Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexVegaEsquire (talk | contribs) at 14:56, 22 September 2017 (→‎Neutrality dispute + SPA + possible COI on journalist Kevin Deutsch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    A35821361 is NOTHERE

    Hello, this is pretty much my first time posting at ANI. Basically, A35821361 seems to be only here to criticise the Baha'i Faith and to attack it. His response to being blocked for edit warring was to blame the "members of the Baha'i Faith" for it. He also complained about how "While 36 hours is a brief time to be banned, this complaint is a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order" -- quote from the diff I've linked to, [1], I humbly submit this editor is clearly NOTHERE. I'm sorry for how poor my post looks...just not the best at this.79.66.4.79 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, your diff doesn't work, and I can't figure out what you intended. Please create a diff the way it says here. Also, it might be useful to mention which article he was edit warring on. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Fixed the diff, and A35821361 was edit-warring on the Baha'i Faith page. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A diff from May is not indicative of a current problem. However, poking into User:A35821361's contrib history, I'm not sure WP:NOTHERE is the right issue, but it does look like A35821361 is hostile to Baha'i, and is prone to edit-warring. I don't want to step into this mess, but think some admin or another should. They should probably also notify the user. Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to thank Argyriou (talk) for mentioning my username here, otherwise I would have no inkling that this discussion was underway. In any case, it is true that I frequently contribute to topics related to the Bahá'í Faith. As my contributions are sourced from objective, third-party references they are not always in concordance with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. This has often led to the reversion of these contributions and allegations that they are somehow "hostile," when in fact they are unbiased. If you read the continuation of the quote which 79.66.4.79 (talk) has linked to above, it continues, "In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater)." It saddens me that these tactics are now attempted in Wikipedia. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a wikipedia contributor, but just thought i'd chime in to say that some of your first contributions included an entirely uncited claim that Baha'u'llah sold slaves to pay off debts with zero sources, neutral or hostile, given. Getting better at finding citations to support an editorial agenda does not make that editorial agenda cease to exist. None of those academics was actually excommunicated or claimed to have been excommunicated, the closest thing would be Juan Cole claiming to have been threatened with excommunication (with the only source for that claim being Cole himself).UrielvIII (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Not a Wikipedia editor", indeed, considering that was your first edit. How did you find your way here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I lurk pages I'm interested in, (feel I don't have the writing/citing ability to contribute up to wiki standards though), user in question is a fairly active contributor in a lot of them so I've been lurking his contribution log as well (apologies if that's against wikipedia policy. Feel free to delete if it is).UrielvIII (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A35 certainly seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have a theory as to why he so antagonistic to Baha'i, but that would be casting aspersions. Suggest a topic ban. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP you're using began editing today, but you've been around: you know about WP:casting aspersions, for instance. If you have an account your normally edit with, you should have filed this complaint with that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I previously brought this up at the noticeboard here and got no response. I later tried more specific complaints about biographies of living persons here and here, also with no response. I think A35821361 was successful at scaring away any admins from looking past the surface by simply declaring himself to be unbiased. Anyone looking through edits and talk pages would recognize deception, but that takes time. The edit warring on biographies of living persons is still ongoing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would welcome anyone to look at my edit and contribution history to Wikipedia, and compare it to the edit and contribution history of other editors on the same articles. Aside from being sourced from objective, third party sources, my edits and contributions are entirely compliant with the guidelines of Wikipedia. On the other hand, one should consider what the objectives of some of the other editors are. For example, Cuñado ☼ - Talk has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and called me a "deceitful attacker" on my talk page. More recently, there has been systematic reversions and deletions to the biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing institution of the Bahá'í Faith whose decisions are deemed infallible by believers. The reason given for these reversions and deletions are that the members of the Universal House of Justice lack notability, when in fact in addition to their religious service to the Bahá'í Administrative Order many these individuals have led successful careers as academics, authors, artists, actors, and the heads of award-winning NGOs. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    This is comical. If there is an admin listening I'd be happy to lay out in detail why A35821361's last comment is deception (maybe delusion?) in line with how he has behaved for the last 9 months. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the article for Thornton Chase and the discussion for the AfD is demonstrative. Thornton Chase was an insurance salesman and is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and priod to the AfD proposal almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í. This contrasts sharply with the articles of the members of Universal House of Justice members that have been systematically deleted, which were sourced from multiple different sources regarding various accomplishments of the individuals covered in their respective articles. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Simply false. The biographies were stuffed with references that don't mention the person. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A cursory look at Thornton Chase's article shows citations from a large number of independent newspapers. A skim of the contents of the article also shows that it covers his notable service in the Civil War. (although from the talk page these may have been added recently). By contrast the article for one House of Justice member, Stephen Birkland, contains citations exclusively from either Baha'i sources or Juan Cole, a former Baha'i who leveled accusations of misconduct against Birkland (the article that is not by a Baha'i or Cole only mentions Birkland by citing Cole's statements). Neither of those sources are neutral third parties. In any case the article only contains three paragraphs and could easily be merged into a larger article which is why I assume it would have been deleted (although I can't say that for certain) UrielvIII (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair the Chase article has been developed a ton since it was nominated. But A35821361's skills as a researcher and knowledge are far from mundane. I didn't have to look hard at all for many obvious third party sources. And that's aside from simply looking at the footnotes of Dr. Stockman's research. A35821361 didn't bother while he/she is perfectly willing to spend a great deal of time researching very obscure people for possible personal relationships to other things and beyond. In short he'd rather delete the article on Chase and work on some of these others even if many people agree that Chase is notable and the others several people have found unfounded. Smkolins (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's his prerogative to work on whatever he wants. There is nothing wrong with nominating for deletion. BTW, great job improving the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've always tried to research up rather than dismiss down. It's odd to me that he creates the Robert Stockman article and then dismisses a key subject of Stockman's research for decades. Smkolins (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For added context, it appears the user in question has posted to the following website accusing people of censoring him: https://bahaicensorship.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/bahai-faith-and-slavery-an-example-of-how-bahais-control-information-on-wikipedia/

    The most obvious differences between the version of the article in the link and the current "censored" version on wikipedia are that the entirely unreferenced and unsupported claims that Baha'u'llah sold a slave to pay off debts and that attempts were made to have the book 'Black Pearls' suppressed have been removed.

    My own thoughts from some browsing the talk pages of some of the more contentious Baha'i articles are that terms like 'official narrative' and 'excommunication' have been used which paints a picture of a point of view being oppressed and marginalized. However repeatedly editing pages to add content deleted/edited by others, dropping out of discussions on said edits/deletions rather than arguing ones point of view until an agreement is reached and adding inflammatory uncited information an is not a reasonable way to participate in a collaborative project.

    To my knowledge Baha'is don't actually hold any positions of authority over wikipedia, with everyone being on more or less equal footing, making accusations of censorship and prosletyzing on a third party website seem counterproductive if the goal is to contribute to an unbiased tone on wikipedia. UrielvIII (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the first time I have heard of this web page. The content therein I had shared on Reddit, relating to a discussion on Bahá’í censorship and information control. The owner of the web site you linked to must have cut-and-paste the content from Reddit into his website. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which website it was published to is largely irrelevant. You have complained that you have been called a 'deceitful attacker' and your edits interpreted as hostile on wikipedia, while leveling similar accusations against people you're in disagreement with on an entirely different website rather than raising the issue in the context of an article or with wikipedia adminsUrielvIII (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, upon reading the nothere rules, your articles claims of a cadre devoted to eliminating facts to proselytize is an accusation of a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", something against wikipedias rules. If this 'cadre' does not actually exist (which in my opinion it does not) then editing with the intention of combating their 'official narrative' would in itself constitute a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia".UrielvIII (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. Where appropriate, I have engaged other editors in discussions on talk pages in relevant topics and articles, and if you have read them, you will note that topics such as Bahá’í review, censorship, information control, and the posthumous editing of literature[1] have on occasion been discussed when relevant. What is ironic is that the endeavor of building a comprehensive encyclopedia is undermined not by my efforts but by those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Salisbury, Vance (1997). "A Critical Examination of 20th-Century Baha'i Literature". Bahá'í Library Online. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
    Just because you keep saying that you're crusading against an "officially sanctioned narrative" with unbiased edits doesn't make it true. Accusing people of deleting under false pretenses is casting aspersions. UrielvIII (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For added context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_slavery&oldid=737879646 is one of your first contributions which was edited, it includes these sentences with no citations:
    "Bahá'u'lláh officially condemned slavery in 1874, by which time he had actually sold a slave to pay debts.", "a book that, despite efforts at censorship by the Bahá'í Administrative Order, was published by the independent Bahá'í publishing company Kalimát Press.". Your inclusion of these false and baseless claims with no sources shows that at the very least you haven't always been committed to defending third-party sourcing, although your commitment to 'exposing' the "officially sanctioned narrative" has remained constant, sources or no. UrielvIII (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also for context, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustavo_Correa talkpage on one of the UHJ articles includes a discussion from a month ago of your sourcing, where you're accused of misrepresenting what your cited sources contain. You have not tried to contest the accusation. UrielvIII (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And for even more context, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A35821361#Good_morning discussion on your talk page pretty much sums up every other discussion you've had regarding your Members of the UHJ pages, you only imply that the fact you are correct is self evident, offer very little reasoning for why that is the case and then drop out of the discussion when counterpoints are raised. That behaviour is not conducive to cooperatively making an encyclopedia.
    Your lack of willingness to co-operate with certain editors may be tied to your accusations in your article (linked above) of a secret cadre existing to proselytize on wikipedia, so we're back to that point you didn't address. If you are actively seeking to combat a group is that not a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia"? Conspiracy theories about the Bahá’í Administrative Order pushing a narrative don't prove that you are unbiased, if anything, the fact you bring them up to justify your edits makes you seem very biased. UrielvIII (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Among the examples of problems that may be of interest in this thread is:

    • lacking responding to the points raised in edit comments about material attributed to living people. See my edits for example at [2]. It was my understanding that rather than leave the contentious material in the article and tag it with a citation discussion that material on living people should be deleted and discussed to reach consensus. The discussion went precisely nowhere. And this is related to a network of articles that push something A358 really wants out there, judging from the level of engagement, against the input of multiple editors and been going on for a long time.
    • There has also been some mis-attibution of sources in the case of the Kiser Barnes article and was part of the discussion of why that article was deleted. See [3]. A358 did not participate but the matter was acted on.
    The issues related to the Kiser Barnes article that was deleted have been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice as well as User talk:A35821361#Biographies and in the related material discussed on the talk pages of several of the other members of the Universal House of Justice including Farzam Arbab, Gustavo Correa, and Paul Lample. I apologies if it appeared to you that I was disinterested in the issues that led to the deletion of the Kiser Barnes article. Far from it. I would wish that article had not been deleted, as had the articles for Glenford Eckleton Mitchell, Douglas Martin (Bahá'í), and David Ruhe. I further wish the bulk of material had not been injudiciously removed from the articles for Farzam Arbab, Gustavo Correa, and Paul Lample. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again here and in the linked discussions you haven't addressed any of the counterpoints explaining why the article should have been removed, instead just saying and that the removal is unjust. No proof, just flowery language. UrielvIII (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps people specialized in editing articles on living people should weigh in rather us having to deal with accusations like "those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards." Smkolins (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC) A beleive the point of this thread is whether WP:NOTHERE applies to A35821361. I'd entertain discussion of that. A35821361 - care to chime in on those points? Smkolins (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusation of bludgeoning. Article Plimpton 322

    I have been accused of bludgeoning by David Eppstein on this page and as per advice raise a notice here. There is a dispute on this page. Recently an article about the subject of the page appeared in a prestigious academic journal to considerable publicity in 'quality' newspapers. Traffic to the page increased greatly. Some long term editors wish to exclude all mention of this article. This appears to be quite against the broad guidelines of wikipedia which says that all mainstream points of view must be represented. Various other editors have stated that the article should be mentioned. I requested comment some days ago but none has been forthcoming. 9and50swans (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify for anyone following along: Plimpton 322 is the article being discussed, not a username. (I have no other interest in this discussion beyond pointing that out).Alephb (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity I changed the title of this section 9and50swans (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reviewed the article's talk page, and this thread simply constitutes yet more bludgeoning by the OP, who possibly deserves a b... a boo... a boom... I won't say it. EEng 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A boom lowered on him? --(signed) Inquiring Editor
    Maybe a booby prize? --Prize Patrol
    Give him the boot? --Just for Kicks
    Boom Bang-a-Bang? --Lulu
    • as per advice raise a notice here - Where is this advice? I would be interested to see it, but just from what I see here it looks like bad advice. False accusations of bludgeoning are not actionable and may be shrugged off or resolved by respectful and civil discussion with the accuser. And this page is not for resolution of content disputes; see WP:DR. It's for actionable bad editor behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing someone somewhere said the classic, "If you want to keep complaining, take it to ANI." Maybe we should have a rule against that, 'cause threads like this one are what it leads to. EEng 19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and we can bring people to ANI for violating that rule. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. We'll have a series of meta-ANIs (ANI2, ANI3, etc.). See also User:EEng#A_rolling_stone_gathers_no_MOS. EEng 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think a policy is being transgressed, ask an uninvolved administrator for their opinion.
    Without quoting chapter and verse Wikipedia is supposed to report all strands of mainstream opinion, and it is clearly not happening here. Mention of a recent article in a respected academic journal is being suppressed. I am rather surprised that this can happen on wikipedia. If there is no easy remedy I suggest that this brings wikipedia into some disrepute. Whatever the outcome on this I am grateful for the education in how wikipedia works, which I will pass on to others 9and50swans (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You really are, as you've been told before, bludgeoning. As far as I can tell you're not gaining an education in how Wikipedia works;; rather, the only thing you seem to be learning is that you're not getting what you want. EEng 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In case the many article talk threads, RFC, and ANI thread here weren't enough, 9and50swans has now started yet another: see WP:NPOVN#Plimpton 322. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note to suggest we keep this open a bit longer as the OP mentioned he'd be traveling a few days, and I anticipate further trouble. EEng 17:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo

    Summary of the request: Because of an original content dispute, XIIIfromTokyo has artificially created a discussion on antisemitism, and another one on homophobia, and has blatantly deformed my answers to say I am antisemitic and homophobic, and is repetiting these claims since December 2016 and on different pages in spite of my defense and other contributors' intervention. On top of that, he is doing intimidation, by telling me the press could talk about this and with legal threats to we do not know who. When I try to alert about this, he is changing the subject into a content dispute (talking about the content dispute, the French wikipedia article he wrote, his disputes there, comparison between articles, etc.), even though the content disputes are irrelevant here. When I try to tell him to stop calling me these things and threatening me, he is talking about the articles, and when I try to talk about the articles, he answers with these attacks. And he persists in this attitude in spite of all the warnings.

    Please keep in mind that we can talk of the consensus raised on the relevant talk pages of the article, but the content of the articles are off-topic here. I worked on multiple articles and XIII – who has a tendency to paranoia (sorry for the use of the term) – is focusing on two of them to try to show a imaginary bias (even though I have been discussing with other editors on articles, and we managed to have consensus; these two articles were different and needed different answers, as talk pages and administrators decisions show), but whatever, XIII has been obviously wrongfully accusing me of antisemitism and homophobia, and attacking and threatening me for 10 months in talk pages and a ban is the appropriate answer.

    See under the detailed request and quotes, thanks.

    --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Dear administrators,

    XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing me of antisemitism, homophobia a bit everywhere since last year, and I cannot use a talk page without him going back to these outragious accusations. On top of that, he has been threatening me and constantly using an aggressive language.


    ACCUSATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

    Original context

    The first student association of Panthéon-Assas University is – at least on Facebook – a Jewish association, UEJF (Union des Étudiants Juifs de France) Assas. Because of that, someone tagged the door of this association office inside the university with a swastika, and the university and the student association asked the public prosecutor to bring charges.

    XIII seems to have something against this university, so he is behaving aggressively to change the article, and another institution (this time in favor of it) because he considers they are rivals.

    Among many misuse of sources, he gave many articles which related the swastika incident, and others (policemen had been put in the 1990s to protect the university from violent groups, like other Parisian universities). He was saying that it shows that the university has a tradition of antisemitism and racism and of beating (ratonnade) Jews and foreigners! I kindly explained, and wrote in particular: "What you are quoting (some fights sometimes near the university) is not at all what you are saying, ie foreigners and Jews being commonly beaten up in PA (ratonnades) or PA as an institution having or having the reputation to have an enduring tradition of racism and antisemitism!"[4] He was talking of beating people out of racism and antisemitism, so I said that it is absolutely false that foreigners and Jews are beaten up in one of the top institutions of France.


    Accusation 1

    He deformed what I said and answered:

    Copy/pasted quoting
    Why are you refering to jew students as "foreigners" ? World War II is over, and you can still be French and jew. You should start to really carefully care about the words you use. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not write that at all, what you are writing is absolutely outrageous! […]
    --Launebee (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I explained that I obviously did not write that, but he is continuing since then to write on different pages I intervene that I wrote anti-Semitic things, or to imply I am a neo-nazi, so that I continuously have to defend myself, and so that the wrong is already done with other users.


    Accusation 2 [5]

    Copy/pasted quoting
    You have used to word "foreigners" to described thoses students, victims of racism and antisemitism. This kind of speech in France is deeply connected to far-right movements, and is considered as hate-speech. You say that you know a lot of things about France, so that's definitely something that you can't ignore. You are responsible for what you say. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I clearly did not describe Jews as foreigners. Your attack is absolutely despicable. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Accusation 3 [6]

    Copy/pasted quoting
    You are calmly describing victims of antisemitism and racism as "foreigners". […]
    Did I miss something ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Accusation 4 [7]

    Copy/pasted quoting
    So now there is a strong Jewish community in this college. Do you have a reference to back that claim, or is that from your personnal experience or préjugés ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Accusation 5 [8]

    Copy/pasted quoting
    I have read with some supprise that, according to Launebee, this university

    has a strong jewish community

    . Is that again your point of view about jew students, or do you have serious references about that ?

    Needless to say that after your previous statement, and your rewritting of the article of a well-know "néo-nazi" association[9], you might need to start to carefully chose the words you use. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I already gave you the reference. It is simply the first student association on Facebook. Please stop these continuing outrageous accusations. --Launebee (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Accusation 6 [10]

    Copy/pasted quoting
    So again, you don't a reference to provide, and that's only your opinion that you are voicing about the jewish community.
    Refrain from that activity, and stick to the references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not something written in the article. I was just answering you, since you implied outrageous things. Stop this disruptive activity. --Launebee (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    I am personally an indirect victim of the Jewish genocide, and I repetitively have to deal with things linked to it in my life, I feel deeply outraged by these constant accusations.

    I hope the severity of the sanction to XIII will show that Wikipedia is not taking antisemitism lightly, and that you cannot constantly attack the honour of a contributor by playing with this despicable thing.


    ACCUSATIONS OF HOMOPHOBIA


    The same system: he transformed something, put it everywhere so I constantly have to defend myself of this accusation.


    Original context

    Richard Descoings died in mysterious circumstances. He was homosexual and married, and it was controversial. Many newspapers, including gay community newspapers, talked about it.[11][12][13][14][15]) I used in the Sciences Po article the wording used in his article at that time [16], ie that he had a "controversial gay lifestyle", and for example anti-homophobic articles say it was, but it should not be. It was the beginning of constant accusations of homophobia by XIIIfromTokyo.


    Accusation 1 [17]

    Copy/pasted quoting
    You made the choice to put homophobic slurs in the article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You insisted I said antisemitic things, now you are saying I am writing homophobic things! There is nothink homophobic about saying his gay lifestyle is controvesial, on the contrary. See for example this newspaper article saying that his gay lifestyle was taboo and is denouncing the fact it had to be.
    Can someone stop these insults toward me?
    --Launebee (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Accusation 2 [18]

    Copy/pasted quoting
    You are calmly putting homophic slurs in {{Sciences Po]]' article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Homophobic slurs in the Sciences Po article? XIIIfromTOKYO, Launebee hasn't touched the Sciences Po article since September of this year. You're either referring to the talk page (in which case point me to the discussion/comment) or a very old edit to the article (in which case I'll need a diff please). The only other alternative is that you mean Pantheon-Assas' article or talk (in which case diff again please). Otherwise, the claim of homophobia is a brightline violation of NPA policy and I'm going to ask that you strike it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    XIII never stroke his comment or answered this.


    Bad "jokes" [19][20]

    One resistant during WW2 accused Sciences Po to have been a place of Collaboration during WW2.

    With no link, an article from the Independant says that the system in which is Sciences Po is a machine to produce a "blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry".

    XIII mixed these things, as such:

    Copy/pasted quoting
    So now we have to explain that this school is "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys.
    And could you remove the smileys? The nazi regime and the collaboration is something serious, not a joke! He obviously changes the meaning of the texts: freemasonery obviously means here a "cast", not actual freemasonery. --Launebee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Copy/pasted quoting

    As I have already mentioned, when I saw that this school was targeted because it was the lair "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys... well. Time for the arbcom to work ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The kind of criticism you are talking about is your invention. And If there are so many references, it is because you are denying the serious criticism. --Launebee (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Accusation 3 [21]

    Copy/pasted quoting
    Let me remind you that you wrote your opinion about Richard Descoing alleged homosexuality and drug usein the Sciences Po article : "an overdose linked to his controversial gay livestyle" [22]. None of what you wrote a few month ago was backed by the reference your provided back then [23]. I'm just trying to prevent and other accident.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    THREATS

    XIII wants me to stop editing, otherwise he is implying he could create a media turmoil with what he accused me in talk pages. Sometimes in French so that other users cannot understand.


    Threat 1 [24]

    Copy/pasted quoting

    All the process is public, so your actions here […] will be available to anyone. Contributors, journalists... XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Threat 2 [25]

    Copy/pasted quoting

    Tu es bien conscient que tout es public, et que n'importe qui peut poster ça sur Twitter […] (avec tout le basard médiatique à prévoir vu certaines expressions utilisées en PDD ) ?

    Translation: You are well aware that everything is public, and that anyone can post in on Twitter […] (with all the media fuss to come due to some expression used in talk page (PDD = page de discussion).

    Those "expressions used" are obviously from him.


    Threats 3 and 4 [26][27]

    These threats are not necessarily directed to me, but I signal that, as EdJohnston pointed out[28], XIII is doing legal threats now, by calling someone a "criminal".

    Copy/pasted quoting
    The article has been protected. Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors. Sad and disgusting. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Copy/pasted quoting
    EdJohnston one contributor clearly wants to harrass other contributors, and went so far as using a lot of SPA in the past ; this week's use of no less than 4 IPs to revert templates saying that this article was written like an advert clearly shows that any method, including criminal ones can be used by this individual, on group of indivudials. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Your reference to 'criminal' behavior above sounds to me like making legal threats. You were previously blocked for edit warring in April 2017 which should have made you aware of the sort of behavior we consider problematic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    CONSTANT ABUSIVE AND AGRESSIVE LANGUAGE

    XIII has very often an abusive language toward me. I have been answering his repetitive personal attacks and repetitive arguments for more than a year, but even if I keep civil, he always turns it into personal attacks. I give just two examples among many.


    Example 1: abusive language[29]

    Copy/pasted quoting

    […] It is off-topic. We are talking about reputation here, and since the source was in French, I just explained. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC) […] You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Example 2: repetitive claim I did a legal threat [30][[31]

    Because I was discussing the fact saying PA has an racist tradition is libelous, which is not a legal threat according to Wikipedia policy ("A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat."[32] He has been reminded it is not a legal threat by other contributors but he continues to claim everywhere I did legal threat.

    Copy/pasted quoting
    That's clearly an intimidation attempt. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not […]. Discussing or declaring something to be libelous is not in itself a legal threat. Not a legal threat; "This is libelous". […] Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy/pasted quoting
    I already had to face legal threat from this contributor, so any administrator has to be aware that it could accur to him or her as well. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There are many examples.


    GENERAL

    This attitude does not seem to be new. XIIIfromTokyo has already been blocked in French Wikipedia three days for "personal attacks and insults" and two weeks for "intimidation attempt or harassment". [33]

    There already has been requests here, but discussions were blurred in content discussion over Panthéon-Assas University and Sciences Po. Now, PA article has many sources, and Mr rnddude helped resolve the issues, and there has been a consensus on the lead of Sciences Po, with Robminchin helping. But XIII accusations are continuing, and it is becoming worse and worse.

    Whatever the content dispute is, XIII is constant me insulting me by asserting or strongly implying that I am linked to antisemitism or neo-nazism. I repeat what I wrote: I am personally an indirect victim of the Jewish genocide, and I repetitively have to deal with things linked to it in my life, I feel deeply outraged by these constant accusations of antisemitism. I hope the severity of the sanction to XIII will show that Wikipedia is not taking antisemitism lightly, and that you cannot constantly attack the honour of a contributor by playing with this despicable thing.

    To show the gravity of such accusations, I hope, on top of public apologies by him, at least a one-year ban will be decided (and a total ban if he does not apologise).

    Regards,

    --Launebee (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Discussion

    • Purely for the administrative purpose of being able to parse out and read this thread (and hopefully to avoid some serious TLDR) I have removed all of the quotes, replacing them either the relevant diffs or links. I have also removed the silly number of subheaders. I took every effort to not actually remove any content added by Launebee. If someone feels this decision was improper they are welcome to replace it with the original content, which can be found here. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I kept the subheaders removed, but put back the quotes, because the sentences are to be found inside long texts, so specific quotes are needed. Your version without the quotes is to found here. Thanks for your help. --Launebee (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but I've collapsed the quotes, since that's kind of the point of a collapse template. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to point out the text, you could use the tq template. The tq template highlights quoted text in green, and looks like this: (text being quoted). This might be a better alternative to hatted boxes. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Primefac and Blackmane. Perhaps now is a good compromise, and I hope I will never have again to do this, but if I have to use quotes in the future I will think at the tq templates. I am sorry there are so many examples, but it is because I have been so many times attacked. I added a summary in the beginning, it seems it was needed. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that the reported user has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on the aforementioned article. ansh666 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • When a user has been advised repeatedly that he is making false accusations, and yet persists in repeating the accusations, we have a problem. The subject of this complaint hasn't made many contributions, but he has exacted long-term abuse against a good faith editor. Frankly, I don't see a convincing reason why we need to retain this editor as a member of our community. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @power~enwiki: Thanks for your help. Actually, the summary of my message is more that because of a content dispute, XIII created a discussion on antisemitism and then used my answer to claim antisemitism, and has repeated these claims since last December, that he did the same thing with homophobia, that he has been threatening me several times and is constantly aggressive. The content dispute is not relevant here, whatever it is, it has been ten months that I am repetitely wrongfully accused of these things by this user, even though it is obviously absolutely false. (Note also that this user is the principal writer of the French page of that university, so this is not a reference. XIII is precisely blurring the discussion by talking of what happens in the French page that he wrote, or of the content dispute, but all of that is irrelevant. This is a different subject with a talk page, but that talk page is now filled with personal attacks.) I added a summary in the beginning of the request, thanks for the idea. It seems Lepricavark did an even shorter summary of the issue, thanks. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    South Derry Republican, 190.52.205.69, Eireabu

    Having had a notification seven days ago that someone tried to log into my account from a new device I am now being harrassed by a new editor Special:Contributions/South_Derry_Republican who is also clearly operating from the bare IP Special:Contributions/190.52.205.69 as well. They have also now engaged in edit-warring on my talk page [34] despite being reverted by myself and @Arjayay: and notified in my reverts of point three of the infobox at the top of my talk page which states: If I remove your comments, please don't restore them. The same for a discussion. Please respect and abide by Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. If I removed them I clearly don't want to engage in or continue the discussion. Restoring them repeatedly constitutes vandalism

    There are two possibilities: a random editor of obvious strong Irish republican viewpoint takes offense to me as my views contrast to theirs; or secondly and most likely it is an existing user on Wikipedia. In this case I can assume it to be the user @Eireabu:, whose username as well as some of their comments to me in the past suggests they are also someone of Irish republican views. They are the only editor I can assume has a big enough grudge against me, in this case over the Red Hand of Ulster article where I completely shattered their viewpoint and arguments by sheer weight of historical and academic evidence as can be seen by a look at the references and bibliography of this edit of mine. Indeed after @Canterbury Tail: blocked the article for a month to prevent a full edit-war I posted quite a lot of reasonings and justifications for my edits and on the many issues in the article. I even copied the article into my sandbox and posted regular updates of work in progress for Eireabu to look at and comment on, and how I took their concerns into account, however they responded once and it was quite clear they had not bothered to look at any of the stuff I presented or said and was intent on carrying on as before. They had no clear intention of collaborating.

    I also believe the harrassing [35] end comment to me backs up it is Eireabu: You say: The 'Gaelic' Ulster flag is actually the flag of the Hiberno-Norman Earldom of Ulster, ruled by the de Burgh family? Me say: False. It is the first recorded use, not the origin. The key bones of contention Eireabu seems to have had with my initial edits to the Red Hand article was over the first documented usage of the Red Hand symbol and the source used for it (slates source as POV as well as adding in their own SYN and OR, source as a unreliable "pamphlet" without any supporting evidence.) They also felt the edit "relegated" the Gaelic history of the Red Hand and implied it wasn't a Gaelic symbol. Whilst the IPs comment is factually flawed (the flags origin—not the Red Hand symbol on it—is de Burgh), it strongly looks like a continuation of Eireabu's viewpoint on the matter.

    Whether Eireabu is indeed South Derry Republican and the IP is up for debate however both SDR and the IP are harrassing user accounts that should be blocked as they only seem to exist to harrass me. Mabuska (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely not!! Nor do I condone such behaviour!! I've better things to do than to get myself involved in such stupid things and I sincerely hope the person detracts from it, I don't have any connections to Derry! Paranoia over myself is a little rash and unfair and an apology is in order. Eireabu (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are grounds for suspicion and I do not apologise for voicing them and I stated that it is up for debate not certifiable fact. You may very well be innocent but these things have only happened since our few interactions over the past couple of months and I can think of no other editor I've interacted with who has a reason to be peeved at me so it is reasonable and quite right to raise the possibility. But as stated it is not fact, just suspicion and suspicion especially raised by the coincidence pointed out above. Anyways the only action I've directly asked for is against SDR and the IP.
    Also anyone can make up a username stating anything whether it is true or not, indeed as I enforce the WP:IMOS agreement on the county name it could easily be an intentional choice by someone to have a dig as you cannot enforce IMOS on a username. Mabuska (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as I have said on my user page, I hope they stop and I am with you in action against whomever it is. You have made an accusation, for which is wrong, I've better things to be doing than such nonsense!Eireabu (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I have done at your user page, I thank you for your condemnation. Yet if there is reasonable suspicion it and the reason why must be mentioned whether it is misplaced or not I hope you understand. Mabuska (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I Don't necessarily understand in fairness, it's a big world out there with multiple people with viewpoints, similiar or not. I haven't even noticed the user till you raised it, linking my own username in the process above. Even the quoted point you made above from this user regarding the Ulster flag wasn't something I agree with!! It was always my assumption the flag was largely De Burgo in design and origin, with an O'Neill crest at the centre. Anyway no point crying over spilled milk and alas we must move on! Here's to contentious free contributions and editing here on in. You might have gathered I'm slow with any sort of contributions and quite the amateur, that will never change unfortunately ;) Eireabu (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mabuska, it wouldn't have hurt to have explained to South Derry Republican on their page, before you took them to ANI, that they're not supposed to restore removed comments. New users — which we're supposed to start by assuming they are — don't know that, and most likely don't read edit summaries. Also, this is not the place to voice your suspicions of Eireabu. The way to do that is firstly to ask them, and secondly, if you think you have good evidence, to open an SPI. I agree it's hard to believe South Derry Republican is a bona fide new user — see them using the <blockquote> template a couple of hours after the account was created[36], though not using it very well — but it doesn't by any means have to be Eireabu. I've warned South Derry Republican about harassing you on your page, and about editing logged out. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    Considering they hit the revert button with their last edit it is pretty clear they seen my prior edit summary so it is either a lack of competence or lack of willingness to a) read it or b) follow it. Seeing as I clearly stated it was up for debate as to whether it was Eireabu or not, it should be apparent why I didn't file a SPI, and I would be highly surprised if an editor would admit to using a sock to harrass another editor if asked considering the ramifications. Regardless a warning will have to do, thank you. Mabuska (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)

    It is apparent (to me) that the dispute resolution process has broken down. The moderator has recused themself after representations from the originating editor. I am not reporting misconduct. Rather, I am requesting oversight. I perceive that this oversight may take the form of a direction as to how to proceed from this point. On the otherhand, it may take the form of a decision in this matter. To this extent, I note that the matter has been discussed fully and that it has been generally notified (as indicated in the subject thread). I am notifying the originating editor specifically and posting a notification of this on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As suggested there, I think a proper, neutrally worded RfC at the article talk page is going to be your best option if you can't find consensus. I doubt you'll get an admin here to "rule" on a content dispute or intervene at DR. -- Begoon 11:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for your response. I have bought this here for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is fairly clear that, unless another moderator takes the reins (unlikely?) the DR process has failed. Secondly, the processes to date have closely followed the RfC process. There has been (IMHO) sufficient "debate" of the issues to establish a consensus but this requires a "close", since the opposing positions (one versus several) decline to acknowledge an "outcome" even though the consensus position has been identified by those offering a third opinion and the DR moderator. In making these comments, I do not per-judge any independent arbitration. I would observe that to protract this matter more than necessary would be disruptive. The originating editor at DR has already unambiguously indicated that they will not be bound by any decision at DR. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you can request a formal close of any discussion at WP:ANRFC. I don't think it has to be an RfC for that: "The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one...". I'm not sure how long that might take. Or, if you're confident you already have consensus, and the DR is abandoned, you could just go ahead and implement it, consensus does not mean unanimity. I know you know that, but it does bear repeating. -- Begoon 13:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    With thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing this. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I just saw what you did - I meant asking at ANRFC for the article talkpage discussion to be closed, since I looked there and that seemed to be what you were saying needed a close when you said "the processes to date have closely followed the RfC process" - the heading you've used looks like you're asking for ANRFC to close the DR, and I don't think that's going to work... Sorry if I misunderstood/misled you. -- Begoon 14:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • While, I am currently evaluating the DRN disc. itself, as a gen. reminder, please don't post any requests about DRN cases to ANRFC.While technically, every editor in good-standing could be a DRN volunteer, approaches at DRN vary widely from RFCs etc. and techniques of closing disc. or moderation varies. And I have not seen any DRN regular sans me frequent ANRFC either.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah - crossed wires, probably my fault. Sorry. -- Begoon 14:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Begoon:-Yeah! Prob. he got stuck in the little ambiguous phrasing of your 2nd comment and understood it the wrong way! After all, errors can be fairly expected for people who are prob. not so involved/accustomed with the exact intricacies of our abundance of processes.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for my error in that I saw the DR as a continuation of the thread at the ship's talk page. Discussion is continuing at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) so this has defaulted to your intention in any case. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for you to apologise, I should be the only one doing that. My suggestion was ambiguous and I should have phrased it far more carefully. Sorry again. -- Begoon 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification

    I tried to moderate this dispute, but it appears that there was rough consensus, to which User:Wingwraith took exception, and first wanted me to express an opinion, which I eventually did (reluctantly), and then wanted a detailed refutation from me. At this point, I withdrew from moderation. I am still willing to assist in the formulation of an RFC. I am requesting administrative attention. I will note that any request at WP:AN or WP:ANI is inconsistent with the way DRN works. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • So, Wingwraith made an edit that was reverted as disputed, and unanimously rejected by the local consensus on the talk page. They then requested mediation, and when the mediator didn't agree with them, WW attacked him. Wow. @Wingwraith: this really isn't looking good for you and I'd be strongly inclined to block you if you engage in any further edit warring. Your proposed edit has been rejected. That's it. That's the reality. Beyond that, no one cares if you think you're "right". Your options are quite simply as follows: Drop the stick and move on, attempt to override the existing consensus by starting an RfC on the talk page (the consensus of which you must abide by), or continue edit warring and get blocked from this website. It's up to you. However this project is governed by consensus. Not individuals who say they're "right". This is not merely a content dispute. You're refusing to listen to existing consensus, which constitutes disruption. Swarm ♠ 05:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will state FTR that I dispute some of the points that you have made. I wasn't attacking Robert McClenon when I asked him to clarify how it is that my objection had the quality of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and at no point did I say or imply that I had a problem with how he handled his role as the DRM; the fact that he was willing to recuse himself and request that another volunteer take over as moderator instead of closing the dispute resolution process outright is I think proof enough of the lack of any hostilities between the two of us. I understand the rules around consensus which is what partially motivated my bringing the dispute to the DRN, and I made the comment about my being right under very specific circumstances which I stood by then and stand by now. Even though an administrator is now involved with the dispute resolution on the talkpage which renders the RfC and "edit warring" actions moot, I'm not a IDHT kind of editor: I've throughout the process consistently come up with proposed edits, arguments and ideas which tried to carve out a middle-of-the-road approach to ending the dispute. That was my position then and that remains my position. Wingwraith (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with User:Wingwraith in one detail, and that is that I didn't think that I was attacked, at least not exactly, although I did think that the questioning of my mediation was less than reasonable and less than fair. I would suggest that if Wingwraith doesn't want to be disruptive, they either accept that consensus is against them, or request a wider consensus via a Request for Comments. I would suggest that this thread can then be closed, either with a finding of consensus (minus one) or with agreement to use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As indicated above, this discussion is continuing at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). I will add that the admin Buckshot06 is overseeing the discussion there. As the originator, I am certainly happy for this to be closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Carmaker1 Disruptive edits

    Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I've noticed Carmaker1 engages in disruptive editing and hasn't been blocked, this is likely because most auto pages have information added primarily by single purpose editors who are easily pushed around. He is changing around the years on the Honda J engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) then when I restored them to the original he refers to this as vandalism. He has repeatedly accused me of being a sock of 212.36.194.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another editor who attempted to engage Carmaker1 in civil discussion but was instead insulted and had his edit reverted. Honda J engine talk page. His edit history features numerous insults and threats of admin intervention. For a recent instance [37], DanaWright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited the page on a single occasion but is threatened anyways.

    Now he resorts to canvassing for support. He finds the other active auto editor (OSX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have retired from editing) who changes and reverts year alterations and adds underground messages to inform other editors not to bother changing them since otherwise he'll revert them.[38]. Since most of the auto pages are edited in tiny pieces by single purpose editors this is easily accomplished. By tag teaming the article, Carmaker1 (before it was with OSX) expects to change the page the suit his demands. Even more odd since the Honda J engine is built in Alabama for the North American market and rarely found in exported vehicles. Vortex833 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I should point out that the dispute between Vortex833@ and Carmaker1@ started as a difference between using model years (for the American market) and calendar years (for the rest of the world). Unfortunately, Carmaker1 went in with all guns blazing, insulted Vortex833 and didn't explain his position properly, hence making Vortex833 into a mortal enemy. I'm trying to bring both sides to some form of understanding at Talk:Honda J engine.  Stepho  talk  13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Stepho-wrs - Thank you. That is an accurate account, in my opinion. There was a request filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I had to close it for various reasons, including inadequate prior discussion and personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure calendar years for the rest of the world even exists? Could be original research and endless reverted edits, noticed they refer to the new Camry as 2018 Camry over in Australia as well. [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]
    This looks like a content related dispute, and so long as no edit warring occurs, I can leave the article be and encourage you two to resolve your disputes peacefully and citing policy to support your arguments. The concerns I do wish to ask about is the incivility. Vortex833 - Can you provide me with specific diffs that point out the incivility you're talking about here? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here Carmaker1 uses derogatory terminology to insult another editor calling him a dunce. The other editor after being insulted didn't respond. [44] Vortex833 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Stepho's comment on the talk page seems to be helpful, and based on your response you seem to understand and agree with the reasonable notion that presenting "American model years" (which don't necessarily correspond with actual years) without an annotation of some sort, can be confusing for readers. Therefore you're essentially conceding that your edits were in the wrong. I see no reason to action a user under these circumstances. Swarm ♠ 05:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood this board was for informing admins of patterns of disruptive edits and was not used to resolve content disputes?Vortex833 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I accepted adding an MY designation for clarification purposes though I don't see it as necessary or useful. On the page no other editors have changed or shown any sort of confusion in all this time, it's just an invented problem.Vortex833 (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Without an MY designation the Honda J engine would be highly confusing to its visitors, that's why the years have been added in the existing manner up until Carmaker1 and only Carmaker1 decided to invent an issue to solve and change all the years.Vortex833 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to realize this "dispute" amounts to pushing original research on automotive pages with an agenda. If sourced material isn't referring to these "calendar dates" then neither should the auto pages. Googling Honda J30A [45] returns dates in the original format not the one Carmaker1 is pushing. Did the same for Honda J35 [46] and it's the same. Vortex833 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is equivalent to saying that if the source material was written in Japanese then the article must be written in Japanese. CarMaker1 was quite rightly attempting to harmonise the J engine article with the other international engine articles, which the vast majority are in calendar years (although I recognise that whether the article is an American article or an international article is still under discussion). However, he didn't make it clear that he was changing to calendar years (just as the original didn't make it clear it was using model years) and he then responded to reverts in an uncivil manor. His goal was good, but his methods were rough. Be careful to separate the two.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaints by User:IranianNationalist

    User:Mhhossein

    Hi there, this is a censorship attempt by Mhhossein in the talk page.

    • Special:Diff/801105236 (Talk:2017 Tehran attacks)
    • Also when I pinged a Wiki Fa admin to be a 3rd opinion in the talk page (as someone is familiar with Farsi language) Special:Diff/801101452 Mhhossein accused me to be friend with the admin User:Sharaky.
    • Simultaneously with 3RR in the article history
    • When I reminded the user to avoid such edits Special:Diff/801109515/801117300 this user started to accuse me to WP:PA and threatening to WP:ANI in my talk page frequently to WP:RUNAWAY itself means PA.

    --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 07:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would someone have to familiar with Farsi language to express a third opinion on an article in English Wikipedia. Also, your having pinged them here invalidates the entire point of WP:3O, which is to get an opinion by a neutral uninvolved third party, not a person chosen by one of the two parties in the dispute. If your Farsi admin has expressed a view, it has literally no values as a 3O "tiebreaker".
    Furthermore, with an account name like "IranianNationalist", you should expect other editors to be suspicion that your editing does not adhere to WP:NPOV, since you have expressed your bias right up front. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the sources are in Farsi language such as VOA PNN or BBC Persian --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first diff shows Mhhossein linking to an article version to replace the duplication of that text on the talk page. I see nothing wrong with that. In your second diff you accuse Mhhosein of censorship, when nothing was censored, a link was substituted for text, and of being uncivil when he questioned why you pinged an editor with 11 edits on en.wiki for an opinion. I'd have done the same, as it seems to me to be an obvious case of WP:CANVASSING, in spirit if not otherwise. Then, it was not Mhhosein who accused you of a WP:PA with your repeated claims of censorship, but another editor altogether, User:Pahlevun. Mhhosein then came to your talk page to warn you that the article was under 1RR, and you again claimed that censorship was taking place, and (I guess) was a justification for breaking 1RR. Mhhosein then warned you that if you kept accusing them of censorship, he would file a report here, which he has a right to do, and which you have now done (so how can you chastise him for warning you that he might do it?) - and you didn't notify him that you opened this, as you are required to do.
    I have no idea what you mean regarding WP:RUNAWAY.
    In all, nothing in this complaint seems justified, unless a BOOMERANG is worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Also I have question, when the controversial article is about a Persian subject, why do you ask me to avoid pinging a user familiar with Persian language? (Or I say better why do you accuse me to ping a partial user?! the user is a WikiFa admin(at least must be more impartial if you don't know him)) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly don't get that if you're in a dispute with another editor, your calling in someone you know can;t be considered to be an impartial third opinion. Don't ping me again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "your calling in someone you know can;t be considered to be an impartial third opinion" Had I claimed such a thing? But it is weird when you think the "someone have to familiar with Farsi language" all have to be far away of neutrality!!! --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're misconstruing the meaning of BMK's comment. The issue is not that you pinged a .fa wiki editor, it's that you pinged an editor at all. Doesn't matter whether they are a .en, .fr or .fa editor, what matters is that the 3O was handpicked by you. That is not how 3O's work. A 3O is where you ask for a completely uninvolved editor with whom you have no relations to chime in with their thoughts to try and resolve the dispute. By their very nature you don't ask a specific person for a 3O. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr rnddude, can you please and provide some evidences to approve the accusation of any relation between me and Sharaky?
    @Sharaky:, Hi there, plz come here and defend yourself :D
    @Mr rnddude, Ask yourself when I pinged different WikiFa admins such as Darafsh and Huji in different subjects Why do you (or any other one) claim any relation between me and Sharaky? I even had no vote in any RfC for admin or any other privilege grant... How can I have any relation with any Wiki admins? I'm a slow contributer having less contributions from 2014 (only 94 new Fa articles many of them are tiny articles) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 13:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IranianNationalist did not notify Mhhosein of this complaint. I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh... your ping was your relation to the admin. You have already admitted to pinging the admin in your OP. I am making no claim about what kind of relations you have with any .fa admin. Either your English reading comprehension is too limited, or, you're not reading. I'll try this again with as blunt an instrument as possible. When you attempt a 3O, you go to WP:3O and leave a dated, but unsigned, comment there. That way you improve the chances of getting a completely neutral third opinion. When you ping an editor to the discussion, you make the 3O moot as it is presumed you chose that specific person for a reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also I add : I in different subjects I had pinged different Wiki fa admins such as Darafsh and another admin (I have forgot hist name) for the Farsi-relative articles also experienced non-admin users such as Wikimostafa. But they were busy or not willing to participate in English or they had my gift from other discussions in WikiFa (to avoid conflict of interest. it is rational). @Beyond My Ken So I recommend you have a good view about people talking Persian. Thank you :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 09:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, since you don't seem to be understanding what Beyond My Ken is saying, let's try it a different way. Specifically pinging another editor to a discussion, where you are in dispute with another editor, and you expect that the editor you pinged will side with your argument, is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. If you had some content discussion in other articles, but were not in a dispute with another editor, and had pinged another editor for wider discussion then that would not be a problem. Comparing the two situations is a red herring. It is irrelevant s to what languages are being spoken. The same could be applied to disruption caused by editors with a heavily Eastern European/East Asian/Balkan/African/South East Asian/Conservative/Liberal/Theist/Atheist/etc, etc bias. It is not restricted to any single language nor nationality. Blackmane (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism, User:Pahlevun

    Having 3RR in the Great Mosque of Kufa and multiple discussions and many other reliable sources added to the article the user Pahlevun doesn't accept (Special:Diff/801055508/801262639) even other user edits such as User:Slatersteven's previous edit here: Special:Diff/801054968/801055508
    Also 3RR

    And relative consensus discussions :

    Also as a Note : When the article must be merged it was nominated for deletion by this user (I add : all sources about the subject are official or high ranked clerical sources) :

    --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IranianNationalist did not notify Pahlevun abouut this complaint. I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A related subject: IranianNationalist's signature says "IsNotNationalist, thus contradicting the implicit statement made by the account name itself. Is this a legitimate use of a nickname in a sig? It seems deceptive to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beyond My Ken (no pinging) : Are you trying WP:RUNAWAY ? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken However your criticism of my signature is a WP:RUNAWAY and we should avoid making the discussion busy, but I have to reply to your criticism. I changed my signature to avoid probable prejudices about being a zealot patriot or nationalist like Hitler... DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My edit on Great Mosque of Kufa was made after lengthy discussion (on multiple pages) about your arguing the toss that it was called the dragon gate. In fact you accused me of bias for supporting Pahlevun's claim that your sources were questionable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See [47].Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see how three reverts in 72 hours could be a 3RR violation. This is not the first time IranianNationalist falsely files for 3RR violation against me (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive350#User:Pahlevun reported by User:IranianNationalist (Result: nothing)). Moreover, There is now a consensus shaped at RSN to not include the content I removed in those diffs (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Primary sources at Great Mosque of Kufa). Pahlevun (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can be deemed to be edit warring even if you do not breach 3RR in a given 24 hour period if (in the eyes of admins) your edits are trying to game the system (such as making 3 edits in 24 hours and then a fourth an hour later).Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So how did Notirainainnatioinalist do
    [48] (same day as Pahlevun's first revert)
    [49]
    [50]

    Note they both reverted times on the 13th

    So if Pahlevun was edit warring so was Iranian nationalist, based upon Iranian nationalist's criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Precipitating disc
    Details of content-dispute et al thrown about.Nothing productive seems to be precipitating out of this disc.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Slatersteven AFAIK Pahlevun was (and is) insisting on the official clerical Shiite websites to be not reliable to have their claims they provided (whether Serpent or Dragon) AND I NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH SERPENT or merging the Dragon gate to the main article Great Mosque of Kufa so when Pahlevun removes there are many differences between removing a a Serpent Hadith or a Dragon Hadith. I never tried to show the Hadith to be happened in reality (Can someone imagine Masih ad-Dajjal in reality?! :D But the name of the Serpent Door historically is based on this Hadith whether Serpent or Dragon) AND EVERYONE must avoid editing wiki based on his beliefs means if Pahlevun doesn't believe in the Hadith it doesn't mean to remove the Hadith as the HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE DOOR. If I accused you Slatersteven to something , sorry it will not be repeated. Good boy with a good manner :)--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as you are insisting we must include (which multiple users have disagreed with) a quote from an Haddith (which has multiple versions). You both have (by your definition) edit warred over this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: Let's call daddy :D @Jimbo Wales: Hi, if you had different reliable secondary sources (Official sources) about Maya civilization calling a historic sacred location as a weird name due to a myth story do you let the mythical story to be removed because it is far away of the reality? @Slatersteven, wrong Hadith or true Hadith there is no difference all versions have a common thing about A CRAWLER(Dragon or Serpent) get inside the Kufa mosque and talked with Ali --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 14:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: User:Pahlevun is trying an original research because I provided many official and high ranked clerical Shiite sources but Pahlevun says the Hadith is unreliable... why? Does he have any source for what he is claiming? @Pahlevun: If you have any source use it in the article and claim the Hadith is not true. Let the reader to decide not us. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emir of Wikipedia: You reverted again and asked Why? due to this reason in this my last 2 comments above --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already responded to your "Vandalism" accusation. Note that no one is here for the content dispute. Pahlevun (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did he say the HAddith was unreliable, or that the sources you were using for the text of it were?Slatersteven (talk)
    @Slatersteven: YESSSS and a couple of times :) :
    • First time in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_gate (Special:PermanentLink/800263755) says :
      "The article is based on Bihar al-Anwar, a WP:PRIMARY that contains probably millions of hadith" --Pahlevun
    • and again here Special:Diff/800483399/800489013 says:
      "@IranianNationalist: This is very interesting that when you wrote یه کم بخندیم :D به این منابع معتبر, you have confessed that the source is not reliable. Wikipedia is not your laughingstock. Pahlevun (talk)"
    Clearly Pahlevun source is my summary in Wiki Farsi article : fa:در اژدها which the clerical wiki users (and also Pahlevun) don't have any problem with it but for them the important subject is to remove the Hadith from an international view
    But my sources had nothing to do with Bihar_al-Anwar :
    --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't contribute to Persian Wikipedia, by the way. Pahlevun (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch!! :D So you check WikiFa article histories to start edit wars in WikiEn to refresh your mood?! In WikiFa you can't claim anything because all users can read the reliable Farsi language sources I provided above and they know I'm right :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also here Special:Diff/800475224/800475867 Pahlevun says "Misuse of an unreliable WP:PRIMARY source. Get it back when you have a reliable secondary source." @Pahlevun, How do you conclude the above official clerical sources (masjed-alkufa.net) to be PRIMARY? @Slatersteven DON'T YOU have any reply now? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not going to discuss a content dispute case here. Pahlevun (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pahlevun WP:RUNAWAY ? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutly a Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Pahlevun (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    About pinging

    @Beyond My Ken, you mentioned many different accusations about me, I don't know answer what one :) I didn't ping the users to let the admins check a more brief of what is happening... and to avoid having a war in ANI before an admin check (however thank you for making a long discussion) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 09:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @IranianNationalist:--Beyond My Ken is a highly experienced editor and citing policies like WP:RUNAWAY to counter well-established users in a ad-hominem manner without any minimal basis can be considered as intentional disruption and indulging in such activities along with casting personal attacks is not tolerated.Also, please be adviced that ANI is often witness to boomerang actions.Thank you!Winged Blades Godric 13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not involved in this in any way, just happened to notice that neither of these pings worked, so courtesy ping for Beyond My Ken. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we close this now with? it is clear both users are POV warriors who are just disrupting the project.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that I was a "POV warrior" nor "disrupting the project". Pahlevun (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Second.And collapsed a part.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at this entire situation somewhat more closely in the light of day, I agree that both editors are at fault here. And to clarify my "no pings" statement, I wasn't intending to "runaway" from the discussion, I simply didn't want to be called back to it repeatedly at IranianNationaist's whim. In general, I'm perfectly capable of returning to an ongoing discussion on my own, and do not need to have my pants leg constantly tugged to do so. (The ping by Amaury above, though, was reasonable, and I thank them for it.) There was a halcyon era when Wikipedia didn't have pinging at all, and things worked just fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang for IranianNationalist

    I have to say congratulations to some specific users (cooperating here in different discussions in different wiki pages we have similar users having similar opinions and the common thing was me :D should I pride to be such a lovely user for this specific users?) they are continuously in the same front to protect Pahlevun and Mhhossein anyway (You can see them in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon gate and all relative discussions up to now including the relative discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard). You can see them in any location I had an Edit for example Slatersteven in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sina_Dehghan&action=history and it is not a Wikipedia:Hound but previously there were some similar discussions in WikiFa people (users) calling them as a system of campaigning. Yeah continue to support each other (but it is wonderful when we have some permanent users in different discussions supporting each other). AND THE MAIN SUBJECT WOULD BE FORGOTTEN about some reliable official sources have been censored --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A very nice combination of WP:Casting aspersions, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:POV. You really should be blocked for this comment alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So "they" go to every page you edit?Slatersteven (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SOCK and WP:SPA at torrent articles

    There is an ongoing problem at these articles: IsoHunt, KickassTorrents and Torrent Project‎. Someone keeps on changing the URLs despite being asked not to do it and the articles being semi-protected recently. It's particularly annoying because it is being done by new user accounts which seem to be a WP:SPA for doing this. Help requested here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Investigation opened: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marylucygril. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The pages have also been semiprotected. If there is further disruption related to this, please advise at the SPI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Still looking but I can tell you that at least one account is cross wiki spamming right now as seen here. We need this link added to the meta blacklist. Beetstra are you around?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berean Hunter: I'm around. Can you give me all domains? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are these the 4 domains in above tracking templates? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Open an SPI: A new form of disruption at an article covered by WP:ARBPIA

    Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just opened an SPI against two of the three editors who opposed him at Talk:Ali Khamenei. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. He also planned to open an SPI, against the third editor, me, as explained at Oshwah's talkpage. The WP:ARBPIA is rife with conflict and disruption. I consider this to be, a new form of disruption. I request a speedy close of the SPI and a warning to the initiator about this type of behaviour. The Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) also needs more eyes and a check for POV, but I am not at ANI to pursue editorial comments about that article. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As background - this began by a series of edits by Mhhossein to Ali Khamenei (some may be viewed as perhaps POVish, some were definitely positive), some of which were challeged and during which Mhhossein performed a 1RR vio ([53] + [54] 1st, [55] 2nd) which he did self-revert upon being warned this was the case [56]. He then removes an-indepth Newsweek piece as "It's just an opinion" which was challenged by several editors, following up with a WP:NEWSORG claim [57] and then claiming Human interest story [58], discounting other opinions [59], followed by an attempt to SPI Dr.K. (which failed on technical grounds due to page protection), and then moved on to SPI me (Icewhiz). And this for an in-depth article on the subject in Newsweek. I might not be available on-wiki for the next few days (travelling on vacation, back next Sunday, probably will check in sparsely).Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI clerk note: I've declined to "speedy close" the case linked above as I see behaviour worth investigating, which I'm now doing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An admin please close this nonsense and strange report!!! @Dr.K.: Later on, please be careful before accusing others at ANI. --Mhhossein talk 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: not so fast, nothing I've said here or at the now-closed case should be taken as an endorsement of your action. I saw something entirely unrelated that was worth checking, in my own opinion. More shortly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. --Mhhossein talk 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: So what? it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. I beg your pardon? And what does that have to do with Icewhiz, an innocent bystander whom you unjustly accused of socking? Is there no recognition, on your part, of the glaring mistakes you made putting this innocent editor through this ordeal? This is disruptive, because it demonstrates that you do not understand the disruption you have caused and you may repeat it in the future. At a minimum, you owe Icewhiz an apology. You owe one to me as well, but I won't hold my breath that you will apologise to me. Dr. K. 00:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: Ok. I see you avoid replying to my request that you apologise to Icewhiz for your error in reporting a good-faith innocent editor to SPI. So, here is the effect of your error: Your creation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz was deleted because: G6: SPI filed in error under an innocent name. So I will ask you for the last time: Will you admit you were in error in filing this SPI using Icewhiz's name and apologise to Icewhiz? Dr. K. 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Related discussions

    This is probably a good indication that this suite of three editors needs to have their contributions more closely examined in relation to WP:NPOV and WP:ARBPIA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just thinking the same thing, the same edds on related (by religion) topics.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken: Just a moment, which of my edits was wrong? Can you elaborate on this? I can't understand why Dr.K. is so worried about a sockpeppetry being investigated, this is while there's no name of him in the reprot. Both of the cases opened regarding me are nonsense. --Mhhossein talk 02:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had a specific accusation to make, I would have made it, but what I wrote was "this suite of three editors needs to have their contributions more closely examined". No Wikipedian should object to having their edits looked at if there's an indication there might be problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: I can't understand why Dr.K. is so worried about a sockpeppetry being investigated, this is while there's no name of him in the reprot. Please do not misrepresent my words. In fact, I am not worried at all. To prove this point, I quote what you said to Oshwah: I was trying to report Dr.K. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC). Wonderful. This is your chance. We are at ANI. Can you explain to everyone here, better still, can you submit your evidence that led you to want to open an SPI against me? Checkusers, SPI clerks, sockhunter admins are all watching for the big reveal with their fingers at the WP:DUCK-block button. I can't wait. Thanks much. Dr. K. 03:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhhossein - I echo Dr.K.'s request: I would like to see the exact evidence you had supporting your sock puppetry accusations, please. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I never accused Dr.K.. I've already made enough explanations on why I thought sock-puppetry was happening (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz). You see by the admins' comments that I was much right about the report, at least regarding DarkKing Rayleigh. Naturally, Dr.K. falling on the dubious account's side came into mind at the very first step. But later, when I contacted Oshwah, I was leaning toward others and Oshwah knows it well. However, I really wonder why Dr.K. hastily acted against my Sockpuppet investigations which had nothing to do with him in practice. Also, @Oshwah: Had you seen this page before coming to this discussion? I don't think any policy or guideline prohibits me from thinking on the the possibility that a user can be a puppet. FYI, the case of INeverCry who was an admin in Commons (I doubt if he was an admin here, too) and later found to be a Master playing another account whom was admin, too. --Mhhossein talk 06:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mhhossein - Accusing me of having any connection with DarkKing Rayleigh was done without a shred of evidence (which you failed to produce in the report, and here). You did this after a content dispute - in which I would say your actions were questionable (calling a serious article in Newsweek a Human Interest Story?!) - and per your own postings to Oshwah's page - you intended to report Dr.K. on the exact same (lack of) grounds - and moved on to me only following technical difficulties (the SPI page was blocked). I'll note that the timing just after MehrdadFR's block (with whom you've been in contact, and who was making similar off base accusations at AE regarding people who disagreed with him, including me) was also odd. Accusing someone of a serious offense, and sockpuppetry is a serious offense, without any evidence (and in this case - an interaction report limited to some 4-6 pages, and totally different editing patterns (he's editing when I'm asleep!)) - could definitely be construed as quite personal in the sense of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Whether you were correct or not of any misconduct regarding DarkKing Rayleigh (of which I have no concrete opinion - since I do not know much of this new account - though your original report seems to be shaky) - is completely irrelevant to an accusation linking him to me, or accusing me of acting as a sock puppeteer. Regarding policy - this would seem to be fishing as per WP:SPCU. I don't have much to fear from a checkuser (other than what I see as an attack, and entry of my account name in a log) - though from what I read (and see in some account pages) such checks can also find random connections (e.g. multiple editors editing from the same office /library / lab (which may contain hundreds of people or more) - which could be difficult to disentangle (as opposed to a situation in a house with few people).Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is your first question to Oshwah: A question Dear Oshwah, how are you? I'm here per your kind offer of help. I was trying to open a Sockpuppet investigations subpage for a user but the page was protected while I tried it for anther user and it allowed me. What's wrong? Tnx. --Mhhossein talk 04:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC).
    This is the followup comment to Oshwah: I was trying to report Dr.K. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC).
    So, I ask you again. Please supply the evidence that led you to want to open an SPI against me to the point that you had to enquire about it with an admin.
    However, I really wonder why Dr.K. hastily acted against my Sockpuppet investigations which had nothing to do with him in practice. Wonder no more. Acting to prevent SPI abuse against Icewhiz, an established and good-faith editor, from someone with a demonstrable lack of skills for opening SPIs, and who seriously intended to open a fact-free SPI against me, was the least I could do to minimise disruption for a colleague, the project and myself. As for your motives, you only know for sure, but if I had a guess, I would think that you were desperate to win the content dispute at Talk:Ali Khamenei. Dr. K. 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mhhossein: having reviewed the report in probably a great deal more detail than the others who have commented here, I agree that the situation makes it look like you filed this report frivolously to try to "win" a content dispute by making trouble for your opponents, but there is also the possibility that you don't understand what sockpuppetry is. As an example: sockpuppetry is one user making several accounts to make it look like there is additional support for their side of a dispute. Sockpuppetry is not when several users in good standing who are regular and long-term contributors to a topic area disagree with something you're trying to do. I don't think that your report was entirely in bad faith: a suspicious account did participate in the discussion, but I didn't see any good reason to suspect that that account was being operated by either of the two users you reported (or attempted to). Sockpuppetry is something we look on very poorly, and accusing someone of sockpuppetry without good evidence is often considered a personal attack, and I'll repeat the advisory that this topic area is under discretionary sanctions. If you find yourself in a similar situation again where you have a disagreement you can't resolve on a talk page, a good next step is dispute resolution. Please do not file any more sockpuppetry investigation requests unless you have very good evidence; if you feel the need to file, feel free to ask myself or one of the other SPI clerks to review your case in advance. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Icewhiz: - I've removed as much of a trace of the SPI being filed under your name as I can without obfuscating the actual report; I think it's very clear from what's left that you were accused in error. The entry in the Checkuser log can't be removed, but it is only visible to users with CU access (not a lot of people) and is considered protected private information. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As it happens, none of us saw any good reason to run a CU on Icewhiz, so his CU log is currently empty. Yunshui 雲水 15:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: It's very interesting to see the you are accusing me of disruption (without hearing my narration of the content dispute) while it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. It's even more interesting that you, as an SPI clerk, don't know of "good standing who are regular and long-term contributors to [the project]" which found to be committing sock-puppetry. Now my suggestions for you, next time, before doing such basic level preaches see the user's contributions, articles and awards. By the way, please see WP:AGF. --Mhhossein talk 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr.K.:Just stop victim playing and making personal attacks, you have nothing to do with this discussion. --Mhhossein talk 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You made two baseless sockpuppeting accusations, and the third that actually existed was identified and deal with by Ivanvector himself. I think you've exhausted your good faith allowance for the time being. It doesn't matter if an editor in good standing had sockpuppeted, you don't go around casting aspersions as to the conduct of other editors with zero connecting evidence, save for that they all appeared on the same page, on the basis of somebody else did it too. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: stop denying that you requested a sockpuppetry investigation of Dr.K. on Oshwah's talk page. You did, we can all see it. My suggestion above that maybe you don't understand exactly what sockpuppetry is was me assuming good faith. Your response that you reported these two users because some other completely unrelated user operated sockpuppets in the past is explicitly a bad-faith argument: you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS based on no relevant evidence at all, and it's an equally specious argument to call these users sockpuppets because you were improperly accused in another entirely unrelated case. I haven't commented on the content dispute and don't intend to, it is entirely irrelevant to the sockpuppetry investigation, which is concluded. You may interpret this as a warning: further commentary in defense of this sockpuppetry investigation and/or regarding the motivations of users in this thread is very likely to be taken as a personal attack. I'll reply to your question on my talk page shortly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: It's of not importance whether you believe in what I say. See my comments at Oshwah's talk page. At first I though DR.K. could be a part of the puppetry, later, after Oshwah asked for concrete evidences and looked deeper into the edits, I realized that the two others are much more involved. Regarding "You may interpret...", do as you wish, my sentences are what I said. --Mhhossein talk 17:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: ...later, after Oshwah asked for concrete evidences and looked deeper into the edits, I realized that the two others are much more involved. No problem. I will settle for whatever little involvement in sockpuppetry that you think I had. Can you specify that little bit of socking you think I did? Dr. K. 03:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: No reply here either. Once more, you said that ...the two others are much more involved. That implies that I was "involved" but to a "much lesser degree". Can you describe my small involvement? On the other hand, if you think I had no involvement at all, what prevents you from acknowledging that and apologising to me? Basic intellectual honesty requires that you provide an answer to this simple question Mhhossein. Dr. K. 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Mr rnddude: This is one of the reasons I brought this user at ANI. Mhhossein's inability to admit any fault even for the most obvious of his/her transgressions, while at the same time personally attacking the editors he disagrees with, has manifested itself multiple times at Talk:Ali Khamenei, but without repercussions to himself. However, at ANI, his disruption is under scrutiny by the wider community. That gives me a certain sense of comfort. His refusal to get the point of his disruption clearly manifests itself by his personal comments directed against Ivanvector. By the way, I find Ivanvector's analysis of Mhhossein's actions, consummately professional and even-handed, and I thank him for that. I will not reply to Mhhossein's diatribe directed at me, just above, since it is as transparently fact-free as his botched SPIs. Dr. K. 17:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mhhossein has resorted to trolling on the talkpage of the blocked sock

    • Mhhossein gives trolling reply to my ANI notice on the page of the blocked sock: Thanks for informing him, however he's unfortunately blocked because of "the disruption caused by Mhhossein". --Mhhossein talk 04:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I had given the ANI notice to the sock, before there was an SPI about his/her socking. Dr. K. 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, Mhhossein has resorted to edit-warring adding back the trolling. Dr. K. 06:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also misused rollback reverting my edit. Dr. K. 06:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reverted again. Dr. K. 06:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, "This is my right to have this [message]. This message is meant as a sort of response against your accusations". --Mhhossein talk 06:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You go WP:GRAVEDANCING on the talkpage of a blocked sock leaving a trolling message and you expect me to reply to it? Dr. K. 06:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your repetitive accusing me with WP:trolling is deemed as personal attack. Wikipedia is not a battle field. You are wasting the time of every one involved in this topic. Btw, the message was to you, not to the blocked user. --Mhhossein talk 06:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is the place to discuss your disruption. You try to avoid this noticeboard and you attempt trolling messages at the talkpage of a blocked sock. Let's wait for the admins to handle your disruption. Dr. K. 07:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, I really don't want to spoil a clean block log over this, but I'm getting tired of seeing new messages here.
    @Mhhossein: above, I asked you (warned you, actually) not to comment on this sockpuppetry issue anymore or cast aspersions about editors here. I realize that my wording "in this thread" may be open to interpretation. However, going to the talk page of the blocked sockpuppet to reply to Dr.K.'s administrative note (a note which is required by policy when posting here) with a complaint about this thread is clearly trolling where it's not grave-dancing.
    @Dr.K.: I want to assume good faith and you are entitled to ask for an explanation, but 1) Mhhossein had already given one (not a great one, admittedly) and 2) your continued questioning of him here and on their talk page flies directly in the face of my warning to Mhhossein not to comment on the sockpuppetry issue any further. You're not trying to bait them, are you?
    To both of you: I'd like to ask you both to drop this back-and-forth and get back to editing articles. There is only going to be something here worth further administrative action if this continues, and I don't see there being anything to gain from such an outcome. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: I replied, as you saw, to his comments as I saw them. Obviously, I did not connect my enquiries to him to your warning about not commenting further on the SPI, because I considered an apology to Icewhiz or to myself to be a constructive step that would indicate this editor's understanding of the error he committed. If your interpretation of the warning to him, includes prohibition of acknowledging any errors he made in the comments on this thread, perhaps you should have made this more clear, because it was not clear to me at all. In that sense, raising a baiting possibility on my part is unfair, because I did not interpret your warning so strictly. In fact, I skimmed through it, and did not read it in depth. Further, if this discussion has become a blocking minefield for good-faith attempts at further resolution, I would suggest you close it. I also find your comment about "getting back to editing articles", to be very unfair and it also indicates that you are not clear about what motivates content creators; such prompts at ANI simply don't cut it as motivation. But I will leave it at that. Dr. K. 21:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Continual changing of referenced Standings in the 2017–18 Ukrainian Second League competition

    ANI is not for content disputes. The IPs need to use the talk page to sort out their issues. Plus, article has been semi-protected. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 00:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    User using IPs 185.26.183.24 and 185.26.183.63 continually changes the standings in 2017–18 Ukrainian Second League Group A by adding a team which has been annulled and omitted from the reference provided by the official source. The user has not returned any reason nor discourse in the talk section of the article. Official source provided does not have the team in the standings. There is ample documentation in the article about the plight of this team. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute rather than something that needs admin intervention. That being said, you are correct that the official source has completely annulled the results. Page protected for 2 weeks. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of topic ban by User:Johnvr4

    At [60], [61], and [62] Johnvr4 has violated his topic ban - to avoid editing subjects connected to weapons and Japan, broadly construed - twice within about 24 hours of its imposition. He also appears to have said at his talk page that he intends to continue editing irrespective of the topic ban [63]. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on his airing of woes at [64], the last thing he should be doing right now is editing Wikipedia. Support an indef block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indef block, as clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for six months. When someone's been here for 5½ years, it's rather a stretch to say that he's NOTHERE. Since all his previous blocks, put together, add up to ten days and change, going straight to an indef block is extreme, and I don't think this is an extreme situation that needs an extreme response. Since he's allowed to appeal in six months, I figured I'd just do a block for that long; he may appeal it as soon as the block expires. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to him, even though I have no reason to be since he openly lambasted me for his own actions, an appeal will certainly fail if he remains blocked the entire duration of his topic ban. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That escalated quickly. I was going to propose leniency based on having just been kicked in the face by Hurricane Irma, but when someone's been here 5½ years, it's rather a stretch to say they don't know how a topic ban works, especially when another admin made such an effort to explain it and they posted this diatribe in response to a warning to stop violating it. Citing WP:IAR as a justification for ban evasion is a new one for me. I don't know the history here but in the interest of the leniency I started talking about, can I propose significantly shortening this block (say, 2 weeks?) since it's a first for evasion, with the topic ban timer reset from the end of the block? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can appreciate your motivation, Ivanvector, but the messages I saw posted give great pause to endorse any shortening of the block period. Assuming good faith, someone with this editor's RL challenges probably shouldn't be concerning themselves with the project. Should they be able to assemble some reasonable request I might be persuaded to reconsider. Tiderolls 18:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Evasion" really isn't the right word, I think; "ban evasion" to me means getting around a ban, not outright rejecting it and editing as if it didn't exist. IAR really is okay for certain ban-ignoring or -evading situations, e.g. if you're I-banned from someone who starts replacing the Main Page with obscenities, it's perfectly fine to leave a note at WP:BN requesting emergency desysop for the obviously compromised account. However, saying "I won't pay attention to this ban because it's intended to prevent me from improving Wikipedia" is quite different, since there's already consensus that your edits aren't an improvement. If this editor were somehow unaware of the ban or unaware that he was violating it, a short block would be appropriate after a warning, but since he's outright said that he's going to ignore it, we're in a different situation here. Bans are placed when we think you can't contribute positively in some manner but you shouldn't be blocked because you can still contribute overall, and if you demonstrate that the ban isn't preventing disruption, it's time to escalate to the next level of preventiveness. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, mostly. My only concern as a disinterested observer to this drama is that it appears that Johnvr4 is in exceptionally reasonable circumstances to be blowing off steam, for which we usually grant some latitude so long as no disruption is occurring, and I don't think it was outside of his diatribe (and before he was warned). Yeah, he swore up and down that he's definitely not going to respect the ban, but we didn't really give him a chance. I guess Tide rolls makes a good point: if Johnvr4 comes back after some reasonable time and/or after their probably very serious real-life concerns are under control and makes a reasonable unblock request, we can talk about it then. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated large deletion, with sockpuppetry

    Joeyburton489, with a history of 2 edits, deleted 3,075 bytes from Cognate, with the edit comment

    There is no cognates within the same language. Cognates are words derived from different languages.

    CodeCat reverted the change within an hour. Then Leonardomicheli297 (1 edit) repeated the deletion, with the identical change comment.

    A sockpuppeteer is unlikely to engage in civil discussion. I am going to inform the user on both of these talk pages, but beyond that I request admin assistance here.--Thnidu (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The quacking is strong with these ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnsondrake2607 is probably the same editor too - see their restoration of Joeyburton489's reverted edit on Doublet (linguistics). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The three accounts were created closely together in time:
    • Joeyburton489 - 18:37 19 September - 2 minutes before making their first edit, to Cognate [65]
    • Leonardomicheli - 19:53 19 September - 2 minutes before restoring Jayburton489's edit to Cognate [66]
    • Johnsondrake2607 - 22:23 19 September - 1 minute before restoring Joeyburton489's edit to Doublet (linguistics) [67]
    Clearly sockpuppets created specifically for the purpose of restoring reverted edits. Can we get some blocks here, or do I really need to file an SPI for such an obvious and trivial case? (SPI being prety badly backed up). I don't think a CU is needed, given that my ears are bleeding from the quacking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's pretty suspicious. Just the same, I can think of a sort of believable explanation for it. I asked Joey on his talk page for his own explanation. If someone else wants to block, that's fine, but I guess I'd like to hear what Joey says before I do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noting that the section in question directly contradicts the second sentence of the article's lede and none of its sources employ the term "cognate". – Uanfala 12:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoax vandal at Petr Kellner article

    I am reporting starting problem at Petr Kellner. In a nutshell vandal using misleading username and various IP addresses is inserting hoaxes to biography of living person. We have same problem at cswiki (see article history) spanning for months resulting in longtime article protection and indef user block. Same problem is just starting here.--Jklamo (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the heads up, Jklamo, the user has been blocked for a username violation. I guess it would be worth keeping an eye open should he edit using another account or as an IP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible legal threat by Franz Lidz

    In this edit, this one, and this edit, a person claiming to be the subject of a BLP said, "The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation". This seems like a legal threat to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, that's a legal threat, but I think he has a point regarding his BLP. I'll take a look. (see WP:DOLT) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: Thank you. It seems the issues are comments by users on the talk page rather than in the BLP, but your review would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is Franz Lidz. As I just wrote on the Talk page to my entry, I am emphatically not making a legal threat. I am merely underscoring the recklessness of the edits on the Talk page. I am also requesting that the entry and its Talk page be blanked, per the procedure spelled out elsewhere on this website.50.201.240.110 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As one of the editors whose comments on the talk page has been blanked, I want to make it clear that I was not accusing Mr. Lidz of any collusion with the paid editing ring, and I think anyone who actually reads my comments in the context which they were posted can see that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was involved in that discussion as well, and it is abundantly clear that nobody was accusing Lidz of anything. The existence of the sockfarm which edited Franz Lidz and added references to his work in many articles is indisputable, but noone at any time has said or implied that Lidz was a party to it - the accusations of responsibility have all been towards his publisher(s) or PR people connected to the publishers. No one was being reckless, there is clear evidence of the sockfarm's actions, including an admission from one of the participating editors, therefore Lidz (if that is Lidz - until he confirms with OTRS we have no way of being sure) is incorrect in claiming "recklessness". Also, the blanking of the comments is a travesty unwarranted, and should be undone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, why are any of these actions (blanking of talk page comments, AFDing based on subject's desire for deletion) being taken before there's even been an identification to OTRS? Or am I mistaken and his identity has been confirmed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with BMK; unless there's been an OTRS confirmation of identity, I think we're jumping the gun on the AfD. I also agree that the discussion that got blanked didn't impugn Lidz personally or professionally, though it suggested (based on what I understand to be pretty clear behavioral evidence) that somebody was engaged in conduct that appeared promotional on our page about Lidz. And, contrary to what the IP above says about legal threats, it was a legal threat. I'm not sure it's to the level of a NLT block, but it's definitely disruptive, and I have no doubt it was made to chill participation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding confirmation of identity, it's a private matter that's being handled offline. As for the blanked section, I agree there was no bright-line misconduct in the section, but BLP concerns shouldn't be brushed aside, and on the balance I felt that courtesy blanking the section was a harmless way to address the editor's concern. If anyone really wants to read what was there it's available in the history. And as for the statement being a legal threat: if it was, it was retracted, so the issue is moot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector: I would never suggest brushing aside a legitimate BLP concern, but I think it was pretty clear that this was being badly misread by the person claiming to be Lidz, most probably based on the "journalism professor"'s characterization of the discussion to them. Regarding the identification of the account and IP as Lidz, if it turns out that they cannot identify themselves to the satisfaction of OTRS, I would suggest that the discussion be un-blanked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd feel much more comfortable with the trusted, trained volunteers who staff OTRS handling identity verification than it being a "private matter" and "handled offline". This is one of the reasons OTRS was created, so we weren't handling potentially private information on an ad hoc basis. Honestly, I'm surprised to hear this suggestion that BLP concerns are being brushed aside: they're certainly not. As to the retraction of the threat: that may be satisfactory from a NLT perspective, but it does not remove the harm done by the editor claiming to be Lidz in making a legal threat deliberately to stifle legitimate discussion about unidentified individuals' promotional activity on his Wikipedia biography. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact I did mean to go through OTRS or send instructions to the editor, except I couldn't figure out from the OTRS pages what to tell them to do. Instead I emailed Arbcom, which I suppose isn't much removed from screaming into the void, but that is what I meant by "being handled offline"; I wasn't intending to provide further details. Arbcom hasn't responded; if someone more familiar with OTRS would like to take over that aspect of this whole thing, please do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a legal threat - per Wikipedia:No legal threats#Defamation A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. See also: WP:LIBEL. Recommended course of action is an email to: info-en-q@wikipedia.org. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      The "discussion" of libel – which was decidedly more than a simple discussion, as lawyers have already been consulted:

      The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation ... Wikipedia's bylaws state that it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. [68]

      – is only one issue. Steps are being taken on the basis of the account User:FranzLidz being the actual real life Franz Lidz, so identification is also required, since there's a non-zero possibility that the "journalism professor" who got so strangely upset about the Franz Lidz article being edited and the user "FranzLidz" are the same person. I'm pinging @Mailer Diablo: and @Sphilbrick:, two editors whose names I am familiar with who are listed as OTRS members to see if they have anything to add to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not a legal threat. A legal threat (linked at WP:NLT) is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party. That is "(If you do not do X,) I intend to take legal action"; not "I asked my lawyer and they think it's potentially libelous". I realise that this seems like splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction. And, while speculation on the identities of editors is profoundly uninteresting, I am pleased that Sphilbrick is looking into it. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it's not a legal threat that rises to the level of a NLT block does not render it non-disruptive. Going on a website and making it clear you have legal counsel investigating matters published on that website has a distinct chilling effect—no matter how preposterous an actual lawsuit might be, as it would be in this case. And, frankly, this is why people make these statements: to silence speech they dislike and to coerce speech of which they approve. The object of the threat made on the talk page was precisely this. We're not talking about someone unsophisticated here, either. This sort of conduct honestly should draw a block. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly right, and although WP:NLT doesn't say so explicitly (but should) it de facto recognizes "chilling effect" as one oif the primary reasons for disallowing legal threats when it says that "Repeats of legal threats on the user's talk page have limited scope for disruption or chilling effect", implying that legal threats elsewhere have a broader scope for disruption and chilling effect. (The policy needs some disambiguation.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking in to it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Identify confirmation I can confirm that OTRS is in receipt of an email from Franz Lidz and I have confirmed his identity.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI, it won't surprise anyone that OTRS agents are not permitted to reveal the contents of email sent to OTRS, but it is also true that we cannot even confirm the existence of such an email in many cases. When someone sends a permission statement into permissions, I believe it is okay to acknowledge the existence of the email (although not the contents beyond confirmation that an acceptable license has or has not been provided). I will make the argument that someone writing in to confirm their identity to info EN implicitly expects that this fact can be reported elsewhere, but until I get confirmation from other OTRS admin's that this should be an exception to the normal rule for emails to info EN, we require explicit permission from the subject before even acknowledging the existence of an email. That has happened in this case. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to explore this a bit, if identity is confirmed, but permission to make it public is withheld, do we still entertain changes in articles, etc. at the request of the confirmed editor? It would seem that we shouldn't, as only the OTRS team member would be aware, or the admin they notify to make article deletion, and the community would not be able to participate in those discussions, not knowing that the identity has been confirmed. It would seem to me that part of the "cost" of having one's objections seriously considered is to have the account identity publicly confirmed, since one can simply use a "throw-away" account to do so, at not breach of privacy to the subject. Not an issue here, obviously, but it would be good to know for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have filed an SPI in order to determine if User:FranzLidz used the three IP addresses (same person) to comment on Talk:Franz Lidz before they created the FranzLidz account. The SPI was filed before I saw Sphilbrick's confirmation above, but does not rest on the question of whether FranzLidz' is or is not Franz Lidz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated bad faith and nationalism-based commentary about contributors

    Bishonen warned PAKHIGHWAY about assuming bad faith and alleging nationalist agendas etc. A little over an hour later, PAKHIGHWAY did it again. This has been going on for months now, eg: in August and July. Their targets seem to be random and, while I imagine Bish is aware of the latest example, I suspect PAKHIGHWAY might claim them to be involved, so perhaps it would be better if someone else who has had absolutely no previous conversation with PAKHIGHWAY does whatever needs doing, which in my opinion is a block. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved? I'm not involved, , Sitush, and it makes no difference what they might or might not claim in that regard. Warning somebody in my quality as admin is the last thing that would make me involved. I don't think their replies to my post are the best place to plant my foot, though. IMO it's not quite time for a block yet. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • I know re: uninvolved, Bish, but I also know how little PAKHIGHWAY cares about such policies and how quickly they make erroneous connections between contributors. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, I ought to have notified you of my original post here. Sorry, I forgot on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked 24 hours. --John (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now they're coming up with the same nationalist tripe and unfounded allegations of some sort of conspiracy by Indians etc in their unblock request. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they dtill don't get it! They've even accused me of being Indian, which is laughable. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've extended the block to indefinite based on their talk page comments. --John (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Profanity and Conflict Escalation

    Nothing productive is going to come of this. If you haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to have a bad day, then you haven't been on Wikipedia long enough. I don't think Drmies needs reminded that this isn't conducive to a workplace environment, but at the end of the day this is a workplace environment, where we're expected to cooperate primarily to get things done. Sometimes co-workers have a bad day, but this is decidedly not a school yard environment, where the teacher needs to scold someone for breaking the rules simply because the rules have been broken. We're all presumed to be or expected to act like adults. Sometimes adults get frustrated and use "bad words", and the appropriate place to raise concerns about that is with the person who is frustrated, not in the most public place possible. GMGtalk 22:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi there. I have no other way to describe this—and I am not 100% sure this is the best place to report this—but is it appropriate for an experienced Wikipedia editor (@Drmies:) who is intervening in a case of article vandalism (that I will state has now been resolved), to then—after the dust settles—state the following: “Fuck off, troll.” The articles in question have been a small cluster of articles—Microman, Micronauts, Scarlett (G.I. Joe), etc…—that have been oddly edited over the past month from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Other editors have noticed this and the IP addresses had temporary blocks. Now—just today—the block expires and the same pile of editing happen. Then in the middle of this, a magical new user pops up (@Macro The Islander:) and gets into personal nonsense with Drmies.

    Okay, fair enough… The dust has settled and now we all (seemingly) know how to “play” together… I go out to lunch, come back and for no reason, Drmies posts “Fuck off, troll.”. What is this nonsense? And over what and of value to who?!? I am pinging @Floquenbeam: and @Biografer: since they have seen facets of this nonsense. What ultimately disturbs me is Drmies sudden—and unwarranted from my perspective—use of profanity in this. Everything has genuinely seemed to calm down and an experienced editor just drops the F-bomb like that? Why? --SpyMagician (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. That was something. There is no warrant for profanity, but in this case I think he just had enough.--Biografer (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Because of understandable frustration. I was unaware of some of this backstory, or I would have blocked User:Macro The Islander myself; I figured 90% likelihood of trolling, 10% likelihood of being an overzealous Microman groupie. But if there's a history of this pattern of editing on related articles, and the new user jumped into the middle of a resumption of that, then the balance swings to 100% likelihood of trolling. While in Utopia, people react to a constant barrage of trolls with restraint and love and polite mumblings, we normal humans occasionally lose our patience when someone succeeds in pushing our buttons. I don't think an ANI thread over a one-off annoyed comment is productive, or very sympathetic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 3) From what I can tell Drmies has had to put up with some unusually bad shit today, I think not related to this, but ... oh I'm just going to say it: a brand new user appears on this article and their first four edits are reverts calling the administrator's edits vandalism. They then open a new thread on the talk page, which contains a blatant personal attack. Then they create a user page for themselves, which contains nothing but an allusion to the "vandalism". Then reports Drmies at AIV. Which part was not trolling? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway the troll disruptive wikihound has been blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Biografer: @Ivanvector: @Floquenbeam: Fair enough of a perspective, but as I state that “F-bomb” came out of left field and after the dust settled and a calm balance was struck. No valid reason for that behavior or language. It was a done issue. Why kick it back to life with an “F-bomb?” --SpyMagician (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it was an edit conflict that made him still say it?--Biografer (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: And thank you for blocking that weird phantom of an editor. --SpyMagician (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh it wasn't me, it was someone who hasn't commented here. Though I thought real hard about doing it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, this is possibly the most badly-sourced article I've ever seen at Wikipedia. If Drmies was trying to clean it up and someone else kept restoring it to this state, I can entirely sympathise with him; an article this bad has no place on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: I don't see how it is the most badly sourced article? Yeah, it does have 2 YouTube refs (refs 59 and 61), but the other sources are fine. :)--Biografer (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You think this (which alone accounts for 26 of the references), Tom's Microman Zone, "Skooldays Memorabilia", "Transformers Wiki" et al constitute reliable sources? ‑ Iridescent 20:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: Many of these blogs and fan sites contain information translated directly from Japanese source materials. Source materials that would be inaccessible in non-Japanese speaking countries. Primary sources are provided as well if possible. If there is over citation then let’s deal with that. But I assure you there’s no original research here. But if you are serious about your claims, can we discuss on the talk page for Microman or would you rather assume it’s all trash? I mean maybe just roll it all back to that “stunning” 2014 page, right? --SpyMagician (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I agree with Iridescent here - those sites are not even close to being reliable. A Transformers wiki? A page title Microman Forever that doesn't even give the name of the person compiling the information? And more just like that? Not reliable, and if Drmies is removing them, so much the better. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Biografer: Thank you! @Iridescent: You know what, I am the one who build up that article from practically nothing using respected sources based on what I know about this toy line and it’s history: Which is a lot. Here is what it looked like back in 2014 before I decided to do something positive about it; back then it was less than worthless and ever so slightly better than manure. This whole kerfuffle came when a slew of anonymous IP addresses from British Telecom made sweeping, unexplained changes under the rationale of “copy edits.” Drmies only came in later and—if you see my attempt at productive discussions—I am taking advice to heart. I am willing to help clean this up. But isn’t Wikipedia supposed to be about assuming good faith? These are dead toy lines and my intention is to provide solid details on these lines that might be dead but have strong histories. That’s all. Can we assume good faith and move forward? --SpyMagician (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) WP:PACT. I see no reason Drmies should have assumed good faith with the blocked editor, and he is assuming good faith with you, he does have a difference of opinion regarding what are good sources and what is encyclopedic. I'm "G" rated, but I can understand his frustration with the level of nonsense he's been dealing with lately. Give him a break. What would you have of him? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to make a well-thought-out, patient and polite comment on how curse words are just words that add emphasis to otherwise monotonous statements and subtly point out how ridiculous it is for a mature person to get upset because they happened to read some words (not even ideas, just words) that they dislike reading and go run off to cause drama over it. But then I considered how sensitive people on the internet are, so I decided to just go fuck off and die in fire like the shitty cunt I am. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A momentary and understandable lapse of decorum from one of our finest admins on being trolled and called a vandal. Troll blocked indef now, sure Drmies has no intention of doing it again. I don't think there is anything here to discuss. --John (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I just say it should be clear that "troll" was that Macro person? I mean seriously. I think it is probably the same person as yesterday's troll, whom you can admire on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisgrunrledGrunt, and who in turn is either connected to this editor, or it's an earlier h8er who just jumped on this edit of mine (more fully explained here). So, this doesn't come out of nowhere. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This user keeps on breaking their unblock conditions

    Thank you.No point in continuing the thread.Winged Blades Godric 07:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A user called Darkness Shines was blocked indefinitely and then unblocked in May on some conditions including a 1RR limitation[69]. But they repeatedly break this condition. They keep on edit warring. Some examples[70][71] on Patriot Prayer; [72][73] on Merle Dixon; [74][75] on Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present). They also got a 31 hour block for edit warring [76]. But shouldn't repeated violation of unblock conditions mean the indefinite block should be imposed on them again? @AlexEng: and @Future Perfect at Sunrise:67.181.94.84 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI link User talk:Darkness Shines#September 2017 about talk concerning last block.--Moxy (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this has been dealt with, per the thread on DS's talk page. Yes, there was an issue but this report looks like an attempt to stir things further, perhaps by one of the many socks that DS spotted even while prevented from contributing to articles etc. They've agreed to take on board the many comments made by others in that user talk thread, so let's see how it goes. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion has no reference to the long term behavior of edit warring in just the past month. The discussion is only about his last edit war where he brought up BLP issues and not the other pages he has been breaking 1RR on. 1RR was his unblock condition. And he keeps on breaking it. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.94.84 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTPUNITIVE, until and unless the user demonstrates that they are being disruptive, there is no need for a block. AlexEng(TALK) 00:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The behavior clearly shows a disruptive attitude. There are problems with civility too, another one of DS' unblock conditions ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.94.84 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [77] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.94.84 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    None of your example are from after the recent block. If the behavior is not continuing, why should the community act now? AlexEng(TALK) 00:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DS used the word 'idiot' for another user. That breaks the civility condition of his unblock.[78]67.181.94.84 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC) {{ping|AlexEng]} I think the community did not look at all his behavioral issues. They only looked at 1 edit war. The 31 hour block is insufficient for someone who constantly misbehaves. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.94.84 (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like you're out for blood here. I don't think there's cause to be rehashing this discussion so late after the fact. AlexEng(TALK) 00:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. DS pledged to take onboard the advice given. There is no good reason for a block. Dr. K. 04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Copyright violation never stops

    Resolved with 48 hours block, nac, SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. Is it time to react about Hakuli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) constant uploading of copyrighted images? Users talk page is FILLED with deletion notices and final warnings spanning since 2016, but it looks like user ignores them. This is now quite disruptive... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    These violations are not by a newbie. Block. Aspro (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 48 hours (to ensure that he see the block and not just the message), with a warning that the next infringement will be met with an indef block. Since the situation's been escalated with a block and not just a message, we can give him a last chance, but if he returns from the block and keeps on going, there's no reason to expect that anything will change, so an indefinite will be reasonable. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Quick and easy one

    Indef blocked, and TPA now revoked as user talk page was being using to make personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone take a quick look at User:Yihman1's:

    1. BLP violations today at Issa Rae
    2. 5RR at Issa Rae
    3. extreme BLP violations at McNamara fallacy earlier this year (see deleted warnings on his talk page)
    4. History of actual vandalism (see deleted warnings on his talk page)

    And put him out of our misery? Will notify in a sec. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The guy appears to be on a crusade of some sort, and should be put on ice for a good stretch. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, things were getting worse so I did it myself. Two editors blocked and page protected. Anyone who wants to claim I'm involved is welcome to complain here; I'm pretty comfortable with doing this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're involved! I'm not seeing the problem though. I'm right on the edge of suggesting a longish block rather than the indef, but you're probably right - it doesn't look like this guy's ever done much productive in two years here. If he seriously wants to come back and contribute, he has CLEANSTART or STANDARDOFFER. GoldenRing (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • CLEANSTART?! I don't think so. Among a long list of scummy edits, I'm particularly taken by his referring to a black pastor, murdered by a racist, as "Pickniney" instead of Pinckney. Classy. I'm actually kind of disturbed this person wasn't blocked 9 or 10 months earlier than this. We give horrible people too many chances to become non-horrible. But horrible people never do become non-horrible. Goof-offs very occasionally become non-goof-offs, bull-headed kids occasionally become non-bull-headed young adults, but horrible people never change. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Asking for a mediation

    Hi, i added sources (Encyclopedia.com and Imamreza.com) in the article about ibn al-Haytham stating he was a Persian or Arab scholar and user Thomas W removed them saying i made disruptive edits whereas i previously discussed that issue on the talk page days before making the change... I would like to know if at least one of these source is reliable :

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/abu-ali-al-hasan-ibn-al-hasan-ibn-al-haytham

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mk_CBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=ibn+al+haytham+persian+polymath&source=bl&ots=OyjAaWfKmC&sig=ZQASTu8Sq3m_tQ6oVrT85ruYinM&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ibn%20al%20haytham%20persian%20polymath&f=false

    Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.225.246.222 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • See User talk:89.225.246.222. The editor was warned by me (a level-2) for disruptive editing for repeatedly pushing a theory about Ibn al-Haytham being Persian, using decidedly non-RS sources (while there are plenty of RS sources supporting he was an Arab), in spite of being reverted by other editors, and there not existing a consensus in favour of their changes on the talk page of the article. Editing that has been going on for a very long time, see page history of article (probably by more than one individual though, so I'm not blaiming it all on this particular one...), but is a content dispute that does not belong here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Encyclopedia.com — I don't know. They mention a book published by major reference publisher Cengage Learning, Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery, so I was wondering if they copied that article's sketch of al-Haytham, but a quick Google search of this book is not promising: some of the phrases from the encyclopedia.com article appear there, but others don't, and the ones that do appear are scattered all over the place, so I'm inclined to believe that this is not a Cengage Gale composition. Since we don't know where this came from, we can't consider it reliable. The other one is a book from Springer Science+Business Media, another major academic publisher, so it should be considered reliable, and its author, Harry Varvoglis, is a professor of physics at one of Greece's top universities, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend: The book is a new source they've found, not a source they've provided in their edits, the only sources they have provided before filing this report were encyclopedia.com and imamreza.net. And even if the new book, which I haven't seen before, is a reliable source they'll need a consensus supporting them on the talk page of the article, before changing what the article says, since multiple other editors have opposed the changes, and have done so many times... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated reintroduction of copyrighted content at Mont Rose College of Management and Sciences

    Over the last week, MRC123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an IP address which ostensibly represents the same editor have been adding content derived in large part from this page to the page mentioned above. Copyright aside, the content is meant to portray the school in a positive light (thereby violating WP:NPOV) and is written like a press release (WP:NOTNEWS). A few recent diffs in which this content was (re)introduced are provided here: 1 2 3

    I and other editors have reached out to the user on their talk page about the various issues involved here, including the copyright violation, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Only one of these editors received a response, once on their own talk page and once on that editor's talk page. There is also an open case at WP:SPI, where it is suggested that this user created their account to continue editing the page after a previous account was blocked for WP:3RR. In the meantime, this user and the IP continue to silently reintroduce the same content. dalahäst (let's talk!) 13:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This was pretty obviously sockpuppetry, the editor's various accounts have been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamJoshua. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: I see you've blocked the IP as well, thanks. Hopefully that'll put an end to this for some time. dalahäst (let's talk!) 04:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blanking sockmaster's userpage allowed?

    Regarding this incident after I blanked the userpage of a sockmaster who has been apparently inactive for seven years. My understanding was that such accounts were de facto community banned and such actions were allowed. Or am I mistaken? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Does the user page violate any Wikipedia policy? I'm asking because I saw no violation. I'd say it's wise not to mess with the user pages of others without some pressing reason (BLP vio, COPYVIO, etc.) Tiderolls 14:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm super confused because since I posted, an admin has done the same kind of blanking for the same reason on an unrelated userpage here. So apparently it is allowed? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't always disallowed. But whether it should be done or not is a matter of circumstance. The page you blanked hadn't been edited in over two years; if it has sat for that long without harming anyone, then there's no reason to blank it now. Such actions might not be forbidden, but they shouldn't be done without reason. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Writ Keeper on this. The question shoul never be if you could; it is always if you should. Don't think about what you're allowed to do. Think about what you need to do, and if it serves any purpose. A two-year old unused talk page is doing no harm. --Jayron32 15:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this might be an odd thing to say but IMHO if the user contributed before they socked etc then it should be kept, If they're a prolific sock who never really contributed at all here then the page should be blanked but as Writ Keeper says it's all circumstance really. –Davey2010Talk 15:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always seemed to be the general practice to replace the content with the SPI banner, so that's what I do. If we want a ruling on this, probably Bearian knows best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant Berean Hunter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's always seemed to me to be the general practice for sock blocks too, though it's often avoided (per WP:DENY) for trolls who seem to be trying to maximize their recognised sock count. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) To me it depends on the contents of the page. I don't normally blank a sockmaster's page unless it contains material I would blank anyway, but I do add a {{sockmaster}} notice to the very top with some details. Sockmasters aren't automatically banned, only repeat offenders end up in a de facto ban situation because nobody would unblock them, and rarely the community actively bans a very disruptive user. Sockpuppets, on the other hand: I consider them to be violating policy from the moment they create their accounts, and so I regularly blank their userpages and replace with a {{sockpuppet}} notice. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm in the 'leave things alone unless there's a problem' camp. But taking issue with your original statement, the account is not blocked (and I may be missing something) - you appear to be suggesting that an account that is inactive for seven years becomes community banned. I don't think so. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I undid the blanking. Partly because I'd prefer it not blanked, but largely because the blanking was completely unexplained. If you're going to do this or similar, the least you can do is add an edit comment explaining why you're doing it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @William M. Connolley: it's part of the Administrator instructions at WP:SOCKTAG.
      • Tag the sockmaster's user page:
      • If confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|spipage=CASENAME}}
      • If not confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|spipage=CASENAME}} if the user has been indefinitely blocked. Do not make any change if the user has only been blocked for a limited amount of time.
    • Doug Weller talk 17:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's well and good but Bri is not an administrator so... --Tarage (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Errrm, where's the bit that says "do not explain yourself in the edit comments?" If there isn't such a thing, I don't understand how your comment answers my point William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I should have made a clear edit summary. Actually I thought this editor's story was well enough known that it would be understood w/o comment. But I'm wary of a determination that non-admins can't do documented cleanup that was written for admins. We have few enough to go around as it is without reserving routine clerking to them. Also WP:NOBIGDEAL and all that. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Writ Keeper, Davey, and Jayron. Childofmidnight, for all his flaws later on, has given us an immense amount of content, some of it very good (the stuff he wrote with me and Kelapstick, haha--he never learned how to do citation templates). I feel he deserves a user page. The other user, not so much. Doug, I didn't know about that SOCKTAG rule--I do know that frequently we actually don't tag them, to deny recognition, for instance, or to avoid the (related) Streisand effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but I don't think that's written down. We could still blank but not tag I presume. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hillbillyholiday

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHillbillyholiday&type=revision&diff=801754061&oldid=801750293 (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Flyer22 Reborn: (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point I'd be fine switching my block to an indef. This is ridiculous to be blunt. And the threat of socking is adding to it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't read that as a threat to sock, but as a complaint that he's being accused of socking on flimsy evidence. We typically allow blocked users to vent on their talkpage to a limited extent provided it doesn't descend into disruption. If he starts making nasty attacks rather than just general venting, or if he's actually caught socking rather than just talking about it, then by all means extend it to indef, but expecting people to be perfectly polite when (as they see it) Wikipedia has punished them for trying to comply with policy would be unrealistic. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think this sentence means? Well, Rick, I am going to cock a snoot at both "restriction" and "block" per the following policies: Ignore all rules and WP:Anyone can edit. AlexEng(TALK) 18:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't agree with my block and I'm going to complain about it". Admins aren't the Wikipedia Thought Police; we sanction editors on the grounds of what they do, not on the grounds of what they might hypothetically do. If he's actually socking (which is perfectly possible) then you should have no problem finding some evidence of it. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree in regards to the "socking" thing that we'll handle it if it actually happens, HBH has said several times that they intend to ignore the restriction, and in less than a month has proceeded to do just that three times now, even after a warning and then a week's block. I think that in itself merits consideration as to whether they ought to return to editing without agreeing to abide by the restriction. Otherwise, in a little over a month, I suspect we'll be right back here again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I was getting ready to say that Seraphimblade. It's a blatant WP:IDHT on his part with regards to the restriction placed on his editing. I gave a month to hopefully encourage him to stop, drop the stick over this and move on, but he's not doing it. If there is sufficient enough demand to do so, an indef would be warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: I'm not asking for a sanction. I'm disputing the dubious claim that he has not broadcasted his intent to violate the block and the editing restriction. If/when he socks, I'll approach SPI asking for a sanction. AlexEng(TALK) 21:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly suggest you look at the main reverter at Manny Pacquaio by the way - HH is far from the worst offender. By the way, I have disagreed with HH in the past, but the case at hand I think is not quite as clear-cut as some might think. Collect (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Collect: You do realize that HBH is under an editing restriction, right? It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And that does not obviate the issue on the BLP where one editor seems intent on violating WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS which I regard as something which should be of interest. If you do not wish to even note BLP issues, that is fine. Most Wikipedia editors seem oblivious. Cheers. And some folks might consider the use of an IP sock as strongly verging on vandalism, but I guess IP edits which just happen to be exact duplicates of another person's edits are not to be questioned. Collect (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Collect: That's actually exactly what it does. You didn't read it, otherwise you would have seen the part where his restriction takes precedence over any BLP violation unless it is obvious vandalism. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and pure coincidence that the IP geo-locates to the Philippines. I didn't realise it was ok to support accusations of illegal activity with YouTube clips of ESPN's "Teddy Atlas show", or from sources such as "KDramaStars", the personal blog of Gideon Lasco MD, or FightHype TV. But, hey, maybe they're all perfectly acceptable. Also now sure why "Mayweather vs. Pacquiao lawsuit" and "Post Mayweather fight injury" are subsections beneath "Steroid allegations". But then I don't live in the Philippines, Or have any financial interest in boxing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Collect, I looked at the BLPN section, at the archived ANI section, and on the talk page, and try as I might I can't find any argument to support you and remove that content again. Unfortunately then, since we don't even remotely have a consensus on the BLP-violating quality of the material, and the sourcing being not ridiculously wrong or stupid, we are stuck with the content still in there, because--and I don't like this at all--in this edit some IP editor (whose other work is borderline incompetent/disruptive) restored it without explanation. Perhaps another admin, more roguish than me, thinks that disruptive enough to revert, but Samsara protected it eight minutes later, which is time enough for us to consider that protection a sort of a stamp of approval. If you had more supporters in either of those three discussions than the now-blocked editor and a sock I might have acted. Sorry. [ec with Martinevans123 who also comments on the IP...] Drmies (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • In reply to that - we've had an unresolved bug in mediawiki for a while, whereby after a temporarily elevated protection expires, the previous protection is not automatically reinstated, even if of duration beyond the later protection's expiry. So previously active longer protections must be manually restored. The protection carried out on Manny Pacquiao is such a procedural restoration of a previous protection state and should not be seen in relation to any recent conflict at the article - the original indef semi protection stems from 2010. (The technical limitation is also explained here, in a section which - full disclosure - I wrote. The overall document was co-written with two other admins.) Thank you. Samsara 12:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Martin, the BLPN discussion is still open. Had you made a case there, in a bit more detail, well... Drmies (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Had I made one... ? So my contribution here is just a waste of everyone's time? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe your time--not mine. Had you made that contribution elsewhere, in a bit more detail (since I don't know exactly what you're pointing at), this might have gone differently earlier already. Here, we're discussing Hillbillyholiday. I'm glad you're picking up the torch for them and if you plant it on the talk page, well... Drmies (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm only here because HBH's Talk page is on my watch list and I couldn't see any kind of explanation here as to why he may have been so keen to keep removing that article section. I have no interest in that article, or that particular subject matter. I was just suggesting that that section looked a bit borderline or suspect. If all we're doing is counting reverts, then obviously that's irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Martinevans123, you have said more in that one sentence above than I can find on the talk page. OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but come on--have a close look at it, comment and point out the flaws, evaluate the sources: you are good at this and apparently you're neutral. I'd appreciate it. I didn't see the obvious BLP vio in the quick look that I took, or I might have done something. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that all those proposing nugatory material on Pacquaio seem to be Philippine. I consider such material as

    In spite of multiple knockdowns and near stoppages, since the allegations Pacquiao has yet to score a knockout inside the ring ,
    Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has had suspicion of Pacquiao's former strength and conditioning coach Alex Ariza. Roach stated that Ariza had been giving Pacquiao "special drinks" without his permission. Roach also stated "One of the reasons I don't work with him [Ariza] anymore is he's a little shady. He used to give Manny a drink before workouts, and I asked him what was in the drink and he would never tell me. I told him I need to know what was in the drinks because you're giving it to my fighter.",
    Well respected boxing aficionado Teddy Atlas has been of the belief that Pacquiao has been on steroids in the past based on what he [Atlas] sees with his eyes. saying the power is the last thing to go in a fighter, and Manny doesn't have his anymore. and the like.

    I suspect that third person accusations of steroid use are generally considered a BLP issue, but your mileage may vary.

    currently Pacquiao is facing a lawsuit of 5 million dollars by two fans for failing to disclose the shoulder injury in the lead up to his bout with Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

    strikes me as something for which a consensus for inclusion should be required.

    Pacquiao's promoter Bob Arum stated that Pacquiao suffered the injury back in 2008 causing even more confusion as Pacquiao just stated that he suffered the injury during the fight now that he is facing lawsuits also appears problematic.

    The fact is that those insisting on this material have steadfastly refused to start any RfC on it, and instead have a bunch of Filipino IPs doing reverts. I rather think this is sufficient grounds for likely checking out the main proponents of this material in the BLP, in fact. Consider those statements, and ask whether they are of a nature which requires strong sourcing compliant in all respects with WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS and whether an editor who refuses to even start an RfC is acting in good faith. Merci. Collect (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree 100%. Many thanks, User:Collect. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Resnjari egging on editor to denigrate an ethnic group on their userpage

    Both editors stopped and clearly expressed an intention to not return the quote.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ilirpedia (talk · contribs) had posted the following quote from a former US president denigrating an entire ethnic group on their userpage [79], following unsuccessful attempts at inserting it in wikipedia [80] [81]. I removed it, and then Resnjari (talk · contribs) reverted me and restored the quote [82]. He then had the nerve to call me a "troll" [83] and then egged on Ilirpedia to restore the quote [84] [85] [86]. Both users have been blocked recently for edit-warring. Any help in dealing with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas.W (talk · contribs), Ilirpedia is a new user and i advised him as i saw fit within what i interpreted to be the guidelines (WP:TALKO) as being apt. I have had extensive interactions with editor Khirug of deleting other peoples comments like mine in the past under his former username [87](who also has a history of past blocks) so i thought the same was at work here. Its why i did undid them.Resnjari (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even after another user tells Resnjari this is NOT ok [88], Resnjari doubles down [89]. Khirurg (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have done similar deletions (another example:[90]) in the past based on no reason. My first inclination was that the same was at work here again.Resnjari (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ilirpedia (talk · contribs) apparently realized that this is not appropriate and removed the text from their user page. Resnjari seems to be a candidate for a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter (talk · contribs), there is a misunderstanding here. Its not about a block and what Ilirpedia does is thier choice. This is now a personal query. I have seen many other userpages containing controversial content and quotations. How are they allowed to have that then and no other editor has gone in to edit their page? How is that permitted ? I am asking because its about consistency and rules and of concern to me as i thought a userpage was off limits unless it has swearing (toward someone) or something really vulgar and grotesque and so on. Because if one is permitted in such circumstances to delete, then can i do as Khirug has done when i come across offensive content that i might want to remove?Resnjari (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you see similar texts at the pages of other editors, please report them to ANI. I usually remove these texts, and if the editor restores, block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ok Ymblanter (talk · contribs), will do. I just want to clarify one other thing then, Khirug did not report to ANI first yet instead deleted [91], [92] that content himself. Would that be an issue in itself or not considering he is not an administrator?Resnjari (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do not see any issues here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, thanks for the advice Ymblanter (talk · contribs). Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Basing articles on a person's Linkedin / Twitter accounts

    THis article Jen Royle disclosing a person's birth date and other personal details based on her Linkedin / Twitter account. Where do we stand on this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SELFPUB GMGtalk 17:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Have nominated for delete
    The other question is where do we stand on WP:OUTING? Is adding details about a person based on their personal linkedin, FB, and twitter account outing?
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm... not sure outing applies unless you're talking about an editor. As a general rule, the information is okay if it is otherwise public information on a moderately public figure, like something a reporter posted on their public social media. This information is sometimes removed by request as a courtesy, but if they've put it out there themselves, it's only a courtesy, and not an outright privacy issue. GMGtalk 18:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I would add that the key to selfpub there is that it needs to be mundane personal details, the kind for which self published material would be a (and perhaps the only in many cases) reliable source. GMGtalk 18:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I would say no. They published it (presumably) on the selfpub site, thus it's not private info. We shouldn't be repeating it (WP:RS) but it's not outing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't be repeating it That's not quite right. If the material is sufficiently mundane so as to fall under SELFPUB, then the self published source can be treated as a primary source, in accordance with guidance at WP:PRIMARY. GMGtalk 18:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information we say "Posting... "personal information" is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia... This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." From what I understand we only allow personal information based on high quality sources not a subjects's personal accounts. If someone was to create an article about a Wikipedian based on their FB, Twitter, and Linkedin details that would definitely be outing and I guess the question is do we want to apply this standard to none editors? If we do not want to apply this standard to none editors than we need to remove "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." from the outing policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • An article on a Wikipedian based on (nothing but) LinkedIn etc. will be speedily deleted--either as A7 or as a BLP/outing violation. PS Doc, it's time wrote you up... Drmies (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Drmies not sure to what you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, your cigar lounge seems to be taking off and might pass the GNG... Drmies (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was an interesting link, a cigar lounge that tries to look upscale, but has staff, or at least web site developers, that can't spell "Andalusian" right, and believe that Davidoff is located in Geneva, NY, probably never even having heard of Switzerland. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah certainly. Yes and if I add to my twitter account that I own it than that will make it legit right :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there some reason the AfD is not sufficient and we need an AN/I as well? This has the appearance of heavy-handedness.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The harassment policy does not apply to subjects of biographies. It cannot, because as written it prohibits any personal info of anyone unless they post it on Wikipedia first. Which would mean most personal life sections and basic biographical info. This has been pointed out to the people who have been arguing over it for ages, suffice to say ignore that part of the policy if the person is the subject of an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks User:Only in death I have tagged that line in the OUTING policy as dubious and will ignore going forwards. Will trim personal links based on them simply not being reliable instead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DJ: Just to be clear, as noted above, social media is considered reliable for mundane personal details as a primary source when they meet WP:SELFPUB and are treated in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. I don't mean to belabor the point, but if you get a mind to start removing anything that cites social media for a birthday or an alma mater you're gonna have a bad time. GMGtalk 21:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thanks. I would argue that the article was "primarily on such sources" however. Stuff like "She is single" supposedly based on a tweet still makes me a little uncomfortable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    primarily on such sources Yes, but that's expressly forbidden by WP:PRIMARY, thus the PRIMARY compliance caveat. GMGtalk 21:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth pointing out that the statement "both editors and non-editors" in WP: Outing is a wikilink to WP: HNE, which in turn says "Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy;" --Kyohyi (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And that policy says "dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I do not feel a single tweet counts as widely published or a reasonable assumption that the subject does not object. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Tweet is from the subject, then I disagree. I think that "widely" only applies to "published by reliable sources", and not to "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." If a person tweets their birthday, they've put it out onto the Internets with tacit permission to republish, and so it should be acceptable to use on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    repeated web hosting, and now a legal threat

    User now blocked, nac, SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Strawhatmeplease was speedied in 2015 as a U5. The page was immediately recreated with no content except a comment about wikistalkers [93]. Not a big deal, but the last two years have seen nothing from the user but more web hosting on that page, with it being blanked by the user every 8 months or so. Versions before blanking were [94], [95] and [96]. The last blanking was undone by the user twice before finally being replaced by a legal threat in the edit summary and on the page [97]. There have been no postings to the user's talk page since the 2015 speedy notice by user:Skamecrazy123 and comment by user:JohnCD , so it seems like the user is trolling for a response. Here it is. The user should be blocked while the legal threat is outstanding, and this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE as well. Meters (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really sure it was a legal threat, but in their entire history of editing at Wikipedia, with the exception of the one edit to Skamecrazy123's talk page, all their edits were their talk page. That's absolutely WP:NOTHERE behavior in my book and they have been indeffed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the fastest ANI I've ever seen... beat me to the user notification.Meters (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gross incivility

    I have to report User:Luke Stark 96 as he is unnecessary removing my editing & posting his own fake view counts. Today Shake it off has been posted having 2.39 Billion Views Really it will take another 7 days for that to happen. My genuine views they are removing so i am reporting both ([[User:Tcamfield|Tcamfield] , User:Luke Stark 96). I am reporting User:Ashwani8888 and unfortunately I think a block may be necessary.

    This user has frequently made personal insults, especially to User:Luke Stark 96, who requested my support in this matter.

    For example, see a number of recent instances on User_talk:Ashwani8888, as well as using the word b****** in this (non-recent) edit here.

    As two of the most frequent contributors to List of most viewed YouTube videos, User:Luke Stark 96 and I have also found the majority of the edits by this user on this page to be factually inaccurate.

    I warned this user I would report him if further insults occurred, and since then this user has made two further personal attacks. I have left a message on this user's talk page about this report.

    Tcamfield (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) In addition to the PAs, I am concerned about the intent to edit war stated here [98]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bastard" is not the same as "bitch", but still. Sure these are personal attacks and I can warn them for it. More importantly, can I see some evidence of those supposed invented numbers? That would be a more useful thing, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The connotation & severity of "bastard" is culturally dependent. It is particularly severe an insult in South Asian cultures; far less so in other parts of the Anglosphere. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if culturally dependant, and the edit Tornado chaser highlighted is over the line and demonstrates a battleground, retaliatory mentality. But I agree with Drmies that a warning is appropriate with the understanding that continuation would likely result in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has since edited my first paragraph (on this page!) with his own message. I will leave it unaltered so you can see. Tcamfield (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Kudpung's speedy deletion closure of an AFD

    OP is advised to use WP:DRV to ask community to review deletion itself, otherwise there is no consensus that Kudpung's actions represent a need for any sanctions via this board. --Jayron32 14:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This morning I opened an AFD for U. T. Downs. The article was created by now banned editor Billy Hathhorn. The article had also been at AFD before in 2015. Keep was the result. I didn't know of the past AFD but I made a substantial edit[99]- Note I'm unsure if that is the right link because its been deleted- to this article in either 2015 where I removed a bio of a second person in the Downs article. Taking over 10,000 bytes out a article is substantial. Kudpung deleted the article today. Citing it was created by a banned user. The first problem with that- BH wasn't banned at the time he created the article. Second- That at least one substantial edit was done to the article.

    Kudpung defended himself at his talk page when another editor voiced concern[100]. I expressed my opinion[101] on the matter too but he referred me to his first reply[102]. His reply[103] back to me in this edit when I told him I'd take it to ANI is also concerning. "Wrong venue. Discuss it properly and politely, and then we can decide if I restore it or if you take it take it to Delrev if you must. Otherwise you will be at ANI for agressive behaviour, arrogance, admin baiting, and disruption of the collaborative spirit."

    I think the article should be deleted but a speedy deletion was dead wrong. The AFD should be re-opened....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I repeat: 'Wrong venue. Discuss it properly and politely, and then we can decide if I restore it or if you take it take it to Delrev if you must. Otherwise you will be at ANI for agressive behaviour, arrogance, admin baiting, and disruption of the collaborative spirit. You have a history of this kind of thing.' And ANI is still the wrong venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


      • A administrator who threatens an editor with a boomerang for telling him he did something wrong is deeply concerning. WP:G5 says This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging.
      • To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.
    • Your speedy deletion fails G5 on just one grounds but two. Your behavior to me is troubling and that need addressing too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Legacypac (talk · contribs) This is the right forum for AFD closed by an administrator in violation of policy. Here for example[104] and BTW the editor who brought it to ANI was also the editor who started the AFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, since WilliamJE insists on reopennng this thread after I closed it and refusing to use DRV, it is considered disruptive to request undeletion of a page you are seeking deletion on. Waste of time and effort. Legacypac (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't nominate it for speedy deletion. It was Speedied on grounds of G5 which doesn't apply. Have I ever nominated something per G5 or notified an admin of a article(s) created by a banned user. Countless times. Here is just one example[105]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looked at your edits and yes you moved text to another article. That does not mean you made substantial contributions to this one.
    • There are keep votes from the sock themself[106]
    • Agree having someone who nominated the article for deletion bring it here because it was delete. Meh
    • This sock was blocked in 2012[107] and the article was created in Jan 2015.

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A edit removing over 10,000 bytes from an article the size of Downs is not substantial? That's absurd pardon my French. As for moving text somewhere else, I recall doing no such thing. What I removed was a second biography. Please point me to my edit that saw me move 10,000 (or any of it) somewhere else....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cutting out a block of text is an edit, but not a substantial "contribution" to the page, more like a partial deletion. This whole thing make me wonder. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hmmm not me. Ah Billy Hathorn, the gift that keeps on giving. Stubbornly thinking he's doing a good thing. I looked at a bunch of his articles a few weeks ago--the drivel is just mind-boggling, though you have to admire the sheer amount of stuff he can pull from the Weekly Parishioner. It's a walled garden with a big old fence around it, and at some point a team of highly trained commando editors needs to go in and clear that shit out to leave something we might call encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said recently, I had a G5 denied because the speedy deletion template itself was ruled as a significant edit.  Even if that was a questionable ruling, the point remains that G5 is designed to protect any good edit.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The behavioral aspect of the quote here from Kudpung was overreaction.  Hard to figure what is going on, but Kudpung might need a wikibreak; and this speedy was out of process.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong venue--Community consensus and approach regarding G5 vary.Take this to WP:DRV.Winged Blades Godric 06:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I think the article should be deleted". It was. So what is the point of this thread - to sling mud? If you want me to put U. T. Downs in your userspace so you can improve it, I'm fine with that, but otherwise I can't see what action you want that will actually improve the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen here you rabble rouser you. We need to open at least two discussions, undelete the article, file the correct forms in triplicate, and redelete the article. I really don't understand how that isn't abundantly clear. GMGtalk 10:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to close: This belongs at DRV, and only at DRV. There is no allegation of either serious administrative misconduct or of a pattern of misconduct. At worst, we have a misapplication of a CSD criterion that resulted in an early closure of an AfD. Because an AfD was involved, the proper forum for review is DRV. Were this a straight CSD, not involving AfD, then REFUND might be more appropriate. I see no plausible claim on OP's part that anything Kudpung did was anything more than a mistake, either of the facts at hand or in applying policy. That does not merit an ANI thread. So let's close this thread and get back to work. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're wise; Withdraw, if you're not wise; Boomerang - You, William, threatened to take this to AN/I in your first reply to Kudpung on his talk page. This board exists for dealing with behavioural issues that require admin intervention. So your threatening to go to AN/I is implying not only that Kudpung is wrong and has made a mistake, but, that you want preventative action taken for some poor admin behaviour. You were told to discuss politely (i.e. not threatening AN/I) or to take it to DelRev (WP:Deletion review). This is not the board for contested deletions. You are at the wrong venue if you want the deletion overturned. This right now is timesink disruption. Please reassess your own participation here and at Kudpung's talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Neutrality dispute + SPA + possible COI on journalist Kevin Deutsch

    Hello,

    I'd really prefer to be taking this to a different noticeboard to chat it out, but my compatriot has both indicated they are no longer interested in discussion and is also aggressively reverting. This relates to the article Kevin Deutsch (my preferred revision), a journalist and author who has been accused of being highly sloppy about sourcing and over-anonymizing events to the point of having no relation with the original event (at best), or of repeat fabrication and fraud (at worst).

    User:Ballastpointed is aggressively editing Kevin Deutsch to fit his spin (sample diffs: 1, 2, 3, all within the space of ~24 hours). Ballastpointed is a single purpose account whose sole goal on Wikipedia seems to be to communicate what an awesome guy Deutsch is. He's denied being Deutsch himself or a friend/associate (diff), but he has claimed to be a super-expert on Deutsch (diff). At first, Ballastpointed was productively responding on the talk page to pings and somewhat ratcheting his claims downward - allowing hostile material to stand but rephrasing it, and many of these edits have been left in place (e.g. including this article which discusses the New York Daily News investigation into Deutsch's work). However, he's since gone back to just plain reverting to a version that is, in my opinion, not neutral (doesn't reflect the majority of the sources) and overly relies upon self-published sources (extensively citing Deutsch's website and Deutsch's personal explanations for the accusations against him in-line with other sources; example diff), and has thrown in WP:PEACOCK terms as well ("award-winning" in the lede, etc.).

    I have done my part in talking it out on the talk page (see Talk:Kevin Deutsch), and offered to bring in a third opinion or discuss on a noticeboard (diff). Since Ballastpointed has responded to pings before, he saw this. He has not replied. If he isn't going to participate, there's no point in bringing this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. (I have also attempted to offer productive avenues for Ballastpointed to apply his preferred slant - if he could find some source, any source, that is not self-published but supports Deutsch's view of things. He has not really provided one, however; the closest is attempting to interpret the NY Daily News article as an exoneration of Deutsch, which it isn't.)

    Note that this is a WP:BLP, so Ballastpointed is certainly correct that there should be a very high standard set for negative material. Unfortuantely for Deutsch, there is reams of negative material in reliable sources, and very little supportive material. His "15 year career in journalism" is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article (any more than any other of the many freelance journalists out there), and while Deutsch's own personal explanations and excuses for the sourcing confirmation problems deserve to be mentioned, they do not deserve to be taken as anything more than a denial - certainly in no way as "evidence" that somehow the investigations into him were faulty. Additionally, Ballastpointed has attempted to highlight the many small and noncontroversial articles that Deutsch wrote that weren't challenged, and imply this is somehow an exoneration of Deutsch. But these articles are simply not very notable nor interesting to talk about - as the Washington Post wrote, "Most mainstream news organizations would fire a journalist for a single instance of inventing a source or a quote, let alone dozens and dozens of them."

    I ask that Ballastpointed be informed that he needs to comply with Wikipedia policies such as WP:SPS, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, or else have the page protected. If he wants to submit edit requests (a la COI accounts), that would be acceptable. If he doesn't respond at all and keeps edit warring, then he should be blocked. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir,
    You’ve repeatedly deleted my contributions to the page, adding innacuriate/non/factual synopses, ignoring due weight requirements, and inserting language that violates Wiki’s living persons policy. You are a newcomer to the page, and began your work here by reversing my contributions. Since then, I have attempted to correct the erroneous paraphrasing you’ve inserted, and to restore information you removed that was favorable to Mr. Deutsch. Your attempts to construe every line of coverage in the worst possible light deserves to be challenged, and it will continue to be, by myself and others. Perhaps most egregiously, you removed a NY Observer article written by Mr. Deutsch, which contains an extensive, closely reasoned defense/rebuttal. Additionally,
    you removed key parts of his response to the Times’ findings and the favorable “no red flags” language in the Daily News finding. In short, you’ve removed everything exculpatory it favorable to Mr. Deutsch, and I submit that you, sir, are in fact the one with a conflict of interest and obvious agenda here.
    Wherever there is an allegation, there should be a defense of that allegation if that defense has been published, which it has been. This is how the living person’s policy and due weight work. These are unsubstantiated allegations. The coverage has focused on the same series of allegations. Those allegations take up a majority of this article. I can’t imagine what Moreno you’re hoping to achieve here, short of libel.
    Adding quotes about racism from David Simon—who last year used the n-word on Twitter and got a lot of heat for it—is indicative of how far you’re willing to go to libel this writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) If you are going to accuse anyone of libel, you should be familier with WP:NLT, I am not saying you are trying to make a legal threat, just reminding you how things can be interpreted. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ballastpointed returned to the prior edit war pretty much immediately upon acknowledging this discussion, as well as having previously been warned and asked to build a consensus first. For that reason, I gave him a week block so as to slow down the edit war. If he expresses that he intends to stay on the talk pages going forward, and avoid editing against consensus, anyone may unblock. --Jayron32 03:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, we also have a sock/meatpuppet issue. User:AlexVegaEsquire, who is also a single-purpose account whose only activity on Wikipedia has been to edit the Kevin Deutsch article (and create the original, fawning version of it), has suddenly appeared again after the block and has the exact same opinions as Ballastpointed (diff). Note that I'm not the first person; others, over a months-long period, have been attempting to have the article reflect the slant seen in the news media, but AlexVegaEsquire was the one editing it back earlier (as can be seen from notices on his talk page and his edit history). We may need the same treatment for this account as Ballastpointed: defend your points on the talk page in a style consistent with Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the previous editor and think Wikipedia admin should resolve the issue of whether or not SnowFire's removals should be restored, specifically the subject's denial of the allegations in the lead. Third party resolution needed. I am all for keeping this article current and reflective of slant but some moderation is needed.

    Possible behavioral OR problems by myself in The Putin Interviews (?)

    Brief background (And I managed to post it wrong, first time) I've earlier asked for better guidance when it comes to Plots of motion pictures, novels, etc - at the Village Pump as well as elsewhere. As I was looking for information about Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews series, did I notice that the article in question contained very little information. Someone had began at a Summary, which must be the counterpart to a Plot within fiction - film/novels etc. And we are then to use the film/interview or novel as a primary source. Any contributor must take especially documentaries like this one very serious. And report what's observed, without making any own conclusions. Otherwise it would be OR, obviously.

    Having said that, am I hereby reporting myself to AN/I, in order to try to find out if I possibly have been guilty of any OR in the summary part of that article or not.

    Main issue - If an interviewed person isn't responding to a specific question, then changes subject, and instead makes (for the put Question, in question), a totally unrelated statement, is normally exactly the same as "avoiding a question." Which can be observed (there was no cut made in the interview there) and isn't anything I have "invented" I would further like to say, from a normal human perspective, is a change of subject a very well-known way to avoid a question. Extreme hypothetical aspects aside. In this case, did Putin avoid to answer at least one of Stone's questions. Some other user, is of a very different opinion, and accuses me of having drawn OR conclusions. And appear to make the argument that "Putin never actually said I avoid that question". While I mean, that I have observed that Putin avoids a question from Stone. And hence have I not been guilty of OR. Not to my knowledge, anyhow. If an interviewed person isn't responding to a specific question, change subject, and instead makes, for the put question, a totally unrelated statement, is normally exactly the same as "avoiding a question" which can be observed (and there was not cut in the interview, there, which may be essential)

    An other contributor appears to question just everything, in my humble opinion. Like "Does Putin say 'I avoid that question ?'", If Stone really has put this question or if there are any questions at all, in this 4 hours of interviews. Or at the very least, brings up various hypothetical aspects of as much as he/she just can. If this contributor's general argumentation would be carried out in terms of new guidelines for Plots and Summaries, would it mean the end of our service of to our readers of this kind. Finding a Plot or a good Summary for novels, motion pictures, documentaries and interviews in Secondary sources, don't I really believe to be possible for us. And generally, as far as I have seen at least, are our Plots / Summaries seldom or never abused. I concur with those who say, "in Plots/Summaries is the novel or film a primary source" (The only serious alternative would be to remove presumably next to all of them)

    I have suggested to that user to make a complaint to AN/I , but it's just possibly might be so, that endless argumentation over "the Pope's beard - or the Beard's beard" is something he/she prefer. But really don't know. And as no such complaint has been made here, do I feel obliged to do this myself. (But I just happened to put this outside AN/I, at Wiki-No OR, I'm not used to make complaints, and I'm sorry for this mistake of mine.)

    And I think an AN/I verdict would be to prefer, in this special case, ahead of endless time wasted at talk-pages over nothings (not just for me here and now, but in general and for the future). In a nutshell - isn't changing subject exactly the same as avoiding a question, normally ? And I really mean e-x-a-c-t-l-y the same, in this case.

    And if AN/I find me guilty of intentional OR violation, do I expect some kind of proper punishment, although I have reported myself. If AN/I find me guilty of unintentional OR, would some comments be nice (aside of a possible punishment), something that I could take to heart for the future. And if AN/I find that I haven't been guilty of OR violation, then would this matter still be decided, for other obvious observations related to Plots / Summaries.

    I will notify "myself" as well as the contributor who's got a very different opinion, but as he hasn't brought it up, do I leave this up to himself, if he feels like participate in this complaint against myself. I guess he/she will, as he/she was the one who notified me that "this isn't the real AN/I"

    Finally, I'm not doing this for fun, I must add. Am I wrong must AN/I punish me as if the complaint came from the other contributor. But the issue is about whether I have drawn OR conclusions in the Summary part of The Putin Interviews article. (I made a WP:BOLD statement in the lead of this article, with the aim to get more contributors interested. Four hour of interviews with a Summary of 1,5 line did I find to be appallingly little. And I guessed t hat the article is somewhat delicate and perhaps may scare contributors. Boeing720 (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOR is a content policy. This page is for actionable violations of behavior policy, thus you can't report someone to ANI for NOR violation, including yourself. See WP:DR for ways to resolve content disputes. Unless you can make a case that you are guilty of disruptive editing, you will have to find your punishment elsewhere. I could suggest some S&M sites. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)This miasma of incoherent ramblings is fairly typical of Boeing720's writing. He seems to have great difficulty expressing himself in an intelligible way in English, yet steadfastly refuses to acknowledge or accept any advice he is given in the attempt to help him. Generally, it is quite difficult to work out what he is saying and this applies to main space edits as well, with the consequence that others have to come along and clean up after him. If ever there was a case of competence is required, this is it. - Nick Thorne talk 07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all of Nick Thorne's comment. This seems entirely redundant to the WP:NOR/N thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A remedy is required. I commented at Boeing720's talk regarding a completely unacceptable edit (diff) which changed a straight forward account of what happened in an interview to a slanted assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Putin had avoided a "specific question". Of course such a conclusion would be valid for almost all interviews with politicians, but Boeing720 fails to understand that Wikipedia is not the place for such blog-like commentary. The user has had some support in the past from kind observers who see Boeing720 struggling with English and apply buckets of WP:AGF. However, the user's talk page show that the time for that is past. The problem may involve an inability to comprehend the English explanations that have been given. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll provide some examples of how I've tried to deal with this user. I first encountered Boeing720 on C (programming language) while cleaning up[108] a series of edits he was making. The bad grammar made the sentences nearly indecipherable and for example one reference offered was literally "This was stated by a computer and high skilled Swedish programmer at university level, by 2001". Also on a technical level the knowledge presented was very rudimentary, superfluous to the article, and sometimes wrong. Subsequently I have kept and eye out and these[109][110] are typical of the kind of corrections that are necessary to every major article edit Boeing720 makes. Explaining[111][112] patiently in detail what the grammatical and sourcing problems are has never had any effect, he argues past the point, often asserts his expertise, becomes aggravated and most problematically: continues making the same mistakes. For examples of the conversations see Talk:Register (keyword), Talk:C (programming language)#Recent edits, User talk:Boeing720#Unsourced opinions/commentary (and the section above it) and WP:NORN#Report myself, OR (?). I feel bad about the circumstance; I think Boeing720's intent is good but an inability to process and accept advice regarding original research and fundamental English grammar is difficult to work with. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I recommend a warning and close until another editor reports Boeing720 (if they still persist with OR or become disruptive). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) —PaleoNeonate – 12:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User Leysure, WP:SPA for spamming

    Leysure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), while not editing often, seems to have but one purpose: To spam the Oscilloscope article with news of one particular company's product.

    Not shown in its contributions is Draft:Micsig, which was speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising.

    Please consider a block. Jeh (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    {{uw-spamblock}} Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BG9M0THH8H3

    There is no need to provide diffs, all of this editor's contributions have already been reverted by other editors, except those at Ex nihilo (should probably also be reverted per WP:DENY, SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123) and those where I was reverted at Yahweh and its talk page. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've blocked the account indefinitely for soapboxing/abuse. Re, the SPI, it looks like a clear WP:DUCK to me as well. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal Threat from Wydelabs Law board Govt. of India

    User Wydelabs - claiming to be "Wydelabs Law board Govt. of India" - has left the following Legal threat on my talk page.

    As explained at Alliance University#Family feud there is a long running family feud as to who is running the university, which has two people claiming to be Chancellor (Sudhir G. Angur and Madhukar G. Angur) and two web-sites, (alliance.edu.in and allianceuniversity.edu.in) both of which are trying to recruit students.

    User Wydelabs represents the alliance.edu.in faction with Sudhir G. Angur as Chancellor.
    It appears that the feud is still ongoing, as on 18 September an IP reverted the article to the allianceuniversity.edu.in website with Madhukar G. Angur as the chancellor, as seen here
    As there are several claims and counter-claims, I have explained that there is a feud, give both websites and both claimants, and directed people to this explanation in the infobox, removing partisan claims.

    Could I ask that, in addition to sanctions against Wydelabs, the page is reverted to a neutral stance, and given, say, extended-confirmed protection. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Clear legal threat, so blocked as such. I'm not inclined to get involved in the above content dispute -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to be careful there Arjayay, you don't want to get yourself deformed ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? someone threatened to "derange" me about 5 years ago - perhaps they succeeded? - Arjayay (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't loose your identity! That's private info. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

    User:Fram inserted a lengthy comment into the header of this RfC rather than in the threaded discussion section,[113] with the express motivation that his comment "it should be considered before someone starts on the proposals",[114] thus giving his opinion more visibility than the other opinions in the threaded discussion section. It also fundamentally changed the wording of the RfC after multiple votes had been cast.

    When I attempted to move the comment[115], Fram reverted.[116]

    I would ask that this disruption of an ongoing RfC be stopped. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram's comments do not alter the text of the RFC, but rather comment on it from a clearly distinct section. It isn't the big deal you make it out to be, and should be left alone. You're creating a tempest in a teacup by even bringing this here, there's no need to do anything except either leave it alone, or refute his points in his discussion. --Jayron32 14:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You are not allowed to insert your comments into the header of an RfC in order to give your comments more weight than the comments of the other editors who commented in the threaded discussion section. Doing that is disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "It also fundamentally changed the wording of the RfC after multiple votes had been cast." That's a bit rich coming from the person who "forgot" that Betacommand socked for years after his second ban, even though you linked to the initial sockpuppet investigation with the comment that it came to nothing in your "neutral" RfC opener. Instead of dragging me here, you would do better to ask BetaCommand why he "forgot" to mention his Werieth account to you while you were drafting the RfC. Fram (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also ask that Fram be reminded to WP:AGF. The reason for the "fundamental change" he is complaining about is clearly documented at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Threaded discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't know about the Werieth case when you opened this RfC, then you did a very poor job researching Betacommand's history and he didn't feel the need to mention it. In any case, it fundamentally changed the unban RfC from "he did nothing wrong but waited patiently since the ban" to "while being banned, he used a sock to continue the same behaviour for another two years or so", which gives a slightly different impression of the chances that this second ban will have changed anything about his behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If that account was a sock, and there is no proof, it appears it was a productive contributor for several years with minimal problems. That would suggest we should let him back. Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "No proof"? Have you read the actual discussion? And that account was blocked for their own actions as well. Fram (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=801885753"