Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon

I have a feeling that I should be posting here, but I should probably say up-front that I'm very bad at judging when someone's behaviour is harmful towards me and I might miss details that others would notice. I'm tagging User:Funcrunch here because they've seen the discussion between me and User:Antonioatrylia and feel like they could add helpful commentary while remaining neutral.

The start of this can be found here. I made a draft of Asia Kate Dillon on 2nd March 2017, it was rejected due to lack of notability but then accepted around 8th April, now being considered notable. But a mainspace article had been made in between my creating the draft and the draft being approved and considered notable. It was decided that the mainspace article contained less information and should be overwritten with the draft, which Antonioatrylia rolled back and disputed, arguing with me and another user until an admin stepped in and backed up the original decision.

They are clearly very upset about the final decision, judging by User_talk:Antonioatrylia#Seriously?: "No trace of the history of all the editors who contributed to the originally created mainspace article for Asia Kate Dillon remain. Everyone's contributions to the original mainspace article were for nothing, because a failed AFC draft was used to overwrite the original mainspace article. It is no wonder that so many editors are leaving wikipedia.". (Two people involved in that exchange are User:Anthony Appleyard and User:Anne Delong.) Anthony Appleyard notes that Antonioatrylia did most of the work on the mainspace article that was overwritten, so I can understand their upset, but they're certainly not remaining neutral or prioritising the quality of the article over their own feelings.

Antonioatrylia's behaviour since then feels to me like they are holding a grudge.

After the draft was moved to mainspace, Antonioatrylia tagged it with a Not Notable tag - something that they never did to their original mainspace article, which was much smaller and less detailed. They were upset when it was removed.

Some of my edits were removed by Antonioatrylia due to having primary sources as references. These include Dillon's birthday (which Dillon mentioned in a tweet) and Dillon's role in a movie (that is available to watch online courtesy of the director, with Dillon mentioned in the credits). When I questioned this decision, Antonioatrylia told me that primary sources are not considered reliable. I did a little research and found that primary sources are appropriate "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person ... will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." I also found in the section about film specifically, "[t]he film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters." Dillon's tweet tells us their birthday very directly, and the film itself has Dillon in the credits at the end, so it seemed to me that both of these would be acceptable cases for primary sources to be included. I explained my motives and re-added the sources, expecting that my edits would be accepted since I had shown that Wikipedia policy was very clearly on my side, but Antonioatrylia rolled back the edits and put an edit war warning on my talk page. (It is not my intent to edit-war at all, and I don't want to take part in that.) They told me, "Do not edit war to try to get your incorrect preferred version into the article." I assume the incorrect preferred version they are talking about is the one that includes Dillon's self-professed birthday and the primary source of their appearance in a movie?

They also tagged the article with WP:UNDUE, and described their reasons in a way that didn't make sense to me - that Dillon's gender and career are given undue weight in the article, implying that more weight should be given to their personal life in the article, I assume? (I may be wrong there.) Me and Funcrunch both felt that WP:UNDUE didn't apply here, and discussed it openly in the talk page, so I went ahead and removed it from the article. Antonioatrylia rolled that edit back, saying "I will be restoring the undue template because the issue has not been fully addressed." This to me reads like an intent to edit-war by Antonioatrylia. I do not want to be threatened again with being blocked for participating in an edit war. (Relatedly, the main reason there is such weight on Dillon's career and being nonbinary is because their notability is centred around them being an openly nonbinary person campaigning for visibility, inclusion and acceptance of nonbinary people, and they're using their career as a nonbinary actor playing the first ever nonbinary US TV character to do it. My edits to expand on their personal life and career aside from being nonbinary have been rolled back by Antonioatrylia.)

Overall, Antonioatrylia has been aggressive, pushy, superior. "Consider your self warned for not showing good faith. I won't bother to template your page with a notice for failure to good faith." (Here.) My interactions with this user have been very unpleasant, and left me feeling reluctant to edit because I suspect that Antonioatrylia will roll back my edits and accuse me of edit warfare if I argue with them. I'm very much a casual editor and I just want to make a good article with as much complete information as possible, but I feel like every time I do a little work on the article the edits are rolled back. And I feel that this is because "my" draft was chosen over "their" mainspace article.

Because I am not very good at judging these things, there may be important information that I've omitted. I hope that others can visit the links I've put here and post about the things I've missed, and perhaps Funcrunch, Anthony Appleyard and Anne Delong can add details too.

Thank you for reading, and I welcome your thoughts! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The long discussion is at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Asia Kate Dillon problem with merger/redirect - please help to give proper atribution to mainspace article creator. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• My take is similar to Cassolotl's. I feel that Antonioatrylia's templating was motivated by his resentment of how the article merge was handled. When I noted this at the article talk page, specifically pointing out Antonioatrylia's own talk page comment on the merger, they accused me of not assuming good faith. My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary. I believe evidence has been provided that Antonioatrylia's templating and subsequent reactions were motivated more by his feelings about the merger than by genuine concerns about WP:V and WP:UNDUE. Funcrunch (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard for dispute resolution about Asia Kate Dillon, but I had to close it because the dispute is also pending here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment After the draft was moved to mainspace, I added some elements from the original very short article, crediting the appropriate editors. Articles aren't notable or non-notable according to size and detail, but according the existence of reliable independent sources, even if they aren't yet in the article or aren't properly formatted. There was no way to solve this to everyone's satisfaction, because both drafts were worked on in good faith. This a a bi-product of Draft space. I understand Antonioatrylia's frustration because at one point it seemed that it would be resolved the other way, so he/she kept working on it. That's not a reason to make inappropriate edits, though.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As Anne Delong has stated above, I was frustrated about how the merge turned out. But that was it. I let out my frustration in a statement on my own talk page and went about my business. I frequently remove references from many articles when they are from unreliable websites such as myspace, twitter, imdb, blogs, and many other such places. I also apply tags or notices to articles after I have worked on them and tried to find good, appropriate, and reliable references. The original poster above tries to make some point aboint me putting a tag on one version but not the other of the article. I would not put a tag on until after I am done working on an article.

The merge happened. I started working on the article until I reached a point after my work where I felt that article subject was not truly notable. At that point I placed a notability tag. This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board. The OP is trying to blow out of proportion that I tagged the article and edited it because of a grudge, me being upset and other very colorful adjectives, none of which are true, nor non of which can be substantiated by any evidence or proof.

On the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon the OP freely admits that they are not acting in good faith. I informally warned them there instead of placing a template on their own talk page. The OP, who by the way is a SPA editor who looks to have only edited this and one other subjects biography, who both identify as non-binary or genderqueer. I mention this becase on the OP's talk page they also identify via a user box that they are agender and prefer the usage of certain pronouns such as they and their just like the article subject.Perhaps, it could be a possibility the OP is a little to close to the subject and their lifestyle to remain neutral while editing the article. They (OP) has shown WP:OWNERSHIP issues of not wanting anyone else editing the article other than themself and one other editor, Funcrunch who also self identifies on their user page as agender via a user box and uses preferred pronouns. I believe all editors from any walks of life should be able to edit the Dillon and all articles freely on wilipedia with out being tag teamed by a pair of editors that could possibly have an agenda to make the Dillon article have a slant toward agender and non-binary issues. I pointed out on the talk page article that there was too much of that going on to the point of undue, and I finally decided to mark the article as undue so other editors could see that and help fix the article to have a neutral tone as is tthe requirement at wikipedia.

One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board. There they had two points: that I removed a reference to an archive of a twitter post that was being used as a reference for the birthday of the subject. In my edit summary there I put it was unreliable as from twitter, and was considered self published. If that is not correct anyone may freely put it back. The other item the OP complained about was my removal of a reference to a vimeo video clip of film that you supposedly have to watch until the end to be able to see the credits to verify the subject as having appeared in the film. That is really way too convoluted to expect our readers to do all that. I group vimeo in with youtube and consider both unreliable in any respect, and I frequently remove other such references for being unreliable. Again, if any editors think that is a fabulous reference, go ahead and put it back if you have a consensus on that.

This entire filing is frivolous in that this is actually a content dispute. The OP admitted that they were acting in bad faith towards me on the talk page of Asia Kate Dillon. This OP SPA editor is trying to make a big blow up kerfuffle about how the article was merged in the past as a reason to object to another editors opinion in a simple content dispute. None of their schlock is true. I was frustrated by the outcome of the merge, but I let my frustration out on my own talk page, and then went back to editing as per usual. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am more than happy for others to make edits to the article, and I definitely don't feel territorial. Honestly, help would be very much appreciated; I don't have a lot of energy, and I love when people improve pages I've created or edited. So I'm not really sure where you've got this idea that I am only happy for me and Funcrunch to make edits to this article, Antonioatrylia. :/ If people have things they'd like to add to the article that are not about Dillon's gender I'm very happy about that; I've not removed anything from the article that anyone else has added. If there were facts without citations I've added "citation needed" or researched and found a source myself.

When you say that you removed the Twitter reference because it was a primary source, and if anyone feels this is not correct they are free to put it back - I did this. I posted explaining that your removing the primary source was incorrect in this case, and I put it back. I provided links to Wikipedia policy and quoted them, on the article's talk page. When I edited the primary sources back in, you rolled my edits back and threatened me with punishments associated with edit warfare.

You mention that I am editing articles in a particular subject area as though this makes me in some way biased, but I think it is pretty normal for editors to edit things that appeal to them based on interest, no? Yes, I am excited that Dillon is the first actor to play a nonbinary character in US TV, but I don't feel that I am being territorial. I am not upset that people are editing "my" article, I don't feel any ownership of it because it is a subject close to my heart or something. My problem is that you undo my edits, and when I show you that Wikipedia policy backs up my edits you ignore me and roll the edits back and state an intention to keep undoing my edits and threaten me with punitive actions if I continue to act in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

Overall I feel bullied and pushed around, and like you are rolling back my edits that are perfectly valid. I would expect most people to say, "oh yes, it looks like Wikipedia allows primary sources in this case, cool beans" but instead I am having things thrown at me like that I have only edited a few pages - as if this is somehow evidence of poor behaviour? I made a new account sometime recently because I lost my login information and figured a fresh start might be nice. In fact I have been a casual editor of Wikipedia for many years, mostly fixing grammar and spelling, and tidying up badly formatted citations. I even run my own wiki on another site, so I know how it is to have something you have created get rewritten and replaced and honestly, I think you have to be comfortable with that when you are a wiki editor. I feel pretty comfortable with it. It seems unfair that this being the first article I've created is held against me.

"One last obsevation is that the OP has been forum shopping by posting their issue at the DRN board first, and then very shortly afterward here at this incident board." I will be the first to admit that I'm not familiar with how this all works. I've never had to deal with this kind of behaviour from another editor before, so I am learning how this system works as I go. I didn't know that it wasn't allowed to post in two places at once, and when I opened this complaint here I added a link to the dispute topic to let people know, hoping that someone more experienced would take the appropriate action. I note that a volunteer kindly closed the dispute topic pending the closure of this one, which I'm grateful for!

"This is truly a content issue and really is not appropriate for this board." With respect, that's not something for you to decide. I still feel like you have been aggressive and mean to me, and I'm hoping that some support here can help resolve this matter. I would just like to improve the article in peace, without someone rolling back my edits and then threatening me with punishment even when I supply evidence that my edits are in line with Wikipedia policy.

The Not Notable tag is probably not that big of a deal - the draft that was moved to mainspace was moved there because someone decided it was notable, so I don't feel that removing the Not Notable tag was in error. But I note that Antonioatrylia is focusing on this particular template, when I am more focused on other things they did. One of them being that they kept putting the Undue template on the page when other editors of the page were in agreement that it didn't apply even after Antonioatrylia had explained their reasoning. And then warning me for "edit war" behaviour, which I don't feel I've done - and when they say that they will keep putting the template back even though no one agrees with them, edit warfare is something that would describe their intended actions. If other experienced and knowledgable parties back up the decision to tag the page with UNDUE, I would be fine with that - but the opposite has happened.

I'm grateful to User:Funcrunch for backing me up here. I agree with them when they say "My reading of WP:AGF is that editors should assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary." I would like to assume good faith, but after repeated aggressive moves I was sort of forced to the conclusion that Antonioatrylia is taking things personally, ignoring me when it suits them, and being mean. Whether or not they're doing it deliberately or they're unaware I don't know, but I don't think I'm misinterpreting this situation. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your behavior here Cassolot has been quite poor, in that you on miltiple times throughout your report have mistated that I removed the twitter reference because it was a primary reference. Please provide a diff of me saying that. What I did say in my edit summary was that I was removing a reference to an unreliable website, and it was an archive of a twitter post that would be considered as self published. You call a removal of a reference to an unreliable website agressive and mean? You need to not take things so personal. I put the undue template back one time, not plural times and only after a talk page discussion. The two editors dicussing it besides me were you and Funcrunch, who I explained in the posting above are both possibly putting forward an agenda that keeps both of them from editing neutrally. They both possibly have a bias. Other editors need to assess the article who have no bias, so the article may be fixed and put to a neutral point of view as is required at Wikipedia. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff where you said the Twitter source was unacceptable because it's self-published. But to be clear, it's not the individual details of the dispute that I'm picking over here. It's the way that I'm feeling picked on, like you're trying to push me around, you're being rude and threatening, etc. You've threatened me with punishment over an edit war that hasn't happened while insisting that you will keep undoing an edit that only you object to, you've berated me and another editor over not having good faith, and you're continuing to chide me like I'm a child even now. It's really unpleasant. I would probably just give up and leave Wikipedia, but I'm passionate about the site and interested in the subjects of the articles I edit so I'm trying to go through the proper channels to resolve this optimally, you know? Anyway, I will pause now and await input from an admin. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 20:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment You have provided a diff that does not show that I said Twitter is a primary source. Look back in the thread. When challenged you could not provide it. So you have repeatedly misrepresented what I said, most probably to try and make me look bad. Then also you change the words in your last paragraph to self published insteasd of primary sources. That right there is you being deceptive. Why would you change the sentence, because there is no diff where I said that a twitter reference is a primary source. The diff you provide says exactly what I said that I had said. That seems to be a fail on your part and very deceptive to say the least. You, Cassotol are unpleasent to deal with. Your actions of possibly pushing an agenda and being biased makes it difficult to edit the article effectively to maintain a neutral tone. I have cut back on editing because you haveruined my enjoyment on editing wikipedia. You continuosly misrepresent what I say to try to accuse me of for instance. We had a talk page discussion where I said I was putting the undue tag back on the article. You surely, right away put the disputed references back in the article. I reverted back to the discussed version, and sent you a message warning you against edit warring. I or no one else threatened you. You should really strike that. And btw, your co- editor Funcrunch who is also possibly biased and working to put forth an agenda, reverted my change to make the section header neutral. I hope that you are aware that since you opened this thread that your behavior and actions are put under the same scrutiny as mine. It is possible that you could receive sanctions for your deceptive practice here. When you were unable to provide the diff where I said twitter was a primary source, you changed the language of your statement to match what I had actually said. I also feel like I am ready to leave wikipedia after this unpleasant incident with you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that an administrator or similar hasn't responded. So I guess I am posting to make sure this section doesn't get archived! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, editing to make sure this section isn't archived. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Damaging behavior (edit summaries/article content) at euphoria

Hello administrators and fellow editors. The following concerns actions by user:Seppi333 at euphoria.

Reading these edit summaries [2] I ask, why should I be involved with Wikipedia?

• please use refs that don't suck ass to rewrite this section. otherwise, delete it
• is probably the dumbest statement I have ever read in my life. ... stop citing 'shit refs'
• this is what happens when you don't use a drug monograph like https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+58-08-2 - you get retarded contradictions

This language is hurtful in itself and humiliating to me when seen by other editors. Technically focusing on content, it is a clever way of being obnoxiously insulting. Now Seppi333 is an asset to Wikipedia; he is a learned first rate editor and I, a very human one; but regardless of the validity of his contentions no one should be treated this way. I resist urges to be provoked or become resigned. Because I have been on the receiving end of f***ing (his wording) comments from Seppi333 before, I appeal to you. I don't want to interact with him.

But this isn't just about me. While this was happening he actually modified the article to read [3]: "The widely consumed stimulant caffeine is a euphoriant at higher (than typical) dosages,^{[contradictory][37][38][39]} which does not produce euphoria.^{[contradictory][40][41][42]}" Seppi333 created this intentionally absurd sentence, then made another edit, adding the dual contradictory tags in a single sentence, to make his point, without concern for confusing readers or damaging the reputation of Wikipedia. That needlessly hurts everybody.

Thank you my friends for your consideration. — βox73 (৳alk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• NPA and civil, as usual being ignored by established users who aren't afraid of boomerang. L3X1 (distant write) 02:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Box73: None of these are ad hominem (personal attacks); they're comments on the references that were cited. They're crude because I'm expressing my exasperation and annoyance at constantly having to enforce WP:MEDRS given the countless times I've pointed this policy out to you since we first started collaborating on the amphetamine article around one or two years ago. I acknowledge that my decision to write an apparently contradictory statement into the article wasn't in accordance with content policies; this was a poor decision on my part and I apologize for that. I'm not perfect, and like all humans, when I'm irritated I'm subject to petty emotional responses which I may sometimes be unable to inhibit.
I'm frankly getting fed up with constantly having to delete content and/or references in that article when you know very well what sources are and are not acceptable for citing medical claims. If you simply used reliable medical sources in the first place, disputes like this would not occur. If you continue to ignore that policy going forward, it's pretty likely that another dispute will arise in the future. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They may not be personal attacks, but the comments are highly uncivil and not appropriate on a collaborative project. There are other ways to point out sources are not adequate. Kleuske (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree on both points. I have tried other ways; they don't seem to work. In the future, I'll likely just seek assistance from other edits at WT:MED in order to deal with content/reference issues introduced by Box73 instead of engage with him directly. Subsequent to my last edit on that page, I was already planning on doing this prior to this discussion because I feel that I'm at an impasse in regard to getting him to cite reliable sources for medical statements. This course of action hopefully will reduce or prevent the potential for any issues with his or my behavior in our future interactions. This is the best solution that I can think of at the moment in regard to addressing his concerns.
All Box73 really needs to do to address my concerns is acknowledge that he will cite better references and follow through on that. As of now, he has not done so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I've followed through on what I've stated I will do here: WT:MED#Euphoria needs more eyes. Should any future problems arise with Box73's medical content contributions, I will explain to other medical editors the issues that I see with new content on that talk page, then let those editors engage with Box73 and edit his work as they deem appropriate. If anyone has a better idea about how I should deal with Box73 in the future in order to avoid behavioral problems like this while attempting to address issues with his contributions, please let me know. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious advice that if you find yourself this worked up about something on the internet, you should step away from the keyboard before using offensive edit summaries, I'd say that if an editor is chronically incapable of or unwilling to follow MEDRS, they should be topic banned from editing medical articles. Box73, telling other editors to tag your poorly cited additions instead of removing them isn't acceptable. Poorly cited medical edits will be removed on sight. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

This is outrageous. I am using MEDRS refs.

Typically Seppi333 simply deletes what he disagrees with. WP:BOLD excuses him from discussion. Challenged, he resorts to wikilawyering and threatens that reverts will be deleted. And he does. Seppi333 deleted and redeleted material I added in December. An RfC supported my addition. I didn't see one comment against.

The "suck ass" / "shit refs" edit summaries refer to the UV section I added. I used five MEDRS refs, all reviews from medical journals, the oldest from 2011. A sixth was a peer reviewed article from an industrial science journal. A seventh was published on the Skin Cancer Foundation website. While considered lesser quality sources, these were well written, well cited articles written by published medical researchers. They were used with MEDRS refs but could have been omitted without effect on the material. But Seppi333 didn't do that, he radically edited the copy and added the nasty comments, now claiming I used bad refs.

Bad refs? I didn't write the June 2014 review in Cell but his edit summary response was "Skin β-endorphin mediates addiction to ultraviolet light" is probably the dumbest statement I have ever read in my life. beta-endorphin can barely penetrate the BBB. stop citing shit refs". What part of MEDRS did I violate?

My caffeine ref was old but otherwise MEDRS. The caffeine material was added by a new editor, well intentioned but poorly cited. I found support for his edit but also let one ref stay temporarily, maybe a week. When reasonable and harmless I want to encourage new editors.

Seppi333's response is outrageous. I'm responsible for his behavior and I need to be policed? I've never had any problems with any editor except him. All I ask is for him to loosen up, use common sense, try to collaborate, look at the spirit of the law.

@Spike Wilbury: Thank you. I agree: the flags aren't a license for lousy citations. But the existence of {{medrs}} and {{medcn}} demands some intended use. What I'm saying is that Seppi333 is overstating issues and may react inappropriately. Again, thanks for commenting! — βox73 (৳alk) 10:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I addressed Seppi333's edit summaries in my comment as a separate matter. You are not responsible for their behavior. But, there's nothing wrong with noticing your own role in the conflict. The fact is that readers (stupidly) look to Wikipedia for medical advice and that's the primary reason for stringent adherence to MEDRS, same as why we are so strict about BLPs. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The references I deleted from that article are:

• – this textbook was published in 1999. This was 18 years ago. WP:MEDDATE indicates that refs that are older than 5 years are outdated (In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones). Most medical editors will allow for references to be at most 10 years old due to the fact that some topics are not as actively researched as others and to allow grandfathered references (i.e., ones that were added while still within the 5 year limit) to remain in the article; 18 years is almost double that limit. That 10 year limit is not specified in that policy, it's simply a widely adopted norm among medical editors. It is standard practice to delete medical references that are older than that, especially if they have just been added to an article (as opposed to having been added years ago).

@Seppi333:I'm sorry about that. I admitted above it is dated; I planned to fix both refs within days. (I was being sensitive to a new editor.)

• – this article is a cosmetics industry publication (see the last page); moreover, the article is not pubmed-indexed [4], so there's no indication that this article is a medical source.

Published by Tekno Scienze Publisher, Household and Personal Care Today is a peer reviewed industrial scientific journal which was a supplement to Chimica Oggi - Chemistry Today. Dr. Heckman is a [researcher] and an associate professor at Temple University working in this field. The article was well written, well cited, and the content not controversial. This ref was also posted with an MEDRS ref. The real reason I used it was that it used the term euphoria, where others simply described euphoria.

The bigger problem—and I thank you for bringing it to my attention—is β-endorphin and the BBB. Some other mechanism is required.

• – From the information page for this article on pubmed: Publication types - Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. This is not a medical review; it's a primary source.

You're right. An artifact occurred. When review is already checked and I enter [[5]] that article is listed.

• – From the information page for this article on pubmed: Publication type - Editorial. This is not a medical review; it's a low-quality primary source (the lowest quality primary sources are editorials, case report, and opinion articles).

I undertand—an editorial introduces bias. I weighed this as a position of the American Academy of Dermatology.

• – this is a website. WP:MEDRS#Other sources indicates that virtually all websites with biomedical information, with exception for only a handful listed there (e.g., WebMD, UpToDate, and eMedicine), are considered low quality sources. Even the exceptions listed in that section are stated as being sub-par sources relative to medical reviews.

I should have pulled this. Unlike Heckman it was not peer reviewed or published in any type of scientific journal. Of course MEDRS also gives credibility to some NPOs like the American Heart Association, for example.

@Box73: If you want to find high-quality medical reviews, search pubmed for them, not google. If a pubmed-indexed article is a medical review, it will list "Review" under the "Publication types" tab on the article's pubmed information page. If you didn't know this, I probably should've recognized that and informed you sooner. If you did know this, then you should know better than to cite sources like the ones above.

Thank you Seppi. I do review searches and it's certainly easy to recognize primary research (though I tripped up with the artifact above). I have to be careful distinguishing articles which survey material from reviews proper. The other problem is shifting between medical and non-medical articles.

If you have questions about how certain parts of WP:MEDRS are interpreted or applied in practice, I'd advise you to ask about it at WT:MEDRS or WT:MED.
Going forward, I'm going to ask other medical editors to enforce MEDRS in the euphoria article instead of doing it myself, particularly since I've had to delete sources you've added that were similar to these on many previous occasions for the same reasons.

If he or she keeps an eye on the article and acts on their own initiative, that's cool. If you practice wikilawyering and meatpuppetry, that's not cool.

It's not clear that euphoria is simply a medical topic/article. Some types of euphoria are little studied or reviewed, and wrongly not mentioned by the article. (What scientist has reviewed crowd or political euphoria, or the euphoria of winning a valuable or esteemed prize?) Non-MEDRS must be considered. On the other hand authors of MEDRS reviews make statements about euphoria that are based on their opinion and not the review, particularly when the review isn't about euphoria. And indirect statements using the term may be taken out of context. There are cases where euphoria is clearly present from descriptions but the term not used, such as partial epileptic states (ecstatic seizures). (Likely because in clinical neurology "euphoria" traditionally represents superficially carefree negative states as observed in dementia, lobectomies, etc.) Insistence on actually seeing "euphoria" in print might require references to primary or non-MEDRS sources. But clear descriptions of euphoria and understanding that euphoria is an element of ecstasy should suffice. Common sense is sometimes needed. I suppose some issues may require RfC.

I'm getting annoyed with having to justify my deletions every time this happens; I should not have to do this.

Maybe you shouldn't be editing presently if you're so easily annoyed. I took a break last year when things got tense. Look, I'm not vandalizing content but attempting to be constructive. If you see a problem ref, why not see if you can improve it? That's what I do.

If you edit medical articles, you have to learn what is and is not OK to cite when adding medical content.

Well, I think I'll do much better after this with the medical content copy. The talk pages might be useful too. I will be adding a stimulant-euphoriant to euphoria but will post it on the talk page first. This discussion caused me to change two refs, and new refs caused me to change the statement. How about you look it over for the refs and otherwise. Very short. Then I'll post it.

Thank you.::::— βox73 (৳alk) 23:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Section reflist

Reflist
References

Gianluigi02 - Persistent addition of unsourced/improperly sourced material

• Gianluigi02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article List of terrorist incidents in April 2017 is a mess of WP:OR and failed WP:V. In 99% of cases, the source provides does not explicitly call the even terrorism.

One editor, Gianluigi02, has a history of adding incidents to terrorism related lists where the sources do not support inclusion. Examples: [6], [7], [8], [9]. This user has racked up multiple final warnings regarding this behavior, most recently on April 2. Given that it's not "obvious vandalism", ANI seemed to be the appropriate forum to bring up this disruptive behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how the first three aren't terrorist attacks. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources do not label them as terrorist attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Left a custom final warning [10] instead of a template. If they ignore, ping me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

GTVM92

GTVM92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been previously blocked for "persistent addition of unsourced content" three times, has recently started a new wave of his unconstructive edits:

1. In this edit, the user has fabricated the results of separate approval pollings for the candidates and presented them combined as an opinion poll for voting. He also brought 22% voting for "others", out of nowhere. I checked the source and added the genuine results in this edit.
2. Here he adds three sources for his own original research. This source does not mention any reason for disqualification of Ahmnadinejad, but is used as a reference for the reason "possibly for the opened legal file at the court". This source was used to verify disqualification of several candidates while they are not mentioned in the source at all, and the reason "due to age".
3. This edit is a total hoax. The sources cited do not mention any party conventions held. This one is for example an interview with Hossein Marashi. You can ask a Persian language native editor to verify what I'm saying.

   When you remove all the section, said "What's this? Fictional party convention held in your own fantasy?", but you know that Popular Front of Islamic Revolution Forces and Islamic Coalition Party are held conventions for selecting candidates, as you add to their article. Reformists are also do soo, just not helding congress but selecting candidates with votes. This is one of the examples that you are removing many things that are correct and occured in Iran, just not a good source I found for them because many news in Iran are said just in telegram and other apps. GTVM92 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

   @GTVM92: It's kinda hard to prove something, at least on Wikipedia, without source. If you can find reliable sources for the information, that's fine. —JJBers 16:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

   @GTVM92: Why don't you confess that you made up the Council for Coordinating the Reforms Front party convention? I assume you can easily read Persian and see that ICP did not held any convention, per the source you gave. I can't also figure out the difference between "Not nominated", "Failed" or "Eliminated" in the "rainbow of colour table" you made for a plurality-at-large voting of an umbrella organization (The real results are here). Pahlevun (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

1. In this edit, the source provided does not even mention radio programs. It does not mention time dedicated to each candidate, airing dates or channels airing programms. And yes, this is also a hoax because I cannot find any source citing such information, even in native Persian!

—Pahlevun (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a disruptive account from looking at the contributions. User is most likely WP:NOTHERE, and hasn't bothered to respond to the talkpage, or the ANI. —JJBers 14:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Updated at 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Дагиров Умар

Дагиров Умар was warned for "Edit War" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladikavkaz , but he continues to edit the page as User:46.125.250.124. --Edmundo Vargas —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for reporting, Edmundo Vargas. You must tell a user you have reported them here, see the top of this page. For another time, WP:AN3 is the noticeboard dedicated to edit warring. I have blocked the user for 24 hours for edit warring and avoiding scrutiny. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

• Update: and I have unblocked per WP:AGF, as they deny being the IP. Bishonen | talk 14:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

This member removes information from sources. Please explain to him that Wikipedia is not a Russian site. I gave authoritative sources where there is a title. Ingush are also citizens of this republic. Most of the Ingush population from the republic was expelled in 1992. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A request had been made for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I declined it because each party had made only one statement on the article talk page, not a real attempt to discuss on the talk page, and one of the statements was in Russian anyway, and this is the English Wikipedia and discussion should be in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that I've fully protected the page for four days per Robert McClenon's request at RFPP. El_C 10:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:The discussion is over. "And what you say does not matter"(C)Дагиров Умар https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladikavkaz --Edmundo Vargas (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

copyright problems?

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – issue is at commons.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/010-XXXX-XXXX

I hate to do this, because the content the user is uploading is quite useful buuuuut... I really doubt they own the copyrights to these images, or at least not most of them. It might just be a case of a user not knowing how to use the site. I know this is linking to Wikimedia, but the user is hosting there and then putting on Wikipedia. I just thought I should bring it up with admins. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This absolutely should be brought up with admins.... at Commons, where the uploads are occurring. Correct page is here. User has no edits to en.wp in nearly a year. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request on 1RR

Could an admin or two weigh in on what is meant by the 1RR on the Donald Trump article? The page notice is here. I understand that if an editor has several edits in a row, that can be 1 revert. But what about when an editor gets reverted and then comes back and revises the same content in less than 24 hours? Or is it that you are limited to just one revert or revision that completely wipes what was there before and that's it for 24 hours? I've read comments from some editors where they ask another editor to do copyedits for them because they can't go back now they've made that one edit, while other editors seem to make multiple edits, even coming back after their serial edits are interrupted and continuing to make copyedits, deletions, additions, etc. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If you ask different admins, you're going to get slightly different answers. Keeping in mind I take a dim view of anyone trying to game 1RR to get someone blocked, here's mine: The addition of significantly new material is obviously not a revert. Re-adding the same or similar material after removal is a revert. In the case of multiple interrupted edits I'm looking if the editor is trying to stick in similar content/viewpoints in different ways after a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

By contrast, a removal only counts as a revert if it can be connected to a recent addition. I noticed a lot of editors having trouble with that one. Removing something that was added months & years before, or possibly through multiple edits, is exempted from 1RR. With days & weeks it gets more complicated. El_C 05:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I don't get the "game 1RR to get someone blocked." I've seen experienced editors bait newbies into a block because the newbie doesn't understand how they're breaking the rule. I do understand the rest of your comment. That's what I'm curious about. You add somerthing, it gets reverted, you come back and say it in a different way, that seems to me like violating the rule, and maybe that's a gaming the system thing, too. Thanks, that's very helpful.

@El C: I had no idea about that and I don't think anybody else does either. But there are so many changes on that page, I don't think there is any material there that one could say are old enough to qualify for that. It would be nice to standardize these things. I will link to these answers.

Thank you both. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

When you are an admin and are asked to rule on whether a removal of text counts as 1RR violation, these are the factors and considerations one has to weigh. In revertland, removing something that was added is the dialectical flipside to adding something that was removed. But just like not all additions are reverts, not all removals are, either—even if you are removing some editor/s text, by definition. El_C 05:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. Also, looking at the content focused on and a pattern of editing would be helpful there, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well said. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Example: I've had editors ask for sanctions because another editor removed content (a revert), got reverted, and then proceeded to do some uncontentious copy editing in a different section which technically "undoes other editors' actions". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: It always seemed silly to me that editors would ask others to do a copyedit after they'd revised something for fear of doing it themselves. Copyedits, real copyedits that is, and not just slipping in content that essentially is the same as before but with a different spin, should not count. But editors who add content, are reverted, and then come back to the very same section, same sentence and put in a modified version, that seems like a 1RR violation. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that was me User:NeilN. I actually sympathize with User:SW3 5DL about this. If the written rules would simply say what you admins have said in this section, then editors like me and SW3 would not have to go through this painstaking process of trying to figure out how things work. We could just read the rules. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: It's happened a few times - I don't keep track of the requesters unless there's a reason to. And you can't write down each admin's thought processes. In the example I just gave, if the editor removed content from the lead pertaining to a embezzlement scandal, got reverted, and then their copy editing "just happened" to soften the wording about the scandal in the article body, I would be looking to block for 1RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC}

Complaint and responses

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

---

@NeilN: Well, since Anythingyouwant has brought himself here, I will also mention that he has been making multiple edits for some time now that do just that. I just yesterday questioned this because I wanted to sort if this was a violation just for my own edification as well as others on the page, and to stop him doing it if it is a violation. I brought these edits to @Ad Orientem:'s talk page. He's been editing on DT and doing a great job. He sorted a problem with his own edit which settled the matter, but that now means he can't act as an admin. But I thought he could at least give his opinion. Here are the edits I questioned and Ad Orientem's reply:

• This edit substantially revised content here at 02:38, 21 April 2017

• I reverted here at 02:46, 21 April 2017

• Then Anythingyouwant revised it again here at 14:54, 21 April 2017

• Ad Orientem comment [11]

I think I put him between a rock and a hard place since he has edited there, and I probably should have brought it here. But this type of edit seems to me to be a violation and from what I'm reading in your comments, they do seem to be. Now, in regards to what El_C has said, if there is old material that is being revised, especially if there's discussion on the talk page, that could be seen as not a 1RR violation. But when the material has been recently revised, as this had been, and then he comes in a makes an edit that is then reverted, and he comes back and as you say, 'softens' things a bit, that seems a violation. The clarification here is wanted because if so, this behavior must stop as he's done this before, and it needs to be made clear for all editors what precisely is 1RR as applies to that page. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's kind of remarkable that even after these patient explanations from uninvolved Admins about what a "revert" means, you yet again bring forth this bogus 1RR accusation that has already been dismissed by an involved admin. I have banned SW3 from my user talk page, by the way. This is just bizarre. Happy Sunday! Incidentally, I already responded to the accusation here, and also in multiple threads at this page. Should I repeat it all now? Should I present a detailed explanation of why this user is the most unsuitable and unhelpful editor I've come across in ages? Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL and Anythingyouwant: This is why WP:AE exists. Ask one admin and you are relying on a single opinion. AE is designed so that multiple admins can chime in if needed. In this particular case, I would have issued a clear warning or blocked if there were recent DS blocks in history. Unfortunately Anythingyouwant, on that article the restrictions have got you either coming or going. Calling it a 1RR violation is debatable but if that's the case, there's also the "Consensus required" restriction which seems to have been broken. Yes, the editing seems to be somewhat trivial to uninvolved eyes but that restriction still needs to be followed if you're going to "play it safe". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Neil. And knowing that I will bring any future issues here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Not here please. WP:AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. AE. I would not have thought of that first. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it does appear necessary to play it extremely safe, which I did not. I attempted to follow WP:BRD after being reverted with an extremely vague edit summary. I did that quickly, going to the talk page within ten minutes of the revert. Instead, the reverter took off for well over 12 hours. No one objected during that period to me restoring part of the removed material, and --- thinking that that part of the removed material could not have been what motivated the revert ---- I restored it. I was mistaken, either because of a sincere disagreement, or because of a set-up, take your pick. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A set up is when you make the edits yourself after putting an artificial clock on how long you will tolerate having your edit reverted before you restore it. 24 hours, not 12 is the rule on 1RR on that page. Talk page discussion does not have a clock on it. As I've mentioned to you before, other than BLP violations, there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. It could have kept. None of us here is on your clock. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no 1RR violation, and I agree with Ad Orientem about that. As for your behavior, I commend to you the essay WP:Revert which says: "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting." I didn't pick a "half-day" out of thin air. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that essay is valid advice User:SW3 5DL? Also, please STOP editing your talk page comments after they've already been responded to, without indicating the changes. Per WP:TPG, "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes." Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you'll reply SW3. You seem to be available.[12] Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps his pinger is broken. I have left a note at his user talk.[13] Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The OP has now accused me of harassment for asking him to reply here. If the OP, who started this thread and accused me here of violating discretionary sanctions, will not respond, I hope that an admin will respond about whether the questions I have posed to the OP are valid questions. I want to be collegial and resolve this matter. A user who reverts with hardly any explanation, makes himself unavailable for the BRD process, edits his comments without indication they've been edited (after they've already been responded to), and makes wild accusations of harassment is not a helpful editor, and I cannot keep editing this BLP if an editor has carte blanche to do that sort of thing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: No one can force another editor to answer questions (yes, with the standard exception for admin actions). If they don't reply, just move on. The other issues aren't going to be addressed here unless you open a new thread or go to AE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, since when does someone accused at ANI have to open a separate thread to get feedback about whether the accuser has behaved properly (and regarding this same matter)? Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Since anyone who is interested has probably chalked this up as a spat between the two of you by now. Fresh accusations of ongoing misbehavior (without diffs) aren't going to be paid much attention to when they're made in the middle of a thread started about something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I obviously provided diffs above, and it is all regarding the exact same BLP, and mostly even about the exact same 1RR accusation made against me. If serious misbehavior against me, aimed perhaps at affecting a high-profile BLP, is always going to be chalked up to a "spat" then I have no interest in editing this BLP further. Which I'm sure will greatly please anyone who may have desired that outcome all along, but surprises me not at all. If you prefer stale accusations of past misbehavior, instead of fresh accusations of recent and ongoing stuff, just let me know and I'd be glad to oblige. And, to see what a statement without diffs looks like, please see the one you endorsed here. Or the one left at my user talk. The writing is on the wall here, and I plan to stop editing this BLP to protect myself from this all-too-typical behavior at Wikipedia which emphasizes easily-abused "discretion" instead of plain "rules" that apply to everyone equally. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Anythingyouwant may be relying on the WP:SILENCE essay, which lets the editor assume consensus if no one voices disagreement to his restoring some particular part of the removed material. "Most of the time, you will find that it's fine to assume consensus, even if just for now, as it's more important to keep editing and cooperating smoothly in good faith as much as possible." It looks (to me) like Anythingyouwant's edits have all been made in good faith. He does make a lot of them, however, so based on statistics, some that appeared to accord well with assumed consensus at the time will ultimately be found to have contradicted "actual" consensus -- as ultimately revealed. No matter. As I see it, the editor cannot be sanctioned unless you somehow prove that a particular edit did not accord well with reasonably assumed consensus or was not made in good faith. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Would someone please close this miserable section? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

More free time for me. If circumstances change and I want to edit the BLP again, I'll discuss it with User:NeilN. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jvm21

This user systematically violates WP:NMOTORSPORT, creating the articles about drivers who have only competed in the F4 Championship or even karting drivers. Now he recreates an article about a driver who is not notable and was deleted two weeks before. Please somebody reason him, if it is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted the article per G4. Can it be made clearer in NMOTORSPORT which series of racing are relevant, and which not? F4 clearly isn't, but is F3, for example? Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:MOTOR consensus, the driver who have contested only in national F3 (British, Japanese) is not notable. European F3/Formula 3 Euro Series level driver is notable. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well there's been no improvement with this editor since their last mention here. Careful @Corvus tristis:, you may get a reply like this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:, I think that after this, I'm ready for anything from the user. Corvus tristis (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

He def. doesn't like interacting with anyone, as this last comment shows. Clear cut case of WP:NOTHERE if there ever was one. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations, disruptive editing

Some unacceptable stuff going on around British TV programmes. Under the Hammer was deleted this morning as an unambiguous copyvio (my nomination), and re-created within hours by Swiftsave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), little different from what I remember of the earlier version, and riddled with copyright violations. I blanked it and listed it at WP:CP. When IP 86.161.175.64 removed the copyvio template I restored it; another IP, 86.175.66.99, has removed it again. I've asked for semi-protection, but on looking a little further I'm pretty sure we are dealing with a single editor –with an idiosyncratic and laconic taste in edit summaries – who shows little sign of being here to improve the encyclopaedia. Similar behaviour at Full Stretch, foundational copyvio by Swiftsave, G12 tag removed by 86.161.175.64. Advice or help appreciated, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed for copyvios, "Under the Hammer" redeleted. His other articles need to be carefully examined and G12/RD1ed. Further IP edits (it's a WP:DUCK) can be blocked for block evasion. BethNaught (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of articles by this user needing review. Time to open a CCI? BethNaught (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh Lord – I'm looking at To Be the Best right now, and it's saying it premiered on "WCBS" in the U.S., but that's nonsense as there's no such thing as "local affiliate miniseries" on anything other than PBS in the U.S. – it must have aired on CBS... (Yep.) If this is the kind of thing this user has done consistently, his articles are likely to be problematic, quite aside from the Copyvio stuff. [sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A number (though not all) of the TV series articles look to be effectively unsourced (and so are possibly not notable TV series), and thus are probably good WP:PROD candidates. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to those who've dealt with some of this, particularly BethNaught. I've looked at some more of them myself. They're not only riddled with copyvio – parts are assembled out of quite short passages copied from elsewhere – but, as IJBall notes, there are serious problems with both sourcing and accuracy. A couple of examples: in A History of British Art, the text "takes a walk through the newly re-hung galleries of London’s Tate Britain – and wonders what makes a national style of art" is copy-pasted from this BBC page – but that page is not about A History of British Art, and the person taking the walk is Alastair Sooke, not Andrew Graham-Dixon. In The Polar Bear Family & Me, the text "follows wildlife cameraman Gordon Buchanan as he spends a year with a family of wild …" is apparently copied from this BBC page about a different programme, The Bear Family and Me (it may or may not still be right, I don't know). BethNaught, rather than add yet more to the CCI backlog (somewhere around 80,000 articles waiting to be checked) and indeed to the CCI request backlog (about 40 requests waiting to be evaluated – admins, you can help!), I'd like to propose a more immediate solution: the nuclear option. Please see below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: that all articles created by Swiftsave be summarily deleted, without prejudice to re-creation by bona-fide editors; and that all edits by him and his team of IPs be summarily reverted unless they are only to add reliable references or verified factual information (not running text). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Contribs for Swiftsave are here. This would affect 14 articles created, and up to 15 where he made at least one edit over 150 characters while logged in. Oh, and I support it as proposer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
• Partial support – I would basically support WP:NUKEing them all, with two exceptions: To Be the Best where I've added a Variety source and which seems to be clearly notable, and Red Fox (TV series) which seems to have two bona fide sources (though I can't really check them – it might take a British editor to check to make sure those sources aren't "made up") – as long as those two don't contain any WP:COPYVIOs, I think they should be kept. The rest can go though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, partly in response to the comment by BethNaught but also relevant to this proposal - it does indeed sound like a WP:CCI would be appropriate. However, do CCI requests still get dealt with? The backlog even for requests to be assessed now seems to be at years -- the next request due to be considered seems to be nearly two years old! -- and I think I saw a comment that most copyright work does not take place at CCI now. Should dealing with copyright issues now be done elsewhere by default, and should all of the pages be updated to reflect this. Anyway if that is the case, then adding this case to a backlog that will never be cleared, may not be appropriate. MPS1992 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There's very little work going on at WP:CCI any more, unfortunately. As an alternative to creating a new case there, I have gone through and cleaned up the edits of the named account and as many of the related IPs as I could find. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Partial support as per IJBall. I was originally going to suggest a nuke on copyright grounds, but it turned out mere RD1 could be applied to most instead. I was too busy looking for copyvios to see the sourcing issues, however, which are concerning. Certainly I think any of their articles without independent reliable sources should just go at this point to save time on the clean-up job. Thanks to people working on this, particularly Diannaa and Justlettersandnumbers. BethNaught (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and personal attacks

User User:KazekageTR has made radical changes on Turkish War of Independence without sources or gaining any support from the talk page. Naturally, I reverted his/her edits, yet he/she was constant without even providing any edit summaries. This user even insulted me and made personal attacks here on my personal talk page. I think this user will continue doing this and not sure what to make of this. (N0n3up (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

That is not a personal attack... --Tarage (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@N0n3up: Well, you really did the exact same to him.... —JJBers 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and Tarage, considering you guys haven't made as much contributions to Wikipedia nor have been around long enough as I have, not to mention neither of you are even admins, I'll make it clear to first look at the edits in the talk page and article in topic before jumping to conclusions. KazekageTR made long and very extreme changes without even providing a single source nor gaining consensus for his changes. Since I opposed, he/she comes to my talk page and drops F-bomb on my talk page. That's not what I call a productive behavior and something I would never dream of doing. If someone makes radical changes like he/she did, you first discuss and or present sources to back your claim, until then, the article should stay the way it was in its original form. (N0n3up (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: this is why... —JJBers 01:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers The only thing I see is a concerned Wikipedian telling the editor stop making crazy arbitrary edits and to gain consensus. with capital letters to make the post more noticeable since KazekageTR didn't notice my first post, nothing wrong with that. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm waiting for a more authoritative figure whose made as much contributions to Wikipedia and have been around long enough or longer than I have. (N0n3up (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: That's still uncivil to just go to someone's talkpage and "scream" at them, and calling them a vandal. —JJBers 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers and Tarage. Well, he/she DID vandalize the article since he/she kept adding unsourced content without consensus after been told not to, while cursing at other's talk page. You seem to not know what you're even talking about. In case you didn't notice, this is ANI, "A" as in Admin, something you're not. I think I'm wasting precious time with two interloper who didn't contribute nor has been in Wikipedia for as long as I have, bye. (N0n3up (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: Please read WP:AGF before commenting anything else on this. —JJBers 01:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@N0n3up: This is vandalism. This might have problems but it is not vandalism. Don't misuse Wikipedia behavior policy. Further, all-caps comments and edit summaries are strongly discouraged at WP:SHOUT. Also see WP:BATTLEGROUND. Before you open an ANI complaint, be sure your own hands are quite a bit cleaner than they are in this situation. And make sure you have followed dispute resolution guidance at WP:DR. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Although not vandalism, this user did constantly put radical unsourced info without consensus, not to mention that this user used the F-word on my talk page. I simply restored the page to its original form, I tried to do the right thing. As for mines, I just knew about the all-caps rule and other once you told me, my bad for the misdemeanor. (N0n3up (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

Do not tell me what to do based on edit count. You can make millions of edits and still be wrong. And you are wrong N0n3up. It was not a personal attack. --Tarage (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Tarage What are you still doing here? You and JJBers straight up walked into this discussion for Admins, not new editors who feel like posting on ANI reserved for admins. And yes, it was personal attack, this user used the F-bomb in my page and was inconsiderate and brash. And the fact that you tried to ping my name but got JJBers name instead really makes me wonder your purpose here, so it's best if you get lost, I'm waiting for Admins, not randomers. (N0n3up (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: There was no personal attack, you and the other editor acted uncivil, you violated SHOUT, and he was uncivil about it. And this isn't only for admins, and your OP is just a waste of administrator resources at best. —JJBers 15:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) N0n3up, this page is not "reserved for admins". Non-admins and "randomers" can and will weigh in as well (and before you go through the trouble of checking: I've been editing here almost thrice as long as you have, making over six times as many edits to mainspace as you have, but such comparisons are really neither here nor there, and certainly shouldn't be used as an argument to dismiss feedback from others). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do right now is warn both KazekageTR and N0n3up to stop being uncivil, and try to let them talk it out in the talk page of the article the edit warring happened. And then just simply close this. —JJBers 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked at the pages history? Every other edit seems to be N0n3up reverting someone else. I count ten reverts in the past two weeks, with two WP:3RR violations on April 8th. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed that, I'll just warn him not to edit war anymore. —JJBers 16:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: One thing is posting a message on my talk page, another is adding unsourced content without consensus after a day that the 3RR rules apply. (N0n3up (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: You seem to reverting at random, and citing consensuses that the edit repairs, if this continues, I'll be reporting at AN3. —JJBers 16:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: Neither KazeKageTR nor you made your case on the talk page. I'm simply restoring the page back to it's original version. And now you because you feel vaguely offended are doing exactly that. In that case, I will as well post and ANI here against you. (N0n3up (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@JJBers: You were saying? (N0n3up (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

@N0n3up: And what? —JJBers 16:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @N0n3up: '...this discussion for Admins, not new editors who feel like posting on ANI reserved for admins; it is not, twice over. It's for 'administrators and experienced editors,' as it says at the top. Incidentally, Tarage has been here over twelve years, so they could possibly call your insinuation of lack of tenure as an WP:ASPERSION. And since you have been involved in an edit war with the other editor (amongst others!), you can hardly blame them for joining the discussion. You should take these points as, perhaps just an encouragement to focus on any actual adminstrative issues that are required and not personalize the discussion. Many thanks, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Now this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:N0n3up reported by User:JJBers Public .28Result: .29. 17:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Honestly, at this point, I originally posted about KazekageTR adding arbitrary edits without source or talk-page argument/consensus, unwittingly making some minor mistakes along the way, but again, I'm only trying to do the right thing. (N0n3up (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

Can we just close this at this point, this is going almost nowhere. —JJBers 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we talk about how JJBers is arbitrarily adding unsourced unsupported content on Turkish War of Independence without providing a single argument not even taking it to the talk page? As said "here" for a trouble editor. (N0n3up (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

JJBers didn't add anything, they reverted you. At this point, one wonders if you have a particular fondness for cyclically aerodynamic fibrous cellulose. Take my advice and let it go. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants No, KazekageTR added new unsupported contents, so I reverted to longstanding original. Now JJBers is reverting me to the same version of KazekageTR's unsupported content. Get your facts straight. (N0n3up (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

One wonders no more. One is quite sure of it, at this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a fine thing to say. (N0n3up (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

On the same point, I'm waiting for an apology from you for your personal attack against me. --Tarage (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a mature thing to say. (N0n3up (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Yes, it is actually. I've been completely mature this entire time. I explained to you that what you thought was a personal attack was not one, and then you proceeded to attack me. Heck, you've attacked every single person who responded. Now, it appears you have completely run out of arguments all together and are now just saying statements. I hope someone closes this section before you get a block for personal attacks. Ironic. --Tarage (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You have done nothing but concentrate on editors and not the topic in hand as a matter of fact. So if I were you I wouldn't be too confident. And considering you have taken this much time to write that post, seems you got nothing to do at the moment. I think I've wasted my time. (N0n3up (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Tell me, does ANY editor agree with you? I'm having trouble finding one. --Tarage (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to tell you once again, since you seem to have problems with processing or understanding certain matters. KazekageTR added new unsupported contents without , so I reverted to "longstanding original", as in the "neutral version" that the article was "before the conflict". And if you're referring to JJBers wanting KazekageTR because whatever reason, he still didn't add sources, argumentation nor consensus to why KazekageTR's edit is on the right, he's acting on guts alone. Until then, the neutral version needs to be in place. WP:BOLD, get it? Goodnight. (N0n3up (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Last warning. Stop with the personal attacks. --Tarage (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block

N0n3up has responded to all criticism with falsehoods and personal attacks, as seen above. All of this evinces a battleground mentality. I believe a short block may be in order until they can calm down. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support I was going to give them one more chance to be civil before going this route, but yeah. Enough is enough. --Tarage (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I have never made any personal attacks. Don't mix "not getting along" with "personal attacks". I originally came here to ANI for a problem regarding a user who constantly adds unsourced contents without taking it to talk page. I think User:EdJohnston said something similar regarding the edits on Turkish War of Independence. Nevertheless this ANI discussion has gotten out of proportions to the point that it seems we're diverting from the original reason for this ANI. (N0n3up (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Question. Do you know what casting aspirations means? --Tarage (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

May you grow up to be a successful attorney!!! Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Since reading the discussion, I see that WP:BATTLEGROUNDMENTALITY is fully happening with this user, and a short cool down block is needed. —JJBers 12:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Because I have more edits than all 3 of them combined and I am the newest guy. considering you guys haven't made as much contributions to Wikipedia nor have been around long enough as I have, not to mention neither of you are even admins, AN/I is not for raising middle fingers ot your fellow editors! And here is where ancient weapons break down, whats gonna happen to Kazekage? Ok, he got shouted at, its not justification to go dropping uncivil F bombs on other's talk pages. He should at least get a template. L3X1 (distant write) 13:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems fine, I was thinking of just a simple warning for civility —JJBers 16:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think blocking N0n3up would achieve anything useful at this point, and might only achieve upsetting N0n3up for whom I have sympathy. I suggest N0n3up take some of the advice and feedback included in this entire thread to heart in order to avoid future instances of shooting themselves in the foot. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Harassment and personal attacks

Resolved

 – No administrative action taken—but everyone is sentenced to binge re-watch The Wire. El_C 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it harassment to say that someone is adding a "stupidly unreliable source" when the source is produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, as VQuaker did here? Is it harrasment to repeatedly posting annoying comments like I ""play dumb", that I "adds a stupidly unreliable source", and make "dumb decisions"? Is it a personal attack to accused me of "cherry-picking quotes" when I quote the most relevant part of a policy? Is it a personal attack to accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for the accusation? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

No, to all of the above.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes he is. If you don't believe it from him, then no to all the above. (If you think it's harassment to point out that "Moon of Alabama" is a stupidly unreliable source for an article about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, I really don't know what to say to you.) ‑ Iridescent 21:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The source is not moonofalabama. It's produced by an established expert. Theodore Postol. It's added per WP:SPS. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And also. The policy says WP:AVOIDYOU Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. Isn't it valid? Something I am missing here? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Postol is an expert in ballistic nuclear missiles, and were he to self-publish on those it might be considered an acceptable exception under WP:SPS. This is not a self-published paper on ballistic nuclear missiles, and Postol's views have no more weight than do Linus Pauling's claims that vitamin C cures cancer. As I suspect you already know perfectly well. Before you post here again, as has already been explained to you you may want to actually read WP:HARASS, as I don't believe it says what you think it says. You may also want to read WP:BOOMERANG. ‑ Iridescent 21:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should read a bit more. Postol is not just an expert in ballistic nuclear missiles, ref. MIT and he has been used as an established expert on this subject before, even on this incident, ref. Deutsche Welle, TheNation among others. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack for users to question the intelligence of an action, but it doesn't help foster a civil environment, either. I'd hate for Erlbaeko to be treated differently just because he promotes a minority position (against the mainstream view of US interventionism ^{(Postol is mentioned as an expert in this The Wire piece, too)}). El_C 22:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: may not be the same The Wire I had in mind. El_C 22:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm an expert on The Wire, does that count? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hah! It is your town, after all, so it counts! That show (and Battlestar Galactica) brings me back. El_C 23:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I suspect it might even be nonsense. Do you think a MIT professor would misspell the word "occur" on the title page of every page of his report? [14]. I suspect this report has had Postol's name attached to it based on his previous work on Syrian attacks. I note that not a single RS appears to feature what would be a significant development (A Google for "Theodore Postol Syria 2017" reveals blogs, political sites and Russia Today).Or maybe not. You'd think it would be presented better, though. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Take a look here, and here: With Error Fixed, Evidence Against ‘Sarin Attack’ Remains Convincing. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough - but in that case, why on earth didn't you use that source in the first place, rather than the completely unreliable one you used? Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of it. Another user posted the PDF-version first, I re-added it. And please, don't mix up mis-spelling with stupidity. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

We're actually discussing behavioral issues. You have basically asked if these things are attacks and the answer is no, they aren't. The veracity of the cited source would be discussed at RSN. No foul committed that I can see...play on.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The question is mostly about harrasment, but if it ok to repeatedly post annoying comments like you "play dumb", that you "adds a stupidly unreliable source", and make "dumb decisions", then I guess the working environment will be quite nice onwards. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've already addressed that. There isn't any administrative thing to do here, but next time you are spoken to in this manner, remind that editor that characterising your edits as lacking in intelligence works against fostering an environment of civil collaboration. El_C 23:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Have a good one. Erlbaeko (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed for long-term Pink Floyd vandal

As may be observed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iloveartrock, the blocked sockmaster who once registered as Iloveartrock has recently been using IPs from Peru in the range 179.7.99.0 to 179.7.122.0. Can we get a rangeblock to stop this avenue of disruption? Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Outlook not so good. These are all over the place without much consistency and rangeblocking looks to cause collateral damage. I looked to see if setting protections, an edit filter or finding a link to blacklist might work but I'm not finding a solution.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's true that the IP addresses are pretty scattershot, but 179.7.96.0/19 would catch many of the recent ones and have little-to-no collateral damage. I don't see a problem with doing it, as long as people think it will actually accomplish something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That would block 8,192 numbers, most of which are being used by Iloveartrock. I think blocking that group will help. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Roman Spinner editing dab pages in breach of ban

Roman Spinner (talk · contribs) was banned from editing dab pages in February 2016. They are currently involved in a messy repeated AfD for a dab page, in the course of which they substantially altered the content of the page while nominating it (for the 2nd time) for AfD.

Perhaps their ban on editing dab pages should be extended to a ban on nominating dab pages for any sort of deletion (CSD, PROD, AfD), to keep them away from this area of editing in which they seem to cause problems for the encyclopedia. Failing that, they need to be reminded that editing a dab page is editing a dab page, even if the same edit nominates it for AfD. PamD 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Blatant breach of ban, so I have blocked for 48 hours (although I don't think adding an AFD header as part of the nomination process should be considered on its own as enough to break the ban on 'editing'). I support extending the ban to nominating for deletion too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe he could look at archiving that massive talkpage when the block expires. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest an amendment to the original ban. I believe it left him able to edit on disambiguation talk pages. This has led to many move discussions, and I think the ban should included deletion discussions and talk pages. One example of my concern is Katharine Blake which Roman nominated for speedy deletion three times [15] (it is a redirect to a dab), and created move discussions (see Talk:Catherine Blake and Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation), keeping on and on despite lack of support. Roman just doesn't seem to be able to stop himself. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well at that point you might as well make it a topic ban from all DAB pages/discussions. Very little wriggle-room there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps explicitly covering redirects to dabs too. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support extending this ban to "Wikipedia disambiguation, broadly construed". That ought to clearly cover the relevant areas being disrupted: if it has to do with disambiguation, it's off-limits. The problem seems at the core to be WP:IDHT: when told explicitly that what they're doing is wrong, Roman Spinner ignores the advice and does the wrong thing anyway, often repeatedly. Immediately renominating Ivan Saric for deletion after being told that AFD is the wrong venue to propose a merge is just the latest example of this years-long pattern. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Account dating to 2006 with never a talk page comment

So far as I can see Tobibln (talk · contribs) with 34115 edits since: 2006-07-03 has never replied to complaints etc on their talk page or used an article talk page, although I haven't checked all 65 pages of contribution. And there is a long list of queries, complaints, etc. dating back to 2006. Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 12:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that this has been brought up before. The user appears to have made a grand total of 4 communications with other editors: [16], [17], [18], [19] with the latest being 8 years ago. Sam Walton (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

[20]. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Tob blanked his userpage yesterday, and he seems to be doing better, only 7 edits in 2014, 11 edits in 2015 and 3 warnings in 2016. Half of this year's warnings are simple bot notices. I think we ought to do him a favor and archive his page for him, the first 75K bytes is up to 2011, so it would leave enough warning to show that perhaps not all is well. L3X1 (distant write) 13:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, his last 500 contribs date back 18 months to Dec 15, and 224 of them are still current. So he seem to be an ok editor, even if he doesn't respond on his talk page. The next thousand edits of his takes us back to dec 14, and seem to be improvments on aerospace related pages. L3X1 (distant write) 13:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, not a big deal, but my warning about linking dates was the 3rd. And User:HighInBC suggested linking to the old thread, so they should be told about this. Although they haven't been around for 3 weeks. Pinging User:Jetstreamer also who brought the complaint. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Spam/Blacklist

There seems to be rash of new accounts mostly starting with "Mah" (and now "Man") that were spamming Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) (now protected) and have now moved onto Smurfs: The Lost Village. Can anyone take a look at the contribs and set up a black list, if it's possible? I don't know how to go about it. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added a report for the spam additions to WT:WPSPAM#netai.net and netne.net. The sites involved appear to have some other uses existing on Wikipedia; so the question will be if the other uses are legitimate or not (I haven't reviewed them yet myself). A review and possible discussion may help to determine if a blacklist or edit filter are the better solution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeking an IBAN

I am seeking an IBAN with regard to user:GregJackP with whom I acknowledge that I have a history of very bad blood.

I would prefer it be one-way but I will accept two-way.

What prompts this, is this and this, in light of this and this (the last two are GregJackP's history at that article).

We are just coming off a very ugly discussion at Talk:Plummer v. State and I cannot see this as anything other than BATTLEGROUND and HOUNDING on their part. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is just harassment on Jytdog's part. @Seraphim System: is on my watchlist after an interaction at Talk:Bluebook where another editor was raising a question on the use of Bluebook short form citations and verifiability of references. Seraphim System answered that question [21], so I put his talk page on my watchlist. So when Jytdog puts a edit-warring warning on Seraphim's talk page, I went to the article and looked. In the last 24-hours, Jytdog has reverted in several bursts: First set ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]), Second revert ([31]), Third ([32]), Fourth ([33]), Fifth ([34]). During the same time, Seraphim made one addition of material, and then two reverts when Jytdog deleted the sourced material. I think that it is disingenuous for Jytdog to warn Seraphim for two reverts when he has five.

Second, the discussion at Talk:Plummer v. State has not been "ugly," and considering that Jytdog followed me to Plummer several years ago when he was hounding @PraeceptorIP: on several intellectual property law articles (PraeceptorIP is a SME in that field), I find the claim of harassment to be BS too. As an additional factor, Seraphim's addition was a law journal from University of Missouri Law, and Jytdog inferred that it was a) not a WP:RS and b) not WP:NPOV. Both claims are ludicrous, which is probably why he seeking an IBAN, which is also ludicrous. He's already the subject of two IBANs due to his conduct, I've not been subject to a single IBAN. I would suggest that if someone needs an IBAN, it is not I. GregJackP Boomer! 06:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

IBANs are typically bi-directional--also, very frequently counter-intuitive, but that's a matter for discussion if the community moves in that direction; I don't see it happening on the basis of the interaction so far. That said, I have to tell you that I find your approach here highly problematic. I take you at face value when you say that you came across this dispute by way of Seraphim's user talk, but that doesn't change the fact that you followed a user with whom you have recently been in dispute with back to an unrelated page, reverted their edit and joined a discussion against their position. That action is, if not per se WP:Disruptive, still at the very least more than a little WP:Battleground.

Also, having reviewed the original Plummer discussion, I'd like to add that you exhibit some behaviours there that I would classify as redflags for a potentially disruptive editorial outlook. Disrespectful, chiding comments like "why don't you run along, maybe create some simple articles about schools or something. Thanks for your input though." are WP:Incivil and inappropriate for this site in and of themselves, and when combined with other comments on that page and your repeated suggestion that the perspectives of lawyers should be given more weight over those of your other fellow editors suggests an WP:OWN attitude and a lack of proper understanding of how consensus is formed on this project--that is, not by arguments from authority or the flashing of credentials--despite the fact that you have a few years here.

My strong recommendation to you here is that you pull away from the Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia article, which you admit followed Seraphim and Jytdog to, and that you keep a wide berth between you and Jytdog altogether for the immediate future. It's the simplest way to de-escalate this situation. Further, I'd recommend you re-evaluate your approach in discussions where you feel you are an expert (and with regard to civility in general); specifically, you very much need to understand the principle of keeping your talk page comments focused on content and policy, without any opining on the perceived editorial/professional shortcomings of your fellow editors. If you don't, I rather suspect that eventually the sanction we will be discussing here will not be an IBAN, but rather a TBAN and/or blocks. Just a feeling.

Lastly, this is not really the place to be discussing content matters, but insofar as interfaces with the dispute here, law review articles are almost always WP:Primary sources for claims (as Wikipedia defines the term), so while they can be used in some niche contexts, they very often are not WP:RS, depending on the claim they are meant to support. That said, I have not reviewed the particulars of the source in question, and its only incidental to the conduct discussion here anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You're incorrect on law review / journal articles being primary sources. With the exception of a law review article involving a case where the author was one of the attorneys involved, I can not conceive of a case where the article would be a primary source. They are almost always secondary sources, although under MOS:LAW we would be able to use them even if they were primary sources. GregJackP Boomer! 12:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And FYI, I do appreciate that Jytdog can be a little...shall we say "1,000% devoted to his perspective" sometimes. None of my comments above should be taken as blanket endorsement of his approach to the original discussion. It's just that following him to another discussion takes things to another level, while the implication (to him and others) that their editorial opinions are worth less by virtue of their not being legal professionals is counter to every bit of policy and overwhelming, long-established community consensus on such matters. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you mean this to be belittling, but it is. I have studied law and it is countless hours of hard work. Countless. I don't think my editorial opinion on an article about Python programming language is worth as much as someone who knows what a tuple is. I am often asked to RTFM. Respect for your fellow editors is extremely important, and part of that is not being disruptive to the editing process on a topic that requires a level knowledge to edit competently that you do not possess. That is what has happened in this article. Environmental Justice is not a "perspective", x does not equal y. I can't say that I support a topic ban, or any attempts to intimidate competent law editors away from law articles with threats of blocks or TBANS. I think I have said more then enough about this now. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with non-lawyers editing legal articles, on the contrary, I welcome them. @Guy Macon: comes to mind, from Plummer, non-lawyer who does a very good job in the field. @Hamiltonstone: and @Cjmclark: comes to mind from Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, ditto, and I'm sure I could go on and on. What is required is competence. It's one of the main reasons that I don't edit articles on chemical compounds or physics, because I'm not competent enough to know the difference between Benzine and Benzene. When I bring up professional status, it has normally been when there is one or two editors who have taken a position against what the law and the sources state, and where there is a significant number of attorneys who have weighed in on the other side. In the couple of cases where this has occurred, it has almost always been because of a lack of competence on the part of the lay editor, combined with a dose of WP:IDHT. When we discuss the law, we have a responsibility not to get the information wrong. Non-lawyers can get the information right and we need to get more of them involved in Wikiprojects Law and SCOTUS. GregJackP Boomer! 13:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Law review articles are secondary sources, you can check with Bluebook to confirm this. Cases are primary sources and for MOS:LAW the rules for primary sources are different - obviously, or we could not have any legal content or Supreme Court case pages on Wikipedia. Law review articles, which I read regularly, are usually secondary sources. I have only ever found one exception to this, when a lawyer was discussing a case he practiced on, but even that should not be thrown out unless there is also WP:OR - it does not effect its status as WP:RS. Different fields, like medicine have different rules for primary sources - medicine, for example is extremely strict that no primary sources should be used. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Law review articles are secondary sources in the nomenclature of legal practice, but as Wikipedias sourcing policies define WP:Primary and WP:Secondary sourcing, I'm afraid you are incorrect; law review articles can technically be either primary or secondary (in Wikipedia's terms) depending on whether the claim being sourced is the primary assertion of the author or secondary discussion of work that is independent of their assertions. More often than not, it is the former. I think your confusion here lays in the (incorrect) assumption that the way Bluebook uses "secondary source" is the same as how we use it on this project (or that such terms are universal in meaning amongst anyone who might want to make a citation, for whatever purpose). In fact, while the term is identical, the concepts are quite different, as regards legal citation and Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Anyway, again, this is not the place for this discussion; this venue is exclusively for discussing behavioural issues and the content arguments should be reserved for the appropriate talk page(s). Snow ^{let's rap} 10:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact remains that you are asking a competent editor to step away from an article that I am glad he is helping on, even though I did not ask for that help. If this is not the place for it, then don't raise the issue here. MOS:LAW, like other specialized fields, has its own sourcing and citation guidelines - and we do use Bluebook for law articles. I hope you do understand that law is a specialized field that requires competence to edit. For exmaple, if you don't have competence with math, you should probably not edit articles about math (I know I don't.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think you are understanding my points or the advice I am trying to give GregJack here to try to keep this from blowing up further. It's fine to concentrate your efforts on areas where you are experienced or credentialed, but that background doesn't get you any special status in consensus discussions on this project. Nor is such an editor allowed to dismiss the perspectives of their fellow contributors because they do not meet their idiosyncratic standards on expertise. Greg needs to keep talk page discussions focused solely on the proposed content, the sources, and the policy issues. Throwing about one's professional status is less than useless here, it's counter-productive; far from getting experienced editors to take your argument more seriously, it will only convince them of such an editor's lack of experience with our process, which (in content disputes) ignores the identity of the speaker and focuses on the substance of their argument.

This is a basic and more-or-less universally accepted principle of work on this project, and we've adopted it for a number of reasons. First, we routinely rely on editors contributing to areas where they are not skilled professionals, including even the most complex areas, as a practical reality. Second, you'll find quite a bit of resistance here to the argument that a practicing expert is, per se, the best person to write well about a topic in an encyclopedic and neutral fashion; point in fact, often such "experts" can be too close to a topic or otherwis be highly problematic editors in that area for other reasons (such as WP:OWN), especially if they don't fully internalize our process for arriving at consensus. Additionally, there are a lot of experts who chose not to disclose their credentials here, for any of a number of reasons, and we'll never know their exact expertise--they are, nevertheless, often highly valued contributors. Lastly, we don't want to go around checking eachother's degrees before we get down to settling content matters using our own processes. For these and many other reasons/conclusions arrived at by this community, we don't allow arguments from authority here. If GregJack wishes to contribute within his sphere of expertise, more power to him, but he has to learn to do it without attempting to downgrade the opinions of other editors just because they have not declared themselves lawyers--and without talking down to other editors generally.

On the separate matter of how he came to be involved in that discussion, I can appreciate that you are glad of his involvement there, but the advice I gave him was for his own interests; following another editor one was recently in a dispute with to a discussion on another article one had previously never edited is exactly the kind of behaviour WP:Hounding is meant to forestall. It would be best for Gregjack if he backs out of that situation voluntarily before a serious discussion get underway here as to that particular activity. It's the easiest and smartest way to de-escalate this situation before it develops towards sanctions (IBAN or otherwise). Snow ^{let's rap} 11:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You know, I have watched Jytdog follow other editors around, including me, without any comments being made about his behavior. I didn't follow Jytdog - I went to the support of an editor who he falsely accused of edit-warring, which is egregious when you consider that he already had up to five reverts himself. Is there a reason that you didn't make a comment on that? Second, I create content, and I support editors who are here to create content. Seraphim is a fairly new user, but he appears to be focused on contributing material to articles. I'll not hesitate to jump in and support them when they are doing so. So thanks for the advice, but unless you are going to be even-handed about it and address his problems too, I'll pass on following it. GregJackP Boomer! 13:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am interested in competence, not credentials. Credentials are not required. Competence is required. I can say that User talk:GregJackP has never asked for my credentials or questioned my competence to edit legal articles. I am now expressing, as an editor who was entirely uninvolved with Plummer, that I have also experienced similar problems with User:Jytdog not demonstrating basic competence to edit in this subject area. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And I don't think its incidental to the discussion here. The suggestion that law review is not WP:RS for law content is bizarre, and part of the reason why this complaint was filed in the first place. I would prefer to work on a law-related article with an editor who is competent to edit on that topic, rather then editors who repeatedly refer to practice areas of law (in this case Environmental Justice) as "perspectives" - why would WikiLibrary offer access to HeinOnline if it is not WP:RS - this is pure fiction. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Although I don't think that is entirely what Snow Rise meant. If a law review article proposes a novel approach to a legal issue, that would be WP:PRIMARY. But the bulk of the law review articles I have read would be secondary (under Wiki standards) not primary, because even those that propose a novel approach document in great detail the current status of the law as it exists in the area they are proposing a change or noting a new direction. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Questions of primary and secondary do not necessarily impact on reliability. A primary source (wikipedia definition) can be perfectly reliable. Depending on the context in which it is used. Likewise law reviews, like any other review can be primary or secondary (wikipedia's definition) as Snow has pointed out. Depending on context, author etc etc. If you have any questions, the place to discuss this is WP:RSN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Arbitrary break

GregJackP, you should not have followed Jytdog to an article, knowing your history. And Seraphim System, your SPI on Jytdog and StAnselm was ill-thought. El_C 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You know, this is ridiculous. Y'all tolerate Jytdog's behavior, but come down on someone who creates content. You've got it backwards here—there is a new user who is trying to create content, and Jytdog warns him for 2RR after Jytdog has hit 5RR on the same article. But no one's concerned about his conduct. Do what you want to do, I don't have to stick around for this type of BS, I can retire again. GregJackP Boomer! 13:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I just think you two should be keeping a wide berth from one another, because you don't seem to get along well. Anyway, I protected the page for 4 days. El_C 13:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I work on legal articles and little else. Why don't you ask him to stay away from those? That way there won't be any conflict. GregJackP Boomer! 13:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Second. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it works both ways. Under the term of the interaction ban, which I am inclined to ratify... now (and which both editors seem to be calling for), indeed, Jytdog will also, in turn, not be allowed to engage pages GregJackP has been much more involved in. Aiming at clear boundaries. El_C 14:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually an interaction ban doesnt prevent either editor 'engaging pages' the other editor has been involved in. It just prevents them from *reverting* each other on those pages or talking to each other etc. It doesnt stop them actually working in the same topic areas or on the same article. Obviously in this case where one editor has clearly followed another and reverted them, it would entirely prevent that. But it does need to be clarified that merely editing the same article is not prohibited. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I had in mind, and it doesn't seem practical, even if the policy is written otherwise. El_C 14:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I think the issue is the capacity for misuse. Consider the hypothetical; If Greg happens to go to an article that Jytdog has edited extensively in the past and is still on Jyt's watchlist and makes a change, there's a very good chance that change will "revert" something Jytdog did years ago, giving Jytdog an excuse (as opposed to a legitimate reason) to request sanctions. Sometimes, it would obviously be an excuse, but not always. I think that, if you're inclined to use an expanded scope for this sanction, that there should be a qualitative or quantitative limit on edits to articles the other has extensively edited or is actively editing. I think something like "Only spelling, grammatical and technical changes" might be a good condition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, common sense ought to prevail. Basically, they should just stay away from one another. El_C 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It *should* however what prompted this request was an editor going to an article Jytdog was involved in, despite having no history there, and reverting him. This sort of behaviour can be stopped by (in order of rising severity) warning them to stay away from each other (not terribly effective if their paths cross due to an intersection of interests), interaction bans between the editors, topic bans, blocks/ban from editing. An interaction ban is actually a relatively mild resolution in that it does not prevent either editor editing articles anywhere. It just forcibly prevents them directly interacting with someone they clearly cannot get on with. A 2 way interaction ban is almost always successful in ending disruption because either a)the editors respect it and learn to get along, b)one of them violates it and ends up blocked. Either way it quietens down quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I have not called for an IBAN at all, nor have I ratified his call for one. There is a significant difference between keeping a wide berth and a formal IBAN. What I suggested was that you ask him to stay away from legal articles and I'll stay away from GMOs or whatever area he focuses on. There's no need for a formalized ban. GregJackP Boomer! 14:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have had a bit of difficulty working on this article once Jytdog decided to edit war to revert a consensus that had held for several years. It has been a frustrating experience for me. I think the problem before us would be solved if Jytdog would informally agree to avoid legal articles. I don't think this rises to the point where any sort of formal interaction ban or a topic ban is needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon was about the only editor who didn't join the edit warring. As the admin who responded to this on AN3, I note that Jytdog called my administrative decisionmaking to question when he didn't get the result he wanted. (This also ended at ANI, eventually). El_C 21:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support I-ban. No question on a one-way at a minimum, though two-way might get a little tricky (no prejudice against it though if there's sufficient evidence Jytdog has also been a cause of problems rather than responding to problems from GregJackP recently). There's a long history of GregJackP following around editors, accusing others of harassment for calling this out as above, and "retiring" when the water starts getting hot at admin boards:

• They have been blocked for harassment.[35]
• I personally dealt with it when they purposely derailed my GA nomination in a topic they'd never been involved in as well as a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS violations and battleground behavior.[36]
• A similar incident happened where they were warned at ANI, but the discussion was closed because they "retired".
• There was also another ANI (in addition to the main warning to the other editor) a few months ago where GregJackP was warned yet again for attacking editors (i.e., mention that their retirement would become permanent if it continues).

I didn't look more than superficially for more cases, but it should be clear that GregJackP was already at the end of their WP:ROPE for this kind of behavior.

I'm always a little hesitant on going for two-way interaction bans when we have one especially problem editor like this that another is responding to even though one-ways are tricky to enforce. While Jytdog has their own issues (mostly in a tendency to occasionally get short with problematic editors), I've never seen them go to the level that GregJackP does by attacking editors. The battleground behavior from GregJackP at law articles (and towards Jytdog) does give the appearance of a WP:OWN mentality, so my main concern is that GregJackP's historical behavior problems across multiple editors aren't forgotten each time a new incident occurs. The comments here of trying to keep Jytdog out of law related articles seem to reflect that battleground mentality. A two-way seems to reward that behavior in a way, but I don't have any solutions that are less messy either. Regardless of I-ban details, it should be clear to GregJackP that the next step after this is a topic ban or community ban given all the warnings they've been given about this behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not list everything involved? Let's address them one by one, and add the information that you conveniently forgot to include:

• Blocked for harassment - yes, after I responded to personal attacks, and I'll note that it was lifted in just days after the other party was indef'd their on- and off-wiki harassment of me. It took over three years for him to convince Arbcom to lift his block. I've had no problem with him since and don't anticipate any problems.
• Your involvement - started when you vandalized an article that was nominated for Good Article, even though you had never edited on that article before, or, for that matter on legal articles in general, you followed Jytdog over to the article, removed a photo that is standard on SCOTUS articles [37], and outlined on the talk page here.
• JordanGero was indef'd after continuing his harassment of others beside myself. The linked ANI closed with him being warned about harassment, and what he was doing is seeking an apology for something from almost 2 years ago - sort of like what you are doing here. Then he got blocked [38], and then indef'd [39] when he continued on after his first block was over. That didn't slow him down, so his talk page access was revoked too.

If you want I could pull all of the diffs of your harassment of me, along with false accusations of "aspersions" that you seem to repeat without justification. BTW, you're an involved party in the past, so closing admins should take everything you say with a large grain of salt. GregJackP Boomer! 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

along with false accusations of "aspersions" that you seem to repeat without justification You just called one of his edits (which you admitted he discussed on the talk page after the fact) "vandalism". You've just proven that the accusation of you casting aspersions is true. I suggest you strike the accusation of vandalism, and go through your other posts to determine whether you have previously made such accusations without merit, to strike those, as well. It's also worth noting that you took an extraordinarily combative tone in that discussion you linked to, which proved that Kingofaces43 was not engaging in vandalism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you explain why he showed up on an article that he had never edited to remove a photo immediately after it was nominated for GA? GregJackP Boomer! 20:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we're getting distracted with old grievances—best to stick to the matter at hand. El_C 21:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I support a one-way I-ban, because this most recent exchange has convinced me that this is a one-sided problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This is definitely not a one-sided problem, as Guy Macon would attest. And the interaction ban I implemented is not going to be 1-way. El_C 21:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There's simply no way Greg is getting booted from legal articles whenever Jytdog shows up to one—that's just not going to happen. El_C 21:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I initially wasn't going to respond further due to that, but just some abbreviated clarity since it plays into the history of these issues. I edit in agricultural topics, which was primarily at the time GMO and pesticide related topics. Awhile before the incident I listed where I was involved, I created the Monsanto legal cases article and watchlisted quite a few related articles in the process (including Bowman v. Monsanto Co. in question). I gave it a read through while it was under GA nomination, and only thought a picture of a justice wasn't needed. This talk section followed for my first interaction with GregJackP (anyone considering GregJackP's history really should read this), followed by them coming to an article I had under GA nomination.

To the topic at hand, my main reason for bringing up the previous cases is that there's a systemic problem here with GregJackP that keeps coming up and goes well beyond interactions with a single editor. Interaction bans are not likely to fix that. It's up to others commenting here to weigh in on that and decide on sanctions at this point. When I look at this case at least, I do see Jytdog getting short again, but there is an order of magnitude difference in how Jytdog gets frustrated in response to GregJackP (even if such reactions are inappropriate) and what GregJackP continually does. How to weigh that is up to others commenting at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Genre warring

@Jjbrown5: is genre warring on Pink Floyd related articles, Mainly here - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that Jjbrown5 is suddenly active after the recent administrator actions related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iloveartrock and WP:ANI#Rangeblock needed for long-term Pink Floyd vandal. I am suspicious of this new activity in a dormant account, especially when many of the targeted articles have been protected against the rash of disruptive IPs, and a rangeblock is soon to be applied. Jjbrown5 has been doing the same genre warring activity as the disruptive IPs.[40][41] Conveniently, the Jjbrown5 account will be able to edit through protection. I would not be suprised to find that this account was a sock. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran or Persia

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) recently removed Category:6th-century BC Persian people in favor of Category:6th-century BC Iranian people on a lot of articles, while making that category a soft-redirect. I reverted part of them (tried to catch as many as I could), and then the editor posted on my talkpage,[42] to which I replied,[43] and at the same time started an edit war at Category:6th-century BC Iranian people,[44][45], ignoring my call to discuss first and claiming that this is "basically 3rd grade stuff". Please explain to this editor that he must discuss such mass edits before implementing them, or at least after he has been called to discuss. User notified on talkapge,[46] but notification removed[47] with claim "Making an issue out of nothing, absolutely silly. I am not going to take part in that.", so not responsive. Instead he prefers to remind me of my "recent" block for edit warring.[48] Debresser (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically Debresser here is making an huge issue out of nothing. I already said my stuff here [49]. I am honestly not interested to take part in something that shouldn't be a problem - also, I find it funny how he simply started mass-revert crusade and now is basically avoiding to discuss with me about his actions. With all due respect, he should talk to me about it, not hide behind the users here. And yes, it is important to note that he has been recently blocked due to edit-warring.

"but notification removed with claim "Making an issue out of nothing, absolutely silly. I am not going to take part in that.", so not responsive. Instead he prefers to remind me of my "recent" block for edit warring."

Well that's clearly wrong, since I wrote other stuff to you as well actually regarding the issue, which you simply chose to ignore. If you're gonna mass-revert several articles, then you should also take the responsibilty and discuss with the user about it. Every normal person would get frustrated by that, obviously. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not avoiding discussion. To the contrary, I called on you to start a discussion instead of edit warring, and you have not done so. you even started to edit war. Please understand that posting on my talkpage is not "discussing". Discussions should be posted at the appropriate places, like WP:IRAN, WP:HISTORY, not on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, that's not really a good excuse. You still had time to respond to me, which you chose not to. Take responsibility for something you have done, that's all I am going to say. Also, if you're that of a constructive user, you wouldn't have started a mass-revert crusade, but would have written to me first, and asked why I did those edits. Not to mention I even gave a proper, non-biased justification for my edits. Also, you might wanna take a look here [50]. You brought this issue up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents way too early, and should have sit down and talked with me first. Furthermore, regarding me 'starting a edit-war' [51], I only corrected a huge error, it was a no-brainer to me tbh - you might wanna take a look here [52] [53]; This is why you write to the talk page of the user about a topic he is widely more knowledgeable about before making 11 reverts. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I left you an explanation in an edit summary, which was reason for you to undo it. I responded to your message on my talkpage, and still you reverted. So I had no choice but to take you here, which - wonder, oh wonder - instantly had the desired effect of stopping you. Now, please discuss this somewhere, post a link to the discussion here, and I am sure admins will close this soon enough as "requiring no action". Debresser (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I am sorry I didn't look at every edit summary of your 11 reverts which made my notification box explode. That's what talk pages are for mate. Also, you may have responded on your talk page, but you still avoided my justification for doing those edits, and is still doing so. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You really don't seem to get it. This is not the place for a content dispute. For that, please open a proper discussion, either on one of those WikiProjects or at WP:CFD. This page is for the behavioral issue. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't care less, I just am explaining my actions. Nope, not going to post on WikiProjects or at WP.CFD, but in the talk page of the category itself (WP:DISCUSSFAIL). --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

HistoryofIran's contributions don't look to encouraging. His conduct with other users isn't too encouraging either, in case your'e wondering what that text is, he's saying :

"LouisAragon Aleykum Salam! I write my own history with the culture of other nations? You're donkeys, you Persians, no time to write history! I am writing to you to in order to stop stealing the history of the Turks, you bastards. !!"

This recent comment to Debresser wasn't all that great either. He looks to have recieved a block (admittedly back in 2016 (May 2016) ) for edit warning in a Persian topic, and there are a few more besides this one, further back, and he looks like he's heading back into that territory again. I'm thinking possibly a TBAN for him might be forthcoming.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

KoshVorlon: You're completely right, my contributions [54] [55][56] don't look encouraging at all :). Besides, that text wasn't written by me, but by this guy, [57] who has a history of insulting people in another language, hence why he got banned [58]. You're basically falsely accusing me of saying something I literally didn't say. Why would I insult my own ethnicity? Also, where do you see that I am 'heading back into that territory' by looking at my contributions besides the issue with Debresser [59]? Since when did expanding articles become disruptive? I will admit that I could have been more gentle when writing to Debresser, but I wasn't outright hostile towards him, nor did I insult him or anything like that. It's quite normal to get frustrated when a person makes 11 reverts and then refuses to discuss about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: that "comment", which you highlighted here, was made by an indeffed user named "Rufet Turkmen",[60] not user HistoryofIran. What you just did, was copying the translation I added on admin Ymblanter's talk page (2 April 2017), word for word verbatim,[61] and presenting it right here as if they are HistoryofIran's words. Please strike your accussation once you read this. Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And what's more interesing about this whole "case", is that user "Debresser" never had an actual dialogue about the matter on his talk page, nor on the talk page of any of the articles in question (not counting the accusation of vandalism straight off the bat). Sure, "HistoryofIran" ignored BRD (which isn't even a guideline/policy), but its "Debresser" who found his way to this drama board pretty much right away. That much said about "proper editing". - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, FYI, all these 5th/6th-centuries BC Persian people categories were made by an user who has a long history of tendentious editing and was been placed under mentorship until the recent past.[62] I don't blame HistoryofIran, who has single handedly done most work on Iranian-related aticles for years, for challenging them. Yet user Debresser, who, as far as I can see, has barely ever made any content edits to Iranian-related articles, was there swiftly to report HistoryofIran, to a drama board. Go figure. Overhasty attempt to get rid of someone, thats what this is all about IMHO. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Creuzbourg on User talk:Dapi89

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

---

A non-admin added something to my talk page. I removed it as is my prerogative. This individual insists on re-adding it. Could someone please block him from my talk page. Dapi89 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just tell him that you're allowed to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're sure that will work. Past dealings would disagree. In any case, I leave it to you. Dapi89 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's the rules, I will not do it again.Creuzbourg (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I always forget where to actually find the rule, but after a little research, it appears this is at WP:OWNTALK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by IP editor 2601:805:4201:1737:4D44:AA6:5620:61B7 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

IP editor 2601:805:4201:1737:4D44:AA6:5620:61B7 (talk · contribs) is evading a block by editing as 2601:805:4201:1737:8518:A7EE:AA10:73B5 (talk · contribs) to insert unsourced controversial material about a living person. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

31 hours of time by Widr L3X1 (distant write) 21:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel

Establishing a case of WP: Tag team I think. They have established a two-editor consensus, that declares sources unreliable in their personal opinion. They insist and deleting swathes of information, and retaining a tag of "unreliable sources", with no support from the historiography. I am hoping for some sort of resolution, nothing more. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)c

This is part of an editorial war already reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dapi89 reported by User:K.e.coffman¨ I suppose its better if all matters are resolved in one forum. Otherwise, I think its rather a case of WP:OWN on behalf of User:Dapi89, proven by such statements by him as: Editors opinions count for nothing and I will do as I please. There are three editors who agrees. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dishonest. I said I will do as I please on my talk page, not the article. Also, our collecrive opinions dont matter, its the sources that should prevail. That is the point i made quite clearly. Please dont lie. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89:, you are required to notify users when starting a discussion about them, see the big orange edit notice at the top of the edit page. I have notified them both for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG: the reporting editor has a long pattern of uncivility and ad hominem arguments. Just today, at the WP:3RRN, he suggested that he can also provide evidence of Coffman of violating the 3RR rule on many occasions (diff). When I invited him to file such a report, he responded with On reflection, this is a case of Wikipedia:Tag team without providing any proof for this claim: diff. Substantiation is lacking from this report as well, which I consider frivolous & without merit.

This has been an-going pattern with the editor, please see some of the edit summaries by Dapi89 from the Rudel article as well as others:

• Undid revision 773585302 by Creuzbourg (talk) poor editing; dumbing down; no sense in removing these details; eliminated tag. Related discussion: Rudel#Intricate details. From the Talk page: BS.
• rev deletions by Coffmann, ignorant, dishonest, disruptive. Related discussion: Lütjens#External links
• ridiculous. Related discussion: Lent#Alt text.
• reverted edits by Coffman. Ignorance (...). Related discussion: Uncited content previously cited to Franz Kurowski
• spurious tag and vandalism. Related discussion: Recent edit Etc.

This pattern behaviour is disruptive and a topic ban from Luftwaffe articles (perhaps starting at 30 days, same duration as floated at the 3RRN) may be in order: diff from 3RRN. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Although this has many appearances of a content dispute, I agree with @K.e.coffman: that @Dapi89:'s POV edits and source disputes are problematic. This user has every appearance of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to preserving "their" sources and interpretations. They frequently accuse "opposing" editors of lying, rambling, dissembling, and incompetence. Their block log shows 6 blocks for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and/or harassment. This is behavior that has persisted and show no signs of abatement after these blocks. Examples just since their last block include, but are certainly not limited to (in no particular order):

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_149#Talk:Malcolm Wanklyn#Dandolo.2C_.27Avieri-class_destroyer.27.2C_imaginary_submarine_etc.: ...if you can't understand that you've no chance of understanding the issue.... I don't give a damn what you think, I'll drown you in sources on the FAA if I have to.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Blatant case of WP:OWN stemming from This edit on Malcolm Wanklyn: ...cease from this. This is not a requirement and it looks awful. You're not a main contributor, so your opinions are not important. (In edit summary) and Well let me spell out the obvious; his opinions on the bibliography are not important....That is quiet clearly a lie Shem.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Fringe source in WWII bio article ...His {User:K.e.coffman} attacks on the German-related articles, specifically related to World War II, looks like a crusade.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Luftwaffe of the Bundeswehr The argument he {User:K.e.coffman again} gives is that is non neutral point-of-view. I'm saying that's BS. (Disclosure: this comment made in response to me)
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65#Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany No, I was in favour of only Bundesluftwaffe and objected to it's removal. No need for dishonesty. (Disclosure: I was also involved in this discussion)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 204#Franz Kurowski for a GA article (WWII) ...It is beyond absurd. The opinions of a few editors on Wikipedia is not enough. One editor described that it as lazy analysis, I'd go further....
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216 ...Other editors should beware before being drawn in to this agenda-driven bull shit.
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Additional input sought for a GAR re sources ...Such an assumption is colossally stupid and exposes your own bias.

Dapi89 clearly has an issue with K.e.coffman and seems incapable of participating in any discussion of WWII topics, especially ones in which the latter is involved, without resorting to accusations of bias and incivility. Equally clearly, there needs to be some resolution of these issues. Since I am also tangentally involved, I refrain from suggesting any specific remedies but trust to the evaluations of the folks here. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I feel I am involved. I did not edit the article, but contributed on the talk page. I notice that Dapi89 has voiced the first accusation of tag teaming on 4 April 2017.[63] Since then the editor has made no attempt of WP:DR, but confined him/herself to short comments speaking of a possible "destruction" of the article that he/she has to prevent. Thus the editor seems to perceive anyone who is not with him as being against him.(from WP:AN3RR). The editor routinely resorts to accusations. From today [64]--Assayer (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For the administrator who look into this case: Wikipedia editor Creuzbourg (person who started to mass remove material on the Rudel page) tagged the article as containing excessive intricate details and contains unreliable sources even though is a GA article that requires to meet the comprehensiveness criteria and is throughly reviewed, has also tagged with the same tags these following pages:

→ FA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albert_Kesselring&type=revision&diff=777161722&oldid=776657232

→ FA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Werner_Mölders&type=revision&diff=777174753&oldid=776113712

→ GA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Galland&type=revision&diff=777163959&oldid=776113388

→ GA article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erich_Hartmann&type=revision&diff=777160461&oldid=777010274

I don't believe Creuzbourg editing of these articles is being done in good faith, he acts as if he have consensus for tagging and removal of sourced material on these Featured Articles and Good Articles. In other words, from my observations he is biased and agend-driven editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe that Featured Articles and Good Articles are beyond criticism. I am not driven by any agenda. I do not normally write about WW2 German military history or biography, but tried to improve an article that I found faulty. I tagged it and started a discussion on the discussion pages. I did not want to do, what most WP-editors do, i.e. just leave a tag and run; however the tag was immediately removed, the discussion thwarted. I am immensely disappointed with Wikipedia that such disruptive behavior can go on and on and on, and extremely tired of the whole thing. I am perfectly willing to be banned from editing Rudel or any of above articles, as long as Dapi89 also will be banned. The articles are faulty, and the tags should not be removed before consensus is reached. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP

On my talk page: here by 80.195.114.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In regards this revert sourced by this article: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/19/uk-mail-driver-unable-to-work-car-accident-charged-800-pounds. Jim1138 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the diff you intended, right? If so, it looks like an implied legal threat to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes DanielRigal's diff is correct.

I reworded the entry on [[UK Mail] and added an additional The Guardian ref. Jim1138 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP does resolve to Business Post so it's from inside the organization in question, however it's very well and reliably referenced so the information being included is reasonable. Canterbury Tail talk 18:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dawn Fitsgerald

Can someone check whether the above is a hoax? Bosley John Bosley (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

7'1" and 99 lbs? To be blunt, that's a bunch of bull and I'm deleting the page as a hoax. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Good deletion, Rick. Thanks @Bosley John Bosley:. Depressing that it's been up for a 9 months. More depressing that the author created other hoax articles a few days before this one - which were caught - but no one blocked the hoaxer, so he was free to create this one. :/ --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Issue with User:Calvin999 at There's Got to Be a Way

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

---

On April 20th, I discovered that the cited information I previously added to Wikipedia on July 5, 2010 in the article of Mariah Carey's recording, There's Got to Be a Way, had been mysteriously removed.

This was based on an interview in retrospect with Carey, who had commented that she had met Trey Lorenz in February 1990, while she was in the studio recording the song in question.

I corrected it back to "February 1990" after 18 months of "1989-1990", only to see it reverted instantly. I then discovered after studying the edit history, that this entry of mine from 2010 was actually first removed surreptitiously by Calvin in October 2015 and again in April 2017.

He provided this reason. I then explained that a deadlink does not warrant such action on his part, based on this article on [65] and perhaps he should review WP:OWN in what I see are attempts to micromanage the article and similar content on Wikipedia.

I am not sure how to approach this anymore, as there are secondary links [66][67](see page 5)(see pg.4)that somewhat confirm what I provided in 2010. Recording information is very hard to come across, unless the artist feels it is of concern to disclose or a third-party is given access to such information, especially regarding 25+ year old information.

There are eons of articles that have deadlinks for some cited information, yet out of respect for the contributing editor and maintaining the content of the article, I do not take it upon myself to remove paragraphs of text solely based on an old link. Vandals also remove citations from time to time, which resulted in verified entries occasionally getting removed.

My entry would not have been accepted by fellow editors in the first place, if proven to be unverifiable back in 2010. I would like to have a neutral party mediate this, so as not to let things get out of hand.––Carmaker1 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The link you have provided doesn't go anywhere, it redirects to Virgin's search engine. The links you are providing are not even reliable sources. A dead link cannot be accessed for verification thus it cannot be used. I'm really interested to hear why you think this is OWN; you're adding something which cannot be verified. If anything, it's the other way around. If you could supply a reliable source, there's no need to replace section of information, but you're not supplying that info. This is such a waste of ANI space and time.  — Calvin999 18:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not see the need for a condescending attitude and demeanor, as it is supposed to be a collaborative effort. OWN is based on the edit history of the article and how you respond to the intervention of other users. Where are your verified citations supporting that it was recorded between 1989 and 1990? Your own information is equally vague, if not more vague considering Carey was signed in 1988 and could've easily recorded tracks in late 1988, 1989, and 1990. Outside of my provided links, the song in question could've been recorded anytime between 1988 and 1990. Please provide sources for "1989-1990" so that we can verify that recording period. To dismiss another user's concerns as a "waste of time", is highly disrespectful and shows aggression.Carmaker1 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't think you're being condescending or demeaning? If it's supposed to be collaborative, as you say, then why not take your issue to the talk page of the song or my talk page instead of here? My point is proven. She worked with Ric Wake after she signed, so it was between 1989-1990, between signing and releasing the album. Your saying February 1990 is unsourced. I said opening a thread here about such a tiny thing is a waste of time, as I just highlighted, don't play words in my mouth. And if you think that's aggression then you need to look in the Oxford.  — Calvin999 19:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The manner in which you continue to address me, highlights this once again. If it was such a "tiny thing", you would not be reverting a cited addition because of a deadlink and creating an edit war. I have found my ideal sources, but will wait for an administrator to conclude this first before taking any action. You are making quite an extrapolation in regards to Ric Wake. Do you have conclusive proof Carey started working with Wake in 1989 for that matter? You haven't proven that. Could easily be 1988, as Carey signed in December 1988. If Carey signed in early December, she easily could've recorded material that month and met Wake as well. Billboard supports my date of February 1990, but I will not act on that yet.--Carmaker1 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I said to add it below, and now you're not going to? What is the point of this. You didn't cite anything the other day when you changed it. I can supply the diffs of you changing the date without a source to back it up. It's there in black and white on the revision history. I made the article a GA last year, hence the clean up of dead links and unsourced info. I never said Carey worked with Wake in December 1989 so I don't need to prove it, you're making stuff up now, which doesn't reflect good on you. I included 1989-90 because that's when the album was written and recorded, so it was clearly in that time span. Not even you could dispute that.  — Calvin999 19:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You can add the American Radio History source as that does say February 1990. That is the first time you've produced a reliable source. The first time two reverts you made, you added no source. The second two reverts, you added an unreliable source. Why didn't you add this one in the first place? This could have all been avoided, yet you persisted in your "I made an edit in 2010 and some idiot has removed it so I'll add it back without a source until someone notices" attitude. Let this be a lesson to you. This is thread is finished as far as I'm concerned.  — Calvin999 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Issue between User:Walter Sobchak0 and Asqueladd

Says Asqueladd: User:Walter Sobchak0 is proving to be highly unconstructive and disruptive with comments and edit-warring.

• [68] Edit summary: Don't touch my balls (in the original Catalan)
• [69] Keep that in mind while you go back to your night shift at the "taller de recambios" (repair workshop in Spanish), and leave this to the grownups directed at me
• [70] People like you are to the Wikipedia what the aids virus is to the human immune system. Know your place, and leave this for the grown ups directed at User:TheOldJacobite

These comments, edit summaries and personal attacks are highly uncivil and not suitable for a collaborative project. He has been warned and blocked due to gross incivility before.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

To which I reply: this is obviously a malicious notification.

• I've never been blocked due to uncivil behavior. Temporary blocks due to edit conflicts are dime a dozen and most of us have been through this.
• One of the incidents mentioned by Asqueladd corresponds to an older discussion that has nothing to do with this, and was finally solved peacefully by all parts. The talk page itself proves it and can be checked by anyone. Proof of it is that nobody in that discussion came here to pull anyone's skirt or call attention on me.
• His own talk page is full of colloquialisms similar to the one I used in Catalan, as well as signs of a rather quarrelsome demeanor. If anything, Asqueladd should be the topic of this discussion.
• and most importantly, today's discussion was prompted by his profoundly elitist sweeping statement [71] by which he summarized all left-wing voters into a lumpen category of fans of a popular sleazy forum. Not all voters of left-wing parties read "forocoches", wear tattoos or drive taxicabs. When someone writes something like this, they pervert the entire discussion and sink it to its lowest level. Bigotry is infinitely worse than rudeness, and I'm going to tolerate none of it as long as I'm a Wiki user.

My personal opinion is that Asqueladd urgently needs to make a point by neutralizing perspectives of reality (not viewpoints, it's not the same) different from his own. The way to do this is by discussing it in the talk page rather than picking fights or maliciously cherry-picking other users' past history. I don't think this behavior should be condoned. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your assertion that you have never been blocked for incivility is contradicted by [72] and your block log. The above linked diffs show remarks that are completely unacceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot about that incident. That being said, the rest of my arguments prevail. I don't think the Wikipedia should be a vehicle for reactionary politics or manifestations of bigotry such as the one blatantly displayed by Asqueladd. My edits to the page were pertinent, and Asqueladd edited them out on invalid grounds (Jordi Borràs may be a photo-journalist but he's still an expert in far-right politics). Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am of course open to discuss anything in talk page. In this case how WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:UNDUE apply to [73]. But WP:BRD has a mechanism, I think. too. Walter Sobchak0 just were warned in his talk page, instead of here. And he has misunderstood my comment in his talk page, too.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No you're not, proof of it is the way you handled our discussion from the very beginning by creating a whole umbrella of sleaze for half the population of Spain--if any English speaker is reading this, calling someone a "forocoches" fan is akin to calling them a "chav" in England or a "redneck" in North America. Your comment in my talk page leaves little room to misunderstanding and speaks for itself. WP:RS the source is an investigative journalism website, containing an interview with an expert on the topic, so it is reliable. WP:SYNTH the content was duly summarized. WP:NOR if references were given then it's not original, and WP:UNDUE is out of place since the section itself is titled "Alternative views". I didn't write this in the main ideology section. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down in the content dispute. ANI doesn't really "do" content disputes, so let's stick to the behavioral issues. I'm not familiar witht he term "forocoches" but I'm willing to take your word on it's meaning. So that's not ok, but it by no means excuses you from responsibility for the belittling remarks you have been making. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow wow wow, for the belittling remarks we BOTH have made. And the context is important. At the end of the day this is the situation:

• Half of my contribution to the article was stating that Cs was being groomed as a partial substitute for the currently ruling PP (which is rigorously true based on their own electoral pact history as well as on the press I mentioned, e.g. .

References

• and the other half was a relevant comment that was already properly referenced, by an expert on the subject.

Asqueladd's civil contribution to the debate, then was simply shoehorning an entire landmass of voters into a truckers' forum. Talk about belittling. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Jordi Borràs is not an expert on the topic of "Cs" (which it is not a "far right group" but an ALDE party). The above user used an interview (not a secondary source) to a photo-journalist and illustrator locally known for taking pics of far right groups giving an interview to another local media. Forocoches is a Spanish nationalist forum not a left wing one and the comments is just a (probably unnecessary remark) on the party being voted by right wing voters, but still needing quality and reliable sources (studies of sociological and political analysts) to back that up, not interviews to photo-journalists.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, ANI is not going to help you resolve your content dispute. This is a place for dealing wth behavioral issues, and there obviously is one here. There is no context, none, in which the "leave this to the adults" remarks are even remotely acceptable. (and on that note, I have to go and probably won't be back today, hopefully another admin will step in here.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Jordi Borràs is routinely invited to speak about the groups he "takes pics at", according to your flippant statement. Routinely means a lot of times.
• " I get you don't like the party, and I also suspect the forococheriles masses don't vote Cs because of their socio-liberal programme", Asqueladd dixit. You were either preemptively labeling me "forococheril" (hence the ensuing interchange) or you were trying to imply that the right-wing that you believe belongs to forocoches (which is debatable) doesn't vote Cs (even more debatable, and equally elitist). Either way, I don't think you and I will reach a common ground. On a side note, Beeblebrox, there has to be some form of admonishment policy against what Asqueladd just did, rescuing past conversations out of oblivion and lumping them all together to attack a user's character in order to make a (political) point. There is a reason why those past conversations didn't end up in this board, please look at them in their context and look at how the conflict was resolved. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hence, exactly what my remark means is: a right wing community may be voting Cs not because of their social-liberal programme but because of their Spanish nationalism while defending statements about voting bases and the likes need to be back-up by quality sources showing due weight. Unappropiate? Probably. Elitist? Maybe, although surely no more than [74]. I opened this thread for the administrators to deal with the pattern of gross personal attacks by you. The first diffs, which you consider just "rudeness".--Asqueladd (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, you felt protective of "your" wiki article and came here pulling the headmaster's skirt: "señorita, me ha insultado!". Big deal. The worst that can happen to me is being banned from a place that I only visit sporadically--and rather whimsically, I must say. You, on the other hand, cannot log yourself out of your own limitations. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Temporary blocks due to edit conflicts are dime a dozen and most of us have been through this Well obviously there aren't enough of them being dished out if receiving one is considered a good thing, like how in youth gangs getting nicked by the coppers shows you're a man. The worst that can happen to me is being banned from a place that I only visit sporadically--and rather whimsically, I must say. You, on the other hand, cannot log yourself out of your own limitations. Suicide by admin? L3X1 (distant write) 21:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

that expression would only make sense if I had anything to lose in account of my actions, which is not the case. I'm not earning a salary from wikipedia and my life doesn't revolve around it. Every minute invested here adds to zero input for me. More reason not to cave in under an imaginary non-existing pressure. Pinpointing someone's stupidity is not an insult, it is a fact, and I lose nothing from saying this here; and Asqueladd is an idiot. I'm sure there are more idiotic people in L'Hospitalet or Ullan Bator or Boise, Idaho, but right now he epitomizes idiocy like nobody. He was an idiot before he started editing the page on Cs, he's been an idiot while he was editing and he'll be an idiot after the page (and the party) disappear, and the only thing that's going to change is that he's going to be a bigger and flabbier idiot, and maybe have some idiot kids or kickstart an idiot project in some futile direction, or practice an idiot face 20 minutes every morning in front of the mirror, or establish an idiot NGO or maybe an idiot political party if Cs no longer exists. He's the stereotypical mouth-breathing Cs voter--such an idiot that you he excites even biological curiosity, and you have to wonder how much idiocy can fit in a single person, with the classical effete affectation and the delusions of lumpenized middle class, "no pidas a quien pidió", the kind of people who came out greeting Franco in 1939 in the streets of Barcelona while barely knowing who he was. The impertinent reactionarism that comes from a rudimentary mind. Too nihilistic to vote PP, too cowardly to vote Falange and too stupid to realize they shouldn't vote in the first place. The kind of people who voted Alessandra Mussolini in Naples back in the 90s just because she was pretty and green-eyed. There's the banality of evil and there's the banality of idiocy and we're speaking of the latter here. I walk the streets of Barcelona, past a traffic argument, someone shouts "idiot" and the thought of Asqueladd comes up, like a form of nostalgia. How are you, Asqueladd, by the way? Idiot! Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The above rant is not acceptable on any level. I have blocked User:Walter Sobchak0 for 1 month for their continued incivility and personal attacks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

New user appears to be substituting Unicode characters to avoid copyvio detection

User:RickeyMansour2 created the article Hundreds more join Mosul exodus as Iraqi forces retake two more..., which looked as much as possible like a copy-paste from one or more news sources, particularly because a Reuters dateline appeared right in the middle of it. But Google couldn't find a match. I was pretty confident about my assessment, though, and submitted the article for G12 speedy deletion.

Then I noticed that a letter that should have been a "w" in the word "աants" looked like an International Phonetic Alphabet "ա". So I typed from scratch a few passages from the article using Latin letters and immediately found matches. I updated the G12 tag with a couple of the URLs.

This mass substitution is certainly intentional, and I'm imagining the intention might be to deceive in exactly the manner in which I was deceived. Does someone want to have a talk with this user? Largoplazo (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I was working on figuring out what was going on too. I don't see any point in engaging with an editor who is obviously going out of his way to knowingly make and hide copyright violations. Meters (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Bencherlite^Talk 22:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Repeated harassment by editor Iamiyouareyou

Iamiyouareyou (talk · contribs) has posted nonsense on my talk page repeatedly, notably in response to edits at Batman Theme -- the related discussion at Talk:Batman_Theme#Common.2F_mistaken_name, following edits starting at [75] and through the following week. This editor left nonsense messages on my talk page at section #35 User_talk:HalJor#BATMAN_THEME, then a BarnStar (#36, immediately below), and more nonsense today in #37 below that. At one point, this editor reported me through AIV, yielding the response "please explain yourself" at User_talk:Iamiyouareyou#AIV_report_of_User:HalJor, with no further action. Outside of our personal interaction (largely one-sided towards me), this editor has also recently vandalized other articles, including [76], and openly declared an edit war at [77]. While some of this editor's contributions have been constructive, it is clear that not all of their contributions are serious. They have received several warnings, including harassment targeting me, over the last 9 months. HalJor (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

responces

late response to batman theme discussion does not a need a moderator nor deserve action. This is due to the fact a simple message such as "leave me alone" was never written. Iamiyouareyou (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)