Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

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.([1], [2],[3],[4] [5][6][7][8]) 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, [9],[10] 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)

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.[11][12] The problem was Esc reverted many edits I made without even looking at them, he even restored vandalism that I reverted.[13]

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)

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)

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)

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 [14][15] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[16] 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)

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 [17] and advised him [18] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What, exactly, do you claim is being "whitewashed"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This [19] 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)

"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)

"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)

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)

User:Tiptoethrutheminefield yes it does. Darwinian Ape ^talk 19:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes, looking at it again I think you are right. Because "user" has been added in front of each editor's name, the intent was to communicate to them the invitation. It is not something that would be accidentally typed with an ignorance of its effect. I've no opinion on whether it was an inappropriate invitation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at linguistics articles

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

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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. Katie^talk 09:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

I have indeed emphasized that exact point at several points throughout the semester, Uanfala.Chuck Haberl (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi Only in death does duty end. There are no high horses here, only facts. This course syllabus, including the exercise, has been evaluated first by my department's Curriculum Committee (consisting of my peer educators in the department), the school-wide Curriculum Committee (which consists of educators specifically elected to that body by the faculty at large), the school-wide Core Curriculum Committee (which consists of educators appointed specifically for that purpose by the Executive Dean of the school), developers at the Office of Instructional and Research Technology (since it has an online section), and finally by popular vote of the faculty at large in our meeting at the end of each semester. This assignment and the course itself had to jump through all these hoops (five by my count) before it could run for the first time, and it has been running for three years now with remarkably few incidents like this. I think I'll trust the professional opinions of all these educators about what is and what is not a worthwhile use of a student's time over that of some random person on the internet.

Now, you tell me, which is more arrogant? A professional educator who has been teaching for over a decade, explaining what he does for a living, or someone who apparently doesn't understand even the basics of how higher education works but nonetheless feels entitled enough to lecture professionals about it? You should really stick to lecturing people about editing Wikipedia, at least you've demonstrated some level of proficiency at that, as opposed to anything else. Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to add the good folks at the Wiki Education Foundation, which exists solely to facilitate incorporating Wikipedia into classroom exercises such as mine, and with whom I've been working over the past few months. Apparently there are a few things about Wikipedia that even I can teach you! Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Chuck Haberl, the student who worked on Sholaga language must have had access to JSTOR. Perhaps you can point them to http://www.jstor.org/stable/603185, which looks (relatively speaking) like a goldmine. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Actually after seeing this interaction On Chuck's talkpage I think there are bigger problems. 15zulu left a politely worded notification regarding Chuck's students and was met with sarcasm and abuse. Problems appear to be deeper than merely competence on the part of the editors, when the instructor evidences such disdain for Wikipedia's rules and community. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So much for "needing to assume good faith" ... Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

Very well, I can see I'm not going to "win" here, and indeed there's nothing to "win" here, so I'll leave you to it. I'm not quite sure how vandals come into the equation, though. Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's called a comparison Chuck. When you try to argue AGF, first look at how you've responded to me. AGF doesn't require me to believe your qualified apology – perhaps if you left it just at an apology, but you qualified it to say that 'I still believe zulu was at fault'. I find it amusing that you now claim that your students "inadvertently" plagiarized because they didn't know better than to copy/paste but attacked me over it. Regardless, I'm happy your course is over. I'd suggest that next time you have your students edit Wikipedia, that you remind than that "inadvertent" plagiarism isn't allowed on Wikipedia, but given that last time you didn't assume good faith and found such a suggestion as hostile, I'm refraining from making it. My apologizes for my past "hostile" remarks. Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, 15zulu. To clarify, though, what rankled me so much was your presumption that educators such as myself (or perhaps just me in particular for some reason) don't educate our students about plagiarism. By the time they've come to me, they've already had 12+ years of education, at which point you'd think this topic might have been covered once or twice. I know you think you have a "gotcha" moment here, or so you're presenting it, but in the link you've cited I was merely defending myself against a rather obvious personal attack on my professional qualifications, which (for some reason) I find myself forced to do again and again here, as your own link demonstrates up-thread. I'm not asking you to understand why I was so sarcastic towards you, but perhaps having read the exchange above, you'll have a deeper appreciation of what it's like to be an educator in America and have your credentials and professional abilities continually assessed and challenged on a regular basis, which is not really the case for any other occupation here. Nobody watches a bunch of Hong Kong action films and decides that they can throw down with a black belt in kung fu, but there's a widespread attitude here and elsewhere that, just because you've taken a few classes or read a few books, you are automatically an expert on the subject and furthermore can teach as well as the next person, and therefore you need no special experience or qualifications to be an educator or criticize educators. Some politicians, including my own governor, have built their careers on this premise. So, if I've been a little trigger happy here, I'm not asking you to excuse me, but perhaps give a thought or two to where I and other educators are coming from.

Likewise, as I stated quite clearly in the passage you linked, just because a student has plagiarized doesn't mean we should automatically assume a conscious deception on their part, merely laziness. That doesn't make it any less wrong, but no investigation of a breach of academic integrity is complete without an understanding of the circumstances surrounding it. That's how we identify what we call "teachable moments." The learning process would be impossible if our responses to such situations weren't tailored to their circumstances. I hope that's clear.

Wikipedia has its own growing role in academic integrity violations. A few years back, a student once printed out and submitted an entire Wikipedia article, complete with blue hyperlinks, as his own work. Part of what I'm trying to accomplish with this course is acknowledging the role that Wikipedia is already playing in informing my students and their work, and trying to get ahead of it. Chuck Haberl (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Haberl's undeclared account appears to be User:Leo Caesius, considering the reasons given here. BMK (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 [20] -- would certainly be a welcome change. BMK (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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, [21] 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". [22] 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 [23]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Very well, BMK, I've gone and taken your advice, and there is no further reason for you to waste your time filling out an SPI Report out on me. <redacted> 17:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As you say, then, no need for an SPI. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  • Thanks for the congrats. I've been trying to get away from teaching and admin work so I can finally write, which is why most people get into higher ed, but which becomes a distant memory after the first few semesters of work. This prize finally gives me the first opportunity to get off campus and get some research done in a very long time, at least since I was last in Yemen in 2012.

I'm trying to appreciate things from the perspective of the long-term editors here, but I really can't subscribe to the notion that "the students" as a whole were disruptive. At most one or two students (out of a pool of 120, although to be fair a few had failed out before the end of the semester and opted not to participate in this exercise) raised a few red flags by re-reverting their work. I had announced, on several occasions, that I was able to see the entire edit history of their pages, but apparently that bit of information didn't "take" with those few and they panicked, assuming that they would automatically fail the exercise because someone else had swooped in and reverted their work. As I've tried to explain above, this happened with at most a tiny minority of the students, and quite a lot of the work that the others did was rather good, but a bunch of editors here seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I and the Wiki Education Foundation have trained and released a pack of angry vandals on Wikipedia with express instructions to trash the place. Chuck Haberl (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't believe anyone was claiming that all your students were disruptive, just some of them, but you are are, obviously, responsible for supervising them as well as the non-disruptive ones. BMK (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Chuck, with "the students" I meant the ones discussed here in this thread. I don't know the others since I never saw a list of them--your having such a list helps other editors figure out what's going on (I hate using that Trumpian phrase, but it applies here). If two are a bit disruptive out of a group of 120, then your numbers are pretty damn good. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• • I think the point the good professor is missing is this: No one held a gun to his head and said you must use a Wikipedia education program in your classes. As a professor, no matter how little you like it, you are PAID to teach. Everyone at Wikipedia is a volunteer. Why does it surprise you that it grinds our gears for you to get snarky because you are not doing what you are getting PAID to do and it is wasting our time that we give up for free? John from Idegon (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I must be missing something, because I'm really not sure what your point is, John from Idegon. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and telling any of you that you have to "supervise" my students for me or volunteer your time here. I frankly couldn't have been happier if some editors had just stepped back and let me handle the students on my own, but unfortunately they intervened rather rapidly, sometimes within minutes of students submitting their edits. Evidently you all must get something out of this or you wouldn't be volunteering your time here or responding with such vigor and speed. I also don't see where you came by this strange idea that I'm not doing my job, but then again I think we've already established that some of you have some pretty weird ideas about higher education. That's pretty much why I'm "snarky," as you put it, not that snarkiness is a rare and foreign quality here. Chuck Haberl (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
      • BMK, I don't believe I ever claimed I wasn't responsible for supervising any of my students, and where it would have been more accurate to say that one or two students behaved in a manner perceived by some editors to be disruptive, that's really not how this discussion has unfolded. Chuck Haberl (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Chuck, let me make a suggestion, for next time. On your talk page, or even on a subpage with a link from your talk page, set up a list with the account names of your students. You can have them sign in, or just sign their names, and then you have a record as well. And/or post a "welcome" template on all their talk pages--in that case your contribution history is a kind of records of the students you are supervising. I mean, I suppose you are supervising them on-wiki, one way or another, if they're doing this for a grade. Then if someone has a problem with one of their edits, they can figure out that this is one of your students, come to you. and talk it out directly. On-wiki transparency is a good thing, not only because this is a collaborative environment, but also because it makes it a lot easier to help your students. Everyone will be happier as a result. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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.

• Rojava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 3 reverts in less than 24 hours [24] [25] [26]
• Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 4 reverts in less than 24 hours [27] [28] [29] [30]

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: [31] *[32] [33]--80.254.69.43 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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, [34], [35], [36], [37] 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)

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: [38], [39].Ferakp (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

This edit clearly shows the purpose and racist agenda of this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain whic part of my message was a racist? Ferakp (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

• Tell Rifaat (The source didn't say anything about a displacement of its population, in conclusion what he wrote there is partially is a lie)
• Al-Manajir (Removing without reason)
• Al-Shaddadah (Removing sourced edit without reason)
• Tell Abyad (POV-pushing)
• Kurd Mountains (Removing without reason)
• Azaz District
• Upper Mesopotamia

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)

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)

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)

@عمرو بن كلثوم::First of all, I'd be really interested, where I took part in an edit-war in your eyes and where I "annex a new part of Syria to the so-called Syrian Kurdistan" every day.

What I'm proving here is for example that you claim that the Kurds displaced all Arabs from Tell Rifaat with a source that doesn't even nearly mention such a thing. You can't argue seriously that any kurdish news agency (like Rudaw or ANF) is unreliable only because they are Kurdish. Of course, Azaz is not part of the Rojava administration. But in Germany, to take another example, the Sorbs also don't have any federal state (even if Germany is a federal Republic) or any other administration and still the towns where they live have German as well as Sorbian names: Cottbus is also called Chóśebuz, Bautzen Budyšin, Weißwasser Běła Woda and so on, even if Sorbs only make up 7-12% of the population there.

Also your view that Rojava doesn't even exist is somehow ridiculous. And I can talk here only about the German press, but the name 'Rojava' is used by almost every newspaper or -agency, when they it writes about events in this area.--Ermanarich (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

@Attar-Aram syria: How am I annoying? I have seen your edits. You usually see that some edits are clearly blackwashing the article but you skip them intentionally. Last time, I showed you some sources and neutralized sections and I explained my changes. You still wanted to keep the "Kurds" and "Turks" in the genocide section and removed all parts which mentioned Arabs and other ethnic groups. You couldn't explain your changes, as reliable sources clearly proved that Arabs and other ethnic groups have been also a part of the genocide, so there were no reasons to remove Arabs and other ethnic groups from the section. About white washing, just show me one single edit which could be classified as whitewashing. I always use the talk page and explain my edits. Sometimes, I make mistakes, but I admit and fix them. I also apologize. In this case, the user who reported me has involved in POV pushing and violated WP:FAKE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:ORIGINAL dozens of times. I always try to reach consensus. Ferakp (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

ADMINS, PLEASE do something here about user Ferakp. Look at this revert that goes against the consensus on the Talk page including user Ermanrich. This has been going on for over a week now, and I have been restraining for edit-warruing with this user. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@عمرو بن كلثوم: I have explained why I reverted it. You can read it here, [40]. A consensus was reached (me and Ermanrich). Ferakp (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add one thing here. You and Ermanrich should be very careful, at least 4 of your edits violated WP:FAKE and WP:ORIGINAL. Also, you should learn more what is a reliable source and not, WP:RELIABLE.Ferakp (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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 ([41]).

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)

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Site Ban

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

---

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)

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)

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)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support: Not sure about it but that's overkill. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Causes frustration and waste. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC).
• Comment - While I have not made up my mind quite yet, remarks such as these are not reassuring in the least. GAB^Hello! 00:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I've blocked the user for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support long term WP:NOTHERE behavior. It is important to go through with this for future incidents. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This editor's battleground behavior and disruption outweighs any positive contribution he has made to the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - this editor has, through various sockpuppets, been engaging in a variety of disruptive behaviours going back years. I've run into them several times e.g. at Lorenzo Iorio and its deletion discussions, a brand new sockpuppet asked me to intervene in a dispute at LARES (the talk page of that article is instructive) etc. This is a consistent pattern of behaviour and a refusal to abide by the rules and community standards. He's treating Wikipedia as a battleground and clearly violating WP:COI, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Expert or not, Wikipedia does not benefit by allowing him to edit the encyclopaedia. Iorio would be better advised to present his scientific work in the peer-reviewed literature, and leave encyclopaedia coverage of these topics to others. Modest Genius ^talk 15:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Modest Genius: SPI is where you make claims of sock puppetry, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I'm no expert on these procedures but do note the sockpuppet thread linked above. This is clearly the same person IMO. Modest Genius ^talk 16:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what thread you're referring to, but after the rather egregious block evasion, perhaps your comment could be considered prescient.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• This one: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gravitom/Archive. Modest Genius ^talk 10:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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

• 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)

(Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph. D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

(Personal attack removed) 79.33.195.26 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support obviously, after the above rant, and expressive language which I normally am not bothered by, but on a noticeboard? Really? Arrogant sod is WP:NOTHERE -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Dr. Lorenzo Iorio, Ph.D. 79.33.195.26 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• (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. Jbh^Talk 20:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

His own website indicates that he is currently a school teacher, not an university academic. Modest Genius ^talk 10:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support - Pile on support. This should be snow-closed with a site ban. BMK (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support, it's a shame to do this to someone with such specialised knowledge who really ought to be an asset to the project. However, edits like this and this are poisonous and toxic, and do an incredible amount of damage to the spirit of collaboration that we try to foster here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC).

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

• @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)

• 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)

Nil Einne has said several times in this and the previous thread 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 no relation whatsoever 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)

@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)

Collapsed to avoid distracting from the thread Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

@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))

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)

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)

• You forgot the allegations of stalking, which imho from a brief perusal of their editing history, appear to be the reverse of the situation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) 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)

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 to above Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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) @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) @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 think 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)

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)

• I was pinged by Hijiri88, who said I could back him or her up on certain things. In fact, I cannot back them up on their editing history, as I am not familiar enough with it to state with any certainty whether they were editing years before some disagreement I am also not familiar with started. However, their editing history should make that apparent, if it is true. With respect to the claim John Carter made about Ehrman being involved in the translation of the Gospel of Judas: Yes, I can back Hijiri88 up on that. Carter commented that "If I remember correctly, there is and has been reasonable somewhat widespread criticism of his work on the early version of the Gospel of Judas translation..." Not only is this factually inaccurate on the surface, it makes factually inaccurate assumptions about Ehrman's participation in the project. In that context, it is an extremely bizarre thing for someone who should be at least passingly familiar with the subject of New Testament history to say.

Also, I read the first link John Carter provided, and while I think Hijiri88 might have shown poor judgement in responding in the first place, what came out was a legitimate concern, to which Carter responded by failing to assume good faith and casting serious aspersions on Hijiri88. The implication of stalking there, in fact, more closely resembles Carter's behavior at the FTN thread Hijiri88, John Carter and I participated in.

There may be more there that I am unaware of, but what I've seen so far causes me to lean towards taking a closer look at why this notice was filed. I'm not advocating for any outcome, mind, just airing my 2 cents. Also, please don't ping me any more unless there are specific questions to ask me. My general thoughts on this have all be aired above, and I really don't want to do the editing history and block log research necessary to come to a more considered, informed opinion on this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Correction Hijiri88 reminded me (for the second time) that we had interacted about two years ago in respect to some rather academic issues regarding biblical history. Therefore, I can vouch for this editor having been participating in such work for that period of time. It's also worth noting that I would tentatively vouch for Hijiri88's competence to work in this area: most of us make mistakes and have some false beliefs, including myself, but I've yet to see this editor say anything which I could find to be factually wrong. I cannot speak for any civility issues beyond what I've said above, though I believe I made myself clear, there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Responding since I was pinged and John Carter really needs to drop the stick already. As in every interaction between them, John Carter stalks, character-bashes, casts aspersions, wikilawyers a way to get someone blocked, and/or lies about the reality of the situation. Oh and that "I'm gonna complain about something not happening and then scold you for not making it happen" thing he's pulled before. He's always talking about these reference projects he's cooking up, so maybe he should go work on those instead of getting into fights with Hijiri. Or an IBAN could be placed, since both would agree to it; that works too. I'd still be amicable to an IBAN between myself and John Carter. Anyway, that's my 2¢. If John Carter tries to deny anything I said, I'll be happy to bury him in diffs (or maybe Hijiri will beat me to it). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• your edit summary 'the map is almost entirely a copy-paste of the Mahmud Abbas webpage under "Palestinian position on current issues"' is referring to the maps in this page available via the "Political Position" link in president.ps/eng
• you are claiming the maps in the template Template:Palestinian_territory_development are "almost entirely a copy-paste" of the maps in this page

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)

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)

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)

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 [42] are not copyright violations. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Zero^talk 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

You mean like your actions at the Israel Palestine conflict page?19:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs)

Remember, you brought me to ANI, not Oncenawhile. I asked you some simple and straightforward questions above (starting with 'Greyshark, did you'). Answering those questions would clarify matters. It's important to establish why you applied the copyvio template when there doesn't appear to be any evidence of a copyright violation. You can provide a simple and straightforward answer to that question and then admins (and editors who may need to interact with you in ARBPIA) can decide whether you followed due process, whether you made a mistake or whether you employed deception. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Id very much like to see even a token attempt at answering those questions as well Greyshark09. nableezy - 22:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sure, you just removed from the article everything I added, on two occasions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Polit.ru is reliable and pretty much anti-Kremlin.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Speaking about this page, Lute88 reverted your edit per WP:BRD [43]. 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" [44], so this is something reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sure, I remember this.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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. [45] [46] [47] The results are often disturbing especially in relation to antisemitism (changing "yes" to "not" in citations, which actually defines vandalism). [48] Poeticbent talk 15:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I took part in discussion you linked to [49] 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)

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)

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)

I can see only two recent reverts by Lute88 on each of these pages [50],[51], 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)

While there may be some issues, stuff presented here does not seem particularly excessive to warrant serious sanctions.--Staberinde (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If the admins would look into the page history, then it would reveal that this page is effectively WP:OWNed by a gang of disruptive editors such as Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs) [52], Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) etc., sometimes supported by their associates such as this Lute88 or My Very Best Wishes [53], who will always erase absolutely everything they Don't Like and will add everything they for some reason do like. So the problem is wider than only Lute88. Dorpater (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Dorpater, you jump into a discussion which doesn't appear to concern you, just to throw around some gratuitous personal attacks around at other users. Which is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Should you get WP:BOOMERANGed now or do you think a separate section should be opened up just for you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, Dorpater, if you actually looked at the edit history of the article in question [54] you'd notice that I haven't made an edit to that article in... FOUR YEARS. Which sort of begs the question... why are you dragging me into this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh man, I just looked through your editing history Dorpater to try and remind myself who exactly you were. So... do I need to file an SPI? Or how about you just drop this account and move on to your next one like you've been doing with all the other ones and save us both a bunch of time. [55] [56], etc. Ok "Lokal"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Baseless allegations of multiple account use are seen as personal assaults so instead of "threatening" me with "boomerang" or launching this or that it may well be that I'd need to start an AE request concerning your behaviour. The outcome of which would most probably be a topic ban from the whole EE area for you. Decide yourself. Dorpater (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You said that I was part of a "gang" that controls this article, despite the fact that I haven't edited the article in four years! *That* is a "baseless personal attack".

And your - brand new - edit history - does show the exact same interests (European political parties, anti-Muslim stuff, Ukraine and Eastern Europe) as a certain indef banned user. I'll be happy to file an SPI. You can go to WP:AE if you want to, your business.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to file such a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, here it's off-topic (and I'm curious about "anti-Muslim stuff" I supposedly promote here ;)). I mentioned you because your editing those years ago is fully in line with the current custom there whereby an article supposedly devoted to a dispute has been kept so partisan that one major view is not even mentioned there.Dorpater (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"I mentioned you because your editing those years ago is fully in line ..." - in other words your personal attack that I was supposedly part of some gang despite not having edited the article in four years was completely baseless and now you're just making excuses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Dorpater, I'm afraid you've let your POV slip. Not only did you restore content from someone who is neither an expert in the field, nor relevant to the article (other than being well known in the West: which isn't a qualification for inclusion, but does qualify as POV pushing), you also upped the ante by tweaking the restored content here so that it read as being not only redundant, but as blatantly WP:WEASEL and an exercise in heavily loaded language using your own direct translation from the Russian.

At the heart of your accusations is an article specifically dealing with the positions of experts who do or don't believe Holodomor to be genocidal in nature, how they have formulated their opinions, and why they maintain their positions on the issue. Your action was to reinstate WP:UNDUE content with an extra dash of hysteria (i.e., "provocatory shriek [...] by Ukrainian chauvinists"). Not only does it read as unadulterated propaganda straight out of a yellow press blog, but was/is grammatically awkward. Oh, what am I saying? It's abysmal (but great copy for the likes of Izvestia and other yellow press).

So, before you go on with asking admins and other editors to delve into what you are decrying as being implicitly 'cabal' and OWN activity, I would ask that they take a little look at behaviour of the accuser and the calibre of 'neutrality' this 'cabal' is suppressing. What, in fact, is being rejected is the highly POV content of a highly POV editor working as an SPA. The questioning and quashing of such content is not conspiratorial but the expression and manifestation of good editorship skills on behalf of the intervening editors. N.B. I fully support VM's proposed BOOMERANG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz posting personal attacks in edit summaries

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

---

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)

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)

• "rv idiocy"
• "it's evident that the nom is either utterly irresponsible or competency-challenged"
• "per WP:COMPETENCE" (implying that the editor is incompetent)
• "per WP:COMPETENCE" (again)

Since then the abusive summaries have continued:

• "absolute blithering incompetence"
• "idiocy"
• "wretchedly stupid"
• "phony and dishonest deletion tagging"

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)

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)

• 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)
• Support as proposer, in case it wasn't obvious. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support and support block. This is unacceptable. --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support and I think further comments like that towards anyone will be actionable under our NPA policy. HighInBC 22:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Civility must be maintained. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC).
• 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. Cassianto^Talk 23:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - No one gets a free pass from maintaining proper civility, and this is obviously not a one-time incident. GAB^Hello! 23:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• 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 ..... –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Was also personal attacked by editor.Clubjustin (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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".[57] Porn publicist Rebecca1990 has quite often called me "dishonest".[58] 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.[59] (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)

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)

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)

• 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)~

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

• Oppose Not even close to being actionable. Competence is required and from looking at a few of those nominations, it certainly wasnt demonstrated by the nominator. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support and support block as per WP:NPA. Experienced editors know that being subjected to (self-perceived) personal attacks cannot justify tit-for-tat attacks (as neither can the /quality of work under scrutiny either). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 07:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• My argument is not that "tit-for-tat" attacks are justified. My point is that the comments complained of by the OP are far less "uncivil" than comments that have been routinely tolerated for years. It should also be evident that virtually all of the comments complained of criticize the quality of the edits involved, not the editor, in keeping with what have been broadly accepted guidelines. Bad editing is bad editing, and calling it that is a necessity. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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. —swpb^T 12:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose Ha Ha, your joking right?...but then again maybe the lunatics have taken over the asylum...so Support Bosley John Bosley (talk)

• It sort of seems like you are the one not taking this seriously. As it stands I can't draw anything meaningful from your comment. HighInBC 15:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I think it was related to this comment. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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"" [60]
• "phony and dishonest deletion tagging" [61]
• "inept, abusive, and damaging to the encyclopedia" while removing a CSD tag on Neelix redirect [62]
• "incoherent, invalid, destructive" reverting a CSD of Neelix redirect [63]
• "brain-dead hasty tag-bombing" [64]

Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

• Oppose, from what I've seen of Simon Trew's "rationales" blithering idiocy is an incredibly kind and gentle way of describing his behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

• Support for banned from interacting with SimonTrew and me and also Support for blocking for editing. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is clear and in case of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is recidivism. Recently, I was also a victim of his attacks (for example, "reply to troll", "You're a dishonest troll"), other users also (for example, "still crazy after all these years", "trolling porn publicist". Official request for not personal attacking has been reverted by Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz [65] with edit summary "go away". This is recidivism, multiple repeated personal attacks on different users, no improvement in behavior, we should consider - block the account for some time. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 16:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• comment leaning on support because even if they are stupid, calling them stupid does not help at all (I know, I have called a few stupid people stupid, and have been called too, how knows if rightfully at that time... It never helped no one). If you can nor argue better than that, you do not belong in a ENCYCLOPAEDIA. Most of all I note that the main fault here is not of either of the two, but a community fault that lets a single editor (Neelix) long lasting misbehaviour cause such a long long clean-up process. (I gave up looking at redirects for discussion) - Nabla (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

I empathize with your plight. It's frustrating trying to reach a reasonably good faith editor but for some reason or other they do not respond. I agree that a short-term block may help in this case. For the record, do you think you can provide us some example diffs of them at their worst? -- œ^™ 12:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The IP's edits mostly fall into the following areas, with examples:

• Holiday categories, especially Category:Holiday foods and its children
  • Chocolate-coated marshmallow treats, as reverted by Trivialist
  • You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch, as reverted by me
  • Steak, as reverted by Andy M. Wang
  • Category:Irish cuisine, as reverted by DexDor
• Genre by franchise categories, added to pages and categories about genres or individual works (these categories are meant to be places only on pages about franchises)
  • Metropolis (1927 film), as undone by Betty Logan
  • Category:Steampunk, as reverted by me
  • Silent Running, as reverted for different reasons by MarnetteD
  • The Black Hole, as reverted by Scjessey and yet again by FilmandTVFan28
  • Category:Retrofuturism, as reverted by Fixuture
• Categories concerning the supernatural – I've mostly left these alone
  • Diff of Fiddler's Green, still on page
  • Diff of Category:Wind creatures, still on page
• Fantasy and science fiction genre categories – sometimes ok, sometimes not
  • Hellraiser as reverted by Apokryltaros
  • Category:Animated horror films, as reverted by me
• War categories, especially subcategories of Category:Military equipment by war, or else members of Category:Wars used in the same way – I haven't touched these, as it's not my area of expertise and no one else has reverted any of them
  • Diff of Pickelhaube, still on page
  • Diff of M1879 Reichsrevolver, still on page
  • Cuirassier, as reverted by Urselius and a week later by Buistr
  • Dragoon, as reverted by Gaarmyvet and by me today
• Pirate categories, particularly Category:Pirates (a category for people, which the user confuses with Category:Piracy
  • Category:Pirate ships, as reverted by DexDor
• Adding categories of articles to their eponymous categories, an issue I'll admit is confusing even for experienced editors
  • Diff of Category:A Tale of Two Cities, still on page
  • Diff of Category:The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, still on page
  • Category:Dracula, as reverted by DexDor and again by me
• Lastly, and this is not a categorization issue, the IP occasionally engages in gross overlinking
  • Diff of The Producers (1968 film), as reverted by Everyking

There are also a number of literature-, history- and fashion-related edits, that don't appear to be problematic. But given the effort it's taking to follow this IP, I'm not sure the good edits are worth it. Ibadibam (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ibadibam: It looks like they're back to the war categories which isn't my area of expertise either, but the large number of different articles they're editing are sure to catch the attention of some at the Military history Wikiproject where we can get some more eyes on this. I've left them a (yet another, I know) warning message, we should assume they are reading them and just choosing to be non-communicative. If they appear to be heeding the advice and improving at categorization then I myself can't justify a block just yet, but have no problem if another admin chooses to. The minor issue of not using edit summaries remains but I don't consider that block-worthy. We have the above diffs on record so for now let's just wait and see what else happens. -- œ^™ 08:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Adding war categories to weapon articles. Ibadibam (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

• [66] many page creations
• 88 mainspace pages - 28 deleted so far [67] Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

He's creating stub articles - nothing wrong with that, they're in Draft Space not article space. KoshVorlon 11:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone is trying to name me.

The same person who forced me to use my IP to edit rather than my Username because he was telling everyone I am someone from the UK is trying to name me here. Are there no policies about not trying to dig private information up about Editors here? I am not a public figure, I am a private individual and I am entirely unknown to User:Неполканов and his meatpuppets who have an obsessive compulsive fixation on trying to identify who I am and getting me to reveal private information about myself by irritating me to pieces calling me names of different people. The only piece of info I volunteer about myself (because I wish to assert that I am not someone that my harassers once said I am) is that I am an Israeli. Everything else is my own business and I do not want anyone to try naming me here on Wikipedia. please do something about it. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

More edits from the User's meatpuppets trying to guess who I am. [68] [69] It is very obvious who is using that IP if you look at the history of my talk page [70] This sort of personal Harassment should not be allowed. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you self-identify as User:YuHuw (see [71]), why do you edit as an anonymous IP editor? Also, why do you feel the need to make abusive comments about other editors? For example in your post of 11:31, 14 May 2016:

• You described one editor (currently blocked) as "a rather repulsive person from the UK".[72]
• You describe other editors as "a team of meatpuppet sycophants hovering around him rather like the way flies hang around a dung-heap".[73]

Suggest block as WP:NOT HERE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Clpo13 please. Toddy1 is some kind of User:Неполканов puppet. I notified User:Неполканов but Toddy1 responds. This is his typical behavior pattern. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) This harassment has been going on for 5 months now already. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC) User:Неполканов himself is the one who led me to believe that the UK editor was repulsive in the first place by saying he is a pedophile. Then they called me that person. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Toddy1's responses here (and his anon IP edits on my talk page) are a perfect example of how he buzzes around people who have issues with User:Неполканов, almost like he is a paid bodyguard or something. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't he called Vaz as well? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

<personal attack redacted> 94.119.64.42 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging User:Bbb23 and User:Someguy1221, as this appears to be a continuation of an SPI that failed to result in a block for YuHuw some months back. If the IP claims Toddy1 and Неполканов are still making accusations of sockpuppetry against him/her months after their TL;RD sockpuppet imvestigation didn't go the way they wanted, then this needs to be looked into. Note that I'm not endorsing YuHuw's side in the various edit wars these users have engaged each other in. The only user I have seen in looking through it who in my experience generally behaves in a reasonable manner is User:Ian.thomson, and he agreed with Toddy1 on the content (although I have only briefly examined the dispute at Karaite). Whoever is right on the content, edit-warring is never good, placing the blame for edit wars solely on the side one disagrees with for the sole reason that one disagrees with them is even worse than edit-warring, engaging in a vindictive war of attrition against someone who embarrassed you months ago by not being the sockpuppet you wanted them to be is worse still, and trying to dox users one disagrees with is the worst of all. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vadcat/Archive. As you can see above, YuHuw is still accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being puppets.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

So both sides have been throwing bad sockpuppet allegations at each other for months -- so what? In this thread the OP doesn't appear to have accused you of being a sockpuppet, but rather a meatpuppet/"paid bodyguard". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If people are accusing other me of making sock puppet allegations after the closing the of the SPI in late March 2016, they should provide diffs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You said, without evidence, that you were accused of sockpuppetry in this thread. You appear to be also attempting to link the OP to one or more named accounts, and defending several rev-del-ed doxxing attempts. I'm not calling anyone here a sockpuppet, so the burden of proof is not on me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the burden is on both of the IPs who have, for the past several months failed to prove that anyone was a sockpuppet of anyone. Since this is the case, I would suggest that if none of them can drop the stick, they should be blocked for harassment. As it stands however, 94.119.64.0/24 has an oversight block. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI: 87.69.184.128 no one is making you edit under an IP. You should not be forced to reveal this information. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 18:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If I do not edit using my IP they will call me a sock of that UK based editor which they do one way or another almost every single time I tried to edit any article since January. I am not accusing anyone here of being a sockpuppet I am not even calling for anyone to be blocked. I am simply asking that the edits of the editor I named whenever he tries to post a name which he hopes might identify me that those posts be redacted please. In fact I would appreciate the same being done to any editor who has tried/will try to do something similar. Wikipedia should be about content not about facing personal attacks. But some editors don't seem to have a clue on how to respond to content challenges except to harass those who challenge them. I have been harassed for far too long. Indeed I have lost my temper on a couple of occaisions over the months but I have always tried to make amends afterwards. But the constand hounding and attempts to identify who I am in real life are more than anyone should be expected to endure. I think I deserve at least one administrator to take my side and give me the benefit of the doubt once. Best regards. 87.69.184.128 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You were cleared by the sock-puppet investigation. So drop the stick.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It was more 'Not Proven.' _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 04:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit war on Jonathan Mann page escalated to personal attacks

IP 129.67.16.1 (talk) added a notability tag to the Jonathan Mann page, and when I added additional information and removed the tag, they reverted me twice without any edit summary or discussion. They also removed my message on their talk page asking for discussion, and twice removed Jonathan Mann from a disambiguation page, again without any explanation or discussion. Now they have left a hateful message on my talk page, and reverted me again, without an edit summary or discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

He's been issued a one-month block. They can't indef IP's, but that one's pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Funcrunch's userpage could benefit from the eyes of a few helpful admins. This IP is now block-evading to target them with hateful comments. Thanks -Thibbs (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Funcrunch should request semi-protection of his user page and talk page, either here or at WP:RFPP. If attacks occur on the article talk page, that could be temporarily semi'd also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Watchlisted both the article and Funcrunch's user page. Agree that this is a case worthy of temporary protection. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A lengthy block of the latest IP should also be considered. The IP went dormant once the newer IP came along, and now the previous one has been resurrected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this while I was out, folks. (BTW I'm a "they," not a "he.") I figured the IP that added the notability tag this morning (PDT) might be a sock, but I had to go out and someone had already reverted, so I didn't report them. (And now I see that was actually a different IP from the one who later vandalized my page.) In any case, yes, if I can request semi-protection of my user and talk page here, I would like to do so. Funcrunch (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Another IP just re-added the notability tag and trolled my talk page, in rapid succession. Funcrunch (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Since my user page was just vandalized again and I haven't seen any formal response from an admin on this incident report, I've submitted a request for page protection. Funcrunch (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Kendrick7 editing archive of closed RfC

(Ping User:I JethroBT...)

User:Kendrick7 After unsuccessfully attempting to undo the result of an RfC[74][75] decided to edit the archive to remove the decision by the closing administrator.[76][77][78][79] He also re-introduced a typo.

I am assuming that this is just a good-faith attempt to fix something he thinks is wrong, so a warning and an explanation of when an archive can and cannot be altered should resolve this. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

All I did was restore what the archive said to begin with.[80] I believe such information is immutable once it is archived. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

[ Citation Needed ]. Free clue: when you assume that an experienced administrator does something that isn't allowed, you really need to cite the specific policy where you think it is forbidden. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if the WP:JANITORs are able to just re-write Wikipedia's history as if we were living in Nineteen Eighty-Four that would be news be me, @Guy Macon:. Our archives are a meaningful measure of where we are and where we've been. Otherwise, why do we bother with archives at all, if they can just be rewritten at any time? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you talk to the admin about it before you came here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I was called here. I would have liked to have had that convo before Guy made a thing of it, but the admin is on vacation.[81] He probably needed one, Bugs, and I can't fault the guy for that. He was clearly under a lot of pressure to do such a retroactive change. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for that link to a Wikipedia policy that says he wasn't allowed to do that. So far all I have seen is "because Kendrick7 doesn't like it". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

C'mon do we really need a policy that says that archives are archives, per WP:Commonsense? We simply can't allow admins to close things one way and then a month later change their minds about it, and then to rewrite history to say they were always about the other way in the first place. We mustn't say that is AOK, for obvious reasons. I'm sure that @I JethroBT: thought this made sense. It doesn't. I don't think he should lose the mop over it; it was just a dumb thing to do. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 Ahh, but the fact is that I JethroBT Did Not "rewrite history to say they were always about the other way in the first place". He went back and struck through the words, left a dated note,saying " see below" and left a link to the explanation of the change in his decision. Yes, he changed his mind and left a clear record, which you erased. You have removed the evidence of his actions to suit yourself. Going into archives and making changes to the history (his story) of someone's words and actions is so...unethical, that it doesn't need a written rule to state that it is wrong. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If an admin did it, the presumption should be that he has a good reason for doing it. If you think it was done in mistake, you should raise the incident here, not revert the admin. Anyway, no harm, no foul. Let's consider the issue raised, and await the admin's response. In the mean time, you should leave the archive alone. LK (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Kendrick7, common sense tells me that Wikipedia could have made the archives uneditable (as the history pages are) but chose to make them editable by anyone. I edit archives where needed (usually to fix a link that now goes to an archive, occasionally to add something like "Note added on (date): This was later resolved at (link)." As long as the added material is clearly signed and dated I see no problem and nobody has ever complained.

Despite your false accusation that JethroBT "re-wrote Wikipedia's history as if we were living in Nineteen Eighty-Four" and your snarky edit comment saying that he "did a dumb thing", he did a very smart thing that is not only allowed but encouraged by Wikipedia policy. He struck out (rather than deleting) the obsolete information and left a note (properly signed and dated) explaining where to find the current information.

Did you bother reading WP:COMMONSENSE before invoking it? It clearly says:

"When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons."

So again I ask, where is the policy that told you that archives are "immutable"? Where is the discussion where consensus on this was reached? So far all I have seen is "because Kendrick7 doesn't like it" stated three different ways. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it's an archive, and thus obviously not meant to be edited? No one likes a pedant. Jtrainor (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

...exactly as it says at Help:Archiving a talk page. DMacks (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not finding any language on that page that says anything about whether an archive can be edited other than a see also link to Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Would you be so kind as to quote the exact language on that page that you are referring to? --14:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

§Continuing discussions states "Given that archived discussions are immutable, archiving a discussion effectively ends that particular discussion." One can debate the "given"ness of that premise, but it's true technically in some archiving methods and others here have made the claim that it's philosophically true. Then "When reopening a discussion is desired, links to archived discussions can be provided in the new discussion thread." so clearly there is an avenue to continue an archived discussion, and it isn't simply circumventing whatever one thinks makes the archived item itself immutable. DMacks (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• The important thing is that the closing admin left an unmissable new thread on the main discussion page, where it would pop up on watchlists, explaining what he's doing. Kendrick7 is making a fuss over nothing. EEng 22:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and outing attempts by an IP editor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfeise#Who_is_Jfeise This is most likely the same person as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfeise#comments_on_Victoria_Switzerland jfeise (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In relation to WP:NLT threats in several sections of User talk:Jfeise, I indef'ed User:Msselnamaki and gave User:156.196.81.11 a 1-week block. Msselnamaki has a self-declared[82] COI for the article in question (Victoria University, Switzerland), adding extra credibility/directness to his threats, rathar than any chance of being read as a "be careful, someone might get upset" third-party warning. DMacks (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Likely the same person vandalizing my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/105.182.184.234 jfeise (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have switched from his broadband to his mobile. Blocked for one week a la that for User:156.196.81.11. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

An OS worked some magic on one of the edits as well (feel free to ask if others need deeper burial). Undoing NAC, as I need to update after that time and not sure the problem is actually solved yet. DMacks (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I also semi'ed Victoria University, Switzerland 1 week. This is not the first flare-up of IP disruption there. DMacks (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Another related IP edit on my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jfeise&diff=prev&oldid=720370029 jfeise (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked IP 156.196.138.6 for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiple NPA violations at WP:VPT

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

---

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

• 11 May. User Fram started a thread with the section heading: A polite version of "Fooled you again suckers, haha" from Jdforrester (WMF) to enwiki.[83]
• 13 May. User Qgil-WMF objected to the inclusion of the username Jdforrester in the heading, per the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks.[84]
• 13 May. I saw the objection, agreed with Qgil-WMF's assessment, and removed the username from the heading.[85] I failed to link to WP:TPO, which clearly supports this removal. I am otherwise uninvolved in this thread, and I am not interested in the issues being discussed there.
• 13 May. User Fram saw the removal and reverted it.[86] In my view, this constituted the first shot of an edit war, in violation of the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Edit warring, but that's neither here nor there. To avoid a continuance of the edit war:
• 13 May. I started a thread on the talk page to discuss the issue.[87]
• 13 May. On the project page, Fram responded to Qgil-WMF's comments with non-policy-based arguments. His edit summary was a curt and dismissive "No thanks", and the comments included further personal attack against Jdforrester: Jdforrester can start with retracting his lies and apologizing for them.[88]
• 13 May. On the talk page, some back-and-forth ensued between me and Fram. I elaborated a bit on the NPA basis, and Fram countered with non-policy arguments.
• 15 May. Forty-four hours after I started the thread on the talk page, there have been no comments, on either page, from anyone besides me, Qgil-WMF, and Fram. Apparently the readers of that page do not consider an NPA claim important enough to discuss.

Especially after the second PA, I believe a short block for Fram would be preventative. Clearly, he does not understand NPA, or doesn't care about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No response 44 hours after a thread started on a page with 3000 watchers should actually be really strong clue there's not a NPA requiring any action. NE Ent 11:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. There are other possible reasons for no response. When an NPA claim is lodged it should be addressed affirmatively, and your comment does not do that. In any case, to oppose an NPA claim by ignoring it is a vote, not a !vote. You might as well claim that an RfC should fail because the page's 200 watchers outnumbered the 20 Supports 10-to-1. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Based on the thread the title seems a fair, if snarky, summary of the issue. It is criticizing the actions of a particular individual and, again based on the contents of the thread, it looks like that named individual is going against several RfCs, consensus of several discussions and their own statements so while snarky it looks to be a fair characterization of how that person's behavior could be characterized. Jbh^Talk 12:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You failed to address Qgil-WMF's comments. And if accusing someone of lying is not a personal attack, I don't know what is. Have you read WP:NPA lately? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading further on in that thread it looks like this is moot because the thread seems to have reached a resolution and arguing NPA/not-NPA here at this point would be needless drama as the complaint is essentially stale.

As a general statement though I do not believe that calling someone out when their behavior is not congruant with their past statements and/or reality is a personal attack - not when there is evidence of such. I prefer to avoid "lie" myself but meh... Otherwise we end up with a community where no one can be held to their own past statements/promises or even to a common objective reality. If you want to discuss this principle in general, I would welcome you at my talk page. Jbh^Talk 12:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mandruss: I haven't read the thread at the Village Pump so I don't know what evidence there is in this case, but I seriously suggest you revisit WP:NPA, because accusing someone of lying, being a sockmaster/sock etc is a personal attack only if the editor making the accusation doesn't present evidence for it, or there's no evidence for it in the thread etc where the accusation is made, see WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." (my emphasis). Thomas.W ^talk 13:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Just addressed that point at Jbhunley's talk page. No idea why he suggested to split the discussion, but it's now split. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggested the split to avoid general statements about untruth/deception/lying being seen as statements about the particular editors in this case. Aslo, while I seriously doubt based on the age and inactivity of this complaint, that any admin action will be taken I did not want to clog up this thread or ANI with general musings. Jbh^Talk 13:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, the PA should be removed. And I strongly disagree with the interpretations of NPA presented here so far, I hope and believe that I'm far from the only editor who would, and at some point NPA needs clarification, at least as to whether an accusation of lying is ever warranted, regardless of any "evidence", absent the ability to read other editors' minds. For those who value their integrity, the accusation goes not only to their behavior but to their character and, as such, has no place at Wikipedia. Should I open an RfC at WP:VPP? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:Civility meme. Not to say Mandruss can't start an RFC if they want to, only that similar good faith efforts in the past have failed to come to fruition. NE Ent 03:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Mandruss's rather odd interpretation of No Personal Attacks. WP:NPA prohibits things such as Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets. WP:NPA explicitly allows critical discussion of behavior, so long as they are not baseless. Saying someone "lied" is clearly discussion of behavior. It is clearly not an unfounded accusation when there is either evidence that someone willfully made an untrue statement, or when there is evidence they willfully broke their word.

If someone turns all the text on Main Page to pink, says it was an accident, and says they'll fix it, fine it was an accident and they will fix it. If they later come back and say they have no intention of fixing it because their original intent had always been to turn the main page text pink, then it is reasonable to say "they lied". That is what happened here. JDForrester gave repeated assurances that he would not use the Single-Edit-Tab deployment to try to sneak out Visual Editor as default for all new users. Visual Editor was then deployed as default for all new users. He was non-responsive to pings, to repeated posts on his talk page, on Phabricator, to posting of the problem on the project tracking page, or anywhere else. I had to take this issue to the WMF Executive Director. THAT finally got a response that this was a bug, and that JDForrester had somehow missed every single notification (and an implication that he had failed to see it on ANY of the pages critical to his job-responsibilities). Fine.... a big heaping of AGF.... it was a bug and he repeatedly botched the notifications he got and he failed his job duties to follow phabricator and mission-critical pages on a new software deployment, when he knows that any new software deployment may required immediate attention to fix potentially site-breaking bugs. He gave assurances that he would get this taken care of. He then later came back and told us he didn't feel like fixing it, because his intention from the beginning had always been to impose Visual Editor as the default editor for all new users. The truckload of AGF exploded at that point. Even with all possible AGF, JDForrester gave assurances that this would be fixed then willfully went back on that word. You can debate how you'd prefer to describe that, but that is clearly "behavior" and diffs can be cited as evidence that he gave those assurances and that he willfully went back on his word. It is reasonable and acceptable to say "he lied". He only finally relented on the issue after someone in the community wrote a patch for the site-wide javascript to fix it, and because there was a clearly growing consensus that community would apply the software patch to fix it ourselves. I am also hoping part of the reason is that the current Executive Director seems to genuinely desire better partnership with the community, and she presumably also expected this to be fixed after she linked me to JDForrester's response saying this was a bug that would be fixed. Alsee (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Unsourced changes made by 73.133.140.233

This is the last [89] edit of a series of unsourced changes made by 73.133.140.233 (talk · contribs). IP had enough warnings regarding the introduction of unsourced material, yet they keep making unreferenced changes along a number of airline crash articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe the IP isn't aware they have a talkpage, and so hasn't seen the warnings. I've blocked for 31 hours to get their attention and help them find their talkpage. If they reply there in a constructive way, please unblock, any admin who sees it. Thanks for reporting, Jetstreamer. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC).

Thank you Bishonen. I'll let you know if the IP replies at their talk.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

User "The Quixotic Potato" engaged in an inappropriate, off-topic discussion in a reference desk thread..I asked about how to collapse it in the reference desk talk page...He then filled that thread with disruptive editing. I then collapsed the discussion after learning how, whereby he reverted it in bad faith multiple times...I then asked for help in dealing with him in the reference desk talk page...he then filled that thread up with even more disruptive editing...the collapse isn't itself that big of a deal but his apparent belief that he can do whatever he wants is more important in regards to the Wikipedia project...thank you for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=history68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:STICK & WP:BOOMERANG. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

not relevant..the admins can look at the record...and it's all right there for them to see..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What you're trying to collapse is NOT "off-topic". The original poster in that section made some statements about what he thinks "God" is. That opens the discussion to anything about what "God" might be. If anything should be collapsed, it's the entire section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

that's simply untrue..the section I'm collapsing is no way directly related to the original question and is insulting back and forth about individual religious beliefs...68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The original question is also insulting to religious beliefs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Refdesks should handle philosophy, and while normally this sort of question would fall under the category of Humanities, the OP thought it was a scientific question because he didn't really think through the hypothesis he/she was making and whether the proposed experiment was a suitable test of it. I don't think we should put topics out of bounds just because people disagree on them. Quixotic Potato has some odd ways of editing, but I haven't noticed anything requiring administrator intervention. Any issue about hatting the thread can be handled by local talk page consensus if necessary. Eventually everyone will either calm down or someone will go over a bright line, but for now there's no need for admins to get involved. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The OP here originally brought it up on the ref desk talk page and was told to bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on commenting here again but Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked 151.226.217.27 because it is LTA User:Vote (X) for Change, which confirms my suspicions. 68.48.241.158 will be blocked again soon, probably for being disruptive and exhausting everyone's patience. I don't know if they are the same person. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

nope, not same person, obviously..but that's who you engaged inappropriately with in that thread (and which I properly tried to collapse) whereby you again and again and again in bad faith uncollapsed...68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. It doesn't really matter if you are the same person as 151.226.217.27 or not, the end result is the same. If you continue behaving like this you will keep getting blocked. It is 6 AM right now in the place your IP geolocates to. Are you in Michigan? Are you using a proxy? 151.226.217.27 is from the UK, and the people in the UK are awake already. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as the thread itself, an admin went in and removed one half of the inappropriate back and forth...so now just "quixotic potato's" inappropriate words remain, as though he's talking to himelf...but, again, this is about "quixotic potato's" continued disruptive editing when I originally tried to deal with the problem..68.48.241.158 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If it wasn't so boring I would check when you are active, and look at the time in the location your IP geolocates to. The Rambling Man already pointed out to you that my name is "The Quixotic Potato". Just like A Tribe Called Quest and A Pimp Named Slickback. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be using the correct ENGVAR and you've claimed you went to the university of Michigan so you probably woke up really early. You've pissed quite a few people off in your short wikicareer. 5.150.93.133 has been blocked as well btw. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand you're grasping at straws and trying really, really hard to change the subject to try to distract away from what this is about, which is your inappropriate behavior (so in that sense it's just more inappropriate behavior and continued evidence of a bad Wikipedia attitude)..If you go reinstate the collapse and post a quick "my bad" in the talk then this thread can be ended..this will suggest you understand the inappropriateness of some of your "odd ways of editing" (which was another editor's generous way of referring to your inappropriate editing behavior)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hahahaha. That is the second time you made me laugh out loud. Thank you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments states ...these templates [collapsing discussion] should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. If this applies to the Science refdesk, then IMHO the IP and TQP are as guilty as each other. Having said this, such behaviour does not require admin action - but perhaps a case of "toss 'em a trout". DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

note: I wasn't an involved party to the inappropriate/off-topic tangent the two editors went on..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Your claim of it being "off-topic" is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

that's just a ridiculous claim..not only was it off-topic (as Wnt basically agreed in the talk page) but it was INAPPROPRIATE too (ad hominem attacks/tanuts etc etc)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It is your claim that is ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

is there any logic to rationale to your belief? do you simply think ad hominem attacks/taunts are appropriate?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Woah, you are great at making friends. Wnt is (obviously) not on your side, no one is. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

note: the quote posted by DrChrissy doesn't mention anything about being involved in tangents (off- or ontopic). You were involved in that thread. I don't think trouting you would be useful, and I don't care if you get blocked now, because your behavior clearly shows a pattern that will get you blocked over and over again unless you drastically change your behavior. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

repeating again and again that you hope I be blocked one day in the future is off-topic in itself and is disruptive to this discussion..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what the word disruptive means? Maybe you do not want to hear my advice, but I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATOR PLEASE: the only remedy I really desire is that a good-faith admin caution "Quixotic Potato" on his talk page to try to stay on topic in reference desk discussions, to avoid ad hominem attacks/taunts etc in reference desk discussions, and to not disruptively revert edits in bad faith ways by other editors who are trying to mitigate the damage (ie collapsing the inappropriate discussion)..thank you for your time.68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, for the third time, it's "The Quixotic Potato". Do you have a problem with my username? Administrators are unlikely to do what you tell them to do; they are experienced Wikipedia users and they are working to protect people like me against people like Vote (X) for Change and yourself. Remember when you posted on clpo13's talkpage and clpo13 ignored you? We are trying to make an encyclopedia, and your disruptive behavior and your refusal to drop your stick is not helpful. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, he believed this was worthy of being in ANI and apparently stuck to that belief..again, this is about specific behavior of yours (which is in the record to be looked at)..your repeated nervous attempts to change the subject are not relevant..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Nervous". Hahahaha. That is the third time you made me laugh out loud. Thanks again. Clpo13 is also not on your side, no one is, but it is true that this deserves to be on ANI because that makes it easier to demonstrate the pattern in your behavior in the future. Everything is accessible in the page history, even the removed posts by that banned user, that is the reason why no one is on your side. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

yes, everything is in the record to be looked at...my hope is a good-faith admin or two will be along to do just that..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I predict that you will claim that any admin who disagrees with you is not a "good-faith admin". In reality everyone who has disagreed with you on Wikipedia is good-faithed afaik, but people simply get sick and tired of your behavior, and I can't blame 'em. That is why your talkpage is full of complaints, block notifications and declined unblock requests. Like I said many times before, I would recommend drastically changing your behavior if you want to avoid getting blocked over and over again. Drop your stick, stop harassing people, stop insulting people, stop wasting peoples time and stop being disruptive. If you can't do that then you are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I see another attempt to change the topic of this discussion (don't worry, I'll keep seeing them if you want to keep repeating yourself, as I'm watching this of course)...interestingly, you haven't once yet addressed what this is about, which makes sense as it's indefensible...an Admin will hopefully be along..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I did link to WP:BOOMERANG, so you can't say you haven't been warned. Quote: "There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report." I don't think you will be blocked based on this ANI discussion, but I am pretty sure that your history will be brought up the next time you behave like this, and it is quite easy to see the pattern. You keep making new enemies, and at some point people will have had enough. BTW, The Rambling Man is an admin, and The Rambling Man told you that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

boomerang just not relevant here..all of this was entirely necessitated by you simply not allowing the proper collapse in the first place...and then another editor ending the discussion on the relevant talk page due to believing it belonged here...I don't particularly make "friends" or "enemies" here as I don't view it as a social networking site...I do insist policy be consistently implemented..which, unfortunately, has caused some bother for certain people..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Whoohoooo! You learned how to indent correctly. Thank you. You don't particularly make friends here, that is true. You obviously do not understand the policies and guidelines and unwritten rules here, I cannot blame you for that because that would take you a very long time, but luckily people like you are unable to pass an RFA so you don't have to understand many of them. Here are some quotes from stuff I wrote earlier: Go do something useful, write an article. You can see my todo-list here: User:The_Quixotic_Potato/todo. If you write a decent article about Thierry Legault I will give you a barnstar. The French Wikipedia has an article about Thierry Legault. If you want me to I can give you some sources you can base the article on. If you do not want to write an article then maybe you can help me fix some typos? Click here for a list of possible typos. Write an article about Thierry Legault, or fix some typos, or do something else that is useful. I have already sent you a link to WP:STICK. My offer still stands, if you write a decent article about Thierry Legault then I will give you a barnstar. He is a very interesting guy, he is notable, and this could be your first barnstar ever. Are you going to write an article? Are you going to improve existing articles? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the person who keeps putting irrelevant content into this thread (and having it reverted) the same person "Quixotic Potato" engaged with inappropriately (and which I properly attempted to collapse but was disrupted in my attempt by the continued inappropriate behavior of "Quixotic Potato"??).68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You know that my username is "The Quixotic Potato". According to WP:DUCK you are a troll, just like your banned "friend". I am going to stop interacting with you (except maybe to mock you), because that is what Professor Elemental told me to do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

my friend? the person who was one half of the inappropriate conversation I tried to collapse (the other half being you)..excellent logic..notice his half has been properly removed whereas your against policy and silly posts remain for all to see...(anyway, it's clear to me you get the message...there may not be enough admins with enough time to deal with you right now)68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Boomerang/Indef Ban IP editor clearly is not here to contribute to Wikipedia, only waste time, of which they have already accomplished that goal. --Tarage (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

my hundreds upon hundreds of beneficial contributions can be looked at...my collapsing of the off-topic and totally inappropriate discussion between two editors in the reference desk thread was one of these beneficial contributions..."Quixotic Potato's" disruptive behavior after I did this (which eventually necessitated this thread here) on the other hand..68.48.241.158 (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you keep using quotes around his name and keep getting his name wrong is proof positive that you are not here to be civil or contribute, you are simply here to waste time. Go away before you are forced to go away. --Tarage (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

the fact that he insists again and again in a silly manner that I include "The" is more demonstration of his childish/inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia...what's wrong with using quotes when referring to a username? I'm still awaiting an Admin...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins have talked to you already if you cared to pay attention. This will not end well for you. That you lack even the proper respect to call someone the way they want to be called is proof of your own childishness, but you refuse to see that. I'm sure your attacks will soon turn my direction, but that's fine. You've been given enough rope. --Tarage (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

never once have I ever attacked anyone on Wikipedia...who is an admin that has addressed this? (Have you bothered to look into what this thread is actually about or have you only read the mostly irrelevant content contained within this thread?)68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Obstructive editing

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

---

Two editors, Bede735 and Collect, are preventing inclusion on the Gary Cooper article of any mention of actor Anderson Lawler. Lawler was Cooper's closest friend as a young actor: he lived with him for a time, and Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society. For such reasons, Lawler features in authoritative Cooper biographies. The continual obstruction by the two editors is presumably because Lawler was homosexual. Their obstruction has been (a) endlessly talked out on the Talk page with clearly spurious reasons given for the obstruction (b) subject to an Rfc, but the subject is so low interest it failed and (c) a Request for Mediation, which failed because the two editors refused to participate, alleging there had been prior Consensus - but the consensus is only their own. The situation has gone beyond the bounds of reasonableness, given the Lawler/Cooper association is well-cited historical fact worthy of inclusion in the article.

The cautiously phrased sentences that are desired to be included are: "In 1929 Cooper met the aspiring Paramount actor Anderson Lawler, with whom he lived with for a year. Popular and unabashedly homosexual, Lawler introduced Cooper to Hollywood society, but their close friendship caused intense jealousy with Clara Bow and Lupe Velez. According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once had a threesome."

Citations would be:

• Mann, William J. Behind the screen: how gays and lesbians shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969, Viking, 2001, pp105
• Swindell, Larry The Last Hero: A Biography of Gary Cooper, New York: Doubleday, 1980, pp104-5
• Fleming, E. J. The Fixers: Eddie Mannix, Howard Strickling and the MGM Publicity Machine; McFarland & Company, Jefferson, North Carolina & London 2005, p92
• Vogel, Michelle Lupe Velez: The Life And Career of Hollywood's Mexican Spitfire, (McFarland & Company 1972) p71
• Ankerich, Michael G. The Sound of Silence: Conversations with 16 Film and Stage Personalities Who Bridged the Gap Between Silents and Talkies, McFarland and Company, 1998, pp127-128

The following citations can be easily reviewed:

• The Fixers: Eddie Mannix, Howard Strickling and the MGM Publicity Machine (Word search for 'Lawler' in the book preview) :http://www.amazon.com/Fixers-Mannix-Strickling-Publicity-Machine/dp/0786420278/

• The William J. Mann reference can also be read on Amazon by doing a word search for Lawler in the book preview, and selecting the p105 one: http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Screen-Lesbians-Hollywood-1910-1969/dp/0670030171/

• The William Janney's account of the threesome of Cooper,Lawler & Velez (which clarifies the closeness of the friendship) can be read on Google Books here: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=N4WhCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&dq=%22anderson+lawler

Suggestions? Engleham (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh beehave!

--EEng

There is an RfC from just last December in the archive of the article talk page on this exact subject. You have made no attempt to discuss this content issue at all. If you had, I am sure one of the names editors would have pointed you to it. Essentially this question has been asked and answered. Recently. My suggestion to you would be drop it like it's a hot potato. You are editing against consensus, DRN rejected the request for mediation due to no discussion on the talk page and there are no beehavioral issues here. Except yours. John from Idegon (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Not only RfC re Gary Cooper, but about other articles. See also [90] etc. I fear I find the editor might be considered "litigious" were this a legal issue. [91], [92], [93] Pinging Magog the Ogre as possibly having additional input here. Collect (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

John from Idegon You don't appear to have read what I wrote. I acknowledged there was an RfC, but it failed. Why? Because it only attracted the two said editors! Plus one other person who wrote that the claims "need particularly solid referencing." If you review the citations provided they are all rocksolid.

As for Collect's comment, it was merely par for the course. Diversionary, rather than intellectually addressing the actual information. And why does he ping a certain Magog the Ogre, you might ask? It so happens the said person has previously been a mentor to George Ho. And who is George Ho? An editor Collect has previously supported in passive aggressive obstructive behaviour. So Collect is clearly hope hope hoping that Magog will side with him on this issue due to the fact I have previously challenged Ho on his actions. Yeah, schoolyard pathetic. Once again, diversionary puerile tactics, rather than honest adult analysis of the requested inclusion and its citations. And that's all I ask. Which any Wikipedia editor is entitled to expect. Engleham (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Yes the RfC failed....it failed to support your position. It is a valid RfC with a valid close. This is a content dispute and does not belong here. Continuing here is only going to get you burned. We have RfCs to end disputes. This one is ended. With that I shall leave you all to argue in peace about Hollywood. John from Idegon (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed final sentence "According to actor William Janney, Cooper, Lawler and Velez at least once had a threesome." is supported by the source.

The source reads:

There are two beds in the room. I slept in one, and Andy, Gary and Lupe in the other. All during the night, all I heard was giggling and all sorts of carrying on.

I asked Andy the next morning what was going on over there. He said they were having a threesome a menage a trois. They were a wild bunch.

One possible interpretation is that they actually had a threesome. There is another possible interpretation, keeping in mind that the person telling the story was in the same room as the other three and did not conclude that they had a threesome but asked and were told that they had a threesome, the other possible interpretation is that the reference to a threesome was a joke.

While we may not be able to conclude which interpretation (and there may be others) is correct, I don't think the interpretation implied by the final sentence is certain enough to use.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Sphilbrick. I'm happy to change "had a threesome" to "shared a bed".

John from Idegon (talk In no way was it a valid RfC, in the spirit of the RfC policy, when the two individuals objecting to any inclusion, on ANY terms, were the only ones to comment - apart from another who clearly hadn't checked the citations. The only way forward I can see at the moment is to open another RfC, and ensure it remains open until it has opinions from at least 8 to 10 other editors, in addition to the two the dispute is with. Engleham (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Potguru

We seem to have a bit of a problem with an editor that seems to not be here. The editor in question User:Potguru has been making controversial edits and moves. The editor has been asked a few times to slow down and to see what other think about the edits and moves but to no avail. Potguru has a very strict POV on the meaning of the word "Marijuana" and has been changing the word Cannabis to "marijuana" all over despite concerns raised. They have also moved articles with titles containing Cannabis to marijuana again despite concerns raised by many. They have also proposed invalid mergers and draft proposal for the purpose of content forking all based on one POV. Moxy (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I object to this characterization. I have discovered a number of articles that were incorrectly titled based in some cases on incorrect text and in other cases I cannot determine the reason but in every single edit I was careful to represent the cited reference which, in all cases where I made these edits, read "marijuana" instead of "cannabis". I have not made any war edits and in any case where there was some concern with my edit I made my case on the talk page and walked away while we await concensus on the matter. I also object to being thrown into this page without the OP following hte clear directions above which clearly state "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." Your comments were not on my talk page, but somewhere I could never find them [here] instead. If you have a grievance with me, please follow the prescription on this page and discuss it with me directly. You left my talk page with many unanswered questions. --Potguru (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So let me give some examples of this behavior....

• Moves despite concerns raised on talk page.

On each page where there was any controversy I brought the issue to the talk page. On each page where I have made edits my edits are clear and precise. --Potguru (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Proposed merger because they think Draft:Marijuana (cannabis) should be the articles title.

No, the reason for the proposed merger is that cannabis(drug) and cannabis(the plant) seem to be the same issue to me. Rather than controversially move or make a change I am asking for concensus, which is what we are supposed to do on wikipedia. --Potguru (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If this is what you believe then I question your competence to edit the topic at all. -- Moxy (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, where is this coming from? We were having a perfectly meaningful conversation about the meaning of the word marijuana and now you decide to attack me personally as incompetent? --Potguru (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an attack ... a POV statement that your not knowledgeable enough to edit this topic at this point in time. I have seen to much wrong guess work at this point to believe otherwise.-- 03:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You challenged my competence and presume I am guessing at things, that is an unwelcome personal attack. --Potguru (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misleading edit summaries despite no discussion actually talking place...just a notice of intent.

You are mistaken. I called for concensus on a merge of this article back in January. Consensus was no comment for or against and so I carefully merged the pages. Then another editor came in and undid all my work without comment so I largely undid his reversions in favor of the concensus version. (And I took a great deal of effort on my merge). --Potguru (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Editing an article to one POV despite the talk they were involved in about just this fact Talk:Marijuana (word)#Continuing conversation.

My edit on this page is consistent with other articles that talk about marijuana or cannabis. There was no nefarious intent in that edit, please assume my edits are for the betterment of the readers as they are --Potguru (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edits of this nature shows a clear preferences for a term despite being told otherwise User talk:Potguru#The official name on Wikipedia is Cannabis

Where is the notice that the official word for marijuana on wikipedia is cannabis? Again, my edits are consitent with the sources. There is no 420 "cannabis holiday", it is a "marijuana holiday". If there is concensus on this issue please point me to it because I do not see where we all came to agree that every instance of marijuana should be replaced with cannabis. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like this lead me to believe they are not actually reading up on the topic....as the term is Cannabis is clearly used as seen here and in the ACT.

As I said the move was and is consistent with the content on the page. If you have sources that talk about a "cannabis policy in Colorado" please share them, otherwise we must stick to the cited references because Wikipedia is no place for original work. --Potguru (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I did show you sources....enough is enough. -- Moxy (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, where did you show me sources that talk about a cannabis policy in Colorado? You showed me the definition of industrial hemp in Colorado, is that what you are referring to? --Potguru (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Lets quote the act that has been show to you a few times now and is the topic of the article " Colorado Amendment 64- In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product. -- Moxy (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Text of amendment 64 can be found here: http://www.fcgov.com/mmj/pdf/amendment64.pdf In the text, as I have pointed out to you several times, the defintion of marijuana is: "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT OF THE GENUS CANNABIS WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE SEEDS THEREOF, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, AND EVERY COMPOUND, MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS, OR ITS RESIN, INCLUDING MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE. "MARIJUANA" OR "MARIHUANA" DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE FIBER PRODUCED FROM THE STALKS, OIL, OR CAKE MADE FROM THE SEEDS OF THE PLANT, STERILIZED SEED OF THE PLANT WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF GERMINATION, OR THE WEIGHT OF ANY OTHER INGREDIENT COMBINED WITH MARIJUANA TO PREPARE TOPICAL OR ORAL ADMINISTRATIONS, FOOD, DRINK, OR OTHER PRODUCT. I emphasise the second sentence to highlight why marijuana is not the same as cannabis... cannabis with less than 0.03% THC is hemp and hemp is not marijuana per the above definition. --04:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok I am puzzled then...your aware both text above that the term Cannabis is used then further defined by the terms MJ and hemp.....and that the article talks about both MJ and hemp but you think its best to call it " marijuana" when its clear cannabis is being used as the parent term in the act then sub-defined? Can you explain this logic to me pls. -- Moxy (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Puzzled? Perhaps we should continue talking about this then, rather that you suggesting I be banned because you do not understand what I am saying. I have been saying the same thing for days that marijuana (per the above definition and the original 1937 definition) is a portion of the cannabis plant and the remainder is hemp. That is what most of the articles say and that is what my edits are about. --Potguru (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure what to do here....looking for input. -- Moxy (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oh vey, pot guru for sure. Suggest final warning for the editor to stop the nonsense or else a topic ban from all naming suggestions. That's been really nice and assuming there's a sensible person behind the ego there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Upon further review of the prior ANI discussion, skip the warning, propose topic ban on all content related to marijuana and cannibus for six months. If the editor shows that they aren't just going to bull-in-a-china-shop elsewhere, they can go back to that topic but the prior history shows little need for patience. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be specific about the "nonsense" you are referring to. --Potguru (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest topic ban now, enough with the warnings (which are being ignored anyway). Mlpearc (open channel) 02:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please give me an example of a warning I have ignored I am unaware that I have ignored any administrators warnings. I respect wikipedia policy which is why I must insist that the text of articles be supported by the actual citations used not some other unknown reason. --Potguru (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not insult our intelligence here. There have been tens if not hundreds of editors on these topics for years, either you believe you have some brilliant insights about how these things should be worded and your ego needs a check or you're just an jerk who's going to push whatever they believe regardless of other people but neither of which is helpful here. If you don't see a problem, then we should just block you right now and move on. You've already wasted more of our time than is necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Strike that. Slow down and learn the proper processes here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any edits since I started responding to this and my talk thread. I learned how to take a walk a long time ago, which is why I do not edit war. --Potguru (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Too bad you struck out the nail which you hit squarely on the head. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been chewed out enough over "Admin conduct" and incivility for calling people. I'm trying to be nicer although it ruins the bluntless. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban as-well ....I see no end to this other wise ....no inclination at all they will change the behavior. -- Moxy (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy I'm surprised at this post on the heals of your statement "I think you think your doing the right thing" just hours ago. Please take the time to respond to my replies above. Your call for me to be banned would only serve to end any meaningful discussion of the term marijuana vs the term cannabis which you admitted just yesterday is an important discussion that we need to have. --Potguru (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is a topic we need to talk about.....but we are having trouble moving forward because we are dealing with you and your edits all the time. --Moxy (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If it is an mportant discussion we will have it. If we require you around to discuss it, it probably isnt very important. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what you hope to gain by attacking me. Please refrain from attacking other editors or assuming the worst about their intentions. --Potguru (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree re a formal warning and if no progress a topic ban, user seems to be only interested in cannabis. I thought his attempts to merge cannabis and cannabis (drug), two enormous articles, to be spurious. he or she is better off learning the ropes of wikipedia before engagng controversially wth ths topic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 03:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User has updated countless articles on various topics. User authored the original "Drumpf" article which was covered by major media (later merged into another article). You are hasty in your review, you should take more time to see what I have contributed to the site because your assessment is far too narrow. Your premature ending of the merge was also hasty, you seem to have a pattern. --Potguru (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

We can talk about that merge if you like. You wanted to merge a huge biology article on the genus Cannabis with an even larger article on cannabis as a drug. After six editors opposed your proposal, with not one supporting, which we call a WP:SNOWBALL result, and after I asked you why you had made such an odd merge proposal, and with no justification for doing so in your opening comments, you admitted that it was to test consensus, ie you had no reasn for making such a proposal. So I would argue that the pattern and the disruptive editing is comng from you, and the fact that you are blaming me is part of the pattern. No other editor is supporting your comments re me but a whole host of editor are complaining about your behaviour on the cannabis articles. You seem to be attacking me in order to try to divert attenton from yourself. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see where I have attacked you at all. I have made clear that I think your edits are edit warring but I made my reasoning very clear on your talk page. It is more than clear that you act in haste, as you did to revert more than a half dozen articles I carefully verified and then you (willy nilly) reverted my considered edits. Have you even looked at the cited material in any of those articles? They all refer to marijuana, not cannabis as your edits would have us believe. --Potguru (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussions for reference. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this editor has been using WikiP as a WP:FORUM since, at least, the end of March. You can see various threads beginning here Talk:Colorado Springs, Colorado#March 2016 Marijuana Industry section content dispute. This is but one of several edit summaries where they reinserted info in spite of the discussion on the talk page pointing out the problematic nature of the edits. They have had the "WikiP ropes" explained again and again. I am not sure whether they will ever understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a WP:SOAPBOX. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Above editor unreasonably removed several posts about [marijuana] from Colorado Springs article until same editor was forced to follow concensus. We all agreed on specific text and that text is in the Colorado Springs article today. Marijuana is a huge industry and daily news item in Colorado Springs. But we came to consensus and that is where the article stands today with a short blurb about marijuana in the culture section. --Potguru (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice job on getting it backwards. You were the one inserting items against the consensus and the short blurb is what was agreed upon my the rest of us that were commenting on that talk page. This illustrates, quite well the reason that this topic ban is now being discussed. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually what I was doing was boldly editing an article. Then you would remove what I wrote because you thought there was no place in the Colorado Springs article for any discussion of marijuana. Then I'd write something else and then you'd remove what I wrote. Then we got other editors to look at the situation and once we all came to concensus the article was updated. Since then I added this unchallenged timely [edit]. --Potguru (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No remorse, no willingness to concede to work with other editors. Editor desperately needs a timeout, especially considering past trip to ANI. Definitely has a very specific POV agenda and WP:NOTHERE I personally think 6 months is harsh, everyone deserves a second chance, but the nonsense has to end. Lipsquid (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to accept concensus, as I stated clearly above. Why should I show remorse? I do not believe I am doing anything wrong by insisting every article follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. --Potguru (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you don't think you have done anything wrong, then maybe 6 months is appropriate so you can use the time to figure out how to collaborate on Wikipedia. Lipsquid (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think if you study my interaction with MarnetteD on the Colorado_Springs,_Colorado article specifically you can see that I used the talk page to have a conversation with other editors and we achieved concensus, which was not what MarnetteD wanted. I think this incident demonstrated perfectly my willingness to listen, learn and consider others and concensus in my editing as I learn to work as a newbie in this complicated website. --Potguru (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would stop misrepresenting what happened. First, I wanted consensus to be reached - I have a long history of working with others in situations like this - that is why I took part in the discussion. Next, I was not the only editor to remove your problematic edits as can be seen here. Next, "after" consensus was reached you continued to ignore it with edits like this and this. Most of us work hard to achieve WP:CONSENSUS in situations like this - please do not misstate what happened then or now. MarnetteD|Talk 14:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOLD cannot be used as a carte blanche for POV pushing. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

These edits are not about my point of view, but about the sourced content. In each and every edit I've made "since march" I believe I have been extremely careful to make edits that follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If I have not, please show me that edit and I will immediately update it. If we all follow the same policy of making sure the articles reflect their sources and that the articles all have Wikipedia:Verifiability you will see my edits are all "correct". If an article says "cannabis" then the cited source must say cannabis but if the cited source says marijuana then the article body must reflect that. Unless there is some rule that we must always use cannabis in a sentence, even when such a use is wrong or unsupported by citation. --Potguru (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Far from calming down Potguru has come to my talk page accusing me of dsruptive editing, after trying to tidy upafter him and doing general linkng changes here. IMO this is just part of a pattern and that he needs to calm down or face consequences right now. He is complaning about my fixing some of his moves from cannabis to marijuana in article titles but he made those changes against consesnsus, and it is this ignoring consensus that has resulted in him being here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect you did not "tidy up", you reverted edits based on no concensus and in all articles you seem to have ignored the talk pages. As I clearly stated on your talk page I think your edits are disruptive and instead of reporting your activities here on this page I followed the policy on this page and brought the issue to your attention directly. Now tell me why did you change the text of articles without first following the Wikipedia:Verifiability or the Wikipedia:Article_titles policy? You just moved [| this page] from Marijuana in Maine State to Cannabis in Maine State yet the article NEVER mentions the word cannabis, instead all the references and text clearly state "marijuana". Your moving the page makes no sense based on the article content. Please explain. --Potguru (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was at cannabis for over a year, is based off Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction and Cannabis in the United States so I'm not sure how you can say there's a consensus for your move so a reversion is fine. I'd say your attacks are not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because a low interest article sits incorrectly for some period of time does not mean, in any way, that it is "right". There are a whole series of nearly identical articles all created by the same original author all at about the same time and almost all of them use the word cannabis incorrectly based upon the cited sources. What I did is go through the sources to verify the text of the article and low and behold the article text did not match the citation. The Cannabis in Kansas state is a really good example of a bad article. I went through and changed all occuranced of cannabis to marijuana (where they were wrong) and left the one occurrence of the word cannabis alone as it was correct. Then another editor (who is really angry about the issue) came through and reverted all my well considered edits. At almost exactly this same time I moved the article to the more appropriate namespace marijuana in Kansas State. So seeing the edit, rather than start an edit war, I posted very carefully on the talk page trying to achieve concensus. Then, without contributing to that conversation, RichardWeiss moved the article back to the former namespace in what I consider an edit war. (He later commented on the talk page). --Potguru (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Potguru, yu are completely ignoring that this thread is about you. And you didnt have consensus, I checked, as is clear here too. You dont seem to be listening. You need to go and edit other topics for a while until you calm down, I am not being threatened with a topic ban. And the fact that you are so insensitive to the threat you are facing isnt a good sign. If you make a complaint here about me it will be taken as part of your campaign of bad behaviour that brought you here and an insistence on not following advice by taking a break from the issue. This thread is about getting you to calm down and you are refusing and getting more worked up instead. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"And you didnt have consensus, I checked" editors are not required to have any concensus when moving an article that is not contentious. The reason I moved the page was that, at the time, the content did not support the article title and moving it was the best way to make sense of it. " getting more worked up instead." I am not getting 'worked up' at all. I am very calmly making my case. I do wish you would revert disruptive half dozen or so namespace moves you have made without a good reason to do so and with little to no support in the body of the articles to support your [hasty moves]. --Potguru (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Chill, man. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• You are misreading policy. You don't need consensus if it is not contentious, meaning a consensus would agree. In this case, you should have known that moving highly edited article titles is going to be contentious. If you really felt that no one would object to this radical change, then this calls your judgement into question, reinforcing the reason you need to be topic banned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose a topic ban for Potguru, it is not cool to disallow a Wikipedia editor to edit certain articles. Please be impartial and look through his edits and his rationale before you decide to jump on the bandwagon of whoever complains first. HempFan (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - I'm involved so can't act administratively, but there seems to be more than few over the years that want to war over the name Marijuana vs. the proper botanical name Cannabis, and Potguru has already been given fair warning. Cannabis is a busy topic and we don't need people who can't edit collaboratively editing them. Enough is enough. I would also note that voting to NOT support the ban due to not liking topic bans in general is pretty much a non-vote. This isn't about the politics of Wikipedia, it is about the behavior of ONE editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note There is a significant editing interaction overlap between Potguru and HempFan. Making no judgment on that overlap. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have filed this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potguru, i think there is quite a strong case. Potguru has made over 3000 edits in 4 months, which is a lot for a new user, and his early edits dont indicate a new user. Wouldnt surprise me at all if he isnt a new user. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Given their names, I wouldn't read too much into that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss and Dennis Brown: Funnily enough, it was that which encouraged me to investigate, Dennis  ;) Richard, I've commented at the SPI page. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

there is a distinctly cospiratorial 'us and them' interaction here, with borderline canvassing. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Pin _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Potguru seems to mean well, and it is quite surprising that the word "marijuana" does not appear in the lead, or almost anywhere, in the main Cannabis article, so I can see his frustration and confusion as to why some of the edits have been reversed and others do not perceive that some changes may be for the better. It seems that even direct quotes have been changed to remove the "m" word, which does seem to indicate a tilt towards accuracy on this editor's part. Potguru should take it slower, and maybe do an WP:RM at the 'Cannabis (drug)' page to create a wider discussion, which could help to explain his objections and hoped-for-additions. But a topic ban seems a bit extreme for an editor who, from indications, wants to expand reader knowledge on the subject. If everyone backs off a step, and Potguru takes his time, some of what he is concerned about may work itself out.Randy Kryn 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

However the Cannabis (drug) article does mention the word "marijuana" in the lead, and the drug article is 'hatnoted' on the plant page. Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

True, but the main Cannabis article does not although it mentions other plant-based uses and products. The point I'm making is that Potguru, too, was probably surprised at that and maybe went gung-ho in trying to add things like that in Cannabis pages. He does seem to have some good points, which is why my oppose on the topic ban (although he should be continued to be guided by the Wikipedia project members and not jump full-body into the changes he would like to see). Randy Kryn 14:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think he should be guided by WP project members and to follow collaboration standards and yet he blatantly says that he is right and that all other opinions on this subject are wrong and he won't stop changing article names. Then how can someone oppose a topic ban? What other choice is there if he isn't going to stop? Lipsquid (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: A topic ban for someone who's right and fighting against silly renaming of all cannabis related articles being renamed to Cannabis (insert use here), is wrong. That's why I oppose a topic ban. You have to understand that some editors, take Wikipedia seriously and do their best to keep other Wikipedia editors from ruining articles. Topic banning such editors from editing articles (or banning them altogether), is wrong, and well, it's Wikipedia's loss at the end of the day. HempFan (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"A topic ban for someone who's right"....and that is where I drifted off. Topic bans are not about who is right or wrong, they are about behavior that is inconsistent with a collaborative, collegiate environment. Everyone thinks they are "right", so being "right" isn't a license to behave poorly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Well if so, then the burden is on you and everyone else who want Potguru topic banned, to provide valid examples where he has been highly disruptive, because just voting yes to a topic ban doesn't count, it has to be substantiated with examples. From the little experience I've had with Potguru, he's been very collaborative, and totally unproblematic. I also oppose his topic ban for those reasons. Granted, I haven't seen much of his editing history, so it's possible I'm wrong, but from what I've seen, he's been totally professional, and that should count as far as I'm concerned. HempFan (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue at hand is about consensus, not burden. I didn't propose the topic ban, I have no burden. Each person participating has their own burden to look closely at his history or don't participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus, burden, I say potato, you say potahto... Consensus should be reached by providing valid examples, not opinion dropping based on, well, nothing? HempFan (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban Wait a sec. Why are the articles about Marijuana use/ laws in XYZ State being titled, incorrectly, as Cannabis use in XYZ state? This make no sense! If the sources say "marijuana" then so should article title. Readers are looking for the commonly used terminology, and this odd "cannabis" article title looks like some sort of censorship imposed by WP. Look at Cannabis policy of Colorado- marijuana is used throughout the article, and marijuana is used in the sources. Same with Maine State and Kansas Sate. "Cannabis in Maine State" sounds like it is referring a flora growing season, or some such. Is consensus required in order to reflect the sources and thus make articles accessible to the public?? Cannabis is the genus name of a plant, certain species of which are used to make drugs, (i.e. marijuana). Other species produce "hemp", the seeds of which I can purchase at Costco and natural food stores, here in the USA. The article titles should reflect the sources, please! Tribe of Tiger (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC) ( my mistake, see note below)Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the same problem that got us here in the first place...please read the legislation ...where is talks about Cannabis that is then sub-defined by MJ and hemp (be that right or wrong) ...why would the title only reflect one sub topic..only makes sense to use the parent term. To quote the Colorado act again In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of Colorado further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations. “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths percent on a dry weight basis. “Marijuana” or “Marihuana” does not include Industrial Hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is capable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product....the act then goes on to talk about what MJ is. its clear....Cannabis is the main term that is then sub-defined by its parts (or lets say THC levels) as MJ or hemp.-- Moxy (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxy, I apologize. I see your point (Well, I "saw" it with difficulty! Could you please not use the tiny letters? They are hard to read for us older folk) and have struck Cannabis policy of Colorado from my "oppose" above. An article about a "policy" is different from the articles about Kansas and Maine, to which I still object. Thank you for your courtesy and patience. Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments 1) As far as I could find yesterday, all legal contexts in UK and Europe refer to 'cannabis' in its various forms, resin, herbal (ie 'grass') etc. I presume they do so as 'marijuana' is a less defined term (often used here to refer to the resin only, and more of a 'street term'). So there are consistency arguments for the more formal term, plus cannabis is the main term I believe used in medical contexts. 2) A lot of argument is going on about the definition used by 1 US state, that definition exists for the purposes of that specific legislation only. So long as the article is clear that this is the term used in the legislation, and how defined by them, it doesn't have that much bearing on how WE use either. 3) This ANI is about behaviour not when/how to use either word. There are mechanisms for resolving such matters, where ALL arguments can be put, and 'I/he is right', isn't a very convincing argument. Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - For the editing habits of this user, be them right or wrong, continued disruptive editing and WP:OWN are the issues. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or Final warning. Comments here and elsewhere strongly suggest this editor is more interested in pushing an agenda than working collaboratively. Some of his science seems muddled, but that is hardly the point. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban too passionate an advocate to work collaboratively. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

‎Threat/warning by User:Revenge Of The Ghost 100

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

---

I have received the following "warning" from User:Revenge Of The Ghost 100

"You think you are clever to fight Malaysian pay-TV service? You are really stupid!! This is your warning!! Don't fight againist normal Wikipedia users!!" diff

This user is a blatant sockpuppet of ‎blocked User:Revenge Of The Ghost and User:Revenge Of The Ghost 002 and has been listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Low Li Hao 1997 since 11 May, but, so far, no action has been taken. They are the latest in a long line of accounts (see SPI above for some of them), possibly just one person, used to promote Malaysian pay-TV services.

Could action please be taken against User:Revenge Of The Ghost 100 for sockpuppetry and threatening behavior
We have articles on about 195 Malaysian pay-TV channels. I assume a request for semi-protection of them all would be rejected, but with repeated, blatant, sockpuppetry and promotion, other than a rapid response, or a lower threshold for semi-protection, I cannot see how this promotion can be prevented - Arjayay (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Obvious sock, blocked. Widr (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

[Offensive Title Redacted]

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

---

Is this enough to block an editor on their first edit? Debresser (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Davide Anselmi ( Composer )

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

---

A new editor (JoannaAlberty (talk · contribs)) has recreated this BLP page, which has been deleted under at least 2 different names, including via an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anselmi Davide (Drummer). The most recent version includes several hidden notes:

* DEAR ADMIN/USER : Please do NOT delete Davide Anselmi's page, he is an important piece of the international music that makes charitable with his albums and classic works in mixed rock..è was honored four times by the BBC, and we'll keep this article remain online for his fans and for all the people who support it, deleting it would be a lack of respect.
* ATTENTION: Please do NOT delete Davide Anselmi's page, because had just been approved, and it is from this morning that we try to get it approved, close to me have the lawyer of David, an engineer of telecommunications and computer network programming applied, we are trying to succeed but not triamo feedback, kindly verify the page. We remind you that we are not playing to those who clear the first page, there is half the law with clear and focused guidelines to those who erase the page.
* ATTENTION: Tedjensen is the sound engineer of Davide and we are all here specifically to approve the page
* ATTENTION: To approve the page are presents: Chris Mustyin ( Lawyer ), Jack lemoore ( Telecommunication Engineer ) , Ted Jensen ( Sound Engineer ), Sarah lonel ( Second Lawyer ), Chistina Malmsay ( Staff Lawyer general manager ).
* NOTE: If you are an user attempting to modify this Copyrightes page, do not edit this page. This page is under Copyright ( Reserved ) for Important person. To edit this page without incurring with the law contact the administration of David Anselmi

(Note bolding added) I have advised the editor of the error of their beliefs. 220 of ^Borg 13:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked JoannaAlberty (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet and will shortly list the account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anselmidavide9981. The article page has been deleted and salted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

COI editor, User:TheoTPV, mass adding links to "his" book

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

---

TheoTPV (talk · contribs) is mass adding links to his book, please see contributions. Also, is it possible to mass rollback his additions? cc: @Materialscientist:. Baking Soda (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for spam, I cleaned up the latest, someone else had cleaned up the earliest. If he comes back, report here again and point to this discussion, might have to blacklist that URL. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Ongoing civility and ownership problems at Obergefell v. Hodges

• Obergefell v. Hodges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• "May I be so presumptuous as to interrupt you legal geniuses and venerable scholars long enough to present a couple sources and some brief comments?"
• "Wow. I really can't believe you are this dense and clueless. No, really."
• "your absurdity needs to stop."
• "Get over yourself." (This, I should note, was for restoring another editors MOS:LQ corrections.)

Ownership

• Calls for article to stick with his version
• Refers to attempts to edit the article to meet MOS:LQ as "trying to annoy me"
• His most recent five edits as of this posting 1 (2 3 4 5) are all undoing other users' attempts to get the article closer to guidelines MOS:LQ and WP:SEEALSO), variations from standards for which he has not only not achieved consensus, but received zero support for on the talk page.

Problems noted

• lack of civility and ownership noted by Neutrality (talk · contribs)
• ownership noted by Jonathunder (talk · contribs) (who noted them other times as well.)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• I have unarchived this thread as Antinoos continues to sneak in changes to punctuation style (diff) that violate our clear consensus to follow the style guideline (which, by the way, isn't supposed to be a mere suggestion that requires a local decision on whether or not it's valid). Antinoos has characterized protests about this as "intimidation and harassment" and suggested that we "would do well to get over it."

  I'm not asking for a specific remedy here. Antinoos' behavior on the article's talk page and his explicit refusal to follow consensus make me doubt a warning would be meaningful, but I also recognize that he is here to build an encyclopedia. The problem is balancing his talent against a his refusal to cooperate with others.  Rebbing  17:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Rebbing--having looked into this again--that Antinoos's behavior is disruptive. I do not know what to do about it. Someone could block for further LQ violations, if it is clear--as it is in this case--that the article in question is no exception to the regular MOS. But it sucks to have to block a good but hardheaded editorDrmies (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Assuming anyone wants reading material: See discussions on the talk page here, here, here, here, here and the failed Good Article review - which from my reading is almost entirely down to the ownership issues of Antinoos Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm particularly concerned by Antinoos' insistence that anyone who opposes him is making the article worse. A few hours ago, he had this to say about other editors removing redundant links—topics already discussed in the prose—from our long "See also" section: "I simply cannot understand the dogged and legalistic insistence with which some editors are hellbent on making readers' lives more difficult and less enlightened." There's nothing sanctionable in that comment alone, but he's needlessly making it difficult for others to improve this article.  Rebbing  16:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• I find the picture issues regarding the 1950's courthouse particularly ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Only in death, you mean as in "why would someone edit war to keep those irrelevant pictures in"? Cause if yes, I'm with you. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Strange accusations

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

---

I've opened a discussion on Scrubs(TV show article) and done some editing on the article itself, until a disruptive user started accusing me that I'm a sock.

[94]

This is a shared IP address. 89.164.108.211 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis. - DVdm (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked. Waiting for next IP to appear. - DVdm (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Iridescent should be removed as an editor

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

---

Hi Wikipedia

I wrote an article about an algorithme, that I have developed while working on a project. I posted the working code, so anybody could see it was working. However to my big surprise I received a notice from wikipedia saying that the user by the name Iridescent had deleted the article based on A11? I invented an algorithme, it is working fine (the code I provided in the article prove that). Beside that the article was written in danish and I am sure Iridescent doesn't speak danish so he wouldn't understand anything of the article. Based on those 2 facts I strongly advice you to remove Iridescent as an editor.

Regards David Hyldkrog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cop77 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 May 2016‎ (UTC)

Context here, and the article in question is David Hyldkrogs algoritme. Note that (1) the article is written entirely in Danish, (2) there's an obvious conflict of interest, and (3) Cop77 explicitly states that this is something he made up four days ago. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's very clearly WP:OR, from Hyldkrog's own description above. BMK (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• OK, this was closed before I got my free shot at Iridescent--no fair. Censorship! What, Iridescent, you don't speak Danish? And you call yourself an administrator??? Favonian, please file the paperwork for this desysop--in Finnish of course. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by IP

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

---

See edit summary with this edit. It was made in response to me after I restored warning template comments onto the user's talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

And, despite the IPs... requests, an ANI notice was left on the IPs talk page (diff). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Controversial content added by User:Escravoes

Can any administrators take some action on this user. This user is known for his habit who like to put nonsense criticism section on every articles he interested. For example like (which have been reverted) this on Kuala Lumpur, this on Samutprakarn Crocodile Farm, this on Malaysian ringgit and this on Lawal Kaita articles. Herman Jaka (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Propose boomerang on the OP at the Kuala Lumpa article: for making offensive edit-summaries, not assuming good faith, lack of civility, etc; but mainly for his tendentious editing, effectively vadalising the article by removing sourced material (on grounds of WP:DONTLIKEIT), then making tiny edits to prevent rollback, and finally for then bringing this spurious report. Those other refs might need a touch of copy-editing, but again, they are all sourced, and in any case constitute a content dispute which is not the purpose of AN/I. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

Support boomerang per fortuna.142.105.159.60 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Replies by User:Escravoes to Herman Jaka

Which part of the content that I posted are , in your opinion, controversial, especially regarding "Kuala Lumpur." Note that the points that I did posted were sourced from major websites; CNN, Huffington Post (Canada) and from several Malaysian newspapers, all of which are cited online and provided as references. Your accusations are not only baseless, but they are unfounded and reflected POV color on your part, and there were no intent of vandalisms on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escravoes (talk • contribs)

Harassment from Czar

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

---

User:Czar has been WP:WikiBullying and harassing me despite my attempts to follow Wikipedia policy. They have been accusing me of various things (some untrue) despite none of them being breaches on my behalf. This has been continuing on User_talk:Angeles despite my requests for them to stop. While I haven't helped the situation with my responses (and admittedly I made a few accusations myself), this user is persistently hounding, following me around Wikipedia and the rest of the internet in a crusade to exclude me and my community from the conversations regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Eclipse. While I did appeal to my community for help understanding and fixing this matter, I have been perfectly clear that this must be done in an unbiased manner and any COI must be revealed. Angeles (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as harassment. Seems to be this user is using the word "harassment" to win at arguments. I know Czar can't harass anyone, especially that he recently became an admin at Commons. If we knew already that Czar is harassing, then I should have spoken about it at his RFA at Commons. Pokéfan95 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see harassment either, all I see is @Czar: advising you of the COI policy. It seems you are in a hurry to throw WP:AGF right out the window. You also appear to have some WP:COI Issues with that deletion discussion, and the WP:Canvassing is concerning. As far as I can tell, Czar's actions are inline with wikipedia policy, guidelines and common sense. He has acted appropriately as far as I can tell. Perhaps you should read WP:Boomerang. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no harassment to be had. Concerning a single- that's right, one- article, Czar identified that you are at the head of Red Eclipse's development, therefore it would have been prudent of you to avoid a conflict of interest. Simply having your name on your own page doesn't cut it, as it's not our responsibility to examine every person who gives input. Since you are the lead developer, your opinion on the subject matter is inherently partial, it can't be taken with the same weight as an outsider's. And about your community? You canvassed, asking people to vote to keep, which is actually a bigger issue. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see proof that I canvassed asking for votes to keep, or violated any other Wikipedia policy. From the start my aim has to been to find people more familiar with Wikipedia policy and anyone/anywhere that might have information regarding reputable sources. I'm perfectly within my rights to try to source this information in order to help improve the quality of the article, even with the Conflict of Interest that I keep being accused of (which wouldn't have been possible if I hadn't already identified myself on Wikipedia as per WP:DISCLOSE). The wording of my forum post is very explicit, so this is just another twisting of my words to gain a false accusation. It is generally accepted that those involved with a subject are more familiar with it, and while I agree their votes are biased, I have been making every attempt to make sure that is known (and never encouraged them to actually vote). I'd say some of the people responding here are biased as well, considering they know this user personally/professionally. Just because the user is quoting their own bits of policy doesn't mean they're not engaging in Bullying and Hounding, they are deliberate attempts to exclude myself and members of the Red Eclipse community from the discussion. Angeles (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the WP:Bullying or WP:Hounding? if you are going to label something bullying or hounding you NEED diffs to support it. SO far what you have shown here is nothing but @Czar: pointing out policy to you. Hounding would be on the same terms as stalking, you've pointed out one talk page post and one article for deletion which are related. He isn't following you around wikipedia from what I can see (unless you provide diffs that show otherwise), and Wiki-bullying Not even close. He has been exceptionally polite in doing so as well. I've seen nothing that indicates any maliciousness on his part. I'm also starting to see some WP:OWN issues now too. Perhaps you should read WP:AOHA because right now this appears to be a WP:PA on Czar. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 08:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

After being given better neutral advice regarding policy, I withdraw my complaint as I didn't fully understand what constituted harassment. I did ask this user to leave me alone, but the responsibility is on me to turn the other cheek. Please feel free to archive this thread immediately. Angeles (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editings by user:Tnguyen4321

I'm here to report following issues in the article Battle of Ia Drang:

• He's conducting disruptive editing/vandalism on the article without consensus with me and some other editors. When I raise the issue on the talk page,[95] he just keep ignoring it and continue his editing.
• I also want to explain about my use of various IPs, as it seems that some other Wikipedians have been misunderstood about this: At the beginning of the incident, I forgot to sign in, so my intentity is under IP form. Because I've already use IP for my comments on the talk page, I decide not to use my account to avoid misleading about my identification. However, what I unexpected is that each time I sign in with a device, my IP turned out to be a different one; I haven't realized this until several days ago. So my use of various IPs was totally unintentional, and in fact I've never done anything to conceal the fact that it belongs to the same person. I also regularly leave comments and explanations on the talk page about my view and editing. However, it seems that user:Tnguyen4321 is making use of this accident to slander that I'm conducting vandalism (violating WP:BULLY and WP:NPA). Theoretically, my editing with those IPs was always followed by explanations, so it hadn't even reached the threshold of the definition of WP:VANDAL.[96][97] In fact, I think user:Tnguyen4321 himself is the one who's conducting either disruptive editing or vandalism, because many of his editing came without explanation or consensus with other editors; and had the habit of regularly removing OR tags before reaching consensus[98] (example here [99]).

p/s: To avoid the further misunderstanding of my conduct as sock puppetry, I ensure that from now on this account will be my only identity that I use on the article. Please consider and sorry for the inconvenience. Dino nam (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the circumstances surrounding your socking... By means of a confession to socking. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: even without a "improper purpose"? I think that if I had used my real account by then, it would have been misleading and thus constituting socking? Dino nam (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes improper. The misleading creation of an appearance of consensus. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: OK well. By the way no one have to worry about that anymore because I don't use those IPs at least for this article; you've got my word. I think we should rather concentrate on user:Tnguyen4321's conducts then. Thanks for provide me more info about sock puppetry. Dino nam (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

YDino nam is lying through his teeth! A wolf in sheep's clothing. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Y OK then prove its a lie. Prove the link that I've shared above about your tag-removing habit is a lie! Dino nam (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Zefr

I would like to file a complaint about User:Zefr. I came across him (and I'm assuming the user is a male) when I created a protein stub (and that article, is irrelevant and off topic to the complaint I'm making, just pointing out how my interaction with him began). He immediately removed the sources I provided and called them nonsensical. So I reverted it back and encouraged him to use the talk page of the stub. Granted, the two sources he removed may not have been the best sources ever, but it's a bit difficult to find peer-reviewed sources on hemp protein, and I'm using what's around. The sources in question, was one from "Hemp Line Journal" from 1992 (you can read it here or here), which I'll admit I have yet to find it published in something like pubmed, but I'm looking around for it. So I added another one, and this was actually a peer-reviewed source from a journal, and he removed it too. His reason for removing it? "Please review WP:SCIRS for sourcing and WP:REFB for how to format your references." This is not constructive collaboration, it was a totally valid source, and I'm just beginning on a stub here, I don't have time to meticulously format every source I add, but I will do it later, and he's not being constructive by removing sources, and he's removing any attempt I'm making to improve a new article, doesn't matter if the source is or isn't reliable (personally I think they were all fine sources). So anyway, all that said and explained (and again, this is actually off topic to the complaint I'm making), I decided to look into this user's editing history and so on. What I found, was that his contribution history reveals that this account's sole purpose is basically removing sources and revert warring on various articles, a lot of them nutrition based. What's worse, when other Wikipedia editors complain on his talk page (like here), he just blanks the page (example). He constantly blanks his page. Another Wikipedia member complained about his revert warring and told him not to blank his page, here, but he did so anyway. The limited experience I've had so far with him on the stub I started, was not positive. When I reverted his removal of the sources, I told him to use the talk page to reach a consensus, but he didn't bother, and instead posted on my talk page and accused me based on my user name of being biased and not neutral, instead of discussing his removal of the sources I added in the Hemp protein article. This is not collaboration, he's basically dictating that sources he doesn't like, must be removed, and if you disagree, he throws links to Wikipedia policies and dubious accusations instead of discussing what's wrong with the sources on the article's talk page. I don't know why he's not using the article's talk page to discuss disagreements and reach a consensus, perhaps he doesn't have time to do that because he's totally focused on removing sources from all kinds of articles, but this is not good collaboration. Moreover, he has actually been blocked before from what I can see, back in 2011, perhaps that's why he's constantly blanking his talk page nowadays, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure many more Wikipedia editors have been complaining about his edit warring aside from the examples I provided. So, I personally suggest a block of this user, not sure how long it should be, but he needs to cool down with this behavior. HempFan (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You really should discuss this on the talk page before bringing it here; you are basing this on a plain content dispute. Why haven't you started the talk page discussion? I'm pretty sure Zefr would have engaged there. Directing him to start it and then escalating immediately when he doesn't, isn't really the way to go about this. Make your case and if he doesn't respond, you can look to further measures. - FWIW, I agree that apart from the essential amino acid statement (which apparently got swept up in the removal), the material you added was rather far-fetched and dodgily sourced, and Zefr was correct in removing it.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I told him to use the article's talk page, but he refused. I was at first going to post on his talk page, but then I noticed it was empty. After looking through his talk page's history, it appeared he's not interested in discussing much really, he just reverts and goes into edit war mode on various articles, hence this complaint, because I'm not the only one bothered by his behavior. Again, this complaint is not about the hemp protein article (I just provided background to my complaint). Valid concerns can be made about the sources I used, sure, and I'm also sure he has removed other crappy sources in other articles, but shouldn't he use one of those "not reliable source" tags instead of just removing it altogether? In any case, his edit warring is discouraging, and he's not being helpful with collaboration, at all. I'm not trying to escalate things, I'm just saying, this seems to be a problematic user and he's constantly blanking his talk page to remove the criticism he gets from time to time. HempFan (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not in your remit to decide whether to talk to him or not; and the fact that he blanks messages is taken here to indicate that an editor has received and understood them. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been responding to him when he's been posting on my talk page, but he shouldn't be edit warring like he does (not just on the article I started). How is blanking his talk page acceptable? Other Wikipedia editors who aren't paying attention and don't have time to go through every message that was left on his talk page, may easily get the impression that this not a problematic user, because his talk page is hiding the obviously problematic editing history of this user by blanking it. HempFan (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Blanking user talk pages is acceptable because user talk pages are mostly intended for user to user communication, and so we don't require editors to keep comments around. And discussions about article content should generally be held on article talk pages. There's normally no need to discuss content on user talk pages and plenty of people prefer not to so will give only minimal attention to content related comments on their talk pages. And you shouldn't really need to tell someone to take it to the talk page. There's no reason why you can't initiate discussion. If the person completely ignores the discussion and continues to revert, perhaps a complaint about them refusing to discuss may have merit. And as always, if the editor does respond but you two can't reach WP:Consensus, there are several avenues of WP:Dispute resolution. But as it stands, the talk page of Talk:Hemp protein remains a red link, so it's going to be quite difficult for you to claim you've tried to discuss this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we please forget about the hemp protein article? I didn't bring this complaint here to get assistance against his reverts on that article, I will take it on that article's talk page. The hemp protein article isn't the issue or topic here; I just used it as an example and now everyone is clearly focusing on that article instead of Zefr. I shouldn't have brought up that article. The point here isn't the hemp protein article, the point is that his behavior is persistent all across Wikiepdia, he does the same thing on every article, obsessively and very strictly removes sources. I understand that the reliability of the source in question is important, but not everything has to be super peer-reviewed (and even that wasn't good enough for him anyway on the hemp protein article). He also just reverted my edit here, on the banana article. Last I checked, USDA.gov was a perfectly reliable source (even though, some of its nutrition content is a bit flawed from time to time, but hey, no one is perfect, right?). Someone else reverted back my edit on the banana article, and told him to take it on the talk page, and what does he do? He reverted again and described my edit as "original research". His edit was subsequently reverted by that same member, who told Zefr once again to use the talk page. Clearly, this is not a constructive Wikipedia editor. I don't care how "experienced" he is or how well he has done his homework on Wikipedia's policy pages, because he doesn't actually add anything to the articles, all he does is remove sources. That's all I've seen from his edit history, and I've gone through several pages of his contribution log. It's all the same, continuous edit warring by removing and reverting sources and other content. HempFan (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• User:HempFan per your username and the message on your Userpage and your contribs, your account is a WP:SPA (please read that essay) and you are here to advocate for cannabis. Please read WP:ADVOCACY. Please read WP:SOAPBOX. (that last one is policy). Now, when more experienced editors tell you how you are screwing up, stop what you are doing and listen to them, instead of having a cow and bringing garbage ANI cases. If you keep on the path you are on, you are going to leave Wikipedia angry or get thrown out of here. You need to try to check your advocacy at the login page and learn how to edit like a Wikipedian. OK? Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not a single purpose account, and I'm not here to promote cannabis, but my focus is hemp/cannabis, and I will mostly edit hemp related articles (I will also edit other stuff, like nutrition articles not related to cannabis, but my main area of interest right now is cannabis and I'm not really interested in editing other topics save for nutrition). I have not glorified hemp in any of my edits, so you can't say I'm promoting it. I'm also not screwing up. And why such a hostile tone anyway? I'm bringing a perfectly valid case here of a problematic member (again, disregard the background story of how me and him came across, "content dispute" is not the point; the point is that he's engaging in disruptive behavior that's really not collaborative, at all, and he's doing this on many, many articles, and many Wikipedians have been complaining on his talk page, but he keeps blanking it all the time). I suspect a bias on your part, that you're taking his side when he's obviously the one who's in the wrong here with his behavior. HempFan (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem is it's difficult to see the behaviour you're referring to. As I said above, Talk:Hemp protein remains a red link. You can't complain about another editor not collaborating when you yourself have failed to do the basics. The most recently reverted comments on Zefr's talk page is this [100]. But there's no obvious problem with that since Zefr did join the discussion Talk:Banana#Storage and transport image. I see other comments from Zefr on that talk page which is a double whammy for the claim they aren't collaborating.

Most of the comments I see on Zefr's talk page before that are not the sort of thing where a reply may be necessarily. The next one I find is [101]. Responses were left on the editor's talk page User talk:Isacab0613#Coconut oil so again no problem. There are also comments (prior to this issue) at Talk:Coconut oil. So again another sign that they are collaborating.

Note as mentioned above, anyone who says their message shouldn't be deleted is likely to be the one at fault, since editors are explicitly allowed to delete the majority of messages on their talk pages. See WP:OWNTALK. Although the message you linked to didn't actually say the comment shouldn't be deleted, but simply that it would be evidence. Which is true but only to the extent that it's an indication the editor should be aware of our COI policy as they read the comment informing them. However even ignoring that, the message you linked to with a COI allegation sounds like threatening nonsense. Enforcing MEDRS compliance isn't indication of a COI.

So where you claim a problematic user who refuses to collaborate, I see a good editor who understand better than you how to collaborate and is working to keep junk out of our articles. The editors complaining seem to often have more fault.

BTW, seeing some of these comments reminds me of something I intended to mention earlier. You really need to take a read of WP:MEDRS and make sure you comply with it if you're going to add health related information. Actually you probably should read WP:RS in general since I'm not sure some of your sources will be acceptable even if there weren't medical claims being made.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Did you actually read WP:SPA? Because what you're describing sounds a lot like an SPA. Also your name and editing does strongly suggest you are promoting, whether intended or not. You did make very bold medical claims with very poor sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I only paraphrased what the study wrote, it wasn't about promotion, it's what the study said pretty much. Is there a way here to find out if certain sources are or aren't reliable enough? Because it seemed like a serious study to me, published in a journal that has been cited numerous times in various books on Google books. In any case, my complaint isn't about the Hemp protein article (I have to mention this every time now), it's about Zefr, and his behavior is in no way limited to the Hemp protein article and it's not only me who's bothered by his edit warring. And please don't accuse me of being an SPA, I'm just here to casually edit hemp articles and also some nutrition, I may expand to something else later, but right now my priority is hemp articles. My interest in hemp is its nutritional content primarily, hence the Hemp protein article. HempFan (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Instead of listening to people who have been around a long time and trying to learn, you are not listening and arguing that everything you are doing is fine and the problems are with others. This too is what advocates often do in Wikipedia. You will choose your own path. It is not leading to a happy place for you and other people's time is going to get sucked up along the way, but that is how things go here. We are just asking you to be more self-aware and take some time to learn how to edit Wikipedia better. That's all. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

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

---

So an admin has now decided to weigh in on Salim Mehajer. Well, the more eyes the merrier I guess. Except that he has not bothered reading anything in the talk page and has solely decided that there is "too much text" (including the references I've included, which must take up a quarter of the content). So it looks like I'm about to beer blocked, over too many reliable references! Thus must be a first.

Anyway, this is a last ditch attempt at asking for a sane decision. How is it that I can be accused of being obsessive when all I've done is document what has been extensively written about in the media? I mean, is the one paragraph I wrote about Mehajer almost killing two women not significant? Or what about him almost going to jail for driving an unregistered car without a license? Or his many speeding fines and other offenses he racked up whilst he was s deputy mayor?

I've asked all these things on the talk page, but yo no avail. I've had the same editor who had deleted that material I am absolutely forbidden from using primary sources - even to confirm company ownership! They gave accused me of not checking sources, of not documenting things, of doing original research - and yet they have contradicted themselves each time.

So look, if you must block me, go ahead. But could you at least let me hash this out on the talk page? So far my questions haven't been answered in at way. Genuine questions which haven't been answered. Material that was entirely I contentious was removed by this editor, and yet I'm told that two editors - one of whom has been trying to get the article deleted for some time now, seems to be able to hold it hostage? I mean, I've researched the heck out of this I good faith and I'm about to get "disciplined"? How does this happen? - 203.217.39.91 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

By repeatedly and blatantly violating the core policies WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for you as you are plainly editing with an axe to grind against this person. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

203.217.39.91/Letsbefiends, I know you hate me, but I will add my 2c. If you had stuck to serious matters, like the pedestrian collision, that might have got through. But watering down the section with trivial stuff like illegal U-turns made the section untenable. Likewise, adding all the minutiae of company details and ABN numbers moved that section into the realms of trivia and an irrelevant directory. If you look at the articles of similar players, like Alan Bond and Rene Rivkin, you will not find such detail. It was not a good judgement call, and here you are. WWGB (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the registered account here, User:Letsbefiends for an indefinite period, and blocked the two IP accounts for time-limited periods. My rationale for the indefinite duration block is on Letsbefiends' talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Concerns about copyright and referencing

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

---

The contributions of User:Rberchie is troubling and concerning. The user is not only a serial copyright violator but have also added numerous fake references to Wikipedia articles. Like user:Wikicology, they created hundreds of articles that are either unsourced or fortified with fake references. see my comment on their talk page. I followed Wikicology case from the now archived messy ANI thread to the Arbitration request. (Redacted) I discovered that User:Rberchie is part of Wiki Loves Women as a Wikipedian in residence. Having editors like Rberchie to serve as Wikipedian in residence will be counter-productive. Peter Damian and User:Mendaliv may be interested in this discussion. Idiot Guruman (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That was your ninth post??? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, it seems to be a fair question. Most of the images (except that one of him in Wikicology's his office, and that other) seem OK; but he is totally gilding his sources. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may be a fair question, but it also seems fair that Rberchie gets a chance of actually answering the questions posed. He has last been active on the 16th and the questions were all posted today (the 17th), some four to five hours ago. There's more than a small chance that Rberchie simply isn't aware of any of these questions, let alone this ANI-thread. At least one of the alleged copyright infringements on commons wasn't even uploaded by that user. All in all, way too soon and way too sloppy for WP:ANI. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not bad for a ninth post though. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest a thread title change. "Second Wikicology" is just going to get you blocked for harassing Wikicology, and probably get this thread prematurely closed as started for divisive reasons. My suggestion is that if there are copyvio images, tag them for speedy as such (or nominate for WP:PUF or a Commons DR if it's not blatant). Make a note of those images. As to the hundreds of bad articles, it might be worth taking a look. Still I agree with Kleuske that giving Rberchie a chance to respond before coming to ANI would have been a good idea. But now that we're here, well... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the thread title to the actual issues at hand. Also, Idiot Guruman, I'm offended by your smear of "hundreds of editors like Wikicology from Global South" which maligns many editors without any evidence and also verges on colonial racism. I suggest you strike that accusation. It is especially galling to see such sweeping insults from an editor with 12 edits! Did you create this account just to make this complaint? Liz 13:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh Christ, I didn't even process that. I've redacted that sentence as flat out inappropriate and distracting from the point of this thread. OP may merit sanctioning here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I came to this via UAA. I have no opinion on the underlying issue, but this editor who appears out of nowhere to harass a user, that's not OK and I blocked them indefinitely. DoRD, you know about this already; Mike V, you looked into one of the IPs before. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:LeonRaper

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

---

LeonRaper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used Wikipedia for soapboaxing and acted uncivil toward User:Thomas.W, saying "I think you should do your homework in the future before you make negative statements about anyone" after receiving a final warning for harassment. He received a notice for having a conflict of interest and has created and then recreated an autobiography, although it was moved to the draft namespace. Also has been reported to ANEW. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 13:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I really tried to help this user create a neutrally-worded, referenced article. I don't know if he's notable or not but I assumed good faith and gave him the benefit of the doubt. He claims to be around 80 years old and I took that into account. The discussion didn't go well, with him saying we were giving him "BS about web links" and so on, but I tried. Since then, several editors have tried to help him. I noticed the AN3 report last night and gave a look; I had to contact Oversight because he was giving out phone numbers of third parties for us to call to verify his claims. I think he's now exhausted the patience of the community and he needs to stop. Katie^talk 13:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I think a temporary block may be necessary. —MRD2014 (formerly Qpalzmmzlapq) T C 14:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I support a block. I tried helping him out, it wasn't getting anywhere, he kept on emailing and talking me even when I stopped doing anything to the page. By the looks of it, Theroadislong is having exactly the same experience with him.

That and the constant flurry of the same questions at the Teahouse, getting the same responses, and him doing basically the same replies.

Frankly, he seems to be only to self-promote, rather than being here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse discussions here, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 480#New proposed Wikipedia web page. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he understands either Wikipedia itself or the etiquette of technology or both; which may not be his fault, but can't be allowed to disrupt in any case. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sadly agree with all of the above I have tried to help him too, but he appears to be incapable of reading any of the copious advice he has been given. If he is notable we can create the article without his "help". Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to help in the past also, but he does not appear to understand. This could have to do with him being 80 along with a stroke 2 years ago. I have looked for sources to get something published but could not find any. Not sure where to go with him, but he is not making it easy to work with him. -- GB fan 16:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I came in to this via an OTRS request for help and have, along with many others, to help him and to try to find sources for his biography. Because of that and his stated age, I have given him much more rope than I would be inclined to give most users. He seems to be unwilling to learn this sites policies, procedures or even follow simple sinstructions like indenting and signing his posts properly. Now that his draft has been declined again today amd with no real prospect for more sources with better coverage, it is time to explain to him that there will be no article. If, after that, he continues to act disruptivly then an indef for NOTHERE is in order. Jbh^Talk 16:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) His autobiography (Leon Raper) has been speedied twice for lack of notability, without stopping him, instead he tried to create it again through AFC (as Draft:Leon Raper), where it so far has been declined three times for the same reason, but he still doesn't get it, in spite of repeated attempts by a considerable number of editors here to explain things to him, and help him. So even though I feel sorry for him I feel that it's time to put a stop to it. Thomas.W ^talk 16:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a tad bit more care and gentleness could have been used in explaining how Wikipedia works to him (not that this is required)..For one thing, he seems to be under the impression that the editors he's been interacting with are employees of Wikipedia and he's upset at the "customer service" he's been receiving..It seems too that perhaps too many people were piling on in a sense and continuously referring him to policy pages that he simply didn't/wasn't capable of understanding instead of just allowing one or two editors deal with him on a more personal level...I think a block when be unsavory at this point, particularly toward an apparently good-natured elderly man..Wikipedia does have an interest in public relations..I could be wrong..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point. Consider yourself the recipient of the Good Natured Barn Star  :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A good point, but it wouldn't solve the main problem, the repeated attempts to create an autobiography, with no sources that establish notability, and even more repeated attempts to add his own name to a list of award recipients, with no sources at all. Thomas.W ^talk 16:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well he has been all over the place basicly forum shopping for help. He has emailed several editors as well. The reason he keeps getting policy quoted to him is he seems to be more concerned about his article than anything else. At least three editors have explained the issues to him as well as giving him links to policy pages.

  Why he thinks editors are employees is beyond me. I have explicitly told him that the editors trying to help him are volunteers using their own personal time. He has just worn out a few different iterations of editors in his quest for a biography on Wikipedia. Jbh^Talk 17:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

He seems to genuinely believe that information contained within an article about himself (particularly directions to websites) could be useful to the community of swing dancers (particularly the community in southern California?)...this may be true but it may be very niche too/not Wikipedia notable/not able to be sourced etc...I think it's true too that he would simply like to have an article about himself on some level..for various reasons he may not be able to understand Wikipedia/Wikipedia policy...so, indeed, at some point he'd have to be moved along if this is the case...idk..but you can't but feel sorry for the guy when you look through his interactions..perhaps some of the links to some of his sites can be added to the "swing dance" article..I have no idea..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Reading LeonRaper's talk page left me with nervous jitters and a stomach ache. I don't think this user will ever be capable of understanding how to edit Wikipedia, and is only here to create an autobiographical article about a non-notable person, so there's really nothing reasonable to do except to indef block for WP:CIR. It's unfortunate, I wish it weren't so, but the evidence is irrefutable: this editor cannot seem to learn, and will simply keep abusing our resources and the patience of editors who attempt to help him. I wouldn't be adverse to a final warning before the block, but I have no doubt that the block will be the ultimate solution. BMK (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree--and I'd hate to make that block, but ... oh wait, it's time for me to clock out. I'll leave it for the next admin to make this necessary but disagreeable block. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah well. I made it a NOTHERE block. BMK, will you do me a huge favor and leave a kind note for the editor? (Without bold and italics, if you know what I mean...) I really have to go, but I think the editor deserves a note, sort of repeating what you said here. Thanks--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure. BMK (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. BMK (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

He's an eighty-year old man. What the fuck is going on? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how old or how young you are, you still have to be able to understand and follow rules and procedures. As Jbhunley pointed out above, he's been given a great deal of leeway because of his age, which is confirmed by his talk page. An editor who was not 80 who repeatedly recreated an autobiographical article deleted for non-notability would have been blocked faster and with less delicacy, so I don't think there's a valid complaint that he's been mistreated or mishandled. BMK (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, don't you think "He's an 80 year old man" is sorta an ageist complaint? My mother is 81, my mother-in-law will be 90 in a few days, I regularly work alongside people in that age range, and, while some adjustments may have to be made in consideration of their relative mental acuity, all of them are still competent human beings. There is no reason why we should expect an 80 year old man not to be able to comprehend and follow standard rules per se, especially when they're given a great deal of assistance and leeway. BMK (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This. My parents are roughly the same age and are perfectly capable of working within our guidelines. I find it interesting that LeonRaper claimed to have coded all those websites but couldn't manage wikimarkup, which is way simpler than HTML (at least to me). Oh, well. I might see him at UTRS sometime. Katie^talk 22:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I must've been feeling uncharacteristically sympathetic last night. Good work everyone! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 03:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User OptimusView

In the article Kyaram Sloyan user OptimusView removes POV tag[102][103] despite there is no any consensus that the neutrality of article is OK. Discussion still ongoing on a talk. I think such edits are against WP:Disrupt. Please return the tag back and take administrative measures in relation to this user who was already warned by me, but preferred to continue removing the tag without any consensus. --Interfase (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The article represents all the points of view, including Azerbaijani accusations. Today another user even added the Azerbaijani position to the lead section and removed the POV tag as baseless. But Interfase (who was blocked twice for editwarrings [104]) adds it back claiming the article is still not neutral, he calls sources like The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Regnum, etc. yellow journalism and refuses to ask for another third-opinion comment. OptimusView (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This just might be a classic case of WP:BOOMERANG. Interfase is a topic-banned user that has been violating his topic ban for quite some time now. Consistent edit-warring and POV pushing appears to be the theme. Interfase has been edit-warring over several users at Kyaram Sloyan to maintain a POV tag ([105][106][107][108]) and there's no sense of compromise when it comes to his beliefs. He is the sole user at that article who deems it necessary to have the POV tag placed. Tiptoethrutheminefield's good faith efforts at the article to make it as neutral as possible (going as far as to place the Azerbaijani perspective in the lead) has been subjugated to constant edit-warring and reluctance by Interfase to accept the consensus against him. Some of Interfase's additions are complete POV OR and the user even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. These two particular edits ([109][110]) which I came across recently are disruptive and in complete violation of his topic ban. He did not explain about this addition on the talk page before making his revert as his topic ban requires. Above all, the claim is completely OR, and is entirely untrue and Interfase even tries to maintain its inclusion through edit-warring. This needs to stop. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Support boomerang. Rabid nationalists have no place on Wikipedia.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually there are several proArmenian users who POVpush the article with non-neutral information. Despite there is no any serious reliable sources about beheading (accusitions of Azerbaijan' army (UN member by the way) are very serious accusitions to present it as a fact replying just on media). Also I don't think that reporters of The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Regnum saw the beheading scenes themselves to reply these media. They just shared that info that was taken from social networks and shared by Armenian sources. Of course it makes them "yellow journalism". This issue was not covered by serious media (like BBC or CNN e.g.) and there is no any condemnations of Azerbaijan by serious organisation (UN e.g.). I think untill neutrality of the article is not corrected (frase such "beheaded" should be replaced with "reportedly beheaded") the "POV" tag should be in place and should not be removed by force. I will not repeat my mistake and will not make a reverts, but the neutrality of the article should be corrected. P.S. Claims that Ramil Safarov is "National hero of Azerbaijan" in entirely untrue. Web-site safarov.org is not reliable source but just some fan site. Show the text of order in official source or president's website (like this one about ordering Mubariz Ibrahimov). --Interfase (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

And how do you explain your violations of your topic bans and restrictions? --Tarage (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I already said that it was my mistake. I will not make a reverts again but initiate a discussion on a talk (both discussions on talk were initiated by me btw). But the tag should not be removed untill consensus on neutrality is reached. --Interfase (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you not under restrictions preventing you from editing in those topics? --Tarage (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not under such restrictions. I am able to edit those topics and duscuss them on a talk. --Interfase (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The full topic ban has been rescinded, but under continuing editing restrictions Interfase is required to make a talk page explanation for any revert he makes, and do it before making the actual revert. I think that just making a general post on the talk page, or initiating a discussion, or continuing an active discussion, is not really a revert edit explanation; surely the post made has to cite the actual edit that is about to be made and explain why that specific revert is needed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification for a mass use of the word "reportedly" to characterize the events covered in this article. Where opinions or statements have been expressed in only one source, such as the identification of one of the soldiers posing with the severed head, those have been described in the article using wording like "according to". However, almost all the sources are in agreement: Sloyan was killed during the conflict, his body was returned minus its head, his head was returned later, photos showing various Azerbaijani soldiers posing with the severed head of an Armenian soldier were posted online, video material of a crowd of Azeri-speaking civilians gathered around an individual who them produces a severed head from a bag was also posted online, and this severed head was that of Sloyan. The few sources that disagree are Azerbaijan-based sources (they include one official statement, supporting the lede wording that Azerbaijan has denied the incident happened). Actually there seem to be very few such Azerbaijani sources, the article has just two and Interfase has failed to provide any more. I think that the content in all of the sources cited have been expressed neutrally and accurately and in proportion. Interfase's objections really have no substance behind them, and his solution, to place the word "reportedly" in front of every item of content, cannot seriously be followed. There is not a case to be made for the article to remain pov tagged because there is not a problem that needs correcting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The information about "his body was returned minus its head, his head was returned later" seems very dubious. The body was returned with the presence of international observers from Red Cross. If it was without head, there should be some reaction or strongly condemnations of Azerbaijan, UN member. The photos and videos taken from social networks with dubious background may also be falsicicated (off-line Azeri speech as well). Neither reliable experts nor serious media paid an attention on them. All these make us not to present such kind of information as a fact but just reports and accusitions on alleged actions. --Interfase (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Tquirk91

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

---

See This Diff on my talk page. Violation of WP:NPA, Best I can tell its because I reverted some vandalism he/she did at Lime (fruit). Kind of entertaining but I have a feeling the editor is wp:nothere --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 21:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Huon (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

don't think technically a personal attack as this whole thing, which I'm quite sure is not original, is for comedic effect...definitely silly, inappropriate behavior though..68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor's PA using his account while s/he is away at a conference

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

---

See edit summaries: removing section from user talk page, editing article (adding unsourced content), followup copyedit. Do we turn a blind eye to this situation where two people are openly using the same edit name, or should an admin intervene? PamD 21:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether you wish to call it a shared account or a compromised account, an immediate block is needed until the actual User can make an email appeal that indicates either it was compromised or that he understands the need for unique accounts. John from Idegon (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as a compromised account. They can use UTRS or email to explain why and how they gave their password to someone else and how they'll never do that again. Katie^talk 22:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User 2-2Hello2/Kiddler Fidxler

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

---

Over the past few days I have been doing some recent changes patrol. A new account was created today 2-2Hello2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a username remarkably similar to my own (TwoTwoHello). When I pointed this out to them, they responded that "it is just a strange coincidence i guess".

Ah, as I was typing up this report the user name has been changed to Kiddler Fidxler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is similar to user Brucie "kiddie fixdler" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was vandalising the Bruce Forsyth article, among others, over the past couple of days. Although the new account has made a couple of vaguely constructive edits, the rest are not and include vandalising my user page [111],[112], removing content [113] and then restoring it with an edit summary calling themself a vandal [114], and a couple of unnecessary copy/paste page moves that need undoing. The user is clearly not here and needs blocking. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. DS (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal refspam

I meant this to be added to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Reference spam (I actually did add it, and had to revert myself after I realized it was an archive). @Doug Weller, Liz, SpacemanSpiff, Deli nk, DMacks, and David Eppstein: notifying those who took part in that discussion.

The original ANI complaint was about 39.37.116.188 (talk · contribs) and 119.158.13.23 (talk · contribs), but many more IPs have been involved—all, I believe, used by one editor.

Several of these IPs were reported at SPI, but I think it's clear that he's not any kind of sock; he's just editing Wikipedia anonymously, with each session a different IP. He may be hopping IPs to stay below the radar, but I have no way to know that.

I put together a table of his history, as far as I've found it. I was going take it to WP:Spam, but here seems more appropriate, and might get more eyes and skills into deciding what to do.

I've been checking every edit, meaning to hit them all eventually, working forward in time. I've been able to work through the first four IPs, but I have spot-checked all of the rest. During the hours and days I've spent looking at his edits, this is what I've found:

• Each IP has edits for one date, sometimes two.
• EVERY SINGLE EDIT has to do with a citation to a reference by Muhammad Aurang Zeb Mughal; usually adding it, sometimes reformatting slightly, or updating a doi, or replacing his thesis with a published article.
• Except for one account, there is very, very little else (text or whatever) added to the articles edited. That one account is the oldest and has the longest history, though there's no way of knowing if it's the same person. Likely not.
• I have found ONE edit that was not his that cited one of his articles.
• Each editing session gives the appearance of looking for articles that might have anything to do with one of his subjects of "expertise" and planting citations in any spot that looks even slightly likely. (I'm aware this view is definitely not AGF.)
• Many of the citations are to articles he's written in encyclopedias while he was still in graduate school.
• The books are mostly(?) published by Mellen Press, which apparently has a reputation of being an academic vanity press.
• He is very patient and persistent, often re-adding a ref a few days or weeks after it's been reverted or removed.
• He has been spamming like this since at least March 2013.
• The total count of these edits is 627.

I think all his refs should be deleted; he should not be rewarded in any way for this behavior. I have no idea what else could be done to stop him. He hasn't replied to the few times he's been warned. — Gorthian (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TParis you were asking at WT:COI the other day about WP:SELFCITE. Here at ANI there is this case, and there is one above that was just closed with a community site-ban. Academics refspam pretty regularly, cause disruption doing it, and folks find it... upsetting. I am not sure what to do with the kind of dedicated longterm spamming described here. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't just simple refspam, e.g. the grad student / now post doc is a contributor to this book but they have used it and added their name as a reference here where the problem is that the person is NOT a contributing author to that referred section. I came to this a second time courtesy of RegentsPark who started this discussion on my talk page, and it was then that I found out that DVdm, Oshwah, and Ogress among others were already spending their time cleaning up this mess. This has happened for over three years, longer than the average lifecycle of a Wikipedia editor and it's wasting the time of many. Owing to the single minded devotion of the IPs, an edit filter is probably required to prevent further disruption. —SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a good candidate for an edit filter. — Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Page moves by Athishjenith

The user Athishjenith recently moved his user and user talk page, which should not have been done. An administrator should move Wikipedia:Athish Jenith to User:Athishjenith and Wikipedia talk:Athish Jenith to User talk:Athishjenith, suppressing redirects by unchecking the "Leave a redirect behind" box. Also, the same administrator should delete Wikipedia:K.M.Ravi Chandran, Wikipedia talk:K.M.Ravi Chandran, Athish Jenith, Talk:Athish Jenith, and User:Athish Jenith. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? Seen; multi-redirects. Suggest block of substantial if not indefinite duration, as this seems to be part of a campaign to have his autobiography in article space, which had previously resulted in a block. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 02:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the user talk page back to its correct location and deleted the redirects and advised the user not to attempt any more page moves. — Diannaa (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Abusing multiple accounts

• Angelgotti5 (talk · contribs)
• Da1988347 (talk · contribs)
• Dannyhrgl (talk · contribs)

Can a check-user take a look into a possible link between these accounts. IP's cannot open SPI cases (so I had to file it here...). These accounts were created less than a half-hour apart from one another, and they all have edited the same page with similar editing patters. Thanks. 172.58.41.35 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)