruptivEly edit the encyclopedia, as his block log suggests. I would also like to point out that the username suggests that the user posesses a grudge against the admins and this Indiscriminate harassment of new users may be more of a personal vendatta rather than a desire to work witb the community for improving the encyclopedia.-Account2235 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a keen observation, Account2235, especially since you've been an editor for one day. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a keen observer as you can observe the user has something about WP's administrators in his signature which prompted the research into this users contributions one thing led to another and 2 days later here I am with all this information.Also note that I had an altercation with the user:Hullaballoo and my view may have been influenced by it.--Account2235 (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SimonTrew: You can check if an editor is an admin via Special:ListUsers. clpo13(talk) 22:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    {@Cylpo: I deliberately didn't. There is a kinda well I may have it the wrong way but that the user is or is not an admin I believe he or she is not. Then, that user cannot take my things out of CSD and listing at ANI is absurd. I will start defending myself. I do not believe that that user is an admin therefore I do not think that user had any right to speedily keep my listings under the WP:G6 concession to then as a user who has no administration rights then speedily to delete them, I think that is abuse of process and I would list that user here were it not for the fact that user is not an admin. So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. The reason I list in rhyme and so on is it is a hard job for the admins to plough through the redirects as much as it is for me to list them. I believe that this user who has declined my nominations at CSD is playing on admin rights without quite saying so because this user never replies when I have asked and reverts any discussion at my user talk page, the discussion at the user's talk page, or anywhere else sensible to discuss this user's behaviour. I am not standing on cerermony but I genuinely believe that this user does not quite "get it" what we do to make the encylopaeidia better. I don't care what is listed at the CSD's that was because User:Sphilbrick said that I don't want to put words in that user's mouth but something like "I must admit usually at CSD I just roll my eyes but yours always make me crack up". Now, what am I to do? Of course I want it to be simple for admins to delete things but I have to offer reasonable explanation and if I do it in canto, rime riche, iambic pentameter or limerick, so what? That does not make me a bad editor. What makes someone a bad editor is that whenever over three weeks they are asked to explain their actions they delete the talkl conversasion that I start. Si Trew (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm getting pissed off. Si Trew has repeatedly posted comments such as that I "never replies when I have asked and reverts any discussion at my user talk page, the discussion at the user's talk page, or anywhere else sensible" and "whenever over three weeks they are asked to explain their actions they delete the talkl conversasion that I start". I have never deleted "a talk conversation" started by Si Trew, anywhere (unless he's also one of the anon/IP vandals who show up regularly on my talk page). I have never reverted anything on his user talk page; I've just checked my contribution history over the last two years, and I've only made two edits to his talk page, both in the last two days, both template notices which removed nothing from it. I've responded to several of Si Trew's request (despite his often failing to notify me of the discussions, and sometimes actively aboiding notifying me User_talk:Alcherin#CSD_redirects_by_you_know_who; Si Trew has generally ignored my responses and refused to engage, until I opened the ANI discussion. It is frankly next to impossible to take such comments in good faith. When did it become acceptable to so brazenly make such false accusations against other editors? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Si Trew, any editor can remove a CSD tag if it has been wrongly applied. Misapplied CSD tags can result in the deletion of valid pages so it's important that pages that are tagged incorrectly be untagged if there are questions about the tag's appropriateness. And to show I'm not biased, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed two CSD tags I had applied to redirects. I disagree with his reasons but he had a right to evaluate them and judge whether they were incorrect (of course, he was wrong this time but he has the right!). Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Si Trew thread arbitrary break

    • Trew is doing a truly awesome job at RfD,and he has the innate ability to sift shit from piss over there. Trew's wry/dry humor is only for the cognoscenti so don't sweat it. Luridaxiom (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • SimonTrew is using his multiple language abilities on tackling all the Neelix Latin redirects I was afraid to touch. Turns out Neelix's Latin was as bad as his breast fetish and obsession with srewing around with subjects names in strange ways. They are like redirecting Bears and Sun bears at Polar Bears. When processing 50,000 redirects we are bound to mAke the occasional bad call, so let's not get too excited over the occasional questionable CSD. If some potentially valid redirect gets turfed with the misleading crap, the project will not fall apart. Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. I disagree with the Neelix bashing that goes on at RfD, and have never personally engaged in it, but many users do. I would suggest a blanket statement that everyone at RfD should limit their Neelix directed comments to "(Neelix redirect)", but SimonTrew shouldn't be singled out. Si Trew's contributions to RfD are irreplaceable and of high value. Topic banning them from any discussions there would be a net-negative to the forum.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone makes errors,and I have from time to time had discussions with SimonTrew about a few of his. But considering the amount of excellent work that he has been doing in cleaning up the remnants of the utter mess that Neelix left us with, I can not consider this blameworthy , nor can I imagine that if I were doing the amount of work he has been doing on this that I would do any better. All that is necessary is a reminder to go just a little slower, and bring any possibly doubtful cases to RfD. (the doubtful cases seem primarily those where Neelix made one of his ill-advised redirects but accidentally happened to create one that was actually useful. Distinguishing this can sometimes take subject knowledge and therefore need discussion.) DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If SimonTrew were creating silly redirects I would happily support a ban, but we should give the cleaner a great deal of slack when helping to reverse the absurdities dumped on the encyclopedia by Neelix. While redirects are cheap, the idea that every possible phrase should be made a redirect is unhelpful and it is better that the excesses of the past be cleaned up. If someone really wants to paste "Maria Sophie Amalie, Duchess in Bavaria" into the URL and go to the right page, what about Maria Sophie Amalie Duchess in Bavaria and all the other possibilities? Wikipedia's search mechanism is improving, and it should be able to handle most useful cases. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (sort of) Can we just implement a restriction that SimonTrew is required to knock off the humour and leave relevant (and comprehensible) edit summaries? Since that is the main issue. A relevant summary would indicate he knows and understands what he is doing, and would stop annoying others when he does make the occasional mistake. (Actually forcing him to describe what he is doing might help prevent said mistakes). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claiming that "their responses to criticism have been grossly uncivil" is almost breathtaking in its irony. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - You can't really blame the bloke for trying to have a laugh after going through the thousands of redirects all "kindly" created by Neelix, I personally would've preferred for all of the redirects to be nuked regardless of whether they were actually helpful or not but unfortunately wasn't the case, Anyway I would suggest SimonTrew perhaps knocks off the humour just a notch but other than that I don't really see a problem and don't really see anything that says "Yes this editor needs to be topicbanned", Also Topicbanning him would mean the Neelix-sorting would take even longer ..... –Davey2010Talk 14:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can there at least be an acknowledgment that some of the explanations for the nominations are practically gibberish? Some are nonsensical. Liz Read! Talk! 14:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz I agree some don't make the blindest bit of sense at all but I had a feeling someone somewhere would've been offended etc which is why I left it out entirely but yes the edit summaries/comments need to make sense ... well much more sense really.... –Davey2010Talk 20:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm that is very odd. When I go to my page or something it says it must be noted on the user's talk page that there is a discussion at ANI or something like that some banner. It was certainly not noted to me so I only actually found this ANI discussion by accident. User:Lenticel does a lot of good work over at RfD clearing up east asian language redirects so I think it is fair to declare an interest there but I have never met him or her just throough Rfd. Si Trew (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SimonTrew, you're a pal, but take care that you don't toss careless accusations, especially here. The notice on your page is here, and you replied to it here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not me tossing the careless accusations. It is not me who brought another editor to ANI to explain myself. I should like to know whose careless accusations you mean. This is not Judge Judy. As it happens this has taken a lot of time of mine away from making the encylopaedia better, needlessly. You probably do not live in Hungary and have to speek Hungarian Roma and other languages before you get a loaf of bread. I do know what I am doing. The fact that a bad faith editor, as I suspected, cannot be bothered to reply to any conversation is not my problem.
    The first thing when you work out a problem, is decide whose problem it is. If it is not yours, you can just walk away from it. I love editing Wikipedia so I am spending time to discuss the problem. I ain't accused anyone of anything. Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer a detailed explanation of why each Neelix redirect should be deleted, but sadly many of them are so indescribably stupid the best explanation I've come up with is "Neelix Nonsense"TM I've CSD'd hundreds of non-existent Neelix invented words, and we meep finding them. Simon Trew's worst nom's make more sense then many of the redirects. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is the WP:G6 Neelix concession, that was put in place for six months and that six months is nearly finished. I am sorry that my humo(u)r may not go down so well with another editor who does not seem to bother to reply to anything but all this hullabaloo is just getting in the way. I Have to make a guarded choice when I list at CSD or RfD or speedily keep, otherwise we flood the whole lot. I am fed up with explaining myself, if you want to ban me, just ban me. Si Trew (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They won't and you won't be. And someone somewhere will continue to be treated like dirt by admins. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just steer clear of insults, and be plain enough for admins returning from the wilderness who missed the original screening of the show. Peridon (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Liz has kinda criticised me on my talk page for having a few reverted this morning and I think it is only fair to notify that admin of the conversation here. I am just trogging through them and don't get everything right. Si Trew (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes she does seem to have got her teeth into you 151.230.93.81 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, BJB, you clearly haven't the foggiest idea how Google works. EEng 13:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Er yes...the Irony was not lost on me...so much so that I added "Ironically" after my first read through...I thought Google was based on an recursive algorithm... Bosley John Bosley (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What Google's based on defies explanation here, but it sure has nothing to do with what "someone at Google must think" about various things. EEng 13:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Hmm...setting me up to fail there were you. Guardian articles have been hidden by Google... "someone at Google must think" it would be wise to take into account the EU's right to be forgotten. I think it might be you who needs the fog clearing. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're setting yourself up just fine all by yourself. The article you link was about Google being ordered to suppress certain search results, which has nothing to do with "what someone at Google thinks" about a given result's worth. Anyway, this has nothing to do with why "tumerous titties" leads to info on breast cancers, which was via an automated process, obviously. EEng 17:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I hate having to be neutral on this, especially since I am quite familiar with Mr. Si Trew and like him. But ... Vitreous (boss) wasn't created by Neelix. It was tagged by Si for deletion due to being a Neelix redirect, but wasn't created by or even touched by Neelix. My cautious side makes me think that if there was one erroneous tag, others could have happened. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Steel1943: you're probably right but it was on the infamous Anomie list. I do check the hist and look up but I get it wrong occasionally. It still makes no sense so it is better off deleted. It is not as if it is vitreous enamel. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Steely I don't mind if you are neutral you shouldn't hate yourself for that everyone's entitled to my own opinion. To agree to disagree is what we should do at Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    OP posting personal attacks in edit summaries

    moving to new thread Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Leonard Culi

    Hi. I am having some issues with Leonard culi (talk · contribs · logs). The editor persistently fails/ignores to update timestamps despite messages at their talkpage, thus introducing factual errors in a BLP. Examples include [60], [61], [62] and much more.

    The reason I bring this here, is because the editor was created when 217.73.143.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for a month, after persistently doing the same thing and shorter blocks where not helping. Also today a very similar IP adress 217.73.143.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was editing the exact same articles in the same discruptive manners.

    Articles are many, including

    and I think it would be better with a block instead of semi-protection as it spans over several articles. Perhaps a rangeblock (if possible) and perhaps the account should also be blocked?

    I leave the decisions up to admin, but in my mind something has to be done. Qed237 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone please take a look? Qed237 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Bump. Qed237 (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been three days; he hasn't edited since your AN/I notice. No blocks now. 151.230.93.81 (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm the Gyergii Muzakii is not Hungarian that would be Gyorgy Musak or something so these are all a bit nonsense Turkish? Not sure they are are any good at English Wikipedia. Tirana is the capital of Albania so it could be Albanian language but I am not sure these make much sense in English WP. Si Trew (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep these are all albanian. I think we can keep the ones without accents but the ones with the cedialla and so on

    Erjon Vuçaj and Erjon Vuçaj make no sense as a useful search term in English Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops this is my fault mea culpa I thought I was over at RfD. None of these are redirects. I dunno why they are at ANI I just came across them because I hang around at RfD, but yes these are all Albanian. Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What, yu lookin' for work or sumthin'?! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 22:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arashinc

    There has been a discussion on my talk page, on User:Arashinc talk page. I have added referenced information which has been reverted because Arashic says "I am friend of John Connolly (guitarist of the band). I asked him about the credits back in march 2015" and "I disagree with you in this case. U r giving people wrong information. Those songwriting credits r completely false". The changes made by me have been referenced and I am offered to add/assist with alternatively referenced items with disagree with the additions I have made. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note User:Arashinc is now in violation of WP:3RR at Angel's Son and other articles. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richhoncho: Are they? I don't see a 3RR violation at Angel's Son. —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, can you give a diff for the comment? I'm not immediately seeing anything to indicate a COI. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for Angel, my mind was on the difference between text and infobox. The problem covers the whole of the Sevendust song articles.
    Some are at second revert, some are already at third revert, for instance Driven (Sevendust song), first revert, second revert Please note shows as a revert of Niceguyedc, but includes my edit. third revert.
    Discussions at his talkpage have been deleted here and here. The full discussion on my talkpage are there to be seen. Not sure COI is an appropriate accusation - I think it was somebody pretending to know somebody they don't - see first post on my talkpage --Richhoncho (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rpo.castro

    Rpo.castro is engaged in edit warring at S.C. Braga B, S.C. Braga (beach soccer) and File:Sporting Clube Braga.png SLBedit (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You may want to consider reporting this to WP:ANEW. GABHello! 01:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unexplained removal of non-free-use rationales on File:Sporting Clube Braga.png and subsquent file removal from articles S.C. Braga B and S.C. Braga (beach soccer) by SLBedit (talk · contribs). I've tried do discuss that on File talk:Sporting Clube Braga.png but seems its just SLBedit (talk · contribs) going on with his point of view without support (as in the past over and over again).Rpo.castro (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained why you should not use that logo in more than one article. You are kinda obtuse. SLBedit (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No you didn't. You just write your opinion, while I remarked the lack of support of your statement. Myquestions are still unanswering.Rpo.castro (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't understand "minimal usage" and fair use. Stop it now. SLBedit (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Minimal usage: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." - The articles only have 1 item of non-free content, not multiple. If is was using 2 or more itens when was enough, I that case minimal usage would be infriged, which that's not the case. I just point evidences to you with quotes from WP policy, while you just state what you think with no support.Rpo.castro (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by IP editor

    An IP editor has repeatedly made an accusation that I'm lying relating to the BLP on Pam Bondi.[63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68] He may disagree with me, but I've provided a number of reliable sources that support what I say, proving that this isn't something I made up. The IP has not, however, provided evidence to the contrary, let alone anything that would justify calling my a liar. He has been warned several times on his talk page [69], [70], on the article talk page [71] and at the BLPN [72]. Editor notified here [73] Niteshift36 (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Harizen20 adding unref/undue content in Mannargudi and Rajagopalaswamy Temple, Mannargudi

    user:Harizen20 is adding unref/undue content in Mannargudi and Rajagopalaswamy Temple, Mannargudi, in spite of repeated requests not to do so - please help. Ssriram mt (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Unhedge

    Hi, I have an issue with User:Unhedge. His editing history seems to suggest that he may have a WP:COI, and when I try to talk to him about it, he is rude and refuses to answer my question. He told me to stick to my area of competency, among other things. See my talk page. --TJH2018talk 16:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @User:TJH2018, thanks, glad you reverted my comments which you took as personal attack (and then subsequently deleted from your talk page) even though you were rude to begin with. Let others be the judge. Everyone edit wikipedia for one motivation or another, as long as they are unbiased and do not rely of unsubstantiated sources (like magazines). My references are based on official documentation, where as you reverted my work despite me leaving comments demonstrating the reasons my version is far more accurate based on official documentations. You didn't bother to understand nor read in detail the subject matter you were editing. User:unhedge 18:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    unhedge - I don't see where TJH2018 was rude to you; can you please explain? What "documents" are you referring to in your response above? Are these secondary reliable sources that can be peer-reviewed and verified by the public? If not, this sounds like original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources, as well as no original research. These guidelines may address your concerns and help you understand which sources constitute as acceptable, and which do not. I also see that you may be involved in an edit war on Imperial Pacific. Be very careful; as violating the three-revert rule can constitute edit warring (which is not allowed on Wikipedia). Please take time to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page before making any more changes there. Failing to do so will result in a block being placed on your account. I will await your response here regarding the documents that you're referring to. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a public company stub, the reputable sources are exchange filings which I have included on the talkpage. And User:TJH2018 reverted the work without communicating and then accussed me (the original author) of being rude. The said article already has a long standing version of it in Chinese.unhedge 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


    Excuse me? Who are you to to tell me what I can and can't edit? You seem to have a major conflict of interest here. Please see WP:COI. If you work for this company, you must disclose this, as well as if you are getting paid to edit. --TJH2018talk 23:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He just got blocked for a 3RR violation. Also, you are completely rude. You cannot tell an editor to 'stick to your area of competency.' That is just an insult, and how would you know what I know anyways? TJH2018talk 17:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TJH2018talk 17:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Comment from yesterday: "You are excused, there is already a well documented version of this in Chinese https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%9A%E8%8F%AF%E5%A4%AA%E5%B9%B3%E6%B4%8BStick to stuff you know.unhedge (talk) 5:30 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7) thanks"[reply]
    TJH2018 - Lets not infuse the situation by becoming angry and butting heads with him. I understand that it can be hard at times (trust me... haha), but remember that we're here to assume good faith, look past "rude comments", and try to assist wherever we can. When we stay calm and professional despite what comments are thrown at us and lead by example, it will usually result in him doing the same. When you respond to him with things such as, "Excuse me? Who are you to to tell me what I can and can't edit?", it only makes the situation worse; remember that we're here to be as peaceful as possible, no matter what :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Agreed. I feel like Spock. TJH2018talk 20:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TJH2018 - HA! Love it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack page - Selim Mehajer

    Hi all, it appears that Selim Mehajer was just deleted by the admin JamesBWatson as an "attack page", and redirected to Auburn City Council#History.

    The page is not in any way an "attack page". Could someone please explain why this occurred?

    Interestingly, as I'm the one who created it, I was not advised, warned or informed in any way that it was deleted. I'm surprised it happened, and even more surprised that an admin who sees what they consider to be an attack on another person wouldn't even leave a message warning that person of their behaviour.

    What also concerns me is that it seems to be an end run around AFD. Selim Mehajer is a very prominent figure in Australia, and is constantly in the media for entirely notable things that he does. It was in office and is facing an investigation around accusations of conflict of interest, and will be before the courts on alleged electoral fraud soon.

    Under the processes that are in place currently, deleting a page in the manner that just occured seems entirely out of process. Firstly, an "attack page" should surely be fixed if the article is of a notable figure, and if necessary someone with oversight rights should hide the revisions that slander the party involved. Secondly, if it is to be deleted, then my understanding is that it should go to Articles for Deletion - and in fact, it doesn't appear to be a candidate as a Proposed Deletion as there is a reasonable objection that Selim is notable enough for his own article. And thirdly, I left a note on the talk page explaining what I was doing, but the admin didn't do me the courtesy of responding to this.

    I'm sure the admin was using their best judgement and felt their action was protecting the reputation of Wikipedia and the subject, Selim Mehajer, but I think this action was wrongly taken and I would request that it be reversed. Thanks. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack pages are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G10. I've had a look at the deleted article, and it was entirely a criticism piece showing the man in a wholly negative light. It was written in an editorial style rather than an encyclopedic style, presented allegations as facts, and included a number of negative claims that were not supported by reliable sources. In my opinion, speedy deletion was entirely proper. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I understand. The article still should exist on it's own though. If I was to review the issues and write a more neutral one, is that still possible? I largely took the material from Auburn City Council, I can rewrite it from scratch.
    What in particular is the issue though? Also, why wasn't I notified that I was overstepping bounds? I would appreciate that, as a courtesy at the very least so that I can review and correct any inappropriate editing behaviour that I may be engaged in. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue, as Boing! said Zebedee explained, is that the article appears to have been written about a person, and was written entirely with a negative analysis and criticism about the person. There were also allegations presented as facts and with no reliable sources provided. Articles written in this manner about living people will be reported and deleted immediately upon discovery. You're new here; and I understand that you probably didn't understand our policies in this situation. It's okay to make mistakes; we understand and we're more than willing to help you! I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's biographies of living people, neutral point of view, and identifying reliable sources guidelines, as they are relevant to this situation and will provide you with all of the information that you need. If you have any questions regarding the policies and guidelines that I've linked you to here, please do not hesitate to reach out to me and ask. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Cheers :-) -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Understand the POV concern (though I hadn't intended on making it specifically an attack page, but I can see how it may have turned out that way), but every one of the citations was to a reliable news source. I sourced my material from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Telegraph and The Australian. I think (but can't recall) sourcing The Guardian as well. I also recall sourcing material from The Daily Mail, which was verifiable and accurate - even if that publication is not has a much reputation as the other sources. What reference was considered unreliable? Also, what allegations were stated as fact? The material I added did not do this, and the other material was taken directly from Auburn City Council#History, which I modified slightly. - Letsbefiends (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, incidentally, I'm not that new around here. I do understand the policies and procedures pretty well. Just thought you should know... - Letsbefiends (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies; I meant no insult. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense taken :-) I never read it as an insult, I just wanted to disclose that even though my edit history may be a bit patchy I'm a reasonably experienced contributor - I only said that to make sure I didn't mislead you in any way. In fact, your response was excellent and if I had been a newbie then I think I would have been informed and happy that I was being treated with honesty and civility.
    I do want to ask where I went wrong given the response by Boing! said Zebedee. I don't believe that the text has any material that presented allegations as fact because I took pains to actually make sure that allegations were stated as allegations. I don't mind being told that the article was slanted too negatively, and was thus deleted, but I think I do (politely) object to being told that I presented allegations as fact, when in fact I didn't.
    FWIW, I'm not outraged and accept the decision of the admin who deleted the article, however I thought it would be reasonable to appeal the decision on AN/I. I have notified the admin that he is mentioned here under the listed process, I hope that is alright. I suppose I should note that my only criticism of the admin who deleted the page was that they didn't notify me what they had done, at the very least because I was initially confused about where my edits got to and also because I thought that editors who are violating guidelines and rules (even inadvertently) should be at least advised that their editing practices should be altered. I wouldn't have taken offence, and even if I had then it would still have been the polite and civil thing to do. That's my only real issue at this moment, it looks like the decision itself was in line with current policy so I apologise to the wider Wikipedia community for having stepped outside the established norms of editing. - Letsbefiends (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am, however, rather upset that this has been flagged for speedy deletion under the C7 criteria by WWGB, especially as I'm actively working on it. Isn't it normal to allow someone to keep working on the article to show notability before tagging it for speedy deletion? I don't understand how this person is not notable, they aren't just notable in Australia - they are notorious! The amount of media coverage about serious allegations around the deputy Mayor of a major Local Government Area (City of Auburn) within the state of NSW is extraordinary. I mean, he has an AFP investigation for electoral fraud happening right now, amongst other things. A whole special article was written up on him in the major national Australian newspaper, The Australian. I just don't understand how this tag can have been put on the page in good faith. Did the editor not see the talk page? - Letsbefiends (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am well aware of Salim Mehajer who, like a Kardashian, is famous only for being famous. He had a lavish wedding, so do many others. He has no convictions, so charges should not be mentioned according to WP:BLPCRIME. Being a deputy mayor is not sufficient for notability per WP:POLITICIAN. An article cannot be entirely negative. So what is left to write about? What we have, IMO, is a serial self-promoter who has found his 15 minutes of fame, but who has very little in real achievements that could form the skeleton of an acceptable Wikipedia article. You have indicated the scope of the problem with your first pass at the article: all that can be said is he was born, was educated and became a deputy mayor, none of which establishes notability so far. I wish you well, but I think if anything balanced and meaningful could be written about Mehajer, someone else would have done it by now. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We agree to disagree then. I think it's quite notable that he has faced court proceedings many times, pretty much was the main reason the council was put under administration, is currently facing charges of electoral fraud by the Australian Federal Police, and a variety of other things which are notable enough to make every major newspaper write serious articles about him. He still has serious questions to answer about his tender for the John St car park, which is still being investigated. Like I have said, I am happy if you want to take it to AFD, but I think I've established his notability. I'm fine with you disagreeing, but given you want the article deleted for notability perhaps you should take it to AFD? I'm happy to do this myself if you'd like, but I'm concerned it might be viewed as POINTY. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Letsbefiends is quite right in saying that he/she should have been informed of the deletion. Normal practice is that the person who nominates a page for speedy deletion informs the creator of the page of the nomination. It would have helped if I had checked whether that had been done, and on seeing that it hadn't, informed Letsbefiends myself instead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, I appreciate you saying this. - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @JamesBWatson: Actually, the directions at AfD say specifically:

          While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion... (emphasis added)

          so if you are saying that it is required, those instructions need to be changed. If you're just saying that it's good etiquette to do so, that's a different matter. BMK (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: I wasn't intending to say that it is required, but just that it is usually desirable. That is why I said "Normal practice..." and "It would have helped..." On the other hand, I see that I also said "...he/she should have been informed...", and "should" could be read as meaning that it is always required. However, what I had in mind was something more like "it would have been better if he/she had been informed". 90% of the time informing the relevant editor as a matter of courtesy should be done, but I don't think it would help to make it obligatory to always do so, because occasionally there are situations where it isn't helpful, such as for a new editor who has already recently received a barrage of warning messages, and adding one more, even if done in good faith, is likely to serve no purpose other than intimidating the editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For speedy deletion: Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors. —SpacemanSpiff 08:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, WWGB should have notified me, but did not do so on two occasions. I would appreciate it if he would follow the very clearly set out rules to give me a fair chance to object and state my case. I understand that on the first occassion the tone was all wrong, but the second time it was nominated just seemed to be forcing the point. - Letsbefiends (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the automated csd process at the top of the page, which is supposed to notify the creator. Not my problem if it does not work properly. WWGB (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid it is very much your responsibility to ensure that you follow the rules when you list an article for speedy deletion, and it is definitely still your responsibility to follow the same guidelines and rules to notify the correct people of the deletion, regardless of whether the automated solution is working or not. I should note that it is not just the creator of the article you should notify, but those who have substantially contributed to the article as well. If this is how you have been tagging CSDs then may I suggest you be more careful? - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by Hijiri88

    I have gone quite disgusted with the conduct of the above named editor, User:Hijiri88, including most recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Possible wikia site(s) on religious devotions or practices/prayers/calendars/etc.. Records will show that his first recent edits to the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity also included disparaging remarks to the set up of those pages. Also, in recent history, he has made similar grossly irrelevant and counterproductive aspersions regarding my motivations elsewhere. Given his recently demonstrated "refusal to let go" (as one of the closing admins described it) regarding his recent Arbitration clarification and amendment request, now to be found here, and his other recent activity, including as well as his frankly repulsive, repeated requests and comments regarding others impugning their activities, including me at the thread first linked to, at AlbinoFerret in the AE request, etc., and his own violation of the ban there, I think that the time has come to perhaps again review whether this editor is capable of working in this system. I had mentioned in the Arb case that I was definitely of the impression that we were proceeding to the point of a site ban of him, and, although I am not in a position to judge whether these recent events are sufficient (and I myself doubt they are) I think it worth the time and effort of others to try to get through to this individual that, whatever his own tendencies to place absolute credibility in whatever his own opinion at the time indicates to him at any given time, the policies and guidelines of the project, including those guidelines regarding conduct, apply to him, and he violates them at his own risk. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I am unaware if a ban from his user talk page includes notices of discussions of this type, and do not want to risk being blocked, and, on that basis, am not leaving one there, although I have added a link to his page here, which should ping him at least. I would however request that any individual seeing this leave the message, which, under the circumstances, I am not sure I am in a position to do. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering you do have a talk page ban and the discussion which lead to that had a fair amount of support for an i-ban, I'm not sure the wisdom of this ANI, but I guess it's your choice. Nil Einne (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the circumstances, I believe a review of User:Hijiri88's comments on the page first linked to would provide even more support for an i-ban. I think his comments on that page show that he has used it to, basically, do little if anything other than, disparage, cast aspersions, or rush to prejudicial judgment regarding my actions in that matter. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A two way i-ban is basically means that the community has been forced to intervene because two editors have been unable to learn to engage each other in an acceptable manner. It IMO should never be anything someone desires especially at it means your behaviour is going to be under a microscope and you create problems for yourself in the future when your paths happen to cross.
    If you feel an editor is behaving an unresonable manner to you, the best solution is often to ignore it, particularly when it can be ignored such as a case of a random talk page comment (as opposed to a reversion). If it can't be ignored, the best solution is still to respond as positively or at least neutrally as possible. Don't get me wrong, I know from experience how difficult it can be dealing with some who gets your back up, all I'm saying is you are ultimately responsible for your behaviour and you never want to get in to a situation where an iban is called for because it means your behaviour is problematic. (Whether or not the other editor's behaviour is worse.)
    In any case, your initial request said nothing about an i0ban. It requested an evaluation of whether Hijiri88 should be here. The problem is given the history between you two, it's likely upon reading the beginning of this thread the immediate reaction of a number of people is going to be similar to mine: 'oh no, not these two again, I thought we already ibannned them from one another'. In other words, even if there is merit to restrictions on Hijiri88, there's a very good chance it isn't going to happen here because this request is tainted by the fact it's coming from you and given the long animosity between you too. If Hijiri88's problems are really as bad as you suggest and considering they seem to edit in some resonably high profile areas, it seems resonable to assume someone else will notice and bring the issue to the communities attention.
    BTW, looking at the thread you refer to, after a quick read of both your comment and Hijiri88's reply (and the other editors), I actually felt they had a resonable point. Later when I re-read your reply more carefully I noticed you did raise issues which seemed to apply to religions in general but these we IMO not so clear. This may be because your experience is mostly from a Christian or perhaps Judeo-Christian viewpoint. There's nothing wrong with that, but a simpler response Hijiri88's comment would have been something like.
    'I'm sorry but perhaps my response wasn't as clear as I expected. I'm targetting this site at all religions, hence my mention of "religious celebrations of some sort taking place on that day". I'm sure there are other aspects of these religions, including saints for those that have them (even if they don't have dial-a-saint concepts) which could be covered. I'm coming at this from a Christian viewpoint so many of my examples were Christian, but this site isn't supposed to be Christian oriented and should cover other religious texts, practices, traditions and concepts in the same manner. That's why I'm here, to get people who can help me especially fill in the areas where my knowledge is lacking.'
    Actually the response you did leave isn't too bad, if you just cut out the early part. Getting back to what I said earlier, in this case I don't see why you couldn't have just ignored it anyway. If your initial comment was really as clear cut as you felt, people would have read it then read Hijiri's comment and gone what on earth is Hijiri88 on about?
    Ultimately, while I have no desire to look in more detail, all I've seen so far looks to be the same as before: two editors who can't seem to resist sniping at each other to the detriment of wikipedia. While Hijiri88 has IMO made clear cut mistakes before in their dealings with you as I highlighted in the previous thread, in both cases neither of you were that far from each other. So really my question to you is, do you really want to force us to force you two to separate (i.e. an i-ban), or worse (frankly blocking both is always tempting when an i-ban comes up)? Or can't you just ignore wherever possible. And where you can't (mostly in edits to articles), responding as neutrally as possible, seeking help or waiting for others rather than allowing a 2 way fight between the 2 of you two develop?
    Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, the Christian orientation is because there are abput 2 dozen articles in a reference work on Christmas relating to Christmas in various locations, and an old, at this point 90 year old, "Biographical Dictionary of the Saints" which runs to about 20,000 entries relating to Christianity. Also, having reviewed some of the reference works which relate to religious holidays, most of those listed are, not surprisingly, Christian, given the number of formal saints and liturgical calendars, presumably. There seem to be few such formal calendars outside of Christianity, from what I've seen, and few reference works which clearly relate to the broad topic of "saints" in non-Christian contexts. Also, there is a problem in at least some of the guru based religions, like ISKCON, with which I have some familiarity, where there might be a brief acknowledgment of a "day" of the guru of the guru of the guru of..., that seems to be the extent of the acknowledgment of such "historical" figures. Basically, it struck me, and still does strike me, that the easiest way to get the guidelines for content set would be by trying to start with the most easily available content, which, given the size of Christianity, also relates to the largest interested body, see what guidelines could be developed regarding national celebrations, etc., and then, maybe, bring in the others to see what if any variations come to mind. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @John Carter: Well, I'm not sure how you'll take this right after my criticism of you on a user talk page we've both recently commented on, but I reviewed the Wikipedia space talk page you linked and I don't see your complaint. You had a suggestion about something unrelated to Wikipedia (which, I'm interested in, by the way) and then Hijiri88 suggested you take it to the Christian wikiproject. I know that the history between you two may come into play, but you followed up on that with "I realize you have an all-but-uncontrollable urge to engage in grossly unproductive commentary directed at me." I'll be honest, you look like the instigator. Except, of course, that with the history of dispute, the sensible and wise thing for Hijiri88 to do would've been to ignore the thread and move on.--v/r - TP 01:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the problems is, of course, that he seemed to insist on me doing what he said I should do, rather than doing the obvious thing and abiding by WP:DOIT. Also, I should point out, that the complaint was not about my taking it to the Christianity noticeboard, which I had in fact done, but about my not taking it to the talk pages of any other religion projects. My reasons for choosing to start with the Christianity project relate to the material I present in my last comment above here. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne has said several times in this and other threads that I am making "assumptions" about John Carter's motivations for engaging in the kind behaviour he does. I admit that I have allowed such assumptions to colour my wording at times, but I generally try to give the facts as they are. John Carter's behaviour is indisputably disruptive, regardless of his motivations (User:MjolnirPants will back me up that John's comment on Bart Ehrman's supposed involvement in translation of gnostic gospels was bizarre, off-topic, and, if untrue, possibly defamatory; MjolnirPants can also vouch for my having been editing in the Christianity/Bible topic area for years before my dispute with John started). But at least when I make assumptions, they are in some way supported by the facts; John Carter's assumptions about me, like the one above, make no sense whatsoever and appear to have relation to the facts. I never said anything about John "not taking it to the talk pages of any other religion projects". I very specifically said the opposite: that he should keep discussion of specifically Christian topics to specifically Christian noticeboards, rather than annoying the rest of us with off-topic discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: I know that would have been "the sensible and wise thing" for me to do, and you can ask Drmies for the emails where I told him about how frustrating it was having to do this sensible and wise thing when John Carter follows me to discussions I started and I have to just ignore it. It is extremely difficult to be "polite" (read: pretend there is no problem) when replying to John Carter after he follows me to discussions he wasn't involved in, or (like here) didn't technically join in a discussion I started but created a new thread immediately below my one that already wasn't getting the attention it needed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem again is that you seem to be reading more into an action then is resonable. It may very well be that John Carter is following you and always joining in to discussions you started. If so this needs to be dealt with. However to assume that your comment there was part of the reason JC decided to post, well that fairly extreme. Baring an admission, it's going to be very very difficult to show even a careful look at the edit history that he's doing that. So raising the possibility is likely to be helpful as it suggests your extremely paranoid/sensitive. Even if you have reason to be so, people are less likely to consider your complaints have merit.

    Considering all that, if JC is following you and always joining discussions you started, perhaps it's somewhat understandable for you to followup to his comments there. But this case is one where you joined in to a discussion he had started based on an extreme assumption. As I said above, I don't find your comment that bad since it's true that the wording of his initially comment strongly suggested a Christian focused project (and one thing I was thinking but didn't mention but has now been mention by TP is that the comment didn't really seem to have much to do with wikipedia anyway). But concerns of JC following you, doesn't seem particularly helpful in the context of a case where you replied to a discussions they had initiated. Particularly since I find it hard to believe they never have a resonable comment in all those times they take part in a discussion initiated by you. (Although I do appreciate JC is asking for a restriction based on wider behaviour and in such a case, considering the wider behaviour from both of you is expected.)

    Note that even if your extreme assumption was true, it's not like your comment was going to make people notice the thread you initiated since realisticly whatever the merits of your comment, John Carter wasn't going to delete his new thread. Actually it probably means people are less likely to notice. Ultimately as I said above, whoever is more at fault it would be better for both of you if you could learn to deal resonably with each other (doesn't mean you have to like or agree) rather than requiring community enforced action. This would likely include ignoring each other as much as possible, the one who is better at ignoring the other is likely to come across better (obviously other factors will affect the overall impression).

    Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne: Actually, if you read his comment very closely, he actually agreed with me on the substance, but seemed to be really stretching to find something to disagree with me on. This implies that he was not actually there to respond in good faith. Also, I never said that I think John Carter opened his somewhat spammy thread on WT:RELIGION in order to distract from my thread immediately above. I said that the reason I noticed his somewhat spammy thread was because it was posted immediately below my thread that wasn't receiving any attention, rather than (as John Carter keeps claiming) because I am "stalking" his edits. Yes, I do keep track of his edits, but this is because he keeps posting on random admins' user talk pages and noticeboards like this one and requesting that I be blocked, without notifying me. In this case I was pinged, but in all of the other cases I would not be able to defend myself against his accusations without keeping track of his edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC) (updated 06:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    One wonders just how many of these threads I am alleged to follow him on relate to the topics I deal with, which are largely religious, and whether Hijiri88's self-involved viewpoint ignores the possibility that I take part in most of those discussions. I believe the full evidence indicates the latter, rather than the former. A distorted view of things from someone with a clear bias is not, in and of itself, ircontrovertible evidence. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pot kettle black. John Carter is the one making accusations that I am "following" him with no evidence. I am (thanks in no small part to John Carter's efforts) technically not allowed post all the evidence of John Carter following me over the past year on-wiki. Again, if anyone wants the information, I would be happy to email it to you, and to authorize you to post it on-wiki as something I wrote. Unlike John Carter, I have nothing to hide. His claiming that I am "biased" and "involved" in claiming that he has been following me but that he is somehow not biased or involved in claiming that I am following him is clearly disruptive, especially when I have already posted incontrovertible evidence that his repeated claims that I am only editing Biblical/Christian topics to harass him are false and made in bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And also see the completely out of the blue comment by Hijiri88 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#In the news: Whitewashing in Providence (religious movement), which to my eyes is rather clear evidence of Hijiri88's own stalking. And, certainly, considering that there was no obvious reason for him to comment there other than it being a thread in which I was involved, I think it a possibly clearer case of stalking than any of those he has alleged but provided no evidence for. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    John Carter has almost no history of editing in Korean topics, while I do. ANI is one of the most, if not the most, active page in the Wikipedia namespace, and I have posted in dozens of threads in which I was not directly involved. At the time I posted, the thread was also immediately below a thread I started. Calling my comment "out of the blue" is ridiculous, and implying I followed John Carter there cannot be defended as a good-faith mistake, as I clearly explained that the reason I was posting was to inform the OP that their pinging User:Shii would not do much good as Shii appears to have dropped off the face of the earth. John Carter should be blocked for these continued outrageous insinuations that I am following him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Allow me to call the above, unsubstantiated, assertion ridiculous and very possibly indicative of a pathologicial mindset. If he is referring to my making comments at the now archived ArbCom Request for Amendment page, it seems to me that, as I was one of the parties to the case which was being discussed, I should have been notified of the discussion, which I was not. When one can, reasonably, see that another individual is, perhaps, acting contrary to basic conduct guidelines in trying to prevent input from others involved, it is not unreasonable to wonder just how widespread such behavior might be. And it is worth noting once again that Hijiri seems to be engaging in his repeated request that he be allowed to present his evidence by e-mail, which, of course, does not allow for an option of response. Hijiri — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)
    John Carter, stop hiding your posts behind random collapse templates, and start signing and dating your own posts. I can't find the diff of you making the above edit, but I can tell it's you because in my eleven years of editing Wikipedia no one has called me "pathological" (or "insane" or "paranoid") except you, and you do so at least once every few weeks. I am not requesting that I be allowed present any evidence via email; I am requesting that you be sanctioned for refusing to provide any evidence of me being an "insane", "paranoid", "pathological" "stalker" despite not being under any restriction that prevents you from doing so, and saying up front that I will provide as much evidence on-wiki as I am allowed, and any contextual explanation that is requested but that I don't think I would be allowed provide per the terms of any ArbCom decisions I would be happy to send by email. I have already posted ample evidence on-wiki of your following me, lying about me, trying to wikilawyer me into a block, vote-stacking, trying to get around the requirement that you inform me of any requests you are making to (members of) the admin corps that I be blocked... Anything sent by email would merely be a supplement. And, as I have already stated in this thread, I would readily grant permission for the recipients of these emails to post their entire, unaltered text on-wiki, as (seemingly unlike you) I am not trying to hide anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I can be wordy. Sorry. John Carter is the one following my edits. Email me if you want the full story. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • John Carter has been closely following my edits for over a year, and engaging in off-wiki contact with other users he considers to be my "enemies" for about as long. I don't want to go into the whole history (I was recently told in an email exchange with User:Callanecc that giving all the details on-wiki would potentially violate one or both of my TBANs), but I would be happy to provide them on request, by email if necessary. John Carter recently followed very closely on my tail to four different separate forums, and in two of them ironically accused me of following him. He has also repeatedly accused me of "following" him to the general area of Christian/Biblical topics, even though those are subjects I have a serious interest in off-wiki and have demonstrated such on-wiki countless times. I am really sick of dealing with John Carter's harassment, and I frankly don't want to go back and search for all the diffs at this time, but if anyone doubts anything I have written I would be happy to retrieve the evidence.
    I would be very happy with a two-way IBAN -- I requested it several times, most recently a month ago, but if John Carter honestly believes that my "behaviour" (read: continuing to edit an area I have been active in for at least three years) constitutes hounding, then I worry he might continue to accuse me of hounding him even after an IBAN is imposed.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: Mjroots explicitly told John Carter that he was not only permitted but "required" to inform me of ANI discussions like this one. His above claiming after this explicit clarification was posted on his talk page that he is "unaware if a ban from his user talk page includes notices of discussions of this type" is difficult to believe. This, combined with his distinct history of reporting possible violations on my part on admin user talk pages (implicit block requests) rather than AN or ANI and not informing me, is difficult to take in good faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, only e-mail him if you want a clearly biased version of the "story," which seems to be primarily based on the assumption that checking a watchlist and responding to changes made that appear in them is "stalking." John Carter (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that John Carter not following the clearcut wording of the talk page ban which allowed such notifications doesn't reflect well on them. But again, I would suggest reading more in to it than simply not properly reading the wording of the ban properly, or not remembering what was read and checking it again before coming here, is simply not helpful. It's obviously possible that JC intentionally did it to annoy you, but since it'll be again impossible to prove and should be a once-off it's not something that can go further. Even if you may find it infuriating, it's irrelevant to the outcome and it's accepted that some people don't notify when there is genuine question over whether they're allowed and JC did make it clear they hadn't notified. Note that although it looks like no one informed you (I didn't notice that part very well) I guess either the ping worked or you became aware of this discussion somehow else. There's almost zero chance anything would have happened without you becoming aware of this discussion.

    The comment you made about JC going directly to admins is more concerning however the examples cited seem to be about violations of topic bans rather than behavioural concerns which require wider ANI input and AFAIK for better or worse there's no explicit requirement for notification in such cases where ANI/AN isn't involved. I would hope any decent admin would ask for input or take it elsewhere where they feel it's needed, but topic ban violation block are something that intented to be something low fuss.

    Personally I think the bigger concern is whether they show some degree of stalking, a big issue here would be how many of these reports lead to a block. I don't think it's the best idea for an editor with a history of antagonism with the reported to be frequently reporting topic ban violation, but if these reports all have merit it's difficult to say they were wrong. But if they are making these reports and a lot of them are wrong, it may very well be time to tell them to stop.

    Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne:It is worth noting that in the Request for Clarification and Amendment Hijiri started there were, if I remember correctly, indications that others thought the request was not acceptable conduct from his side, which, honestly, I had never seen the like of before. That being the case, I thought it reasonable to act on the side of caution. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Despite John Carter's repeated attempts at wikilawyering me into a TBAN block, I have not been blocked for any TBAN violations I may or may not have made. One of them (the recent ARCA) was a clear-cut misunderstanding as Callanecc can attest to per our email exchange, which is why I wasn't blocked and immediately withdrew it when told I probably should. A few more of them (my replies to Curly Turkey on my talk page) were the opposite of a TBAN violation, as they consisted of me saying "I'm sorry -- I don't thinking doing what you're asking of me would be acceptable under the terms of my TBAN". Another of them (the AE report) was initially a clear-cut case of BANEX as I was asking for clarification of my own TBAN, and an admin short-sightedly encouraged me to post an AE report; several others said I should be blocked for the AE report, but then when this background was clarified they withdrew these statements. John Carter also once (quite some time ago) interpreted the wording of another user's TBAN to make it sound like it applied to me, and recently misquoted the wording of my current TBAN with the effect of making it sound like it covered something ("Chinese topics") that I have edited numerous times since December (as Sturmgewehr88 pointed out, given the history it's difficult to take this as a good faith mistake). None of these attempts by John Carter have led to blocks, despite numerous admins (several of them Arbitrators) weighing in. This recurring pattern is very frustrating for me, as I would much rather improve Wikipedia's coverage of the various topics from which I am not banned than spend all this time defending myself against bad-faith accusations that I violated some sort of ArbCom ban. It's also worth noting that John Carter's above saying "if I remember correctly" and talking about "others" agreeing with him for something that happened only a few days ago, without even providing a link, is very misleading (whether it was meant to be misleading is another matter). The claims that User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Kingsindian (the two users whom John Carter says are "from [Hijiri88's] side") thought my request was "not acceptable conduct" is a complete misrepresentation of what they wrote. The actual posts are here, here and here. The fact that John Carter misquoted these people and weaselish-ly defended this misrepresentation as being "if he remembers correctly", while I have given the exact diffs, should be proof enough that I am not the one trying to hide evidence. The only reason I am only posting most of the recent evidence, as opposed to all of the evidence, in this thread is because providing the necessary context for mny of those earlier diffs (and some of the recent ones) would violate my IBAN and one or both of my TBANs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I was pinged since I had commented on the ARCA request. I only read the first post relatively carefully by John Carter and I see no evidence presented for any stalking. That said, Hijiri seems to not mind a mutual I-ban, so if both agree, that is fine. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ribbon of Saint George issues

    Following the recent video publication of a student being bullied and then physically beaten to remove the Saint George ribbon, which he wore as a sign of victory against German Nazi Regime in Great Patriotic War, I have opened a discussion on corresponding talk page.

    1. For the following several hours, I was questioned by user Ymblanter, that the content is not a reliable source, although it was posted on verified official channel of widely known Ukrainian investigative journalist Anatoly Shariy. Nevertheless, he/she improved the article by stating an in the source quoted claim from involved party. Ymblanter has been using various excuses, until finally he claimed that I was stealing his time and resigned.


    2. Just a few moments later, another user My very best wishes, has issued various unsourced claims (NOD is pro-government, police did not interfere=attack was coordinated with it) and then claimed to have "fix this a little". However, in his edit, he reverted (deleted) the edit from (1), which is essentially vandalism.

    I would like to report these users as acting strongly biased and not on behalf of Wikipedia guidelines as not constructive, not neutral and disrespectful (Ymblanter - verbally, My very best wishes - by vandalism), with sanctions depending upon administrator, and would like to request the rollback of edits of "My very best wishes". Further more, I can't exclude that edits by these users were of very same nature in the past and should perhaps be reviewed. Thank you.87.78.236.178 (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    We had the previous version of this performance yesterday here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And I believe it is time for WP:BOOMERANG. This performance is way too long, and, to be honest, not of the highest quality.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain: How does any of the above justify WP:BOOMERANG? Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 00:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to strongly imply that I and IP: 99.135.170.109 are completely unrelated. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would like to say outright that your command of English is not sufficient to be editing content on the English Wikipedia. Competence is required, and that includes being able to write coherently and correctly in the language of the encyclopedia involved, a skill which you do not appear to have -- you're close, but you're not really there. I suggest you confine your editing to the Wikipedia of your native language, or any other language which you are competent in. BMK (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As a full-time copyeditor of the wiki, I observe that many here are not sufficiently literate to edit final copy of an encyclopedia. But in the vast majority of cases, their contribution of content is most welcome, and the little tucks and stitches necessary to tidy their great work is not at all begrudged. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 00:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Contributions which serve to bring down the quality of the encyclopedia are certainly not welcomed, whether they're vandalism, test edits, inaccurate information, or are so poorly written they make us look incompetent to our readers. Unless you are planning to attach yourself to this editor as their personal copyeditor and fix everything they do, please don't encourage them. BMK (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer someone who is honest but unskilled to a slippery snake oil salesman anytime. The mistakes of the former are always more easily corrected than the "lapses of good judgment" insincerely admitted to by the latter sort when they are found out. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'd prefer someone who is honest and skilled over both of them. Why bend over backwards for someone whose work has to be fixed all the time? If an editor isn't skilled enough in English to write encyclopedia-level articles, they simply should not be adding content -- there's plenty of other stuff to do here which doesn't require proficiency in English. BMK (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the highest quality in every area is preferred -- great taste with high nutrition, Isetta mileage with Caterpillar power, etc. But what we have is better than what we cannot afford. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We can afford to keep our standards high. In fact, we must. We are, by far, the first "go to" stop for information on the web, and if we're going to maintain that position, we must continue to give our readers accurate and well-presented information. If we look as if we were put together by people who can't write coherently, that position will begin to slip. We have to balance openness with quality, and one cannot win out over the other. BMK (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is obviously not a new contributor - based on their comments, such as this, and the fact they came immediately on the ANI with complaints. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And they perfectly know how to game the system: for Russia, they declare that the main organizations critical to the government are on the payroll of CIA/ZOG/whomever (and of course they would be happy to prove this with references produced in Kremlin), and therefore most if not all sources critical to the government are not reliable, and therefore much of the info should be removed from the article. On the other hand, for Ukraine they take a source which is way below our notability standards and spend the whole evening trying to force it in the article, even though at the early stage I advised them to find a better source, and they did not show a slightest interest. A very typical behavior of POV pushers.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He makes long political rants. Sounds pretty much like that user we both know about. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be indeed this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced genres and categories

    Mattmeine (talk · contribs) has been engaging in adding unsourced genres and categories to articles, as well as removing useful comments. They were warned several times and today I gave them another final warning but they still persist. Opencooper (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone? Opencooper (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Opencooper This behavior bears all of the hallmarks of CensoredScribe (talk · contribs). Unfortunately there hasn't been an SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe/Archive for some time so I don't know whether there are "stale" problems or not. I seem to remember that there was another ANI thread several months ago where it was determined that SC had returned but I have no idea how to find it. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm they do have the categorizations in common as well as similar topic areas. Regardless, Mattmeine is still doing it; I'd appreciate if an admin could step in to help them cool down and to maybe even attempt discussing their changes. (though if you look at the diffs you'll see how outlandish some of them are such as categorizing Pokemon as horror and suspense...) Opencooper (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, this user should be blocked on behavior alone. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, MarnetteD, this the ani you were looking for? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive913#User:Schmidt-austin. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the one EvergreenFir I do appreciate your taking the time to search for it. MarnetteD|Talk 04:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting review of issue at my talk page

    Asking some additional admins to review user talk:Barek#Assange World Tomorrow title card VS Armstrong World Tomorrow title card upload. The IP is now making a claimed threat to have "phoned Wikipedia Corporate offices to lodge complaints" and that a "teleconference is scheduled between us and the administrative office tomorrow".

    This is related to long-term sock/meat puppets (going back to 2012) by the producer(s) of a radio/television program. Past disruptions have included NLT, NPA, COI, 3RR, and OWN issues. Relevant links to prior discussions and suspected socks are on my talk page, for reference. (edit: now archived at User talk:Barek/Archive 2016#Assange World Tomorrow title card VS Armstrong World Tomorrow title card upload) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a borderline legal threat, and definitely WP:HOUNDING, but since this is an IP hopper, I do not see anything could be done except for a range block.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm forced to agree. Unfortunately, most of the IPs trace back to Verizon Wireless (plus a handful of other networks) so I doubt a range block is practical either. I'm mainly bringing the issue here to get some additional eyes on the disruption both on my talk page and the related articles - particularly due to the nature of the threat appearing to be a new tactic (they're well aware of legal threats resulting in blocks, so this appears to be an alternate attempt relying on their long-running misunderstanding of Wikipedia's structure as being some form of corporate hierarchy). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    There is no threat of legal action as falsely reported by Barek. Barek is the individual with the long standing g history of disruption. The article to the articles detriment. Also, Barek has several Wikipedia accounts, which falls under the definition of sock puppets. We asked that the reference to Senator Dole be restored. Barek deleted an entire section. We asked that the title card be included. We had to file for copyright protection against Julian Assange several years ago and the result of our suit was Assange changed his programs name from The World Tomorrow (aka World Tomorrow) to simply The Julian Assange Show. However the change was never amended on Wikipedia. Also, we asked as a church organization the article be truthful and accurate. The disruptive edits made to the article by Barek and his friends have been numerous and in collusion with each other for numerous years. It has been suggested Barek is one of our former west coast disgruntled dissident church members, which would explain his personal biased disruptive actions to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.223.202.47 (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I blocked this IP for harassment and I suggest that future reincarnations here are treated as block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Some1asks

    This editor's latest edit, with no edit summary, reverting me to remove a valid entry from a disambiguation hatnote, brings me to this page. It is the latest in a series of edits to South Gloucestershire, South Gloucestershire Council and South Gloucestershire (UK Parliament constituency) over which we have had discussion in the last couple of days. I have attempted to bring in outside opinions by discussing the constituency at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#South_Gloucestershire_constituency (BHG being an acknowledged expert on UK constituencies, as well as having created the article), and now a request for "expert help" on the article. Their disruptive edits include repeated addition of {{Distinguish|South Gloucestershire|Unitary authority}} (producing "Not to be confused with South Gloucestershire or Unitary authority.") in the middle of the lead section of the constituency article (I have since added a sentence conveying the same information, as an attempt to stop this disruption), and addition of rambling sections of text about the relationship between the constituency and local government areas. The editor has removed my various warnings from their talk page and accused me of hypocrisy and ignorance.

    I am wary of being accused of edit-warring, but can see no other way forward than to bring this editor and these articles to this page in the hope that this disruptive editing can be stopped. Thanks. PamD 07:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sir John Cope MP, Gloucestershire South Constituency (Hansard list of constituencies), Sir John Cope said, " "Most of my constituents live in the county of Avon not in Gloucestershire.
    • Gloucestershire County at at 1974-1996 did not cover Avon.
    • Gloucestershire County from 1996 to current date of 2016, is not any part of South Gloucestershire, (the geographic local government area Unitary authority area).
    • Parliamentary Constituencies are hand have been several in the Northern Avon (South Gloucestershire) geographic area.
    • BEFORE 1974 both Somerset and Gloucestershire covered larger areas, but when describing the Gloucestershire South constituency - it should (a) be called that as Parliament called it that (again Hansard lists this).

    (b) when describing the area 'other' constituencies should not be lumped in and claimed to be in a an ancient South Gloucestershire Constituency..

    • The 1996-present South Gloucestershire area is not Gloucestershire, the 1974-1996 area was not Gloucestershire, the PRE 1974 area was not South Gloucestershire but in part only, Gloucestershire South Constituency, (again Hansard list 1803-2005).

    Some1asks (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    > Re discussions about 'South Gloucestershire' (UK Parliamentary Constituency)..

    • Note that 'Sir John Cope' was Member of Parliament for Northavon, (prior to this see below quote). This constituency was in the then County of Avon. I have used Hansard to link to the list of Parliamentary Constituencies between the years 1803-2005. There is no 'South Gloucestershire' Parliamentary Constituency listed, see Hansard here: [1]
    • The term Election in a newspaper will give results (in a General Election) for BOTH Parliamentary MP's and some Councils, including a Non-metropolitan county. a modern Unitary authority and Metropolitan county areas.. BECAUSE not all UK local government Council elections are done at the same time. EG In 2016 most English Councils had local elections, along with Welsh Assembly elections, Scottish Parliament elections and Northern Ireland elections.
    • MANY when voting in the UK General Election voted for both a local MP and their Local Councils, plus Parish or Town Councils. (Regional Council Elections are split into two cycles because of the huge volume of votes, and MP's keep the cycles split as it's and indicator of how a national government is doing).
    • South Gloucestershire is not listed as a Constituency from 1803-2005 in Hansard, and does not exist now. (South Gloucestershire only existed in the form of a Unitary Authority from 1996 and is 20 years old, there is no South Gloucestershire Parliamentary Constituency).
    • 'IF' there is a reference to South Gloucestershire prior to 1996 it's either wrong as the geographic area was Avon, or someone is confusing the geographic area with neighbouring and separate Southern Gloucestershire (County).. Avon existing between 1974-1996. The County of Avon was abolished and the northern parts became South Gloucestershire, (Former Avon districts of Northavonand Kingswood becoming the created area of South Gloucestershire, a Unitary authority).
    • Before 1974 a section of Avon (before its creation) was in Southern Gloucestershire, but as the area was and remains highly populated, several MP constituencies existed, and Hansard does not mention a Parliamentary Constituency of 'South Gloucestershire', the area didn't exist, (unless a person actually means Southern Gloucestershire, or Gloucestershire south).
    • The Gazette cited, if it is genuine, notes a county representative being voted for, as opposed to a parliamentary representative, I note the different entries!
    • Since 1996 the Unitary authority of South Gloucestershire has several Parliamentary constituencies due to dense population.
    • I quote a comment written in talk, citing Sir John Cope MP, emphasis mine:

    "My constituency covers bits of two separate counties and takes the name of the smaller section (Hansard, Gloucestershire South Constituency, Southern Gloucestershire), "Most of my constituents '"live in the county of Avon not in Gloucestershire"'.

    • The ONLY place were the Geographic areas of Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire are linked, is in legislation related to the Lieutenancy areas, and the legislation clearly notes the areas exist solely for the purposes of the act, and are not council or parliamentary areas. (also known in the act as Ceremonial County, as its just the designated area for the Sovereigns representative, as of writing Queen Elizabeth II). (Main Act here [2]. (Schedule of areas for the Lieutenants [3].

    Some1asks (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is really a content dispute. The issue here is that in both official and non official publications, compass points tend to get placed as both prefixes and suffixes for the same constituency, even though for rural ones, like the one in question, the official name would have placed it as a prefix. Cope is listed here in Hansard being sworn in for South Gloucestershire in 1974. Same in Hansard for 1979. The official parliament website also lists Cope as member for South Gloucestershire 1974-1983. Claiming that these references from official sites "are wrong" or that this would have been in a neighbouring county is contradicted by the quote which Some1asks posts where Cope himself says that the constituency was mostly in Avon with a small part in Gloucestershire!! There is no need for admin involvement.... yet. However, if Some1asks persists in ignoring sources given and editing accordingly, we may need to come back here. Valenciano (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor's talk page history since they joined us last month makes it seem likely that they'll be back on this page, whether on this topic or another. But as the "last straw" reversion on Gloucestershire which prompted my posting here has not been reverted again, I'd be happy to see this closed at present. Thanks for reading it, if anyone did! PamD 09:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir John Cope MP, Gloucestershire South Constituency (Hansard list of constituencies), Sir John Cope said, " "Most of my constituents live in the county of Avon not in Gloucestershire.
    • Gloucestershire County at at 1974-1996 did not cover the County of Avon.
    • Gloucestershire County from 1996 to the current date of 2016, is not any part of South Gloucestershire, (the geographic local government area Unitary authority area).
    • Parliamentary Constituencies are and have been several in the Northern Avon (South Gloucestershire) geographic area.
    • BEFORE 1974 both Somerset and Gloucestershire covered larger areas, but when describing the Gloucestershire South constituency - it should (a) be called that as Parliament called it that (again Hansard lists this).

    (b) when describing the area 'other' constituencies should not be lumped in and claimed to be in a an 'ancient' Gloucestershire South Constituency. EG taking constituencies that were in Avon, or constituencies in the UA area of South Gloucestershire, and claiming they are or were in Gloucestershire County and in the Parliamentary Gloucestershire South Constituency.

    • The 1996-present South Gloucestershire area is NOT Gloucestershire.

    The 1974-1996 area was NOT Gloucestershire. The PRE 1974 area was not South Gloucestershire, but only in part was Gloucestershire South Constituency, (again Hansard list 1803-2005). Some1asks (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Some1asks: Please do not change your edits after they have been replied to by other people. Do not change the time on an edit to make it appear that you posted it later than the reply below it. I haven't the stamina to try to unpick the muddles you've just made, but just don't do it again.
    • To other readers: be aware that the timestamps on some of the above posts may be confusing. PamD 13:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/constituencies/s
    2. ^ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/23/contents
    3. ^ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/23/schedule/1

    Much-needed arbitrary break

    Let me see if I have this right... You're alerting community at large to the urgent, urgent, URGENT need to resolve the question of whether Avon was part of Gloucestershire in 1974, or whatever the hell? Are you kidding??? EEng 12:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @EEng: Oh, not really ... I think s/he also wants to disprove the existence of a parliamentary constituency called "South Gloucestershire", disassociate South Gloucestershire from the geographical and historic county which would help people to locate it, demonstrate a certain level of ignorance (particularly about hatnotes, and apostrophes, where I've now twice had to replace the one in "Sovereign's representative", but also about County and Borough constituencies and more), and so on. Have a look at their talk page log for more of their history (not the talk page, from which most messages get removed promptly, in a recent case with an edit summary alleging slander). All part of the rich tapestry of editing Wikipedia! PamD 13:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But my reason for starting this post was exasperation at yet another reversion of my correct edit, in which s/he was trying to suppress a hatnote link to the constituency from the UAA article at the base name. I eventually created a dab page instead, as less of a waste of my energy than continuing the fight. I've said above that I'm happy to see this matter closed now, although I suspect that it won't take this editor long to be back here in view of their combative and incoherent input. PamD 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI concern from banned user

    Banned user Eaglestorm made this edit recently, bringing up an SPI concern about Whitmore 8621. The IP in question is 122.107.216.220 and it certainly does look like the same person. I'm not experienced enough in SPI to feel confident in doing anything—and I can't make blocks because I'm not an admin—but Eaglestorm's report is valid despite his/her block. (On a meta-note, I don't know whether I'm supposed to notify the IP, Whitmore8621, Eaglestorm or some mixture of the three for starting this ANI thread. I've not notified anyone yet—two of the three are banned and the IP seems like a troll even if they're not the same user.) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit summary makes it pretty obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit itself made it just as obvious but I don't know how common impersonation is. Whitmore was banned 6 years ago and no SPI reports have been filed against them since then. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Aggressive revert warring of a possible COI user

    New Valery Surkoff (talk · contribs) instantly reverts cleanup tags from the bio they created. The page is an orphan, so probably nobody sees it. Please intervene. I can no longer reinsert them, because I will be in 3RR violation. Judging from this account activity in internet elsewhere and from the zealous attitude to the article I suspect COI. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you are both edit warring so I posted notices to both of your talk pages. Valery Surkoff is a very new editor and I think it's important to provide them with information about editing. Right now, almost all of the messages on their talk page are warnings from you. This article, Dmitry Polyakov, needs the participation of more editors and hopefully this notice will bring some attention to it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Liz, I think it's a poor idea to warn users who do their best to contain some highly disruptive editing, and then come here for help. Valery Surkoff had repeatedly removed tags about the lack of references (it's a BLP totally without references) and about the article being an orphan, with some very strange edit summaries,[74] and Staszek Lem had restored these tags. The removals were so disruptive that I'd invoke common sense on that score.
    If you'd like to take on explaining things in a simple manner to Valery Surkoff, that would be great. I tried to explain my block today for continued edit warring, but I guess they didn't understand, and understandably weren't in the mood to. As you say, they're very new, and they're also very aggressive. They said at the AfD that the disagreement about keeping/deleting the article was "similar to the third world war",[75] and have offered an absurd conspiracy theory about tag teaming against them at WP:ANEW.[76] Maybe you can talk them down. I'm inclined to share Staszek Lem's suspicion of COI, but possibly just a fan. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    It is rather unbelievable to have such an aggressive fan of a classical music performer nowadays. Think parent or boyfriend, or even self. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of copy violation claim

    Well, i'm not sure whether to go here or directly to WP:ARBPIA, but let's try here first without sanctions and stuff. It seems that user:Sean.hoyland removed the copyvio template from template:Palestinian territory development, violating the procedure guidelines. There should certainly be a discussion on whether this is a copy violation or not (concerning the usage of six maps in series to promote a certain political agenda), but semantics aside Sean violated the technical procedure, which is highly problematic.GreyShark (dibra) 20:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No, your copyvio claim was malformed, claiming it is a copyright violation of a home page for the office of the Palestinian president. There is nothing on there that is close to these maps. Besides that, these maps arent copyrighted by themselves, and aggregating them does not magically confer copyright on them. Regardless of that last bit, your edit was malformed in that it claimed a copyright violation of a website that doesnt in any way resemble the image shown on our page. nableezy - 20:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy has the right of it, I think - the source doesn't include the material tagged as a copyvio. Greyshark, if you have evidence that the maps are taken directly from some other page, feel free to post it here for discussion. If your concern is that these maps, in this format and this sequence, present some message that matches a message presented elsewhere, and that THAT is what is being copied... no, that's not quite how copyvio works. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, thats a template thats transcluded on 3 fairly often read articles here, a template that you nominated for merge and nominated for deletion. A copyright violation accusation is fairly serious and it shouldnt just be used to remove material you disagree with as part of some checklist of ways to remove material from Wikipedia. Putting that copyvio template on this has somewhat far-reaching impacts, and given how long youve tried to have the template removed by other means I have to question the motivation in using this tactic now. nableezy - 20:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've interacted on this template for quite a while; recently while reading the Mahmmud Abbas' webpage, it did strike me that the source for the images is his and "Palestinian territory development" is highly misleading, actually being a copy-paste from Mahmud Abbas' page. Looking into more resolution and details, the images indeed morphed into a slightly different style over time. However, i would take a deeper look whether earlier versions were a copy-paste; i assume that the original copyvio thus could have been corrected (if indeed copyviolated).GreyShark (dibra) 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The logic above is not completely sound. A single set of events may bring a whole slew of charges by a prosecutor without raising that "question", even by the most aggressive defense. A single inclusion may be a violation of multiple rules or laws, and while a prosecutor's office can try them all at once in court, an individual on Wikipedia can often manage only one process of appeal at a time, given the individual's limited resources. Let us not give any weight to that argument. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 21:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maps are indeed copyrightable and the site has a copyright notice, I'm not sure what the issue is. If the tag has the wrong URL, so redo with correct URL but we all know what site he's referring to so we know that the maps are not allowed here without permission. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Assuming GreyShark09 is referring to http://president.ps/eng/interviewdetails.aspx?id=3823, there is no copyvio: the template and the linked page use similar maps to express similar ideas, but absolutely nothing has been copied. --Carnildo (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2016
    • None of the maps match each other in addition to the fact the Palestinian Authority's copyright notice doesn't really matter because the maps they created exist in public domain. I have made those maps myself long ago using other sources and the PA's maps have some serious mistakes. Some are technical and some are for the purpose of misleading and those mistakes are not repeated in template's maps. It would be like saying the map used in the article of the United States is stolen from the website of the American Congress while the map of the US exists in so many other places.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 03:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm well aware of the technical procedure with respect to copyright template removal and I removed it anyway here with the edit summary "surely you don't mean http://president.ps/eng/interviewdetails.aspx?id=3823" because there is no evidence of copyright violation, exactly as I would have done if a vandal had added the template, thus making Wikipedia content inaccessible to readers. I've asked GreyShark to carefully explain and justify their edit atTemplate_talk:Palestinian_territory_development#Copyvio_allegation and at User_talk:Greyshark09#Copyvio. Instead they came here. If this proves to be a misuse of the WP:COPYVIO as a tool in an ARBPIA related content dispute (to which I am not a party) there should be consequences, a warning at the very least. Copyright violation is a serious matter and the tools for dealing with it should never be misused. There are 500+ active admins and this is a matter that would benefit from admin attention. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As a single topic editor in ARBPIA space, i guess you are more familiar with the edit-warring on that topic. If you strongly feel that i'm a single topic editor as well and spend my days over edit-warring on ARPBIA pages, you are welcome to press charges. Per WP:GF i decided not to go to topic sanctions page, due to the fact that the copyvio is a fairly technical issue; I'm still not sure you are eligible to remove the copyvio template by yourself. Are you?GreyShark (dibra) 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking Sean Hoyland jumped the gun too quickly here. | this image, which is featured in the template comes from | this image on commons, which in turn is a photograph of a professionally produced image made elsewhere. Per Wikipedia's own rules, this image is copyrighted and therefore the claim of copyright infringement looks plausible. I'm not a huge copyright expert so I won't replace the copyright notice on the page, however, it looks like Greyshark is right , however I defer to our resident copyright expert's opinion to be sure!
    It's entirely possible that I jumped the gun, but I don't think the information you have provided indicates that that is the case. The UN map is, as far as Wikipedians know, in the public domain, which is presumably why it's in Commons rather than Wikipedia, and a map derived from that UN map will not be a copyright violation as far as I'm aware. That was also not the stated reason for the application of the copyvio template. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Greyshark, did you

    • a) apply the copyvio template because you identified a copyright violation
    • or b) apply the copyvio template for reasons unrelated to copyright.

    If a), you applied the copyvio template because you identified a copyright violation, can you explicitly confirm whether the following statements are true or false

    If, as you say here, "The copyvio is so evident to me (in earlier versions of the map collage)", provide an example diff for a revision of the "earlier versions of the map collage" you refer to that violate copyright.

    If b), you applied the copyvio template for reasons unrelated to copyright, describe those reasons so that admins can decide whether they are compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. In evidence is an effort by "Greyshark" to remove, on spurious and deceitful grounds, maps showing the evolution of territorial control in Israel/Palestine in the past 80 years. Why? He doesn't like the reality these maps demonstrate being observed and known. It turns out he's tried to airbrush these maps out of Wikipedia before. This is not the sort of person who should be contributing to an encyclopedia on this topic. I'm sure he will continue to, though.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, my knowledge of copyright isn't great, however, my understanding of it is , that wikipedia follows the Berne Convention when it comes to copyright, that is, that an item is copyrighted by its creator on the moment of it's creation, and thus is considered copyrighted unless it is explicitly stated that the work is Public Domain. This would make that image copyrighted, and not public domain. KoshVorlon 17:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume the statement "This would make that image copyrighted" refers to the UN map made by @Zero0000: to include the boundary of previous UNSCOP partition plan, derived from the original UN map, and released into the public domain by Zero, with the standard Commons template that states "Unless stated otherwise, UN maps are to be considered in the public domain. This applies worldwide." If so, that is not relevant to this issue because a) that image is not used b) that was not the stated reason for the use of the copyvio template and c) derived works such as [77] are not copyright violations. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean.hoyland on the actual map itself there's nothing on it that says it's public domain, therefore it can't be assumed that it is, rather, copyright is assumed under the Berne Convention. KoshVorlon 11:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    UN maps are open source material and you can use them in your work or for making your own map. We request however that you delete the UN name and reference number upon any modification to the map. Content of your map will be your responsibility. You can state in your publication if you wish something like: based on UN map… nableezy - 15:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether anything can or cannot be assumed about that UN map is not relevant to this case because that map is not relevant to this ANI thread and the template at issue. Discussions about the copyright status of the UN map should take place in Commons. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time, what appears to be happening is that the maps here in the template are user-made SVG versions using data from maps that are under copyrights. While a specific map image may be copyrightable, the data on that map is not, so the user recreating the SVG versions is in the clear (this is part of what The Graphics Lab functions as to make free versions of copyrighted images that are otherwise based on uncopyrightable data. So there doesn't appear to be any copyright violation here. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The amusing thing here, of course, is that the PA and countless other organizations would be quite happy to license maps for use in Wikipedia articles for the price of an email or phone call. But, again: This not about copyright. It's about hiding facts that don't suit "Greyshark's" political agenda.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan Murphy: There should be penalty for blaming people for WP:NOTHERE on ANI discussions the way you do. You clearly don't know user:Greyshark09's agenda and neither do I (He is somewhat mysterious). There's a discussion about copyvio so keep it a dicussion on copyvio. Thanks--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't born yesterday kid. I can observe his behavior, a pattern over quite a period of time, and deduce his agenda.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would be a personal attack absent you actually presenting the evidence, so dont do it. If you feel he has an ulterior motive, take it to the NPOV or COIN noticeboards and make your case there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The pattern is already presented here. A request for merge, then a request for deletion of the same template. Wait that didnt work, how else can I hide the material. Oh oh oh I know, a copyright violation claim, that completely blanks the template! Brilliant! nableezy - 15:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Using an existing map, even one copyrighted, to make a new map that shows the same geographical shape is not usually a copyright violation. It is actually more of a violation to copy the coloring and presentation (if the latter is creative enough). The basic idea is that copyright protects creative content, not the pre-existing factual basis if it is well-known. Greyshark should make a case on the copyright pages, which I'm confident will not be successful. It is ridiculous to add highly dubious tags and demand that nobody remove them on pain of being brought here. Zerotalk 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I looks to me as though Greyshark has wasted a significant amount of everyone's time. Given his two previous attempts to have the page removed using unrelated arguments, we should set a high bar when considering whether this was an intentional and deceitful misuse of Wikipedia process. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lute88, edit-warring and pro-Ukrainian POV pushing

    I basically come against the edits of this user on a regular basis. Typically, they just revert my edits, either with a bogus edit summary, or with unconvincing edit summary. If I revert them, they immediately revert me again, sometimes making up a new edit summary. Apparently, I am not the only one, they were previously blocked for edit-warring. My experience is that they revert everything which can be considered remotely critical to Ukraine. I will not provide all references, their talk page contains enough evidence substantiating what I write, just to give an example, our last intersection was in Book of Veles, a proven hoax which at some point was included to the high school program in Ukraine. I added this info reliably sourced, and Lute88 reverted saying it is a blog (it is not) and did not discuss it at the talk page any further. Fine, that was solved by User:Altenmann, which is much appreciated. Today, I added to Holodomor genocide question a criticism of one of the historians cited there. Well, reliably source. Lute88 first reverted, saying this is not in the source. Fine, I reformulated. They reverted again and moved to the talk page, saying it ia WP:COATRACK. I suggested that they reformulate it themselves and return to the article in whatevever form they want. They said the material is not notable and refused to do it. Well, it just can not continue like this. This is not how Wikipedia should work. I suggest either topic ban from Ukrainian topics (which is apparently not the only topic they are interested in, so they will still have to do a lot on Wikipedia), or at least placing them under 1RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion is underway, and there doesn't seem to be any edit-warring, IMO, at least on my part. And for the record: I didn't revert you, but rahter moved the offending para to Talk.--Lute88 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, you just removed from the article everything I added, on two occasions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite. The para is in discussion at Talk. I'm not interested in creating a filibuster out of a such a minor bit, but lets not have double standards.--Lute88 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the problem. You do not want the material to be in the article, and of course you are not interested in modifying it in any way you find acceptable. You are just interested in removing it. This is your usual behavior, and your talk page has plenty of examples when you run into trouble with other users reverting essential material. It is great that you finally agreed to discuss smth after I said I will take you to ANI, but you should have not reverted reliably sourced material in the first place. We are not now discussing Russian-Ukrainian relations, we are discussing your behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My behavior is impeccable. If you want to have that para in the article: lets find acceptable sources, preferably not proKremlin. Thats what them talk pages are for.--Lute88 (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Polit.ru is reliable and pretty much anti-Kremlin.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And also - the section is about a historian's view of a question. Questions of his _general_ competence and/or tendentiousness should go on his own article, not where you had them.--Lute88 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    However, propaganda is already in the article, and you are removing criticism of the propaganda. This is deteriorating the quality of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking about this page, Lute88 reverted your edit per WP:BRD [78]. Quoted source does not really support the statement about the "majority of historians". A discussion is taking place. This is minor content dispute. Speaking about another page you mentioned, here Lute88 removes text sourced to a Ukrainian language website marked on the top as "blog" [79], so this is something reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    With so many on-sight reverts, some of the reverts may accidentally be reasonable (and the Book of Veles one was not). Their talk page consists almost exclusively of warnings for edit-warring. Therefore I believe that a topic-ban or a 1RR restriction is long overdue.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you should probably submit an WP:AE request because this subject area is under discretionary sanctions. But I do not see any recent evidence of misbehaviour by this user. My very best wishes (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I am going to do if this request does not attract any attention of administrators, as commons pretty often with ethnic conflicts.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You just issued her a notice of discretionary sanctions. Perhaps this will be sufficient. Keep in mind that your diffs with misbehavior by user on AE should be dated after this notice. My very best wishes (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I remember this.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bit of a problem here worthy of your attention, contrary of the overall impression of nothing but content disputes between Wikipedians. I'd like to believe that Lute88 means well, but disruptive editing practises are a fact, such as routine use of false edit summaries (i.e. WP:COATRACK, WP:POV about books of history, etc.) coupled with one-click removal of entire sections (and/or online references) from Wikipedia articles on nationalist's grounds. This has been going on for a long time. Pretty much any critical third-party commentary about Ukrainian nationalism is WP:COATRACK for Lute88. [80] [81] [82] The results are often disturbing especially in relation to antisemitism (changing "yes" to "not" in citations, which actually defines vandalism). [83] Poeticbent talk 15:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I took part in discussion you linked to [84] and tend to agree with Lute88. Main point here is that crimes by German Nazi and their local supporters on the occupied territories should be included in "Holocaust pages", such as The Holocaust in Ukraine, rather than in "antisemitism pages", such as Antisemitism in the Soviet Union, Antisemitism in Russia, Antisemitism in Ukraine, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, speaking about your last diff, this is not a vandalism by Lute88. This edit was made by Lute88 in December 2014 and since then remains on the page, even though a lot of people edited this page since then. No wonder because her edit was actually consistent with the quoted source that blames Nazi rather than Ukrainians as the primary perpetrators of the genocide in Ukraine. Is that a good faith argument on your part? My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, Lute88 does not practice outright vandalism or massive edit-warring. If they did, they were already blocked, and there were no need to open this topic. All their reverts could have, in principle, be discussed in a civilized way. The problem is that, as Poeticbent correctly noticed above, they revert on the spot everything that remotely looks critical towards Ukrainian nationalism (and they do not seem to be interested in the rest of the articles - for example, in Anti-Ukrainian sentiment they started edit-warring because of one sentence, calling it COATRACK, and ignored my repeated reminders that the rest of the article is below Wikipedia standards. Well, in Holodomor genocide question they reverted twice and did not express any interest in working in the article beyond reverting a sourced statement, saying on different occasions that it is biased, COATRACK, and is not in the source. Then you came, and only then something started at the talk page. In Book of Veles, they just kept reverting, providing different reasons, though 10 seconds is enough to find several reliable sources demonstrating that the book is in Ukrainian school program. Again, they did not express any interest of doing anything except reverting. And this is just in every single Ukraine-related article they touch. Yes, sometimes what they do can be interpreted by other parties as having a point, or possibly having a point. But this is exactly the style of editing which we call disruptive editing - and, well, block users who are persistent.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see only two recent reverts by Lute88 on each of these pages [85],[86], she took part in discussions and did not prevent recent editing of these pages by other users (edit histories above). This is hardly someone really disruptive. One would need a much stronger evidence on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:7&6=thirteen falsely accusing me of OR

    (non-admin closure) This is entirely a content dispute, and therefore cannot be settled here. Please take steps at Dispute resolution BMK (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On American Nazi Party, which has no reliable sources to back up the claim that the original version of the group founded by George Lincoln Rockwell is the very same as the "new" version founded by Rocky Suhayda out of post office box in Micihigan, I switch over to the past sense and suggest on the talk that if no reliable sources are found to link the two properly, the new organization should not be conflated with the original.[87] The infobox further claims Rocky Suhayda as the new leader of the original group.[88] User:7&6=thirteen reverted my edits, falsely accusing me of original research [89] [90], when in point of fact that is totally false. His responses on the talk did not make much sense and ignored everything I was stating in response.[91] [92] [93]. He then threatened me with a block for 3RR on my talk.[94] We both obviously edit warred, however this editor's attitude, bad faith and false accusations are not going to make any attempt at fixing that article productive, especially since they continue to ignore the fact that there are no reliable sources to assert continuity between the original Rockwell organization with this new "revival" based out of a website and post office box in Michigan. Laval (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also this odd response to my suggestion we take this to ANI. [95] There is a barrier to communication here, unfortunately, when the editor in question is demanding sources when in actuality, no sources exist for their claim that the original organization exists. The article even claims its headquarters is in Arlington DC which was the HQ of the old ANP, while the "new" version is based out of a PO box in Michigan. Yet the editor keeps ignoring these problems and demanding sources to prove that the old and new versions are different. Laval (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I said he didn't source his contention that the new and improved American Nazi Party has a relationship (or doesn't) with the George Lincoln Rockwell iteration. Whatever became of the old brand of the American Nazi Party and what if any relation does it have to the Dearborn, Michigan iteration? Is this a state secret? I have said he should just source it and put it in the text. All I did was remove any unsourced mention of the Dearborn, Michigan organization. I can't make sense of his responses, so I won't characterize them. I suggested reasonable solutions on the article talk page I am not POV pushing. Just want sources. That is all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You offered no solutions on the talk, just dumping on me and accusing me of original research and demanding sources where none exist, i.e. there are no reliable or verifiable sources to even suggest that the Suhayda group is the same as the original Rockwell group. Only Suhayda is making that claim. Laval (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The point which this editor seems unable to even understand or acknowledge is that the only fact here is that the original group by Rockwell ended a long time ago. A revival was attempted by one of his disciples years later, but it was not the same organization. In 2014, Suhayda (apparently a former member in the old days) created a new website and proclaimed a new revival. But these are clearly different from the original. Why is it difficult for this editor to understand? Where are the sources (beyond Suhayda's own claims) that Rockwell's group and his are the same and thus using the present tense rather than past in the lead? Laval (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The current article does not as it exists mention the Dearborn, Michigan iteration. Doesn't mention Suhayda either. It could. If there is organizational continuity or discontinuity it should be documented and sourced. You have NEVER provided a source for your contention that the Rockwell organization disbanded. This should be resolved on the talk page, and not at WP:ANI. You have chosen not to respond at the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So we are clear, I did not edit war, and did not violate WP:3RR. Nor did I accuse Laval of doing that. I gave him a caution flag only. And I have tried to resolve this on the talk page and do not get the courtesy of a response there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I removed Suhayda's name! You're making it impossible to fix the article because the organization ceased to exist a long time ago. You're asserting that it still exists, and this dispute is over my changes to the lead, switching from the absurd present tense (as the organization doesn't exist) to the past. You reverted me based on those edits and falsely accused me of original research, which makes no sense at all. Laval (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who wants to can take a look at the talk and see that I responded to his false accusations against me, and I was totally ignored and they continued to attack me as pushing original research. Laval (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No sources. And there still aren't. He has confabulated the connection to Suharda and Dearborn. Not mentioned in the article as it stands. If it ain't sourced it doesn't belong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand that the article is about the Rockwell organization, which has ceased to exist, yet the lead uses the present tense, indicating that it does still exist? Laval (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are your sources that the George Lincoln Rockwell version of the ANP still exists? Laval (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you also understand that the article has nothing to do with the Suhayda "revival" founded in 2014? Laval (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand you say it ceased to exist. Prove it. We know it existed. Did it disband? Did it transfigure? Did it acquiesce in trademark infringement of its name? If you won't and don't provide a source, any source, then this is just your conjecture, opinion, and, dare I say it, WP:OR or WP:Synth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You want me to prove that it doesn't exist anymore? Do you realize that all the sources used there assert that the organization ceased to exist sometime after Rockwell was murdered? What exactly are you demanding? Laval (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this for real? This is like demanding I prove the Earth isn't flat or proving that Obama is a US citizen. Laval (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article makes it very clear, as do the sources used, that Rockwell is dead, he died as a result of a murder many years ago, and the organization became defunct. A revival was attempted by Koehl years later, and the latest attempt by Suhayda in 2014. Neither of those are the same organization as the original. This is a given and it is a fact. Laval (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see where the sources say what you contend. "and the organization became defunct." If you've got a source then we can move on to whether we should mention the Dearborn/Suhayda organization. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hullaballoo Wolfowitz posting personal attacks in edit summaries

    NOTE: I had posted this in a thread above that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz had opened a few days earlier, but someone in a roundabout way suggested it should be its own thread, so I've moved it here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone who's been around for 10 years ought to know better than to blatantly attack editors through the use of insulting edit summaries, yet treat yourself to this sampling of insult-laden reverts by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz over the last few days:

    I made note of these in a thread above a couple days ago: (some have been deleted)

    Since then the abusive summaries have continued:

    Hullaballoo has directed their ire at one particular editor involved in tagging Neelix-related redirects for cleanup, and while User:SimonTrew could perhaps be seen as being a little bit overzealous in his deletion tagging, there is no way he deserves to be repeatedly subjected to being called "wretchedly stupid", "phony and dishonest", and an "idiot". Notwithstanding the subthread above, I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well to me it is just pissing on your own bonfire. If you are going to make an argument make it WP:CIVILly. Si Trew (talk)
    I think it is fair to mention to admins that the user you mentioned started this conversation at ANI but has never replied to it (I dunno why). Si Trew (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as no editor deserve to be repeatedly insulted like this, especially someone doing good faith cleanup. There are more insults along the same lines in various recent RfDs as well. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer, in case it wasn't obvious. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and support block. This is unacceptable. --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and I think further comments like that towards anyone will be actionable under our NPA policy. HighInBC 22:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Civility must be maintained. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Neutral: PA's are subjective. But based upon the links above, I don't find them particularly offensive. This might just be another example of the civility police trying to wrap people up in cotton wool. Then again, it might be harassment. Either way, I'm not aware of the history. CassiantoTalk 23:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - No one gets a free pass from maintaining proper civility, and this is obviously not a one-time incident. GABHello! 23:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - We all lose our shit at times but the repeated abuse at SiTrew is completely unwarranted, If you disagree with an editor you then discuss it with them ..... –Davey2010Talk 23:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Was also personal attacked by editor.Clubjustin (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with a warning that further personal attacks – directed at anyone – will result in a block. HW has been posting bad faith comments about TTN at AfD, too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Maximals. If this keeps up, we may need to topic ban HW from all deletion processes. It seems as though he has trouble contributing to them civilly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Pretty clear cut case of NPA to me. I think a strongly worded warning is needed, if this continues perhaps an admin should issue a block? --Cameron11598 (Converse) 03:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, of course. This isn't really about civility. Over the last few years, I've regularly been called far worse things without anyone being willing to take action, This is about deletion practices, and an attempt to intimidate a user who resists overly aggressive deletion proposals. Nobody took umbrage when the now-permabanned harasser Scalhotrod spents months calling me things like "Useless, lazy Editor [who] refuses to AGF and check references on their own, prefers own personal knowledge of porn".[96] Porn publicist Rebecca1990 has quite often called me "dishonest".[97] Nobody gets upset. Right above here, an editor gratuitously accuses me of "bad faith" for a position I've taken and stated consistently for yours, and have often achieved consensus support for. But that's OK with so many of you. You may also note that my supposed victim states, above and elsewhere, that I "has never replied" to comments he's made in this and various related discussions/ That's an evident falsehood, but that doesn't disturb you. He's falsely accused me of "reverts any discussion at my user talk page, the discussion at the user's talk page, or anywhere else sensible" -- even though I've never reverted his posts on any talk page, and even though he's never posted to may talk page, despite his claims otherwise. Even worse, up in the underlying ANI discussion I opened, he complains that I did not give him notice of the ANI discussion. Not only did I do so, but he responded to my post there by saying he had deliberately ignored it.[98] (Note that the OP here dismisses this as mere carelessness) When did it become acceptable to so brazenly make such false accusations against other editors? Why is misbehaviour like this considered civil?
    Earlier today, I posted to a discussion-in-progress, but my comment was caught up in an edit conflict. I didn't immediately catch that because I had to take a phone call and deal with an urgent medical matter involving an elderly relative. (Yes, despite having reached grandfatherly age, I also continue to be a caregiver to the previous generation) After I mentioned that while asking for the simple courtesy of having my timely comments reinstated, one user has made several mocking comments in edit summaries. That's genuinely contemptible behavior. But no one even suggests those comments might be inappropriate.
    I'm very critical of User:SimonTrew's deletion proposals. (Again, it doesn't come close to the comments that have been thrown in my direction by people who don't like some of my own deletion proposals, without even a threat of sanctions) His deletion proposals are pften quite poor. Proposals like Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_12#Ibsenism make it evident that the nominator isn't even pretending to do an adequate job of checking their arguments. Hw's managed the unlikely feat of supposedly reviewing Neelix redirects and somehow having an accuracy rate that's significantly below random selection. That's not exactly high-grade editing.
    This just an exercise in settling scores. Note that the OP wasn't even civil enough to notify me of their proposal for several hours, until they could be sure of enough of their supporters checked in before I could respond. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressing a couple of accusations here:
    • When SimonTrew commented in the thread above that he had not been notified, I corrected him, and warned him that making such an accusation without care to confirm its accuracy is often construed as a personal attack. Yes, I did chalk the accusation up to carelessness; I think we can agree that he's been a bit careless lately (see thread above). I warned him more strongly on his talk page.
    • I did not post the notice on HW's talk page when I first opened this thread, because it was originally opened as a subthread of a thread in which HW was the original poster, thus I assumed HW was already aware of it; besides, repetitive ANI-notice tagging is also considered disruptive, and my edit should have generated a ping anyway. Another user suggested that this should be a separate thread, so I then moved it, and then immediately one minute later posted the notice on HW's talk page. There were a total of two hours and 30 minutes between originally opening the subthread and moving it here, in which time only Legacypac and SimonTrew had commented.
    Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait - complaining Simon Trew complained incorrectly about not being notified, then falsely complaining about not being notified of a post in a thread Wolfowitz started? Got it. Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Based on the evidence here, I think an IBAN would be excessive. The incivility shown is not outlandish, and, while the edit summaries are undoubtedly inappropriate, they appear to reflect strong feelings about the underlying issue rather than malice. Moreover, it looks like the problem between Wolfowitz and SimonTrew is recent and limited to CSD tagging. A block may be warranted, but even that seems a bit much to me.  Rebbing  07:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)~[reply]
    I'm not convinced this is really about Simon Trew, but rather Wolfowitz enjoys removing CSD tags on Neelix redirects and insulting the tagger, as I've experienced quit a few times. Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legacypac: I don't doubt you, but it might be helpful to post a representative diff or two.  Rebbing  16:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd love to post them - having problems isolating reverts to CSDs to find the edit summaries. Any ideas on how to search that in his contribution history? Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legacypac: It's slightly clumsy, but maybe filter by 'Wikipedia', choose 500 per page, then Ctrl+F for 'speedy'? Don't know a technocratic method I'm afraid! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Such comments should not have been tolerated, and it is not an excuse to tolerate them now. Had I come across the other comments you refer to, I assure you I would have opened more ANI threads.
    2. Criticizing the quality of these edits is valid and warranted, and I have been criticizing them myself, but calling them "wretchedly stupid" is a pretty long stretch beyond constructive review.
    Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support interaction ban and encourage nominator to raise the stakes to a block of at least a month. Frankly, I'm surprised a permanent ban hasn't been proposed. This user has been blocked three times before and been brought to AN/I quite a few times; it's time for a long block that lets him know this community is serious about its standards of behavior. Whatever good work this editor might do is completely counteracted by this despicable vitriol, and this editor has shown no capacity to learn. —swpbT 12:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that an iBan is the proper solution here, also because HW spreads the love among other editors as well. HW's edit summaries were certainly insulting, and no doubt intended to be so, but "you're incompetent" isn't the same kind of insult as ... well, you come up with a good insult. HW's attitude, generally speaking, is the problem here, combined with this victim mentality--"treated like dirt by admins since 2006" or whatever. His defense, in this thread, is lousy and serves only to deflect; it's not even close to addressing what's going on. That he may have been insulted by someone in 2014 is irrelevant; the argument doesn't seem to be about standards but about "well they were mean to me".

      To stick to this particular case, though, I've also had my questions about Simon Trew's (linguistic) competence in one or two redirect discussions, so I can understand, to some extent, the frustration. I got nothing against HW, though he seems to dislike me strongly; he's a net positive still, at least in article space, but with every insulting remark that balance shifts a little. I don't know if we still do "civility parole", but I think that a serious block the next time he makes one of those comments is fair. I nominate HighinBC to be on patrol. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't know about parole, or patrol, I think that enforcement of NPA is plenty. I am not going to dig through their edits every morning, but if I see further reports here or on their talk page I will look into it and respond if needed, as I would hope any admin who is not too busy would do. HighInBC 14:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a block and interaction ban for a while. If a new editor had left edit summaries like this, we'd likely block them out of hand; civility breeds discussion, which allow articles and the encyclopedia project as a whole to progress. That HW categorizes himself as having been "treated like dirt by admins since 2006" suggests that an earlier perceived unfairness or incivility has festered since at least that time. It might be impossible to reverse that resentment within HW, but we can limit the 'social pollution' that it engenders within newer members, seeing this sort of behavior go without any sort of sanction - and thinking its okay to treat other editors like this. The fact that HW has been here for years makes it even more imperative that some sort of sanction be administered. That HW is also dealing with the care of an elderly family member might be seen as a contributing cause to his bad behavior recently, but cannot be seen as a mitigating factor in how we address that behavior.

      I have no dog in this fight; I haven't interacted with most of the people in this discussion to any extent. I myself have been difficult to work with, due to my interaction with others in discussions. Because of that, I can unequivocally state with confidence that precisely none of the discussions went smoothly after I vented my spleen. Treating others like crap doesn't work. Ever. For the good of the encyclopedia, we have to address this in measures that can be seen by other editors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Ha Ha, your joking right?...but then again maybe the lunatics have taken over the asylum...so Support Bosley John Bosley (talk)
    @HighInBC: I think it was related to this comment. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That in turn is I think related to this RfD. As I've pointed out numerous times, Twinkle does not allow suppression of that warning message, even though posting it often plainly violates WP:DTTR. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Above was a request for diffs. I'm still looking for the ones I was thinking of, but here are some recent edit summaries I found:

    • "your repeated dishonesty is far more uncivil, and I don't have to tolerate it here"" [99]
    • "phony and dishonest deletion tagging" [100]
    • "inept, abusive, and damaging to the encyclopedia" while removing a CSD tag on Neelix redirect [101]
    • "incoherent, invalid, destructive" reverting a CSD of Neelix redirect [102]
    • "brain-dead hasty tag-bombing" [103]

    Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd like to think I'd never write something like "rv blithering idiocy" in an edit summary—I tend to limit myself to a bland "refuse speedy deletion" instead of just "decline", or use admin rollback, in similar cases—but I think it fairly often. I sure would have for some of the taggings linked in the original thread.
      HW is abrasive, yes, and sometimes extremely so, but he's also just about always right, and that goes a long way in my book. That right there is why we should treat him differently than the hypothetical new user Jack Sebastian brings up: Hullaballoo has already proved his worth as a volunteer here, while most new users never will. There's no need to talk about ibans and certainly not about blocks if he's willing to take this thread as a warning to moderate his wording. (And there's no need to close this as a patronizing "Hullabaloo is formally warned" or whatever. Show me someone who doesn't think a mobbing at ANI isn't, in itself, an extremely severe warning, and I'll show you someone who's never been subject to one.) —Cryptic 23:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: And yet, still a personal attack. If you can't post a civil response, its time to push back from the keyboard and get some WP:TEA. Like I said, it doesn't matter if HW has been here a while. It doesn't matter if they are usually a good editor. A less-experienced editor would find themselves facing a gauntlet of trout-slapping. The rules have to apply to everyone equally, or they end up meaning precisely jack shit. That means you don't get latitude if you are rude and don't resolve inter-editor problems the right way. If anything, HW's fuller experience means they know full well how they should be acting, and in this case the user just doesn't appear to show anything approaching remorse. We indef block people for less. I am not suggesting such; I am urging us to remember that by avoiding treating HW like any other user, we are living up to that whole cabal stupidity that every Wikipedia critic points to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Archbishop Booth

    This is a content dispute. L'honorable has asked for advice on how to best handle this, the advice is to get used to people disagreeing with you. We have standards for sourcing and our editors are correct to enforce that. Administrators cannot take sides in such content disputes, please sort it out on the article talk page. HighInBC 02:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please advise how to handle a most time-wasting exercise expended in the last few hours regarding my edits to Lawrence Booth. These disruptions have been initiated by Ealdgyth with support from Hchc2009 and Cassianto. I should be much obliged if Wikipedia Administrators could advise as to how to avoid such an unsavoury turn of events without being bullied off the subject. Many thanks & looking forward to hearing. Best
    PS. the origin of the dispute derives from his COA which has been amply referenced by Burke's Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies and at www.exploreyork.org.uk. Please advise. L'honorable (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It's documented on my talk page and the article talk page. I've merely requested a source that shows that Lawrence Booth used the coat of arms that is being repeatedly inserted by one user. No sources have been given that show this particular COA was used by Lawrence Booth. I've restrained from taking the OP to WP:AN3 because I'm trying to avoid being nasty or anything. Also trying to get the OP to understand the importance of reliable sourcing. The OP is obviously not very experienced and I would prefer to avoid him being sanctioned for his obvious edit-warring, but its' getting a bit harder to keep explaining what is needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Further note - the two sources given above have been addressed on the talk page with the reasons for why they don't support the given COA. The OP hasn't actually addressed the issues with the sources provided, they just keep saying they support the COA when no one else believes they do. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You may also wish to advise us of this report on our respective talk pages, L'honorable, as per the rules. But then again, you and talk pages don't really mix very well, do you? CassiantoTalk 00:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you think that this is great fun ganging up on me - but what is required here is a knowledge of heraldry - none of you have demonstrated that & when I tried to put an explanation on the Talk Page it was deleted by edit conflict. Let the Admins decide. Thanks L'honorable (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ganging up on you? I tried to help you! And you have the fucking cheek to bring me here! CassiantoTalk 00:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, what is required here is documentation which meets wikipedia standards regarding verifiability. It is no one's job to provide sources which verify a claim for someone else. It is as per WP:BURDEN the responsibility of the party who seeks to add information or keep what had been unsourced information with the required sources to verify that information. I am not sure I have seen that in this case. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Carter: Thank you John for responding & at least now I trust I shall have some breathing space in which to explain in sufficient detail as required. Firstly is the following reference from the notes of an acclaimed heraldist & painter-stainer of York a good indication of Archbishop Booth's COA: qv: 17/88
    https://www.exploreyork.org.uk/client/en_GB/search/asset/1018068;jsessionid=5E0DE45E24C4B6C3AEF895F5CE0A66A4.enterprise-14000 ? L'honorable (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC). Secondly the image which is hotly disputed is [Coat of arms of Archbishop Lawrence Booth.svg] & his relationship to the Booth family is very well referenced at Burke's Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies. Further explanation as required (although ordinarily this would be more than sufficient & a great deal more so than in most other articles)... please advise - many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. perhaps I should point out that should an even greater level of proof/reference be required? just let me know - it is simply that when I added this info, it appeared to me at least, to be well above that of similar articles. Many thanks.
    As a nonexpert in the field, I can't see any problems with what you have provided above, although I suppose it might theoretically be open to question depending on, for instance, if the coat of arms were not created until after his death or something like that. However, those concerns are generally best dealt with at WP:RSN, which tends to get more people who are aware of all the intracacies involved. John Carter (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Carter: thanks John, but the whole point is that John Ward Knowles (unknown to the protagonists) sketched out Archbishop Booth's arms in accordance with the image provided. This as aforementioned can be seen at www.exploreyork.org.uk 17/88. This whole debacle has been blown completely out of proportion - basically by people not looking at the references properly (or not understanding them), who then proceed to become abusive and patronising (towards me - is this good practice?) & even threatening Edit War; this I find wholly unacceptable, unless you think otherwise? L'honorable (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. I was at pains to explain at length on the Talk Page (before it got deleted by Edit Conflict) that these Booth arms predate the foundation of the College of Arms in 1484, thus were not "granted" but were recognised "by prescription".
    PPS. shall I forget the whole thing, because frankly the behaviour of this trio makes it pretty difficult to make any edits which do not past muster with them (and by now my name will be such mud - with them! - what is the point? - you have rightly focussed on the veracity of my edits, but there is also the open hostility, disruptiveness and threats of Edit War etc..)
    I've explained why that source does not support the COA image being added to the article. This is all laid out on the talk page. We don't argue content here - it's supposed to be about behavioral matters. Please see Talk: Lawrence Booth for why those sources do not support the image being added. I did not bring the OP to this page, I've been attempting to reason with them at the article talk page. However, continually readding information when it's been challenged and discussion is being attempted does get very old. (And I'll point out that there was no notice given to the three editors that the OP complained about here - we didn't get notice we were being discussed.) The OP is new to Wikipedia. It would be nice if he'd extend us the same good faith that we're trying to extend to him. I don't think the OP is a problem nor do I bear them any animus. I just wish that policies would be followed, such as using reliable sources that support the information being added. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @John Carter: as you can see three against one is not a winning scenario. My info is utterly correct (& even just now my last edit was bumped out by Edit Conflict). The editor above should study my references in detail before making further comment. L'honorable (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no evidence of "ganging up"--what I see is one editor who is not able to convince three other editors and has resorted to edit warring and going to ANI. Thank you NE Ent for your edit; you beat me to it, and your edit summary is on point. L'honorable, you narrowly escaped being blocked for edit warring. Good luck convincing your opponents. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I defer to your judgement (& my point about ganging up is simply that I have hardly been able to type a response without encountering Edit Confict so I don't know how you'd describe that). Not easy to convince anyone of anything in such circumstances. Anyhow - noted & thank you. L'honorable (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent abuse of categorization by IP

    76.88.107.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been in a sustained effort to add certain categories to pages. While a number of their edits are moderately helpful, a great many of them constitute gross overcategorization and is highly disruptive. I had been trying to avoid requesting a block for this IP, instead trying to clean up after them and guide them to a better understanding of the principles of categorization (four notices over the last three weeks at User talk:76.88.107.122 § A couple of notes on categories), but they continue without a response to my four notices or even a change in the pattern of their edits. Several editors have been involved in reverting or otherwise cleaning up after this editor. I'm hoping a temporary block, of at least one week, will encourage this editor to check their talk page, take the time to review the guidelines, and hopefully discuss the issue with other editors.

    This is likely the same user as 76.88.98.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was previously blocked for similar reasons, and also 24.165.80.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

    This is a repost of an earlier report which was archived without comment, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922 § Persistent abuse of categorization by IP. Ibadibam (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Short military bios in Draft

    Working through a page of stale Draftspace pages I am coming across dozens of very short pages on WWII German military people and at least one holocaust surviver. Typical examples found with several warnings and many deletion notices at User talk:Mad7744 but no evidence of any response. Earlier he was doing this in mainspace but now is doing it in draftspace. I suggest an Admin go through his page creations and delete all similar pages rather then us having to tag each individually. He is a prolific page creator, pretty much all on military bios.

    Legal threats, WP:NOTHERE

    Wikijan2016 blocked for making legal threats. Omni Flames let's talk about it 02:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Result: The filer is warned not to make statements that could appear to be legal threats: "the applicable processes will be taken with wikipedia to ensure wikipedia is not misused to promote incorrect information". There was no 3RR violation by Daithidibarra. Since the filer, Wikijan2016, does 'exhibit a singularity of purpose' and has no edits outside this topic it's possible that a posting at WP:COIN would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

    I got involved with this because the other editors took Ed's advice and filed a COIN case. In the midst of trying to work through that, Wikijan:

    • gingerly raised the legality of edits by the editors here here'
    • forthrightly raised the legality again here;
    • Said "My problem with all of this is the moral and legal aspect of someone posting content in a certain tone for their own agenda or to promote their political views. It is morally wrong - not to mention in this case also legally." And then asked me "Where I can file a complaint of this user in terms of their moral and legal wrongdoings on wikipedia?" here.

    They disclosed that they have some sort of personal relationship with people at Bellevue, but their COI coupled with their sense of whatever they think is "right" is so strong that they cannot deal with content based on policies and guidelines, but need to keep referring to morals, and unfortunately, legality, and most importantly ignored the warning they were given by Ed.

    User:EdJohnston or some other admin, this user is WP:NOTHERE and keeps bringing up the legal wrongdoing of the other editors they are are disputing with. Please indef them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk)

    The request at WP:AIV has ben redirected here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked per WP:NLT. I'm unavailable after this morning until Sunday afternoon, so if he makes a clear statement retracting his insinuations/threats, I have no objection to unblocking. Katietalk 10:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. This sort of intimidation, legal or otherwise, compromises our neutrality. HighInBC 14:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    My TP

    See below; sock blocked, TP reversed. Thanks to all. And Bacon sandwiches all round! (non-admin closure) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    However accurate some may think it is in spirit :p can an admin sort it please? Many thanks. Attacked by sock. Again. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Zzuuzz. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honoured- oink oink! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Francis Winestone

    Just the daily sock from one of our regular customers, already dispatched. He really doesn't like me – or bacon. Favonian (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm not sure what's going on here, but I think Fortuna may appreciate some eyes:

    User Francis Winestone has moved Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to "Danish Pig"[106]

    Users informed. Sorry to be short, but it seems a bit weird. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And many thanks User:Chaheel Riens for looking out :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been sock blocked by Zzuuzz. Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Content removal

    Over at Visa requirements for Serbian citizens article some IP is removing valid content with references. Short line that is being removed is that the passport that was used previously gave access to only 18 countries vs. current biometric passport that gives visa-free access to 115 countries. This is referenced content which is not really controversial as there is another line in the article that says it's one of the most improved passports over the past 10 years. The user removing it does not seem to understand the notion of original research and verifiable sources and use of references so one of the removals was for example with edit summary stating that the old document was "one of the most influential". Anyway here are the diffs diff diff diff. I can't do much due to the 3RR but content removal for no reason should be dealt with. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    They have been warned, and, if they revert once again without starting a talk page discussion, they should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cruks

    @Cruks: is violating BLP on Renato Sanches and is disrupting my talk page. SLBedit (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous because I have added a reference showing that the person is of Sao Tome and Principe and Cape Verde origin. Cruks (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User continues to disrupt my talk page by reverting me all the time. SLBedit (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected the page until it gets sorted. Cruks you need to stop edit warring at User talk:SLBedit. They are allowed to remove anything they want from their talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And I reverted back the Sanches page to before the edit war. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit war did not start with my correct edits, instead later by the other user. Please read my reference carefully. Cruks (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the three are in Portuguese and I don't trust Google Translate. The third source, here states 2006 which you changed to 2008. So you both need to sort it out on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BRD suggest that reverting a bold edit may be acceptable in some cases anyway. The best solution is to achieve some consensus via whatever WP:Dispute resolution method you need rather than trying to argue who started the edit war or what's the correct version to be protected. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Cruks, you are wrong. Once you put the warning (and I'm not even looking at the warning's value for the moment), that was enough. When SLBedit removed it, the user was acknowledging its receipt. Your repeated reverting it back in was dumb. Knock it off. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources deleted with no explanation.

    As the title suggests. I found a few sources and posted them. I'm being reverted for posting sources on talk page without explanation. here's my edit. I actually spent few days searching and translating a newspaper article from 1892. That source was not previously known, so I think it might be interesting for other editors to see a contemporary source. I really don't see the problem with my post, and I can't accept my days work being deleted without an explanation. 141.138.22.91 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also pointing to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.22.91 (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The removal of content was due to the article being reverted to a previous revision from earlier today, and because of vandalism being added to the article by multiple users. The removal of the content looks legitimate; if there is good content that you feel should be added back to the article, please message me on my talk page and let me know (while also showing me what you believe was legitimate), and I'll be more than happy to assist you with your concerns. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no multiple users. The only one who had posted today was me. My ip had changed, but that was all me. Because of the ip changes I had some trouble signing my post. There was no vandalism. I just posted 3 sources. 141.138.22.91 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked the editor why he had deleted my comment and he had deleted my question with and edit summary:"Block evasion and harrassment" [107]. I have an opposite opinion. If he hadn't deleted my post I wouldn't now be spending time dealing with this. I have other articles to edit where my posts are not being deleted without an explanation. 141.138.22.91 (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're evading a block, you shouldn't be editing at all. And it's easy to see why that gigantic essay was deleted from the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't see why it was deleted. That's why I asked the editor but he ignored me. Because it was gigantic? Can we format it then? Those are 3 newspaper articles and I can't help they are long. I wanted them posted in entirety, since they can't be found anywhere. I actually went and searched for archives for the first one. I had a few days of work translating it from 19th century Serbian Cyrillic to English. If they are too long we can format it, but why to delete them? 141.138.22.91 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting the entire thing sounds like a copyright issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On the talk page? A 19th century newspaper? Ok, this is really out of my knowledge. I just wanted to point to that newspaper articles. I posted links so everyone can find those articles, but they aren't written on English so I translated them (well, the first and the last one). Is there an any other way to point to an 19th century article which is not written on English to the English speaking editors here on English Wikipedia? If the problem is quoting the whole article I can find a few quotes from the article and delete the rest (although the rest of the article might be interesting to other editors). 141.138.22.91 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See this conversation on my talk page. It sounds like I may be getting involved in something with a not-so-great past here, per EEng's statement above. For now, I'm going to give this user the benefit of the doubt until any proof presents itself regarding trolling, socking, etc. - I'm looking into his sources, as well as the article talk page conversation. Is anyone available who would like to assist me with this? I understand if nobody is willing, given that this subject may have a bad past. I'll do what I can; someone's gotta do it I guess. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything in particular you want on your headstone? EEng 00:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC) [FBDB] Note: Not a death threat or other blockable offense, thanks. [reply]
    You are going to deep and it seems that you are unaware of that. I simply want to post 3 sources and that's it. Why should I be prevented doing that regardless of the past that topic has? I'm not aware that Wikipedia states that sources can't be posted to a topic with bad past. I'm also warning you not to get involved over there, where it is even forbidden to post sources that someone else doesn't like or considers "nonsense", let alone ban ip editors who are not people. On any other topic I would have no problem at all reporting and editor who keeps deletes sources without any explanation and look how much time I had lost with this one. I've barely touched on other articles I edit today. 141.138.22.91 (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Two eyes are better than one. Three eyes are better than two. Plus, it helps the process go quicker if we have multiple users looking into it. Give me some time; like I said, I'm busy with some other projects at the moment. I'll look into these sources and let you know about any issues or concerns as soon as I can. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Three eyes are better than two"???? What is this? The Land of the Cyclopean Cyclopedians? EEng 00:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahaha... that made me laugh :-). It's okay; I'm going to check the sources, and determine if there are copyright issues, and (hopefully) leave it at that. We'll see.... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's nonsense to you, but why should I be forbidden to post sources because it's a nonsense to you? If more people had posted sources like this we wouldn't have such disputes over there, and it seems to me that you are advocating for less sources. And, this is not more "ethnicity-of-Tesla nonsense". If you want that, go to talk page over there. This is about me being prevent from posting a perfectly valid sources with no explanation at all from the person who keeps deleting them, regardless of the topic to which I had posted them. Wikipedia is not restrictive to which topic someone can post sources. I had, in good faith, stopped reverting his acts of vandalism, although I have every right to revert such acts. How would you feel If I went to the topic you edit, delete your perfectly valid sources and say that your interests are "nonsense" and that you can't post those sources? 141.138.22.91 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What ID did you used to edit under? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Only just now I noticed this section. Why wasn't I was notified of this? - DVdm (talk)

    @Baseball Bugs:, FYI, per the banner message on top of Talk:Nikola Tesla, discussions about Tesla's ethnicity belong on the subtalkpage Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. That subtalkpage was recently semi-protected by HighInBC to prevent this (indef blocked, and therefore block-evading) person to continue disrupting it. You can check the history, the archives, the collapsed sections, and the section Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#IP editor. That is why I repeatedly removed the rant from Talk:Nikola Tesla, and requested semi-protection, which was somewhat surprisingly declined by user CambridgeBayWeather. Perhaps I should have given a longer explanation at the RPP. Sorry about that. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DARYLMATMAT

    Blocked by Ponyo. Omni Flames let's talk about it 01:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DARYLMATMAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps creating articles on non-notable figures and seems to be only interested in creating pages about some book/whatever called "Another Story". Can something be done about them? Feinoha Talk 23:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I already blocked them.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow you are sure fast. Anyway it looks like everything's been resolved then. Feinoha Talk 23:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fomenka

    A very persistent IP-hopping user page vandal/troll has either compromised the named account User:Fomenka, or slipped up and used their own account.

    Background: A series of IPs (virtually all geolocating to the same Canadian city) have been edit warring since late February to incorrectly state that the Canadian Cadbury Caramilk a chocolate bar rather than a candy bar. Under Canadian Food Inspection Agency labelling requirements [108] only solid chocolate bars may be labelled as "chocolate" bars. The Cadbury Caramilk is not a solid chocolate bar and thus its wrapper calls it a candy bar.

    IPs making the edits that have led to the current long-term semi-protection of the article:

    Three of these IPs have also trolled or vandalized the user talk pages of editors who have undone the Cadbury edits, User:Canterbury Tail (by 142.233.200.21 and 142.233.200.24) [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] and User:Meters (by 184.69.46.158, 142.233.200.24, and 142.233.200.21 [118]] [119]] [120] [121][122] [123] [124]) The article was protected on April 18, and the user page trolling on my page started the same day. When I had my user talk page protected the IPs switched to daily trolling of my unprotected talk page (by 184.69.46.158, 206.45.41.10, 216.55.216.237, and new IPs 24.114.41.69, 209.171.88.64, 184.68.82.250, 192.219.0.74, 24.114.22.58, and 216.55.216.254 [on 2nd block] ) with [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139]

    Fomenka made an edit to my protected talk page [140] with an edit summary almost identical to two previous IP edits [141] [142] and then immediately undid the edit with an identical time stamp [143]. Six minutes later Fomenka posted to his talk page stating "//?? vandalism from my account? Will figure out then return" [144], but later seemingly contradicted this in later posts [145] and [146] by claiming that he or she was editing Wikipedia from work and left the account logged in, caught someone vandalizing my account and reverted it. Sure, it's possible, but I find it implausible considering that Fomenka averages about 12 edits a year (a double digit total in six years) and no edits at all for the four days prior to the attack on my page. It simply does not sound like an account that was likely to have been left open. It's also rather interesting that after more than 3 weeks of daily harassment the IPs have disappeared from my page since Fomenka's edit. I think this account is behind the IPs' edits, and that it should be blocked for block evasion (216.55.216.254 is the most recent active block) and harassment. Meters (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I indefblocked the account since at the very least it is compromized, otherwise it is a block evasion (one of the IPs was blocked, and the block still did not expire).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=720197847"