Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Skyerise

Skyerise (talk · contribs) is obviously very passionate about LGBT issues, but I'm afraid has suffered some sort of meltdown, judging by their recent edit history. The main area of contention relates to Caitlyn Jenner (Bruce, for those under a rock), and which name should be used on articles before her transition. Skyerise was warned yesterday for violating 3RR, and things settled down a little bit, with a discussion opening at WP:VPP. This discussion has drawn large numbers of editors; both Skyerise and I have contributed there and in other fora. And yet, today…wow. Skyerise has:

1. resumed edit-warring;
2. attempted to bully new IP editors by warning them for "vandalism" for perfectly legitimate edits Special:PermanentLink/665345041 Special:PermanentLink/665345537;
3. reported me for "vandalism", when they know full well that good-faith edits are not vandalism (and have been warned for false accusations of vandalism beforehand);
4. and left four separate warning templates on my talkpage over four separate edits within a period of less than 20 minutes, despite my repeated warning for them to stop harassing me

I think a cooling-off block is in order, as passions are obviously high, but the project mustn't continue to be disrupted. If the ongoing discussion at WP:VPP thrashes out a new consensus that aligns with Skyerise's views, then Caitlyn Jenner and related articles can be changed accordingly. ¡Bozzio! 17:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And now they've opened up a copy-cat ANI report. How very mature. ¡Bozzio! 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• This is a spurious report. Bozzio is describing as "perfectly legitimate edits" edits to modify wikipedia articles around transgender individuals to refer to them by their previous name, in violation of both WP:BLP and WP:MOSIDENTITY. That is something to warn about. I don't see any warnings from you to Skyerise except edit summaries, and we don't notify people with edit summaries. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise has made 6 reverts to Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon in the last 24 hours. BLP Violations are an exception to the 3rr rule, but I'm not really convinced the edits being reverted here are BLP violations. Just because a policy deals with living people, does not make it's violation a BLP violation under the 3rr rule. 3rr BLP exceptions should be clear violations of the primary WP:BLP policy. But its not clear enough so I don't think think a block without consensus would be appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 17:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Monty845: usually I'd agree with you, but I don't think the BLP policy was written with this in mind – in other words, to cover situations where something can genuinely be tremendously hurtful, but not defamatory or libellous, which is the standard we apply. The result is a policy that says "we should respect our subjects" but then provides a specific legal test for whether we respect them enough to enforce that respect with no holds barred. And this is fine, if the law keeps up to date. But: it doesn't. Deadnaming is a tremendously hurtful thing to do to any transgender individual, unless they've said they're okay with it, and the presumption we apply is that they haven't. It's just as hurtful, just as offensive, as what we'd class as "defamation" or "vandalism". It's totally within the spirit of the 3RR exceptions to prohibit it, and to give users some leeway in enforcing that prohibiton. That it isn't in the text is a deficiency in the text as a result of the environment it was created in. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what you say is logical enough to justify not blocking for 3RR right now, but given how obviously controversial the changes are, I think any resumption of edit warring should be met with a quick block. That said, Skyerise appears focused on talk page discussion at the moment, I believe that may prove unnecessary. Resolute 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds: I think your position may be a bridge too far. I certainly strive to respect transgendered individuals, as well as all subjects of BLPs, and I think as a community we have come to accept your position at least in so far as it applies to an individual's Biography. But when it comes to historical events that the individual participated in, recorded on other pages, I think your position may be going substantially further then the community is willing to support, at least judging by the current state of the RFCs. More to the point, I think we need to be really careful about allowing 3rr exemption creep. There is a lot of good logic behind not trying to decide who is right and wrong when it comes to 3rr violations, and the carve outs should be as small as possible to protect particularly important concerns, such as actual slanderous falsehoods, and where they can be applied with minimal ambiguity. I just don't see the core concerns of BLP policy compelling us here, and again I think the 3rr exemption should be limited to that core purpose. Certainly other policies should, can, and do provide broader protection to BLP subjects, but again, we need to be really careful about when we authorize edit warring. Just waving BLP policy around can't be allowed to give you carte-blanche. Monty₈₄₅ 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this. I just had a run-in with Skyerise, who I didn't know from a pile of sand an hour ago, and found their approach to defending an edit very aggressive. In the space of about 10-15 minutes, I had two warnings and an advisory on my talk page, with neither warning needed or particularly applicable. Any comment on their editing, including the spraying of talk page templates, is interpreted as a personal attack, yet I found this heavy-handed approach to be both aggressive, as I noted, and an attempt to intimidate me into backing down. There seems to be a lot of frantic energy expended in an effort to skirt the discussion at WP:VPP and to force name changes in articles listing or describing Caitlyn Jenner's achievements while identifying as the male athlete Bruce Jenner. Skyerise needs to take a deep breath, step away and calm down, and gain a little proportion that appears to be lacking at the moment. --Drmargi (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi, please refrain from repeatedly offering advice in multiple venues. You are coming off as extremely condescending and your advice is unwanted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Repeat violations of MOS:IDENTITY by User:Bozzio

Bozzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly engaging in WP:BLP vandalism by editing against MOS:IDENTITY on article related to Caitlyn Jenner. They have already received a discretionary santions warning from User:Ironholds yesterday but has chosen to ignore it. They have also engaged in user talk page vandalism by removing valid warnings because they disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. The warnings were valid under that policy. Skyerise (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Please provide diffs of where they have removed warnings from other users' talk pages so that we can evaluate that part of your concern. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sorry. [1] and [2]. Skyerise (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, I've never said I disagree with MOS:IDENTITY. I think it's a perfectly sensible guideline, but you've misunderstood and misapplied it completely. You've tried to make out that everyone who disagrees with you is a transphobic nutjob, I think you need to settle down a bit and actually take in a little of what other people are saying. I know you're pretty passionate about this, but try and work within the Wikipedia guidelines rather than fighting. ¡Bozzio! 17:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this is really on the same subject of the above, I have now made it into a subsection. Epic Genius (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Bozzio is well aware of the discretionary sanctions these articles are under – sanctions that mandate users "follow editorial and behavioural best practices". It's impossible to look their most recent edits and conclude they're doing anything of the sort. My suggestion would be that an admin block to prevent this situation being perpetuated, although if that doesn't work I suspect a topic ban will be pretty much the only way to de-fang this situation. Ironholds (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both users arent really acting their best today, so I slapped them both. If both users know what they both did wrong, we can be done with this. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess Skyerise isn't really a fan of fish. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a vegetarian. :-) Skyerise (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well this is awkward. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for a bright line WP:3rr violation, with 5 reverts to the same article in the last 24 hours. If someone wants to implement a separate discretionary sanction, I have no objection. Monty₈₄₅ 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Both of them

Isn't there a big RFC with heavy participation going on about this right now at WP:VPP? Why is anyone on either "side" changing it in one direction or the other before that RFC is concluded? Is there any reason not to topic ban both Bozzio and Skyerise under the discretionary sanctions? Both are clearly treating this as a battleground, making it less likely that cooler heads will prevail, and both have been warned about the discretionary sanctions. I'm probably going to do this sometime today unless someone can convince me not to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've only seen Skyerise engage productively on the talkpage; they're a consistent voice of reason in discussions. I suspect that banning them will make things less cool and reasoned because it will result in a vast imbalance in the voices. Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have participated in the discussion and am thus involved, however my opinion would be that page protection would be better suited than blocking editors. There are just so many people involved that it would likely not stop with 2 blocks. Chillum 18:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we need full protection on Caitlyn Jenner's main page because there are numerous editing disputes there right now. Then, there will only be a need to block people who edit war across multiple pages. Just my two cents. Epic Genius (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note the area is under discretionary sanctions, so a 1 revert rule might be a good thing to try. Monty₈₄₅ 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That might be a good thing to try, Monty845. A 1 revert rule has to be well publicized on the talk page as there has been a lot of reverting this week (including two by me on Monday). I hope we have learned some lessons since the Chelsea Manning case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As an editor who has had a few run ins with skyrise over the Caitlyn Jenner article recently, I do not think that they have done anything which would warrent sanctions at this point. I appreiciate the subject knowledgeable editors who are willing to watch busy artcles even if they do tend to be passionate about it and make some mistakes probably out of frustration with editors who are still on a learning curve with WP policy as it applies to BLP who profess a pronoun change request. ChangalangaIP (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)—

We still have 1RR sanctions imposed on the article. This should be made prominent at the article's edit notice. Epic Genius (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't find Skyerise's well-intended but ideology-inspired effort to sweep historical facts under the rug[3] on Wendy Carlos constructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

..by listing it in the infobox? Yes, that's certainly sweeping it under the rug. Perhaps you could approach Skyerise with the same good intentions you read into their actions, hmn? Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyrise just plastered a huge "discretionary sanctions" on my talk page concerning my alleged edits to Hebephobia, a page I never edited. These are tantamount to a vague threat, are very ugly, rude, and since I have never, ever edited the page, false. Skyrise then said no, it was my edits to decathlon, where I changed one reference to Jenner to list Bruce, then Caitlin. I did this (with the caption "consistency") in good faith because there were three references on the page, two of which listed Bruce first. Skyrise needs to be more careful when templating the regulars and stop this antagonistic behavior. Jacona (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, but nearly everyone involved in making these edits seems to have some sort of problem with transgender people and that is the basis of their edit. They are not open to discussion and intentionally misinterpret or ignore MOS:IDENTITY. The template is appropriate as how a transgender person is treated in other articles falls under its umbrella. I apologize since it is now clear that your edit was not negatively motivated, but honestly, more editors need to be aware of how we currently are expecting to treat transgender subjects under WP:BLP. Skyerise (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So you assumed bad faith, then tried to get me to self-revert with a veiled threat, and an implication of authority that did not exist, as the information you provided about referring to them by their current identity is still being debated. How could you possibly think that is reasonable behavior? Jacona (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that "it is currently being debated" does not invalidate the current guidelines. It's endlessly debated every time a notable transgender individual comes out. Those past debates have not yet resulted in MOS:IDENTITY being changed. Until it is changed, it's proper to observe it. Skyerise (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"...nearly everyone involved in making these edits seems to have some sort of problem with transgender people..." Skyerise, you need to dial it back about five notches. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyrise, what you were doing on my talk page appears to be an attempt to intimidate. I suspect you wanted someone other than yourself to revert because you have a topic ban or some such. That may also be the reason you posted the false article name. Is that it? Jacona (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write the damn template, dude. It's worded the way it's worded by ArbCom, I believe. It also clearly states that it does not imply that you did something wrong. Again, ArbCom wording, not mine. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, I was not talking about the exact wording of the templates, but your acccompanying verbage. Your behavior was very aggressive, rude, devious, and misdirected. Jacona (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Merged from seperate section Mdann52 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This ANI report follows on from my earlier report, and concerns Skyerise (talk · contribs), in their interactions both with me and with other editors, and their editing behavior as a whole. As a result of the earlier ANI report, I was banned for edit-warring. I have no quibble with that, but it did deprive me of the chance to carry on the discussion there. Quite a bit of what I'm posting here has already been detailed on my talkpage (the only place I could post, obviously), but not in any structure. To sum up, I think Skyerise's editing behavior has been detrimental to the project, and something needs to be done.

Interactions on my talkpage and requested interaction ban

I believe Skyerise's continued insistence on posting on my talkpage, despite repeated requests not to do so, constitutes harassment. This is detailed below:

1. Skyerise's first post to my talkpage was a level-three (?) warning for adding "unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content" – obviously false, and an example of warning template use and a violation of Don't template the regulars.
2. This was followed by a "final warning" for violating the BLP guidelines – see above.
3. I reverted both of these edits, and my edit summary for the second reversion would to most editors be an indication to "back off". I do acknowledge that I lost my temper there (and that foul language should be avoided), but I'm sure other editors can understand that being templated without any attempt at an explanation is extremely frustrating.
4. Skyerise then almost immediately posted two more ([4], [5]) warnings for "user talk page vandalism". The edits in question were of course not vandalism by Wikipedia standards. I do understand many editors have only a faint idea of what actually is vandalism, as opposed to, say, disruptive editing, so I am willing to assume good faith there. The warnings were posted in bad faith, however, again with no attempt to discuss the issue at hand.
5. My next edit summary was again profane (apologies), but I was quite frustrated at that point. Again, a reasonable editor would take that edit summary and the continued reversions as an indication not to continue posting on another editor's talkpage, and to pursue other venues.
6. However, after those edit summaries, Skyerise posted one, two, three, four more times, all of which I reverted. This included one comment gloating over the fact that I had been banned for edit-warring.
7. I issued a further warning to Skyerise to stop posting on my talkpage, and finally a formal note where I stated that I felt harassed and would be requesting an interaction ban.
8. Skyerise's response was that they had chosen to ignore my earlier requests because "edit summaries are not for communicating with other editors", and "I don't take bitchy orders posted in edit summaries". I would take this to mean that Skyerise read my edit summaries, but chose to ignore them and continue harassing me.

For all of the above, I am requesting a formal interaction ban between me and Skyerise, with all the attributes laid out at WP:IBAN.

Editing behavior

1. Ever since Caitlyn Jenner announced her name, Skyerise has been edit-warring constantly. I really can't be bothered going into it, but I think their recent contributions speaks for itself.
2. This behavior is what led to the run-in with me, and various other run-ins with IP editors and especially Drmargi (talk · contribs) (pinging @Drmargi separately, they may wish to chip in).
3. Skyerise is a very aggressive and rude editor, using templates that threaten sanctions or blocks against any editor that disagrees with them (see also use of sarcasm/passive-aggression at [6], [7]). This, combined with their edit-warring, can hardly be called conducive to a collaborative environment.
4. Skyerise has also produced a blatant example of canvassing. Another user, @Trystan:, pointed this out and suggested a re-formulation of the canvassing attempt. Skyerise's response was "I'll speak as I like, write as I like".

Threatening the project

Perhaps the most concerning thing Skyerise has said is this:

1. "I will boycott Wikipedia and organize protests against it in the LGBT community if this current status quo is overridden by a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks" (the last bit is pretty funny, but even funnier to me given that I'm a bisexual man whose username is taken from a 1980s gay icon). Also note the status quo is actually the opposite of Skyerise's position.

I've never interacted with Skyerise before a few days ago, and judging by their userpage they seem like someone who's done a hell of a lot of good for the project (although with four previous blocks). This is what is really peculiar to me, and it's a bit worrying that someone's behavior could change so rapidly. I understand that passions do tend to run very high over LGBT issues, and Skyerise seems to be very passionate. I'm taking a break from editing LGBT topics and cutting back my Wikipedia editing as a whole for a short while, and I personally think it would best if Skyerise did the same, in a way that is hopefully self-enforced rather than imposed by the community. Perhaps some sort of mentorship could be offered, or someone Skyerise has interacted with before could have a word. I'd like to hear from others, and I think I've said everything I want to say, so I'll be butting out. ¡Bozzio! 15:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Response

Quick, somebody call the wahbulance! Skyerise (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. I, at least, and I suspect others, would like to see you seriously respond to the complaint here. Please take the time to do so... --IJBall (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, User:Bozzio has either not read MOS:IDENTITY or failed to comprehend it. Due to this, he began to edit-war and I unwisely engaged him. In the process, he exceeded 3RR and got blocked and now holds a grudge. I have not continued to edit war, limiting myself to one revert per day on related articles. That's about it. Not watching this train wreck. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, do take a look at the summary of my work on my user page. Feel free to block me or whatever, I don't (usually) get paid to edit here. Of course, be sure to remember: blocks are not punitive but preventative. I don't believe I'm doing anything wrong at the current moment. Discuss me all you want, I've got better things to do. Especially since the OP apparently can't be bothered to stay present in the discussion him or herself. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

First, Bozzio, you neglect to mention that you also posted warning messages on Skyerise's talk page. But the number of messages Skyerise posted to your talk page seems like overkill. Skyerise, you talk about a block but Bozzio was asking for an interaction ban...would you have any objections to that? Of course, it would either have to be voluntarily observed or adminstered by an admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've already agreed not to post on his talk page once he actually requested somewhere other than in an edit summary. Is that sufficient? Seems like he continues to try to engage me by posting thread such as this, but wants to bow out of the discussion himself. Skyerise (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, blocked users cannot post on user's talkpages other than their own – you know that and you know very well I was blocked at the time. You've already acknowledged that you saw my edit summaries and made the choice to continuing posting. ¡Bozzio! 17:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

See WP:REVTALK. And using profanity in your edit summaries while simultaneously expecting another editor to obey them seems like baiting to me. Skyerise (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, everything I've posted to Skyerise's talkpage is basically mandated – edit-warring warning, EWN notification (regrettable edit summary, my bad), then two ANI notifications. Hence I didn't feel the need to mention them. Also just noticed this relevant discussion on Skyerises' talkpage. ¡Bozzio! 17:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all of your templates were mandated. And if you hadn't started an edit war (and made more reverts than me), the template you just mentioned wouldn't have been "necessary" either. Skyerise (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Which templates weren't mandated? ¡Bozzio! 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The 3RR warning. You had the option not to edit war yourself. Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It may not be mandated like ANI, but it's common courtesy to warn someone before going straight to the admins. ¡Bozzio! 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is mandated if one intends to file a 3RR report, since the report from requires a diff of a 3RR notification. BMK (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so we can basically agree upon the past. Going forward, can you two stay away from each other? Think hard about this because it means not checking their editing contributions, not lurking on their talk page, just going about your business with no contact with each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I wasn't going to say anything further about this matter, having no wish to be part of Skyerise's drama, much less a further target of her sarcasm and vindictive abuse of process. But after seeing the antics of the last few days, her sarcastic responses to advice from a fair few other editors, and her reduction of editors who don't share her views to crass stereotypes, I feel like I must add one final comment. What's regrettable about this whole affair is that it largely escalated because Skyerise doesn't understand or refuses to recognize one critical, fundamental point of human nature: you can't force another person's respect, whether it be of you, or of what you believe. It has to be earned. Spraying accusations of transphobia like confetti at anyone who disagrees with what she wants, abusing all manner of wikipedia templates and noticeboards, ignoring the advise of other editors, making threats, adopting a "fuck you!" attitude, and especially standing on the mountaintop and shouting, "You'll agree with me because I am right or you'll pay the price!" will get her nowhere. Reasonable, calm and respectful discussion will.

Sadly, all Skyerise has done, via her WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and her various tantrums, is to do her cause far, far more harm than good. Calm, reasonable arguments have no effect -- she sees herself as the sole arbiter of truth and what we all must do, and refuses to move from that posture, using it as a justification for confrontational behavior and edit warring. Moreover, she displays a stunning lack of understanding of a range of wiki-policies, a worrying trait in someone who both claims to be the last word on the section of MOS:IDENTITY she wields like a baseball bat, and has edited here for ten years. All the quibbling, nit-picking, and game playing with regard to other editors' behavior won't change the one, problematic common denominator in this sad affair: Skyerise's aggressive editing. How she's eluded another block escapes me. --Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing and personal attacks

This post by Skye [8] is loaded with personal attacks against users they disagree with. It's also a blatant attempt to WP:CANVASS. Calidum T|C 17:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I mention any names? That's what makes a "personal" attack personal. This is an "if the shoe fits" sort of situation. The only editors who could possibly be offended by it would be those who fit the general description. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't think that's a big deal. Skyerise! Nice to meet you. You got a ton of edits, and yet you don't seem to realize that responding to every single note is counterproductive. If you'd stop pissing people off you'd be much more likely to avoid a ban/block. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is correct. Longevity on Wikipedia is 40% not pissing people off, 20% having friends come to support you when you are in a dispute, 30% having reliable sources on your side and 10% just plain dumb luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm quoting that... Carrite (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC) /// Now snipped on my User page as "Liz's Law of Longevity." Carrite (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Like" Jacona (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not blue link it? WP:LAWOFLIZ? Blackmane (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blackmane, Carrite, you realize of course that the real value of Liz's comment was in the first three words she said. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, credit where credit is due. WP:LAWOFDRMIES then? Blackmane (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously worried

I may have not exactly been involved this ANI report, but I was following along to see where this would go. I stumbled upon Skyerise's talk page, who made rather worrying (for me, anyways) comments on another user and seems to play a game. After being confronted by AussieLegend about a {{portal}} addition to sections that weren't supposed to be and suggested to add it in External links, the user argued that "Yeah, but I like it better.". Then they went "total bombers". [9]. I would consider this WP:NPA, but that's just me. Then, whilst debuting a wikibreak, they seem to take WP:Content dispute, ANI reports, etc. as a game [10] (which was later edited to [11]). I have no idea what to make of this, but I find it worrisome and rather disturbing. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a frustrated editor who's perhaps nearing the end of her tolerance for Wikipedia and its drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The harassment for being trans and the constant disrespect of women and trans folk on this encyclopedia by editors is enraging, there's a reason I can't bear to argue these issues on the current discussion. People are saying awful things - that have already been hashed out, and are brought up again and again every time someone comes out as trans. I haven't been following this situation at all but there is no doubt in my mind that straight up frustration at people stating that the existing reasonably-good policy needs to be revamped because trans women are "really" men, that our Wiki-compliant system that avoids harm etc. is wrong and that somehow this situation hasn't been revisited with Chas Bono, Laverne Cox, ad nauseum. I can't sufficiently express how stressful it is - and I used to do trans education and outreach in the 1990s. And the moment they find out you are trans, it's off the races with the "you have a COI" crap. So. Yeah. It's a train wreck. Ogress _smash! 20:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogress: I can imagine how frustrating it is, but I don't think it excuses some of the things I'm seeing. There's also a time to step back and take a break, and let others step up for a bit. This kind of aggressive editing and interaction is going to lead to permanent burnout VERY quickly, and WP benefits from having editors like Skyerise here long term. I also wanted to comment on what you said about people claiming trans people have COI... this should not be allowed at all. Period. Nobody would claim COI to try to dismiss women from contributing to topics on women; Canadians on Canadian topics, doctors from articles about medicine, etc. That's just not what COI is. I think it should be clarified somewhere that even implying something like that is, as policy, completely unacceptable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia I was merely supporting NinjaRobotPirate's comment at the time. You'll note I started with "there's a reason I can't stand bear to argue these issues on the current discussion". I wasn't apologising for anyone, merely providing context. Of course the fact that trans people can't handle the conversations because of the horrible discussions leads to not great outcomes. And the result of ongoing harassment has lead to women leaving Wikipedia in great numbers or being banned due to issues like this and GooberGate (I can't say its name or it'll show up and kill me). Ogress _smash! 20:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You should talk to Lisa...she seems to have gotten along fine as a transgender woman on Wikipedia... 207.38.156.219 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity-based harassment by EconomicsEconomics

• EconomicsEconomics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Greek government-debt crisis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

EconomicsEconomics has been making continuous ethnicity-based attacks since 1 June 2015 on Greek editors at Talk:Greek government-debt crisis constantly accusing them of WP:COI based on their Greek-sounding usernames and other identifiers of their Greek origin. I have given this user multiple warnings about harassing other editors including a final level 4 harassment warning on their talkpage yesterday but to no avail. Today, after I accepted Danish Expert's compromise wording he again came to the talkpage today to accuse me of COI:

(Learning: one should only negotiate with other editors about good WP content if they are free of WP:CONFLICT)

Another attack here from 8 June

Please kindly accept that "username and motivations" are not irrelevant to WP:CONFLICT, even the opposite.

COI attacks against Greek editors from 1 June 2015

May be those authors having a WP:CONFLICT (conflict of interests; COI; here persons that have a special interest in Greece) should stop editing this article and stop blocking everything (COI editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia).

There are many more ethnicity-based attacks but I have added just a sample that I hope is representative enough and shows a persistence through time as well as unresponsiveness to warnings or discussion. Can an admin please put a stop to this ethnicity-based harassment? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not harassing as User Dr.K. knows better but he omitted the following statements (all on the talk page of "Greek government debt crisis") (I am technically not so versed in showing diffs, the bold typefaces are only put in when citing). There are many editors having problems with Thanatos666 and Dr.K., as they show clear behavior of WP:CONFLICT and try to "own" the article "Greek government debt crisis".

Citation 1:

"@Dr.K. , you know it better:

(so why the show if you hate long discussions?)

I am not "targeting Greek editors" but I proposed (after very frustrating and blocking discussions with Greek editors) to Greek editors having a WP:CONFLICT (Thanatos666 himself said that his agenda is to have "Greek interests" represented and that "Greek interests etc.[need to have] a prominence") that they should refrain from blocking the article improvement. You strongly supported Thanatos666 in blocking everything. What are you trying to convince me? That I'am blind?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)"

Citation 2:

"Dr.K. now picked the only option that is blatant WP:SYNTH ( "Due to the efforts of the Greek government to combat corruption - as part of meeting one of the conditional terms in its bailout program, the corruption level improved to a score of 43/100 in 2014" ) - this is totally made up - and anyway not very believable if one has read the press the last years. Also again a very astonishing double standard of Dr.K. who has tried with his other edits on this talk page to make everybody believe he would fight WP:SYNTH (even if there was no WP:SYNTH.). (Learning: one should only negotiate with other editors about good WP content if they are free of WP:CONFLICT )--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

and it is even intentional deceit by Mr.K. as the title of the Dec 2014 source is the opposite: Corruption still alive and well in post-bailout Greece, detailing: "In fact, if anything, people are now so squeezed they have fewer inhibitions about taking bribes than before the crisis.", and: "Five years on, Greeks are still cheating, bribing and evading their taxes – spurred on by the lack of punishment meted out to offenders" - I don't trust in no word anymore from Mr.K., if I ever had.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)"

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to show the language of Thanatos666 works in concert with Dr.K: (also on the same talkpage)

Citation 3:

"You are exactly confirming what I said: With a mainstream understanding how economies work it is easy to understand that BOTH happened - Greece got a debt cut worth 100 bn, bailout loans >200 bn, various other supports AND there was a firewalling and support of the international financial and banking system, too (no conspiracy thoughts needed, just common sense). With common sense it is also easy to understand that a 10 mil population with >300 bn debt and a high debt/GDP ratio and >10% annual deficit has to execute a lot of hard changes to arrive again at a sustainable state.

To comment the measures in the debt crisis with a phrase like "the interests of the Greek people were arguably sacrificed" seems to be as POV as to reducing it to a sentence like "the interests of the Eurozone tax payers have been sacrificed because Greece circumvented the Euro treaties and now wants the other people to pay for it". But even if you prefer one-sided sources like Paul Blustein to comment or "better understand" the debt crisis, it does not change the way Wikipedia should describe the crisis in a summary, i.e. the main causes, main measures, and main evolvement points. So, why still block a transparent summary of the debt crisis? --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)"

You fucking racist idiot, the very fact that it was only ~100bn and that had been for so long delayed and that such a huge new loan(s) was given under such conditions is the very point of it being extremely negative for the interests of Greek people, tipping the scale greatly for the interests of the creditors, even that is, if one limits oneself to a framework of a supposedly, a so called mutually agreed upon, amicable agreement and exclude a Grexit etc (...)

--Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

All I see right now is a bunch of people wielding spears and wearing tusk-proof armor, on both sides of the debate. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not link to humour pages. This is ethnicity-based harassment and it definitely is not funny at all. How would you have liked someone to use your ethnicity to accuse you of COI in editing an article, assuming you were transparent enough to divulge such details about your background? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no humor tag on No Angry Mastodons, and my point still remains. You need to calm down, there is no evidence of blatant harassment because of your ethnicity, I know what ethnicity based harassment is like (as I have dealt with it), and I don't see it here.

Don't tell me to calm down, per WP:CALMDOWN. It is a form of trying to portray an editor as out of control. Please don't do that. If you don't recognise the harassment that's your problem. Not mine. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with saying calm down as per WP:AGF. Its clear you are worked up about this, and I don't recognize the harassment because I don't see any evidence of harassment, all I see is incivility all around. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You keep the meme of "being worked up" going even though I told you not to do so and explained why. Fair enough. You seem to believe that you have superior diagnostic powers about the mood of editors but I think you are definitely wrong in my case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hasty assumptions are a sign of being worked up. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked EconomicsEconomics 24 hours for the personal attack above.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• • Unblocked after seeing that he proxied Thanatos666's comment from talk page. I would like to hear from Thanatos666 regarding the personal attack.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This diff has the attack.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • Hi Berean Hunter. I am not trying to justify Thanatos's intemperate remark, but if you check the date it is from 2 June 2015. One day after he was provoked by EconomicsEconomics's statement:

      May be those authors having a WP:CONFLICT (conflict of interests; COI; here persons that have a special interest in Greece) should stop editing this article and stop blocking everything (COI editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia).

      Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just applying the "find"-function on the talk page of "Greek government debt crisis" for the three five words

• f...ing
• f.ck
• shit
• idiot
• liar

will always lead to the user Thanatos. But I don't think he is addressable as being very emotional with this article. --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC) --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Thanatos's behaviour justify your ethnicity-based harassment of the other Greek editors? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Where's the evidence of that? I don't see any harassment coming from EconomicsEconomics. Just basic uncivilty, but seeing what he has been through, it looks like everyone is in the wrong here. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So you dismiss the three quotes I provided at the top of this section? It is your right and your problem of course. I can't be any clearer about the harassment which I think is clear enough. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The three quotes there are simply accusations of COI, I don't see how that means he is harassing anyone because of ethnicity. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

but seeing what he has been through, it looks like everyone is in the wrong here. Can you specify why I am wrong and what did I put Economics through? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What you did wrong is quickly assume EconomicsEconomics is attacking you because of your ethnicity, and when I said "but seeing what he has been through," I was referring to the "fucking racist" comments he was pummeled with. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And you think the three quotes I gave are not ethnicity based attacks. I think we are going in circles. And do you think that Thanatos's remark gives him the right to say that other Greek editors have a COI? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

When did I say that? He has the right, as a wikipedian to suggest that someone might have a conflict of interest based on their edits, not their ethnicity, nowhere in those quotes does he mentioned the ethnicity of an individual or group of wikipedians, so you have no evidence of ethnicity based harassment. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 18:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

so you have no evidence of ethnicity based harassment. I repeat myself: I you do not see evidence of ethnicity-based attacks and harassment after I gave you the three quotes in my opening post, it is your problem, not mine. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: The last weeks you didn't have such a problem teaming up with Thanatos666 who is constantly hard core humiliating with those 5 words (see above) until today. You never protested the slightest, even defending him here. Isn't this again a bit of double standard from your side?--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the "Greek interests" alleged quotation of me: It's a ridiculous example of quoting and misquoting out of context. It's an audacious lie! I've just written a reply to EconomicsEconomics (henceforth E.E.) on this, noting inter alia that he/she has now gone far beyond redemption; instead of me writing another rebuttal anew or copying the former hereto, anyone interested can or should go to the talk page and search for "OK, I had taken a break - something I'm thinking of repeating because".
• Regarding the language I've used: Yes I have expressed myself in "french". And to be frank I would do it again. E.E. has used among other things racist slurs, stereotypes and false and ridiculous personal and ethnic-based accusations (the irony is that he/she among other things has yet(?) to realise that accusing other editors, a whole ethnic/national group of them, for bias after having used him/herself racial slurs, stereotypes against a nation and an ethnic/national group of editors is to say the least a ridiculous and presumptuous contradiction) after I (and Dr.K.) had in fact warned him repeatedly. Dr.K. has remained civil, polite. I haven't, I didn't, having had warned E.E. that I wouldn't (search for "I'm briefly replying to you and I'm remaining reasonably polite only because third parties may read this and I don't want people to think that I/"we" can't respond; next time I assure you, I won't be so polite..."). I had also stated at a relevant point in time that if any admin thinks I must be punished for the language I've used, then OK, fine, but that there must be also other steps taken; search at the talk page for "Preemptively to any wikipedia admin(s) who might read this:".
• E.E., among other things, keeps using fallacious arguments (e.g. moving the goalpost, search e.g. for "1. (myth) – why should it be “impossible” for Greece to collect due taxes and execute privatizations?" taking into account what he/she was replying to and also the eventual response on this specific issue by me; see below, the next phrase I've provided to be searched for), misrepresentations of what other people have said, creative interpretations of WP policies, blatant lies etc; search e.g. for "I shouldn't reply to you - yet again -".
  I personally have long lost any hope that he/she can discuss or act in good faith, even if the racist slurs were to be disregarded.
• PS There has been a long discussion or "discussion" over the last days at the article's talk page that has evolved into various sub-discussions with various people joining in at times and clustering together and against others (to be frank, some of them, imo have joined in to simply push for e.g. an ideology... ;-)); it started with me discussing with Danish Expert. I recommmend, as I always do, to whomever is interested and before any decision is to be made, to go through the whole of it/them carefully because among other things context is crucial. Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Give me some diffs of EconomicsEconomics being racist and using slurs. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 19:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Is this culture of "preserving chaos" and slowing down any progress to the "speed of the slowest" a typical element of a national culture? At least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press...--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"

PS You could have gone through the whole thing (and therefore could have found it by yourself), as I have asked; alas...

Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I did that, and that quote above doesn't show any slurs or discrimination against those of Greek background. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 20:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not, can you please explain how that quote is blatantly anti-greek? Because I think you might be misinterpreting what he said. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 20:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• WTF!?!? No I can't, I refuse to! This is absurd! If for example you really don't understand the meaning and the gravity of the aforementioned phrases then you have no place here judging E.E. or anyone else for that matter...
• To third parties: Do I really have to explain this?!?!? Is this also the opinion of (most) other editors? If so, I simply give up, it would be utterly meaningless to continue... Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad idea.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So tell me oh ye wikipedians, would it have been considered my fault had I again expressed myself in "french" towards E.E.?!? ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in. As you all know, I have debated quiet a lot recently with all three editors, and been reading through most of the posts at the talkpage debate now being patrolled for potential "ethnicity-based harassment" problems. I agree with Weegeerunner, that EconomicsEconomics did not post any "ethnicity-based harassment", but that the debate from both sides suffered from heated emotional tension without sufficient use of WP:AGF. The sending several times of a warning in advance by Thanatos, that if EconomicsEconomics posted something being perceived provocative then his next reply instead of addressing the problem or misunderstanding in a friendly polite manner - instead would be malicious, IMHO does not serve as an appropriate way to respond. In fact such attitude (last time responding by posting 16:31, 9 June: You're such a presumptuous, such an audacious liar... I pity you..., instead of replying "sorry, but you apparently misunderstood and by accident misquoted what I wrote, my point was..."), only fueled further tensions between the two editors in concern.

As for the specific red line you now focus on, my own personal interpretation was that EconomicsEconomics did not intend to post a racist slur with his last line. His main agenda in the debate was to ask for the lead more clearly to summarize the causes behind the Greek government-debt crisis, and I interpreted his last line to refer to this agenda of the debate, namely that "at least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press". However, Thanatos apparently interpreted the last line to refer to the preceding question line, assuming that EconomicsEconomics implicit suggested that: disruptive Greek editors with a culture of preserving chaos and slowing down any progress to the speed of the slowest was a typical element of the Greek national culture, which now had taught him the "understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press".

All of the above is only my personal third party opinion of what went on. My hope is, that both sides learned from the clash, namely the importance of always injecting a double dose of WP:AGF in the future before you reply, and if feeling provoked by other replies then its far better to respond by utilizing a patient and civil tone, rather than derailing the debate by posting tension building provocative counter-replies. As I perceived it, all sides from the start intended to be constructive, then the debate got heated, and as a consequence partly derailed. This said, I will leave it for an administrator to assess the two cases in its entirety, as I want to stay neutral in this clash (in which I am not a part). Danish Expert (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
Right.
Now a creative, an imaginative argumentation on and of supposed intentions has been brought forth and not on and of actual actions. And then the blaim gets passed to me; i.e. even if said intentions had not been (I don't see how could this be) bad, it's not E.E. who should have e.g. apologised and/or tried to mend things and/or denied explicitly to me the explicit accusation against him by me, clarifying things etc. (again, how could he/she?); it's instead me, (and I guess therefore also Dr.K. and other Greek wikipedians in general (let alone Greeks in general)) who should have tried to address the issue, I (and therefore we) the one who had/has been the target of this supposed instance of misspeaking or misunderstaning or whatever else one might say trying to justify this by invoking supposed intentions, and of the rest of the accusations he/she made and stuff he/she said.
Right.
PS Now how could one interpret this
"@Thanatos @DrK: you both seem to agree that the current article "summary" does a bad job summarizing at all; you both say it is too complex for you to write a good or at least mediocre summary; you both cannot specify if you would add/change/subtract specific points from a proposed clear-cut bullet summary I presented as a preparation; you both say you prefer to block other authors to write a clear cut summary ("accusing" them of POV without specifically saying what you specifically identified as POV). After 5 years of a very bad summary in this article, what is the risk here? afraid that you cannot tweak a short and understandable summary so easy later-on (to reflect your personal wishes you cannot really explain here)? Is this culture of "preserving chaos" and slowing down any progress to the "speed of the slowest" a typical element of a national culture? At least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press...--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"
like this
""I interpreted his last line to refer to this agenda of the debate, namely that "at least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press."",
only Zeus knows...
Or put in another way, what does it (the latter) even mean?!?! ;-)
PPS I repeat, if this is the opinion of most editors then I simply give up... Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I only posted my objective third part opinion of how the "accusation debate" now being investigated evolved. None of us (only EconomicsEconomics) can know for sure what EconomicsEconomics meant by the words of his last line in the specific reply you cited above. When applying WP:AGF, one of the potential meanings could be the "friendly one" (green version) that I specified above, namely that EconomicsEconomics posted a set of rhetorical questions to you and Dr.K in the hope this would result or push the debate into a more constructive path in his point of view - and that the last line should not be interpreted in the way you did to the last question line but instead more to the first rhetorical question (meaning EE only intended to hint that: despite of the causes of the Greek government-debt crisis not being clearly enough formulated by the lead of of the article, at least he had "start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press", suggesting that the press in his point of view has a negative track record of simplifying what the crisis is about from various angles while failing to present the true technical economic main causes behind the crisis).

My point is the last line of EE can be interpreted in multiple ways (of which my earlier reply also formulated the first one - the "racial slur interpretation" (red version) - which you apparently adopted). However, when the line can be interpreted in multiple ways, the only appropriate thing to do is to assume good faith on EE. I never pointed my blame finger for the heated debate at either you or EE. On the contrary, my reply above reflected my personal point of view, that both of you initially had been only constructive towards each other and engaged in a constructive debate, but that both of you got caught by emotions in the process, and then enrolled each other in a fight that could have been avoided if both of you had excersized a double doze of WP:AGF from the beginning. Moreover, I also find it inappropriate whenever someone reply to something he finds to be "an injust provoking policy-breaking reply", by a counter-reply being a breach of Wikipedia's policy of "exchanging substance based arguments in a proper friendly tone while assuming good faith". Adding fuel to the fire is never constructive.

All this said, my personal opinion is, that while both of you kind of owe each other an apology - and both of you could learn something positive from this debated emotional clash, neither of you deserve or qualify to get banned. However, as I am not part of your clash and does not want to be in anyway, I will leave it for an administrator to solve this matter. In this regard, my post (which is the last one here at this ANI page) is only a third part opinion submitted. As I want to stay neutral in this case, I will leave the further arbitration and resolution of the case, to be dealt with by one of the active administrators. Danish Expert (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. Stretching E.E.'s words and interpretation thereof to a level, the point of absurdity, so that they could become excusable.
So, let me be more clear, crystal clear:

• Your highly imaginative interpretation does not follow from anything contextual or from the words themselves! Said words are not in any way open to such an imaginative interpretation!
• I don't care if I get punished, I've said so, manyatime already. I've used said expressions, words and phrases used due to stated reasons and after having warned said interlocutor; I, unlike some other people, accept the responsibility for and the consequences of my words, of my actions. But there is no way in hell I'm gonna apologise to E.E. after such behaviour, accusations and expressions against me and essentially all Greek wikipedians, let alone against the whole Greek nation itself!!! Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is asking you to apologize but it is time to stop shouting and drop the stick. At this point, you aren't helping anyone including yourself. We don't block punitively but we will to prevent disruption. Let's hope that it doesn't come to that. Please see the below section on a proposed solution and see if you can abide by that, please.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks are continuing by EconomicsEconomics

In the talkpage of the Greek debt crisis EconomicsEconomics continues his personal attacks:

No, Thanatos666 and Dr.K. are not "pushing an agenda", why should they? What agenda? It's obvious for everybody that they are being neutral about this article, and constructively cooperating to get improvements in the article, too. If there should be POVs and SYNTHs kept/introduced because of their actions, it would be pure coincidence, thanks to them it is a really good article, I insist.

I ask again for admin intervention. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, as one can easily verify by going through the discussion(s), I've repeatedly said for example that I don't like at all the present state of the article (see e.g. my long discussion(s) with Danish Expert), it's just that I don't want it to get even worse, according to my views on bad and worse, that is.
Similarly, one can also easily check and verify what Dr.K. (or others) has actually said... Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I checked, and I see you both acting uncivil. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, can you provide any diffs about my alleged incivility? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

All 3 of them

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

---

I propose all 3 users, Thanatos666, Dr.K. and EconomicsEconomics should be blocked for incivilty. None of them have clean hands, and they are all just trying to paint the opposing party as horrible while hiding their own mistakes. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you find any diffs to support your absurd proposal about blocking me for alleged incivility? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I think I just found my first one. Calling my proposal "absurd" is not civil in any way shape or form. Neither si assuming bad faith so quickly. I still have not gotten a single diff proving he was harassing anybody over their ethnicity.Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I just found my first one. Your arguments are becoming more absurd by the minute. You asked for my block based on incivility that occurred in the past not now. And I inform you that your original proposal was absurd and I have a right to call it so. Now, can you provide any diffs for any other alleged incivility than your absurd current allegation? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this whole ANI report evidence enough? You have made accusations of prejudiced harassment without evidence, and you act condescending and passive aggressive towards anyone who disagrees. That's what people with battleground mentalities do. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling someone "passive aggressive" is a personal attack. I remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please observe these core policies of Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, how? I'm reffering to your behavior on the wiki, and I have proof, such as when you said You keep the meme of "being worked up" going even though I told you not to do so and explained why. Fair enough. You seem to believe that you have superior diagnostic powers about the mood of editors but I think you are definitely wrong in my case and how it is uncivil. I think you need to check out WP:NPA2. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't recognise your incivility and your condenscension I am not going to use ANI to try to explain it to you. My reply to you was measured and civil. Now please move along and let the admins handle your absurd request. I have no time for this nonsense. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your condescending tone is just showing how uncivil you are acting right now. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You have said that before. Please stop repeating yourself and let the admins handle this. Don't create more clutter for them to shift through. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That kind of language is still uncivil. I gave evidence for my claims, and you are being rude. But since I'm not in the best of moods right now, I'm leaving. I'm not gonna stay here and be treated like this. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 02:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You can always have the last word. But in parting I advise you to not forget the core policy of WP:AVOIDYOU. Good bye. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this AN/I is ridiculous, Weegeerunner has provided zero evidence, but wants all three users blocked? The only user who should be block is Weegeerunner for persistently accusing others of uncivil actions with no evidence.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My only complaint is where this ANI report has gotten to. However, I do agree diffs would a lot of time. "Isn't this ANI enough?" is not enough. I suggest all users involved to WP:IGNORE, WP:AVOID and WP:GETOUT (if such articles even exist). They're all digging themselves deeper, bigger holes that no one has seemed to get out. I suggest that all users involve leave and let admins handle the report, unless a user has factual evidence of such claim before WP:Losing their cool (again, if it even exists). Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 03:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal for Solution

I have read the Greek government-debt crisis talk page in its entirety because single diffs don't help in the light of the accusations. - EconomicsEconomics should be blocked to cool down (incivilties) - Dr.K. should be blocked to cool down (incivilties) - Thanatos should be blocked indefinitely (continuous intentional shocking insults) - Conflict of Interest editors should be blocked from the article for an least 6 months (If reading the article talk page in full it is evident that there are editors with a COI driven agenda leading to heated discussions.)--80.187.98.145 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok....that is not happening. This IP user may have lost his/her mind. Strange how this is their first post, but nevermind that. And yeah, diffs actually do help in this, since I have yet to see any by anyone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your insults and accusations to parties moderating this discussion are not really helping. To check the validity of the case that includes COI accusations you need to browse a 400 K take page and not to insult other moderators.--80.187.98.145 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Moderatoring? Your "solution" is to block the three users, one indefinitely without any diffs or based reasoning. No one in a sane state of mind would even consider such a dictated punishment. Also, I never made an accusation, just stating how strange it is. Your defensiveness doesn't help in that regard. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TheGracefulSlick. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

After reading a 400 K talk page I proposed a solution. I didn't dictate or implement it. No reason to be rude again and again, TheGracefulSlick.--80.187.98.145 (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not rude to criticize a "solution". I wouldn't be so critical of the proposal if it was legitimate, reasonable, and held substantial amount of diffs that could support it. In that case, it failed in all of the criteria and should not even have been recommended.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't recommend or dictate my solution, I proposed one solution as the title shows and provided reasoning in brackets. Feel free to read the 400 K and do comprehesive diffs and reasoning. Your language in this discussion is rude, not critisizing my solution proposal.--80.187.98.145 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You were the one who suggested it, why should I provide the diffs for you? That is your job if you want to make an outrageous proposal. Regardless, I read the discussions and, still, your proposal is outlandish. If you want to accuse me of rudeness, I couldn't care less. The fact is the "solution" is way too serious, a reasonable solution should be proposed by an admin, not an IP user who has zero experience elsewhere on articles or discussion (unless you are not a new user...).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't do cool-down blocks and there is no need for anyone to bicker in this sub-thread. So far, I haven't been convinced that blocks of any kind are necessarily part of a solution here. I haven't been convinced that there have been any racial slurs...if there were a slur at all it may have been nationalistic but not racial or ethnic-based. I'm not convinced that a nationalistic-based attack is happening either. I will say that if I had seen that remark that someone was a "fucking racist" at the time that it happened, I would've blocked Thanatos for the personal attack. Going to that level of incendiary isn't justified at all and does not help anything. This can be taken as a warning that it should not happen again otherwise blocking to prevent disruption is likely to occur. The continual accusations that keep occurring need to cease and those editors that are finding themselves greatly angered should voluntarily walk away and allow themselves to cool down and allow those that can remain calm to focus on the content. Dispute resolution could possibly work but if that breaks down then editors would find themselves here again. Danish Expert, MattUK and bobrayner have been level-headed and insightful and their efforts are commendable. I would suggest that Dr. K, Thanatos666 and EconomicsEconomics take a break and allow others to work on the article for a few days. When you come back, try to rejoin on the talk page without reverting first and seek consensus. Are you willing to do this?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Perfectly fine for me. Thanks.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Sorry Berean Hunter, but if someone uses the (Greek) username of an editor to insinuate an editing COI that's an ethnicity/nationality-based attack. I don't have any problem at all to not revert at the article. My last edit at the article was to implement Danish Expert's suggestion almost verbatim save for a few grammatical corrections and the one before that was to correct another edit which was based on outdated information. I actually rarely edit the article and don't participate in the discussions often and the only reason I participated recently was because of some obvious problems with the edits including SYNTH. You said that if there were a slur at all it may have been nationalistic but not racial or ethnic-based. Fine. Are you going to allow nationalistic slurs on the talkpages of articles without giving the perpetrators a warning? I think you should make clear in your decision that nationality/culture-based attacks are not acceptable and should stop, otherwise you inadvertently provide those prone to them to keep harassing the Greek editors with them. I quote another taunt by EconomicsEconomics to remind you of the kind of attacks one faces on that talkpage from that editor:

Is this culture of "preserving chaos" and slowing down any progress to the "speed of the slowest" a typical element of a national culture? At least I start understanding why Greece is in trouble apart from what one can read in the press...--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)"

Thank you for your consideration. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I said above "I'm not convinced that a nationalistic-based attack is happening either." I had thought that this culture of "preserving chaos"' might mean Wikipedia culture since he seems to be frustrated with trying to make progress...his pleas to not have editing blocked seem to imply that. Nonetheless, he has agreed to disengage which is what I'm asking editors to do when the editing gets hot. You are experienced enough to let a (perceived) nationalistic slur roll off your back. If you feel that it is bait then don't give the satisfaction of letting someone see your anger but redirect back to a content discussion. Someone else might be taking your lead but getting themselves in trouble soon by not dropping the stick and starting to move towards ranting here at ANI. I was hoping that we get things moving forward again by not issuing warnings to anyone but focus on future editing. There are different people whose hands aren't clean and it would be best for all involved to press forward and let other editors try to help if they are willing. If there are warnings to be issued they are in the round.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There are certainly some serious and systemic NPOV problems on that article. I note that Dr. K. automatically reverted my attempts to fix part of the problem, with spurious objections in both edit summaries and on the talkpage. Thanatos666's rants are even worse, although the mindset that Greeks are victims of external prejudice is neatly aligned with the problems we have in article-space. If Greek editors are among those responsible for POV problems on an article about a Greek controversy, I hope that other editors may still be permitted to try solving the problems without all getting labelled as hate-criminals. bobrayner (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

When I had mentioned above that I believe that some people had/have joined in at the article's talk page, just to promote an ideology, the main person I was thinking and talking about was you; you, imo, are in no position to cry "POV", "breach of NPOV", etc. Even E.E.'s involvement, quite unlike yours, actually began with an argumentation and a real discussion of sorts despite what happened next. I wouldn't have named you, called you out here, but since you've also come here and continued "arguing" and behaving in the same way...
Oh and for the last time, stop calling my comments rants (and more importantly stop repeating the accusations against Greeks editors!), especially when all you've practically done here or at the article's talk page is to repeatedly make accusations against people, who evidently disagree with your POV, and to agree with edits (or even to propose new edits, even more drastic ones, like removing a whole section...) and comments, which evidently agree with your POV... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm hoping that neutral editors may be able to sort this out while the others back away voluntarily. If they would agree to give a few days of latitude to other editors then an acceptable solution might be had.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought E.E.'s statement that Dr. K quoted was a nationalistic insult towards Greeks. Any other interpretation is just stretching it to give the user an unjust pass on the statement. I admit the others involved have not handled this gracefully, but that should not hide the fact that E.E. did commit what they have issue with. This is coming from a completely uninvolved editor who has reviewed the interaction of the involved parties.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(double edit conflict)

@Berean Hunter: You rightfully imply from the context that with the culture of "preserving chaos" I have meant the Wikipedia culture since I was frustrated that the WP article is not making any progress as I am interested to improve the article. If anybody understood something else I apologize for the missunderstanding.

@Thanatos666: Up to this ANI I never commented all your hard core humiliations and rants but only focussed on the article because I had to assume it to be a strange kind of humor, wasn't it?

@Dr.K.: I can confirm that you "rarely edit the article" but you omitted that instead you put a lot of energy in a team-up with selected editors to make sure all others also can't edit and improve the article.

One exception: when you saw the possibility to put in the article that "due to the efforts of the Greek government to combat corruption...the corruption level improved" even though the source you had in said "Corruption still alive and well in post-bailout Greece: Five years on, Greeks are still cheating, bribing and evading their taxes – spurred on by the lack of punishment meted out to offenders". (The reason DanishExpert offered in the talk section many versions about the corruption topic including this POV version is probably simple: he tried being too nice to editors who like to see positive reports about Greece because you reverted beforehand in a rude manner on this topic and put up pressure that the story is positive for Greece.)

If these (only historical editing patterns) are not continued there could be a much better article about the Greek debt crisis.

So why not accept Berean Hunter's offer?

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: I note that Dr. K. automatically reverted my attempts to fix part of the problem, with spurious objections in both edit summaries and on the talkpage. That's a rather self-serving appraisal of the situtation. You kept adding expired and misleading phraseology based on a 2012 reference even though there was a 2014 reference which made it outdated. This information was corrected by subsequent edits the last of which was the one proposed by Danish Expert. But I have addressed these points in a non-trivial manner, not as you claim spuriously, at the article talkpage so I am not going to expand further on that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I accept that you are ambivolent on the point that a nationality-based attack occured. I disagree obviously but that is ok. You also said that the editor in question agreed to disengage which is a temporary respite. The problem is that he may upon re-engagement start these nationalist-based comments/attacks again. You say that I am experienced enough to let that roll off my back. I guess that is possible but, as is the case with any type of personal attack, making such attacks should not be allowed as a matter of principle and allowing such discriminatory comments on Wikipedia without sanctions will embolden these type of users and I don't think this is good for the project. But I don't know why you are telling me to keep-off the article talkpage because my contributions there resulted in more accurate phraseology and SYNTH removal while I have observed CIVIL at least as much as any other editor there. If you think that my presence there is detrimental to article development I would like to know why. As far as your comment about "neutral editors" why do you think I am not "neutral"? My only guide to editing has been since day 1 close compliance to Wikipedia's policies. Don't get me wrong though, I would very much like other editors come in and offer their opinions. This is a collaborative project after all and the community consensus is the primary rule. But implying that I am not neutral is not going to be solved by a few days' absence from that talkpage so I would appreciate a clarification. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to stay off the talk page but rather requesting it. I also don't think that you are detrimental to article development but would want you to return after a brief break so that you might help with the improvements. At the moment you aren't neutral because you have been asking for sanctions here and will be perceived as non-neutral by others in which you have engaged in arguments above. If you are editing there during what is supposed to be a hiatus then they would likely re-enter prematurely. The idea is to make space for other editors to work on the article without them being part of the squabbling that has dominated the talk page lately. I believe that it has had a chilling effect as some editors have sidelined themselves and others may not want to enter the fray. This ANI thread is likely seen as TLDR by some editors and a warning by others ("No way I'm jumping into that mess"). If we can let the non-combatants work unabated on the article and talk page they may be able to improve things beyond the present arguments. We'll never know if they aren't granted that latitude.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for sanctions here based on specific and clear grounds which you did not accept and that's fair enough. Although we disagree, I hope you understand that my report was not baseless or frivolous. But to be sidelined because of the ANI report is not the best way to go forward at least in my opinion. As I said before, I participated in a civil manner with all the other editors except the one who chose to attack my national origin. The squabbling as you call it with the other editors is part of a debate on what constitutes SYNTH and is easily resolvable by an RfC, a report to DRN or ORN and other community resources and not by sidelining. You say At the moment you aren't neutral because you have been asking for sanctions here and will be perceived as non-neutral by others in which you have engaged in arguments above. "Engage in arguments" is part of any normal discussion. Do you think my arguments reached the level of disruption on that talkpage? In conclusion: there is no easy way to answer your comments but one thing seems pretty clear to me: I have no interest whatsoever in participating in a discussion where I am viewed with suspicion or temporarily asked to be sidelined however politely. And by the way, are you going to allow this personal attack by economics made while this report was still open to stand or do you think it helps improve article quality? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that you are being viewed suspiciously or that I have somehow singled you out. This certainly hasn't been the case. Since you do not feel inclined to accept my proposal then I will simply leave this thread open and let other editors/admins opine on how to best proceed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely you have not singled me out, since the request you made did not only refer to me. I also don't think you view me with suspicion. But being asked to stay off a talkpage as a result of making an ANI report which as you say will be viewed by others as some sort of combat which will deter their participation etc., indicates this is not prime time for AGF. This is not counting the nationality-based insults and base sarcasm which still blight that page. In any case I thought that was settled. I just told you I refuse to participate under these conditions. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm done with this dispute, after reading my section with a clear head (especialy TheGracefulSlick's comment) I have came to the conclusion that my proposal for all 3 people being blocked was the magnum opus of stupid ideas I have had latley (right behind my RFA and the Raymond Coxon incident), I'm here to make an encyclopedia, not fight. And I'm off to go be competent and productive in my dispute resolutions and editing. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Greek editors compared to "Apple employees" by EconomicsEconomics

I recently found this gem on the talkpage of the Greek debt crisis:

there is an even broader problem: if Apple employees or their family members would obvioulsy block the improvement of the Apple article (having an obvious agenda to make Apple look good even if it means tweaking reality; block-reverting almost everything not compatible with their agenda; mainly active to block/delete and not to contribute; opposing any change of obvious POV/SYNTH/and so on; filling lengthy unnecessary discussions but not specifying what they really want or oppose; not even contributing to the article with their special Apple knowhow and sources), they should probably refrain from editing this article because of obvious WP:CONFLICT; is that different with the Greek debt crisis? Or better wait until every (competent and willing) author is fent away? --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So now we have it. Greeks are employees of Greece and are not allowed to edit Greece-related articles. It is good to know. Now that we have this new model of international wiki collaboration, American editors are no longer going to be allowed near any American articles - Uncle Sam being a very demanding employer as we all know. British ones better stay away from UK articles, (who could be their employer, the Queen perhaps?). Germans we all know are employed by Merkel, and so it goes on. Taking this logic a step further, editors who do not divulge any details of their background or ethnicity are considered unemployed and are given full access to all articles as being free of any COI or agenda. Welcome to the new collaborative wiki-model according to EconomicsEconomics. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your sarcasm and general pissed-off-ness really aren't helpful.--v/r - TP 21:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope you realise that no matter how one approaches this subject someone will find something to complain about. If I sound serious then people will call me angry. If I try some humour in rebutting this nonsense they will call it sarcasm. The fact remains nationality-based attacks need to be discouraged on wiki and I see no action on that front. I don't think criticising or shooting the messenger is a good approach. In any case I also don't think you should expect me to be happy when I report someone for using such base tactics. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth editwarring to retain BLP violations in talk page

User:PeterTheFourth has restored three redactions of his BLP violating material (and his first inclusion appears a bit point and gratuitous, as well as the gratuitous BLP violation on my talk page). initial edit using name gratuitously in violation of consensus and BLP. revert BLP vio 1 (my redaction), revert BLP vio 2(Bosstopher redaction), revert BLP vio 3 (my redaction). He cites [12] as consensus but it is very clear in that discussion that mentioning the accused name on the article page are very strict and talk page discussion should only use the name to formulate content, not idly repeat allegations of rape that have been investigated and rejected. Other noticeboard discussions have ended with cautious approach and not to add it [13]. To date, the consensus is that Noticeboard requirements cannot be met.[14] He repeats the BLP violation on my talk page by gratuitously mentioning the name of the accused person who has been exonerated multiple times and claiming he is an "alleged rapist." There is no point in doing this other than to violate BLP and be inflammatory. The person is not a public figure, is not facing charges, has no biography on wiki and there is no venue (or need) to defend him of these charges or even explore them so using non-public figures name in connection with a vile crime is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E, WP:NPF and WP:BLPTALK especially in light of previous discussion and the current discussion. Repeating it on my talk page shows an attitude of indifference to BLP violations. User:PeterTheFourth is a SPA with few mainspace edits and that began his career editing the GamerGate ArbCom page.First edit. His singular focus appears to be related to topics regarding rape and rape threats. Edit warring to maintain a BLP and restore BLP violations should not be tolerated. He's been here before and obviously knows policy and his way around and should know better. --DHeyward (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward is right, something about User:PeterTheFourth's behavior just doesn't add up to me. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 19:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He may not be a "public figure" but because he filed a lawsuit against Columbia University, he has been talked about a lot, at least in the local media. He is not facing charges but his identity is far from hidden. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really that local, so wouldn't that be a case for his identity? Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz That's not the WP BLP criteria. We are deferential to BLP's and his lawsuit is not notable in and of itself. The article about performance art is not the place to accuse him by name or defend him except as it relates to the artwork. It's a slippery slope which was noted in both BLPN discussions. See WP:LOWPROFILE essay and also the WP:NPF policy Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. It's indefensible to repeat the claim that he is a rapist especially when there is no place for exculpatory material. Note, that PtF only adds negative information and but reverts the addition of exculpatory court documents regarding the lawsuit you mention.[15] That reversion (or court documents) iswas consistent with BLP (policy) and keeps the article from becoming WP:COATRACK (for the legal cases), but the addition of the negative onesmaterial arewas not consistent with BLP policy - the addition of negative information, removal of excuplatory information speak to POV editing and edit warring. --DHeyward (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2015 --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)(UTC)

With greatest respect to all concerned, this specific situation is an absolute thicket. Reviewing the bidding for bystanders, as best I can. First, we have the customary issues surrounding identification of alleged rape victims. In this case, we have the further complication that the rape victim has sought attention through performance art about the alleged assault. We have a host of interlocking hearings and proceedings at the University and in various courts, past, present, and contemplated. We further have Wikipedia's gender gap and gamergate problems, so it behooves the project to take care that it reached a policy that comports with public standards. In that regard, identifying the rape victim but declining to identify the alleged assailant might raise editorial eyebrows. We also have the potential for absurdity, should the performance artist call attention the alleged assailant's name in the performance. This is a situation that would perplex (and is perplexing) the most experienced editors and journalists. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Ibanned [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• @MarkBernstein - If the matter is framed as an alleged rape victim and a potential slander victim, the path forward becomes more clear. Of course, that would require coming at this matter from a position of impartiality. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Carrite: agreed. dHeyward: you're involved, along with half of Wikipedia. I'm not addressing you; I'm addressing bystanders who might not be aware of the nuances of a situation which would strain the policies of most (perhaps all) newsrooms today. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes MarkBernstein, I am involved in ANI requests I start. It's the reason you should not be commenting here. I don't wish the discussion to degrade into ad hominem arguments like in GamerGate talk pages. --DHeyward (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Posting to acknowledge that I've read this thread- I don't see much to the complaint. You'll be able to see on the talk page multiple mentions of Paul Nungesser's name per the consensus that discussing his involvement in the case is not a BLP violation. I don't imagine that he himself objects to being mentioned, and he has given interviews as Nungesser about this. Per accusations of edit warring (the shocking transgression of not wanting other users to edit my comments) I'll step back from that article until the dispute here is resolved. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Of note are my two attempts to discuss the issue DHeyward perceives with my mentioning (redacted) name on his talk page here and here, which were deleted without a reply. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion appears to false as the BLP violating name only appears in link titles. And yes, I reverted your BLP violations on my talk page and asked you not to repeat them. You declined. --DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears in the time since I went to bed last night and I woke up this morning somebody has gone through and removed countless uses of Paul Nungesser's name from the talk page against consensus, including from straight quotations of sources. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Even on this page, he ignores BLP and consensus from the article to restore a BLP violation for a pointy reason. Does anyone need to see the name of someone accused of rape with no charges, not a public figure and consensus not to mention him? Any admins think it's necessary or within policy for this [17]? It's a clear attempt to smear him and PtF has a history of it. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This SPA has a clear agenda and masks his repeated disruption of the gamergate articles in feigned politeness, even responding to harsh criticisms with 'Thanks!' etc. Which evidently works on those who should be blocking him for his actions. You're not supposed to accuse people of being socks without hard evidence and I have no hard evidence so I won't say that he is the most obvious sock that I've ever seen. But I think at the very least he should be topic banned. He wouldn't even be allowed to edit the articles if he hadn't made 500 edits on these articles before the 500 edit restriction was put into place. He is the poster boy for why people shouldn't be grandfathered in. Handpolk (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You say you don't have any hard evidence except I see you describe PeterTheFourth as a sock with absolute certainty (diff diff). Please cease smearing this account unless you have diffs to tie this editor with another account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I said it was obvious. That is not saying he is a sock with absolute certainty. For example, I could say it is obvious you are a woman who is deeply offended by the rape portions of this issue and that shapes your views and passion on GGC. However I have no evidence you are a woman or that you are deeply offended by the rape portions of this and that that shapes your views and passion on GGC. It's not absolutely certain at all. Just something that I could say seems obvious. To be clear, I'm not saying that. Just giving you an example to demonstrate that what you said is wrong.

This is the second time there was confusion over what I meant. The first time another editor misunderstood me in the same way you did. So I took greater care this time to make it clear I'm not certain and it is not an accusation. Hope that helps clear things up for you. Handpolk (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to intimidate me? I don't see you doing demographic analyses of any other editor. You have no idea what "deeply offends" me or what "shapes" my "views and passions" on that Gamergate article. This personal profiling of an editor commenting is completely out-of-place in an ANI discussion. It's like you assume all women think the same thing and feel the same way, that is obvious although that doesn't mean I can say it with absolute certainty. Because, you know, there's an invisible difference between the two.

And I'm not upset or offended, I just think you made an incredibly stupid edit that makes me take you even less seriously than I took you before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Handpolk I have no evidence that you smell like poo, and it's absolutely not certain at all. But it's obvious that you smell of poo. (See the problem with this form of reasoning?) Bosstopher (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

His very first edit is to GamerGate arbcom is quacking. He's obviously a SPA with previous experience. He has just over 200 mainspace edits (71 to Gamergate controversy, next highest page is A Voice for Men with 16). He has nearly 300 edits to the GamerGate controversy talk page, though. Over half his edits are GamerGate article related. --DHeyward (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• edit conflict

Handpolk can you please specify what "clear agenda" it is that you allege that PeterTheFourth has. On PeterTheFourth's talk page another editor commented on interpreted aspersion. Please don't just say that something exists without specification and evidence.

The mentioned article says "Paul Nungesser ..., as new details come to light, he’s speaking out and fighting back". I don't think that Wikipedia would be in danger of being sued in regard to reference to Nungesser's name and I guess it would be up to consensus in the article as to whether it would be of encyclopaedic benefit to the article for the name to be used. Currently the Matt.Perf. article uses the above citation for the text "Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, two other women with whom she was acquainted[cite] filed additional complaints with the university against the same student." We link to the article presenting his name but don't ourselves present the name. I don't see any reason that we can't do so and it is surely a content issue as to whether we should or not. GregKaye 09:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You're aware that we have a BLP policy that doesn't allow us to publish certain things such as accusing someone of rape (whether we are repeating it or not)? Particularly, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPF? You are aware that the BLPN discussion has already happened and the answer was "No", correct? I not please read it, then redact it. You should not be publishing his name per policy regardless of the where you got it. It's not a question whether you can find it, it's a question of human decency. We don't have an article on him and the details that exonerate him aren't relevant to the article that involves him. It's policy not to name or accuse people of crimes and he isn't notable outside of that. We can link to lots of stories that are BLP violations on WP. --DHeyward (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain why it is considered "pro-GamerGate" to support one side of this issue, and "anti-GamerGate" to support the other? Which side is which, in the case of this dispute? JoeSperrazza (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Caricatured answer - "pro-GamerGate" = Feminists are deranged....look at what this crazy feminist has done; "anti-GamerGate" = women are victims and need challenge nasty men. This then extends to any battle-of-the-sexes topic that can be identified in terms of these caricatured positions. In this case, self-publicising woman accuses a poor man; self-empowering woman challenges brutal male actions through art. Paul B (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The simple answer is: because the world is a depressing and miserable place. Alternatively go to /r/KotakuInAction and search for Sulkowicz. Then go to /r/Gamerghazi or /r/SRSFeminism and search for Sulkowicz and compare. Bosstopher (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a gamergate thing (check the search results, for example)- speaking personally, my interest in it comes because it falls within the general sphere of 'social justice'. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg -- "can you please specify what "clear agenda" it is that you allege that PeterTheFourth has" I can do you one better. He just admitted it right here. This 'social justice' distinction is semantics. Off of Wikipedia GGC has grown and become about more than that which is on this article. And people that are sometimes called 'Social Justice Warriors' (SJW's) have taken up the non-GG side. PeterTheFourth has essentially just admitted being an SJW. By definition, having a clear agenda. Handpolk (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

be definition, everyone has bias and agenda. the issue is whether or not such adversely affects your ability to edit within Wikipedia's policies and goals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no bias or agenda. Unless you call wanting neutral and unbiased articles a biased agenda. I agree with each side on many things. At present it's usually unnecessary for me to say when I disagree with the ggers because they are already losing so badly. Handpolk (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that is right. [18] you have asserted that already! You go go go Mr/Ms Purely Neutral YOU! It is certainly enlightening for me to see what pure neutrality in editing looks like as I had a completely different understanding. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, no bias or agenda, only wanting neutrality. Is that why you called me a "SJW shill" even though I have only made one or two edits to the Gamergate article? I have treated you civilly, I even responded to some of your questions. I don't understand how you can't see you can't have it both ways, you can't declare yourself only wanting neutrality while at the same time trying to figure out who is on which "side". This is just childish behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, suggest Handpolk rethink their comment. Having an interest in social justice is not by definition a "social justice warrior", and generally speaking that term is used as a dismissive pejorative and could be construed as a personal attack. — Strongjam (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's also used proudly as a self-identifier. I imagine this will come up again so I am willing to submit to your pedantry. How would you like me to word that to your liking, while communicating the same thing? Handpolk (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: If your intent is to say someone is advocating some form of social justice platform, then just say that. — Strongjam (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza it's not GamerGate related except for PeterTheFourth being a GamerGate SPA [19]. As such, there are contributors here that are the usual GamerGate contributors. I made a "new section" post to the talk page of the "Matress" article (unrelated to GamerGate) to explain an edit I made and ask a question and two regular gamergate editors immediately answered. They had edited there before I believe but not everyone that has chimed in has, I believe. I didn't direct the Matress talk page question at anyone in particular and I suspect the very blatant and pointy use of the name was baiting but of course, that would require a crystal ball. On its face, it's not hardly coincidence. Other regular Matrress editors responded appropriately and noted the decision not to name the accused and highlighted two BLPN noticeboard discussions. Why Bernstein is commenting on my ANI request is unknown as that violates the terms of a GamerGate IBAN (I had requested the IBAN be lifted earlier and hopefully it will be after this ANI shows it's pointless) but it's not unusual to see the same 4 or 5 editors in the same place at the same time. --DHeyward (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Would like to clarify the reason I used the name. I was trying to demonstrate that their was not a contentious statement and thereby not covered by BLPTALK. For this reason I used the phrase (paraphrasing) "It's not contentious that [insert name here] is [insert name here]." While normally I tend to use "the accused" instead of the guys name I dont (as I explained and Aquillion reiterated her) think its a BLP violation. I also thought that "[blank] is [blank]" reads better than "the accused is the accused." Was not trying to bait at all, and am not really sure exactly what it is I'd be trying to bait you into. If anything I've had far more confrontational interactions with Peter while editing than you, so if I had a motive to bait anyone editing the mattress page surely it would be him and not you? Bosstopher (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Break

As others pointed out to you on that page, simply mentioning him on the talk page doesn't seem to violate WP:BLPTALK, which states that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." The fact that he was accused is not controversial and is well-sourced, and I don't see anyone implying more than that there. This doesn't necessarily mean it should be in the article, of course, but I don't think WP:BLP requires censoring it on the talk page. In the talk page where this was discussed, I notice that you mentioned, by way of comparison, "If GamerGate BLPTALK rules are applied...", which I assume is what's confusing you here; the issue that led to so many talk-page redactions that case wasn't just that names shouldn't be mentioned, it was that people were posting accusations that were both contentious and poorly-sourced. Posting an accused's name in a context that implies guilt when that's not well-sourced wouldn't be allowed; but (provided the accusation itself is well-sourced to BLP-quality sources) simply mentioning their name in talk isn't generally a problem as long as you're cautious not to make poorly-sourced accusations. Notice that all of the policies you cite there are cautiously worded, encouraging us to think carefully about when and where to use names, but not placing universal bans on their use; given that, and given that censoring someone else's comments is generally considered a pretty big deal, I think you overstepped somewhat in removing the name repeatedly. Also notice that the talk page guidelines explicitly state that "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but its best to get their permission and normally you should stop if there is any objection"; you should definitely have stopped removing it after one revert. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What seems to be confusing you is BLP applies everywhere. BLPTALK allows links for the limited purposes of discussion for adding content (GamerGate articles don't even allow that, regardless of quality, if the content contains anything that wouldn't be allowed in an article on WP). All of BLP still applies including WP:NPF, WP:CRIME (please read them and apply them to talk pages). If the name were being used as proposals for content, it's fine. If it's being used to gratuitously connect him to an accusation of a crime (this case), it's not allowed. We don't just repeat accusations on talk or article space, regardless of sourcing, because BLP applies everywhere, all the time. --DHeyward (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You kind of leave out the fact that what the GGC page doesnt allow is a re-re-re-re-re-re-hashing of claims that have been established as FALSE by every reliable sources of the highest quality from the point of time they were first made. Very different circumstances. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Not at all different. The charge that the accused committed rape is false as far as wikipedia policy and the law go. He is innocent as far as writing about him here is concerned. Writing about him here only serves one puprose: to keep those allegations alive because he is not known outside those allegations. As an example, there are plenty of published and reliable sources that go into details concerning Quinn. We don't write about them and it isn't because there are no sources. We make a choice that BLP policy does not allow us to write about her sex life. Likewise, BLP policy does not let us explore unproven allegations against the person here as was apparent in both BLPN discussions and the talk page. What did you think was different or do you think this is about "The Truth(tm)?" --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Again -- just to illustrate the general concept at issue here -- suppose Ozymandias is a living person, and a sculptor has created a statue of him. In an interview about the work, the sculptor refers to her effort to capture his "frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command." Numerous commentators agree that she had well those passions read.

Now, a sneering visage is not a crime but it's generally considered uncomplimentary; it's also now the crux of the notable work of art and of its reception. We could find ourselves in the awkward position of naming the subject if the artist accused him of regrettable traits that are not crimes -- being a cad, being a brute, being a vampire, being a Republican -- but not if she accused him of a crime until and unless the charges are proven, and even if the crime -- revealing secret surveillance, disturbing the peace, resisting arrest -- is considered by some excusable, or justified, or even commendable (cf. Thoreau, Civil Disobedience). What would we do if the allegation concerned something which is culpable but frequently not prosecuted, such as striking someone (for which see Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol)? Again, we risk stumbling into a result which is both ridiculous and, given the press attention Wikipedia's missteps on gender are receiving, likely to be ridiculed. I don't know the answer, but I'm confident it's not obvious. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like "The Zoepost". We could critique it in detail as art. Talk about "Ethics" it brings up. Ignore the vile accusations in the name of covering what the artist/author wanted us to cover. But....let's not. Let's agree that there are aspects of accusation, even in art and literature, that go beyond simple description and venture into defamatory and salacious details that are not necessary to expose in order to highlight the social issues. As an example, "Roe v. Wade" was anonymous with profound impact in society. Is Roe's current view, even if passionate and personal, relevant to the social impact of the case or can we write about it without ever knowing who she was? The art in this case is passionate and socially relevant. It is a notable work with influence. But in the end, that art and its influence doesn't hang on the balance of the accusation. So far, he is innocent of the accusation. In your example, the case would be that the artist accurately captured a "frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command" but we would not say the artist captured "Ozymandias' frown and wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command" especially when reliable sources commented on it before the subject was even known and Ozymandias was not known to anyone outside the artists small circle (i.e. what is Mona Lisa smiling about?). In her Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, she notes that both actors consented to the acts they portrayed. One actor even portrays what is arguably a rape by a rapist. Does it matter who it is or how convincing his portrayal is or do we accept the fact that he is not a rapist because an authority said he is not? The argument is that he is an actor, therefore it was an act, and consensual, not a rape - case closed. The irony and similarity is not lost on the accuser, whence the name of the piece and the disclaimer. Irony does not mean we are held to different standards after such findings, though. Neither the actor nor the accused can be called "rapists" in Wikipedia and insinuating as much misses the foundation of our BLP policy and fundamental "innocent until proven guilty." The accused is not a public figures that had a life notable outside the one-dimensional accusation of rape - it now defines him. We give extreme deference to such individuals but also without condemning their accuser. Consider another case where a woman is raped by "John Doe" and testifies as such at trial. He is convicted but 20 years later is released on DNA evidence that overwhelmingly supports his innocence. Does that have any impact on whether the woman was raped? Nope. Does it mean she perjured herself at trial? Nope. Does it mean the man is innocent of rape? Yes. These seemingly contradictory statements must be portrayed on Wikipedia. We do not have to pick a side and we should not try to sway favor in any direction. Above all we should fairly present people, especially non-public figures that are only defined in the public's eye by the accuser, in a non-negative light abdsent a conviction. In this case, the only fair way to present the very notable and multi-dimensional art and artist, is to portray the accused anonymously. There is no way to fairly mention him only in the context of whether he did or did not commit rape. It is not up to the reader to do this, it is up to Wikipedia editors to not make Wikipedia the vehicle for such judgements. The art is notable, the act of rape, whether true or not is not notable in and of itself. The art is reflection of the experience of the artist and not something we can use to neutrally portray the accused.--DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this

1. a complaint about differences in applying BLP?
2. a SPA investigation against User:PeterTheFourth?
3. a proxy fight for Gamergate issues?

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a rant. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for participating! I'm sure you thought your comment was helpful. --DHeyward (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an ANI complaint for edit warring a BLP violation into a specific article talk page and continuing to edit war that BLP violation after the talk page discussion and the two BLPN noticeboard discussions decided BLP applied and the accused should not be named. Three reversions on the talk page, two violation on my talk page and a violation here (and reversion). BLP didn't change. All the other stuff is evidence of PtF being WP:NOTHERE. --DHeyward (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick question- are you referring to different BLPN discussions than these two? Because the consensus on both of these is that it's fine to mention them on talk, but might be iffy including it in the article without provisos to ensure that he's properly represented. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like DHeyward's BLP issues has been asked and answered. More than once. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Rocky, I answered it above. No, they have no consensus to add them because the constraints cannot be met. It was listed for you here at the artcile talk page. [20] as to the results from a long time editor of the article. It's why the name no longer exists on hte talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So (assuming DHeyward's assertion about consensus is correct) there's no consensus, and DHeyward is insisting on his interpretation of BLP (and he's edit warring in the process). Rather than working on consensus. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No rocky, there is no consensus to add the names in BLPN (as PeterTheFourth claimed) and they placed a large hurdle for BLP at both hearings. The conclusion is that the hurdle can't be met and it is a BLP violation to add it. It's laid out for you by another editor, not me. Have a go at "reading." [21]. In any case, that hurdle prevents using the name except for cases where it's being proposed for addition to the article. That's the purpose of talk pages and it's why the name isn't found in the article or talk page today. --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What I don't see is a consensus to support DHeyward's refactoring. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no edit war on PeterTheFourth's part, if there's no BLP violation. The evidence looks like 1 2 looks like the consensus was there isn't a BLP violation. Which means by going against consensus, DHeyward was the one doing contentious editing. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• As a matter of interest, why have Gamergate editors arrived at Mattress Performance? DHeyward, I was thinking of asking you this on your talk page, but may as well ask here. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I presumed they followed me. I didn't edit or comment or revert anything. I came from reviewing legal terms and seeing the incorrect redirect from "reasonable suspicion" to "probable cause." I didn't even know they edited the page before. I certainly didn't ping them or edit anything controversial. --DHeyward (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at ANI for other reasons. I saw familiar names and was wondering what that all was about. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• DHeyward, I was thinking specifically of you. You were involved in Gamergate and now you're there. It's a concern if those problems are to be transferred somewhere else. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Whoa, back up the train. I was not a party to GamerGate and I am rarely an editor there. I have one sanction and that's an IBAN with MarkBernstein but he hasn't edited "mattress". I have not brought gamerGate to mattress. Far from it. PTF edited the mattress talk page 9 minutes after I did. I don't know when he edited it before. Certainly not anything that I commented on or did anything with. I've been here 10 years and have varied interests and articles. I can't stop people from following me. PTF is a gamergate SPA though. his edit history shows it as WP:DUCK.--DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is my first edit to the talk page, and this is my first edit to the article. I don't believe either of them were 9 minutes after any of your contributions. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You can use Editor Interaction Analyzer to figure it out, DHeyward isn't wrong you did edit it once 9 minutes after he did, but it looks like PeterTheFourth started editing there first, so they did not follow DHeyward into the topic. Also, I generally think the name should of the accused should be avoided, on the principle of do-no-harm, but that is not policy and as others have noted the name is available from reliable sources (quick google search shows it in The Guardian, Washington Post, and the National Post.) Strongjam (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• DHeyward, you've made 244 edits to Talk:Gamergate controversy, which seems fairly involved. [22] The problem is that we have (I believe) three women on the Mattress talk page and c. 15 men, plus assorted IPs. As a result there has been a locker-room atmosphere at times. Opinion doesn't divide entirely along gender lines, but mostly. Add Gamergate (or even a perception of it) and the number of women will either decline or at least not increase. I would really like to try to avoid that.

I agree with you about the accused's name, by the way, but the name is widely known, so it's not an outing or anything urgent. But I agree that posting it is best avoided. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's not my intention to drive anyone away. I brought the problem here so it's not on that talk page. My edits to GG talk put me below PtF and I had a 3 month head start in september of last years. there are a myriad of articles they edit as well that are gamergate related that I don't touch including the men's rights nonsense. My only questions was about the BLP and I posted a notice about my edit. --DHeyward (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't think it was useful to throw the name into the debate, though. or onto my talk page. I objected to the pointiness of that, but brought it here for resolution. I didn't ask for oversight, just why we were naming him. It is in lots of sources including his lawsuit but, as you said, it's best avoided because it is shaky BLP grounds to portray such a one-dimensional aspect of a living person that isn't notable outside the topic. --DHeyward (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Long time editor reports SPA for clear BLP violations and SV shows up to - question the motives of the long time editor - my my. This certainly narrows the list of potential sockmasters. - 46.28.50.100 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor here, this item just caught my eye because I'm getting a bit concerned about lack of care taken with BLPs. I only know about this incident what I've been able to glean from a quick read of the article and an even quicker skim of the talk page and this report. My thoughts on this matter are:
- BLP applies to all living persons, therefore it also applies to Sulkowicz. That means editors must not state that the complaint was false until it is actually proven false - not just "not responsible". Suggest "disputed", or at the very most, "unsubstantiated".
- What about this incident makes it more notable than all the other alleged rapes that are reported every day? If it's just the performance art piece, then write the article about the art piece and prune all the extraneous 'he said, she said' from it as it is of no lasting importance to the art world.
- Court cases appear to still be ongoing, so perhaps editors should wait until there's an actual judicial finding.
- What encyclopaedic purpose does it serve to name the alleged rapist? If in doubt - don't. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveosaurus, thanks for making those points. In fact there are five people to whom BLP applies: the accused and four people who say they were assaulted: Sulkowicz, two other women and a man. We have editors saying or implying that the last four are lying, and that Sulkowicz may have broken the law by filing a false police complaint. In addition, there has been a locker-room atmosphere on talk guaranteed to drive most women (and not only women) away. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I am not subtle and don't pick up much on atmosphere; what I think that article needs is substantial application of the proverbial blue pencil to prune it down to something worthy of being in an encyclopaedia. I don't think it's actually a BLP violation to name the alleged rapist (his name appears in reliable sources); it's just unnecessary (and also unnecessary is the edit-warring over it). The most egregious BLP violation I see on the page is against Sulkowicz, in the repetition of a borderline defamatory claim from an anonymously published source. I also see BLP violations against Sulkowicz in this discussion, here [23] (flat-out stating that the allegation was false) and here [24] (apparently satirical, but a statement such as that in this context is so outright offensive that it really shouldn't have been made, even as satire). Daveosaurus (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveosaurus This edit you highlighted never mentions Sulkowicz and is in the context of Wikipedia (read it again). It is a restatement of "Innocent until proven guilty." If you look at my other examples, wikipedia is not in the business of deciding one story over another. Even if they appear to you to be contradictory, they are not. We write the encyclopedia as if the charges are not true for edits related to the accused and we state what the accuser has said accurately and without judgement. My example to Bernstein about the "exonerated by DNA convicted rapist" is apropos: we don't treat the victim as if she is a liar or perjurer and we don't treat the exonerated rapist as a convict. That dichotomy must exist and your insertion of Sulkowicz into my statement does not accurately reflect what I said as I never mentioned her. We do write about the accused as if he is innocent. That's BLP and if you follow the current discussions on the talk page you will see I am consistent. --DHeyward (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I've just double checked to make sure I used the right diff. The exact words I took issue with were "The charge that the accused committed rape is false". That is not so. The charge is unproven, possibly even unsubstantiated, but to describe it as "false" is a BLP violation of the person who made the allegation, who is named throughout the article, until such time as the person who made it is actually found to have made a false allegation. "Innocent until proven guilty" works both ways. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveosaurus you shortened my quote again. In its entirety, "The charge that the accused committed rape is false as far as wikipedia policy and the law go". You missed the entire qualifying point which dictates how we write. When we write about the accused, he is innocent - we are not discussing the person who is making the accusation. This is very important and fundamental to WP:BLPCRIME and the U.S. legal system. A person is innocent of rape until proven guilty, not "unproven rapist until proven guilty" or "unsubstantiated rapist" (both would be BLP violations if written that way). You seem to be claiming that this is related to the person making the charge (whom I didn't mention) and that it casts doubt on their veracity. It does not. They are separate accounts of the same event and we don't take sides. One of the reasons we don't mention criminal accusations for WP:NPF is precisely to avoid this confusion but it doesn't alleviate us of two things: presumption of innocence of the accused and accurate recounting of the statement by the complainant. They can be contradictory. They cannot cross over each other to violate BLP. --DHeyward (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC) The relevant policy in BLPCRIME is "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." --DHeyward (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I cannot see any reason to name the target of this accusation (who is not notable for any other reason), let alone to continually re-add the name when others rightly point out that it has no place in the article. DHeyward was right to refactor it and PeterTheFourth ought to at the very least be warned against future BLP violations of this sort. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Also completely uninvolved, and I agree with the two statements above.

I would add: these days, at least in the US, there is often a media climate around rape cases of "guilty unless proved innocent," rather than "innocent until proven guilty." Alleged victims cannot be named, while alleged perpetrators are frequently named. Now, for the record, so that PtF doesn't get the wrong idea: I don't, for even a minute, (a) suggest that such an approach is entirely unjustified, nor (b) that alleged perpetrators aren't frequently guilty. But that setup does give a person an opportunity to accuse a person on page one, ruining the perpetrator's life; if a charge proves unfounded, the reporting of that goes to the "back pages," and the perpetrator's life is still ruined. But such machinations are for the news media, not for an encyclopedia.

For that reason alone, an encyclopedia like this needs to make no assumptions whatsoever on anything until jurisprudence is finished. And that means no names for now.

If you don't like that, PtF, go to Wikinews. It is, in principle, a media outlet, and may have different rules on such issues. I don't know. But you just can't do this here. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes! all of those professional victims - everywhere! If one believed even a tenth of them, why this would be a Rape Culture we are living in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand in what context I was using the accused's name, StevenJ81. I was never advocating for its use in the article. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for not yelling, and not being sarcastic, like the previous poster. I really didn't deserve that.

No, I understand you're mainly talking about the talk page. But really, there is no reason you can't use substitute terminology (like "the accused") even on the talk page. I even appreciate that it's not rocket science to figure out who "the accused" (or "the alleged perpetrator" or whatever terminology you want to use) is, even if you know nothing about the case prior. But IMO, there is nothing gained from actually using the name, other than the relief of awkward verbiage/sentence construction. And there are many good reasons to hold off on using the name, for any reason, until the judicial process has run its course. Once the judicial process has run its course, either (a) he's guilty, his name will be out there, and he will have to live with it, or (b) he's not guilty, and deserves his privacy and reputation intact. That will all be soon enough. No need to rush now. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern and the attitude of staying cautious. In other situations, I would agree with not using the name of an alleged criminal in any context. However, I think that when the accused gives interviews and readily identifies as that person to media, it becomes absurd to insist on 'he who must not be named'-esque redactions of that name when discussing him- which is what DHeyward was edit warring to enact. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

[User:PeterTheFourth], let's be clear. In your accusation of "edit warring", I made one (1) revert (please provide diffs of more reverts if you continue the accusation). Then I came here. Two different editors either made modifications or completed the redaction on the talk page based on consensus. You deliberately reverted three times on that page to restore the BLP violation and repeated it twice on my talk page after being asked to stop. My one revert has been backed by consensus is hardly edit warring and we are here precisely because I wasn't going to edit war on an article talk page - as it stands, your comments on the article talk page are redacted but not by me. --DHeyward (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter, thank you for speaking civilly. DHeyward, keep cool. I'll respond, then I won't have more to say. Peter, the most I could say about your comment two points up is that if I happened upon that talk page, and nobody were fighting, I might not bother trying to invoke a BLP violation and redaction a priori. (Not sure, actually, but might not.) After all, as you say, the accused has gone public. That having been said, my practice, both here and in my personal (real) life, is not to use names in a situation like that. If I had written it myself, I would personally have He who must not be named it. And if anyone (like DHeyward) chooses to invoke BLP and redaction in this situation, they are really entirely justified in doing so, all the more so because they have CONSENSUS on their side. Even if there is a little space to think about leniency in a case like this, I think it's very bad precedent to do so. It's far better to err on the other side. So I'd really like to urge you to leave the name out and move on. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The BLP aspect is a bit overblown (the info is public in multiple RS's) but PeterTheFourth's edit warring was quite inappropriate and there's no obvious encyclopedic upside to including the person's name on the talk page. So it's better to just defer to people's sensibilities and leave it out, instead of wp:battling over whether it's permissible to keep it in. Re SlimVirgin's complaint of a locker-room atmosphere on the talkpage, I do see some crappy attempts to litigate the disputed facts there, but it's mostly from other editors than PeterTheFourth. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What is required to include the name as per BobMeowCat's section? What would be wrong about adding it? Why would it be important to add it rather than leave it out? Has the use of the name on TP involved oversightable claims? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As someone who's pushed to use the guy's name from the getgo, the reason is that these discussions become interminably confusing when people try—and fail, since Wikipedia seems to want to pretend that any reliable sources are doing the same—to shove the genie back into the lamp. Anyone coming to that talkpage for the first time will be lucky not to have their faces melted off from the horrific circumlocutions, which aside from the purely atrocious reading by themselves also make it far more difficult than necessary to get anything done because it's extremely hard to figure out who the hell people are talking about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"The accused" is hardly difficult to figure out whom is being discussed. WP:BLPCRIME is pretty easy to understand especially if the person is notable for only one event. In 5 years when nobody remembers, let's not have an article that immortalizes an unproven allegation. It's the whole point of not using WP as a weapon to smear people. To the extent we have to mention the accusation, we do so but it doesn't require a name any more than her movie requires a credit for the male actor. But we're not talking about the use of the name for the article, this particular instance is naming a rape suspect gratuitously in talk pages for the sole purpose of defaming him and naming him as much as possible. Edit warring his name back into the talk page against consensus and against BLPN disussions and against BLPCRIME policy. --DHeyward (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly was the consensus that using his name violated anything? The last BLPN discussion I saw, and indeed participated in, specifically concluded it was not a BLP violation to use his name in the article if it gives the correct context. I'd also be wary of making assumptions about what I personally think of the case, I deliberately haven't broadcast those thoughts and I suspect people wouuld be surprised. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion in the PSR of Albania

The article affected was: People's Socialist Republic of Albania

Recently, there has been an edit war in this article. The reason was a dispute between what should appear in the country's infobox entry on religion. I think that it should appear, as it has done until a week ago, Religion: None (State atheism). However, there is another user, User:Guy Macon, that thinks that the religion entry should be removed. The consensus they base their edits upon is one reached in Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. Since the PSR of Albania was not an individual, I don't think that resolution applies here, since a person's view on religion is very different from a country's official position on it. To begin with, it is important that the PSR of Albania was state atheist. The infobox should reflect that. How? I think the best way was the former one. I am concerned that if the entry on religion is removed, people won't know if it was state atheist, or just that we forgot to add that information, or maybe that we just don't know.

--WBritten (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

From the closing admin (Guy) -- no relation other than us both having really cool names:

"The result is unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for "none", "atheist", "secular" and variants thereof - i.e. those who either do not identify as religious, or who explicitly identify as non-religious. In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case."[25] (some emphasis added, some is in the original).

"In any article" seems pretty clear to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think that it should be stated in the infobox that Albania was state atheist. It's a relevant fact. WBritten (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the official Albanian state hobby "Not Collecting Stamps"? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about the PSR of Albania, which stopped existing in 1992. In their constitution it was stated that Albania had no official religion. It later pursued state atheist policies, and mosques, churches, and synagogues were used as schools, gymnasiums, libraries... This is why I think that the infobox was right. It said that the PSR of Albania had no official religion (Religion:None), and at the same time added that state atheism was enforced. Nowhere in the infobox it was stated that atheism was the official religion (because it is not a religion, to begin with). WBritten (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Was the official Albanian state hobby "Not Collecting Stamps"? Genuine question. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The PSR of Albania had no official state hobby. --WBritten (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

By the same token, it had no official state religion. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 11:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic of Iran (for example) has no official state hobby, but does have an official state religion.--WBritten (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the actual answer here, and the "Not Collecting Stamps" thing is a valid point. But surely the question should be whether Albania simply had no official religion or whether it was officially atheist, and those are two very different positions (the former is equivalent to not collecting stamps, but the latter would be the equivalent of antiphilatelism). I don't know the answer, but that seems to me to be the question. Mr Potto (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For me, "not collecting stamps" as a state hobby would be like having "Not Sikh" as a state religion. It does not work for me because it's too specific. Okay, if you don't mind me doing a thought experiment, what if PSR Albania did not allow stamp collecting, but modern Albania did? What if PSR Albania did not allow its citizens to have any hobby? I think that that is different that not having a specific hobby as state hobby. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. But the reason I am so persistent is because the PSR of Albania was officially state atheist. That's why that was reflected in the infobox in the first place. It wasn't simply a non-denominational country, it was an atheist state, and actively fought against religious institutions. WBritten (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not see that the results of the RfC, which focussed explicitly on articles about individual persons, have any direct and automatic applicability on the article on a state. There are no doubt very good reasons for generally omitting that parameter on most individual people, just as there are no doubt good arguments for omitting it on many states. However, whether or not the well-known policies of socialist Albania, which were not merely non-religious but quite explicitly anti-religious, are notable and salient enough as a character trait of that state to justify inclusion in the box, is a matter of editorial decision that ought to be decided through open discussion on the talkpage. I notice that there actually has been some reasonable talk there. There definitely can't be any justification for the type of edit-warring that has been going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"State atheism" is a very nebulous concept and doesn't belong in the infobox. The German Democratic Republic was officially atheist, and one might find citation that say that atheism was enforced by the State. The truth is somewhat different: Religious people were not admitted to the leading party (SED), were not promoted in their jobs, if they got a good job outside the churches. On the other side, both Catholic and Lutheran churches remained open, some people (about 1 or 2 % of the population) went there to celebrate the Mass, and church dignitaries were used in inofficial diplomatic negotiations as intermediaries. Under the circumstances, it is better to remove the parameter from the infobox, cease the edit war, discuss what exactly happened at the time in Albania (a content dispute, possibly) and then re-evaluate the facts according to the closing statement of the RfC: "...In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case..." (which extends the validity of the closure to states and countries, stating a good reason) and "Another issue is noted: those who prominently self-identify as having a philosophical position on religion, but one which implicitly or explicitly rejects faith. In these cases in my view it may be legitimate to mention secularism or atheism as a philosophy, and that would have qualified support according to the debate, but it is clear that they are not religions and it is both confusing and technically incorrect to label them as such." The question is then "Did the PSR Albania introduce a religious system to be used to oppress the previous existing religions, or did they State maintain a philosophical/sociological position to reject religion officially? If it was the former, the name of the new (pseudo-)religion could be mentioned, if it was the latter, the closure of the Rfc sustains omitting the parameter. Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why state atheism doesn't belong in the infobox. It needs to be there so people know two things: 1) That the PSR of Albania had no official religion (like many countries today), and 2) That state atheism was enforced. If you want the facts, state atheism was actively pursued especially during the Cultural and Ideological Revolution of 1967. I think that if we remove the parameter from the infobox, readers of that article won't know that the PSR of Albania was state atheist, and may be think that it was just like any other country, or even that we don't know what its official religion was. The position of the PSR of Albania was not only philosophical/sociological. It was a political position. That's why I think it should be included. Maybe we could have an alternate parameter in the infobox, like "Stance on religion: state atheist" or something along those lines. I still think that in no way did the former infobox claim that atheism was a religion, and I'd bet that most readers of that article understood that the official stance on religion of the PSR of Albania was state atheism. It was not a new religion, it was not a pseudo-religion. It was a state policy, proclaimed and actively pursued by the government. --WBritten (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., as far as I can tell, your opinion on the content dispute (or mine, or WBritten's, or Kraxler's, etc. ) is completely irrelevant, especially considering that ANI is supposed to deal with user behavior, not article content disputes. This content dispute has been settled already. I posted an RfC. I asked for and got an uninvolved and experienced administrator to write a closing summary and close the RfC. I specifically asked the closing admin to specify whether I needed to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox), and was told that there was no need to do that, and that the RfC applies to all articles. I believe that I did everything correctly.

On a related note, I just got the following notice on my talk page:[26] I have never edited the Balkans page itself, so I assume that this concerns People's Socialist Republic of Albania. If so, could we please post a notice on that article's talk page? I generally limit myself to 1RR and to uncontroversial edits on articles with discretionary sanctions, but I was not aware that People's Socialist Republic of Albania was under DS.

As long as the can of worms is open and we are discussing the article content dispute, here is how I think religion on pages about countries should be approached. I think it should be treated the way we treat it at England#Religion. That page gives the reader a true understanding of the religion in that geographic area in a way that no one-line infobox entry every could. Would the encyclopedia be improved if we listed "Religion = Anglicanism" in the infobox at England to match the body of the article, which says "The established church of the realm is Anglicanism"? I think not.

BTW, in case anyone missed the main point, Atheism (including state atheism) is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

Also, for those who REALLY don't get the point, putting X after the "Religion =" in an infobox is claiming that X is a religion. Atheism (including state atheism) is not a religion. Trying to get around it by saying "Religion = None (X)" does not change this. That was the clear consensus from the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is what the admins ruled, I'll have to comply. However, I think that "Religion:None (state atheism)" did make it clear. If the consensus is to remove it, so be it. But, since it's an important fact (for this and many other state atheist countries), what do you think about including an alternative parameter in the infobox, like "Stance on religion: state atheist"? WBritten (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is not what infoboxes are for. Anything that cannot be completely and uncontroversially summarized in a word or two should be in the article and not the infobox. I realize that you believe that anything important should be in the infobox, but this has come up again and again rewarding a wide number of parameters and the community has always decided that the standard for inclusion in an infobox is not importance, but rather lack of needed explanation and lack of subtle details. Things like birth dates, college degrees, maiden name, etc.

Getting back to the point, you have reported me at ANI. Please present evidence that I have misbehaved or withdraw your ANI report. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any controversy about this. The old infobox presented information in a neutral way. I don't think the consensus reached can't be applied here, since state atheism is important enough to be highlighted in the infobox. You misbehaved by removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WBritten (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I behaved entirely properly. I posted an RfC, waited for an admin to close it, and followed the instructions in the closing statements.

Regarding Future Perfect's accusation of edit warring, here is a timeline.

• April 2007 Article created with "religion = declared atheist state" in the infobox.
• December 2012 changed to "religion = None (State atheism)"
• 04:25, 02 June 2015 Guy Macon removes the religion entry.[27]
• 05:16, 02 June 2015 124.148.222.41 reverts[28] 1RR
• 09:14, 02 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts[29] 1RR
• 10:17, 02 June 2015 WBritten reverts[30] 1RR
• 17:56, 09 June 2015 RfC closed with closing summary saying it applies to all articles.
• 09:45, 10 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts per result of RfC [31] 1RR
• 22:10, 10 June 2015 WBritten reverts[32] 1RR
• 22:16, 10 June 2015 WBritten posts to Guy Macon's talk page, Guy Macon noves it to article talk.
• 02:31, 11 June 2015 Guy Macon replies on article talk page
• 02:31, 11 June 2015 Guy Macon reverts per result of RfC[33] 2RR
• 09:41, 11 June 2015 WBritten replies on article talk page
• 09:51, 11 June 2015 WBritten posts to ANI

So, nobody went past 2RR. As I mentioned before, if there had been a talk page notice letting me know I was editing an article under discretionary sanctions, I would have limited myself to 1RR as is my standard practice. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd let the DS thing slide but Guy Macon is overgeneralizing the RFC in my opinion. The comparison with England isn't valid since nobody really cares that Anglicanism is England's official religion (people there practice whatever religion they like), unlike PSR Albania that had bloody crackdowns. As JzG put it in the RFC close, there's a difference between someone who self-identified as atheist in an interview, and someone like Richard Dawkins. And the RFC clearly says "This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures." So it's better to have a specific discussion on the PSR Albania talk page about what to put in that article's infobox. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: " And the RFC clearly says 'This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures.' ", your selective quoting is deceptive. In the praragrahps that you had to have read before reaching the part you selectively quoted, the same RfC clearly says...

"NOTE TO CLOSING ADMINISTRATOR: The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox) would be very helpful."

and the closing administrator responded by answering that question with...

"In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc."

...and...

"Religion=none would almost certainly be wrong, in any article on Wikipedia."

I have now exhausted my supply of WP:AGF on this issue. I could accept the first two or three times as honest errors, but from here on, if anyone claims that they read the RfC and that it claims to only apply to individuals, I am going to assume that the "mistake" is deliberate and that the person making the "mistake" made it on purpose. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, but I take that part of the close to be advisory at most, since it addressed an issue that explicitly wasn't part of the RFC. Just use some common sense instead of campaigning for encyclopedia-wide diktats about anything. Does JzG want to comment? 50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you said in the "Note to closing admin" on 6 May 2015 " The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox) would be very helpful" , which to me indicated that it was undetermined about entities other than BLP subjects, but you personally thought there were grounds for omitting it, and that another RfC would be needed to settle the matter: I'm not going to get involved further here, but I think the only way of settling this would be the other rfc you suggested. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If this is just about PSR Albania, then the best way to settle that is on the article talk page, maybe with an RFC there. Reasonable uninvolved analysis on a specific article page is almost always more convincing than running an abstract RFC and scraping its limited quantum of consensus across 1000's of articles whose issues can vary considerably. (Note: I'm about to take off and might not be able to edit again til next week). 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone can give me a policy-based reason to do otherwise, I intend to continue removing the religion parameter from all articles where the region is listed as "none", "atheist", "secular" and variants thereof, including our article on the PSR of Albania.

If someone posts an RfC asking about the religion entry on the infobox on the PSR of Albania article or asking about the religion entry on the infobox on articles about countries in general I will delay my removals pending the outcome of that RfC. I am not going to post such an RfC myself. I asked if I needed to do so and got my answer. Anyone who disagrees with that answer can take it up with the closing admin. Anyone who wants me to do other than what the closing instructions tell me to do can pound sand, because I refuse to do that.

And unless some admin wants to explain to me exactly how I allegedly misbehaved in this matter so we can discuss the specifics, this should be closed as a content dispute (a content dispute that was settled by RfC, to be specific) and thus inappropriate for ANI. I did nothing wrong, and WBritten did nothing wrong. There is nothing for ANI to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to JzG, who is generally a highly competent admin, in this aspect of his closure he simply made a mistake. The RfC was not only initially posted as affecting only individual people, it remained exclusively focussed on them right to the end. You, Guy Macon, brought up the additional question of states and organizations only in the very final state of the RfC, when everybody else had had their say, and there were only a handful of additional comments and !votes trickling in between that date and the date of the closure, none of which (as far as I can see) addressed this issue. Therefore, there is no way this RfC could be reasonably claimed to have established consensus for this aspect of the issue – it simply wasn't discussed in it. I have no problem if you want to proceed on the default assumption that removal of the parameter from other articles will be consensual, but I strongly warn you against taking this closure as a license for edit-warring if you should encounter reasoned objections or local consensus on individual articles. Even a perfectly valid RfC consensus would not be a license for edit-warring; much less a dubious consensus such as this. You did edit-war on the Albania page (4 removals in the space of a few days is edit-warring whichever way you look at it, no matter if you did or didn't cross the bright line of 3RR); don't do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You think that reverting once, spending a full week in discussion and attempts to get an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and settle the content dispute, getting the RfC close, implementing the consensus as defined in the closing statements of the RfC, then reverting once is ... edit warring? And you are warning me not to do it again? I would like to request a second opinion from another, uninvolved administrator regarding whether I am guilty of edit warring.

I also find this[34][35][36][37] to be troubling. So far I have had five people make the same mistake, and (other than you), they all thanked me and accepted the consensus once I pointed out that they had missed the first paragraph of the closing summary. The Wikipedia community has accepted my removal of the religion parameter from over 600 articles (exactly one is still being discussed). It is time that you do so as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I will tell you that it is fairly common practice for individuals who post giant font bold ALL caps messages with exclamation marks at the top of an RFC to be reverted. Do you really need bold, large font, all caps and exclamation marks? Do you think it makes it easier for people to read? Chillum 13:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea was to make it easier to notice. It was intended for readers like the five people who somehow didn't manage to notice the very first paragraph of the closing summary but instead read the title and stopped reading there. That being said, the fact that a single person has expressed the opinion that they don't like the formatting is reason enough for me not to do it that way.

So, does anyone here support the accusation of edit warring for me reverting once, spending a full week in discussion and attempts to get an uninvolved admin to close the RfC and settle the content dispute, getting the RfC close, implementing the consensus as defined in the closing statements of the RfC, then reverting once? I take administrative warnings very seriously, but as far as I can tell the only possible way to obey this one is to never exceed 1RR and/or to never post an RfC and then act on the consensus from that RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about edit warring per se, but this begins to look like battleground editing and an effort to right great wrongs. I agree with FPAS that you are overstating the scope of that RFC. The part of the close you're trying to rely on simply is not backed by the comments of the RFC partipants, since the RFC itself explicitly excluded every type of article except BLP's. JzG basically added his own view about other types of articles, but I think he is wise enough to know that he can't impute that view to the other commenters. It's reasonable to make a BOLD edit to PSR Albania completely independently of the RFC, but as FutPerf says, you can't use the RFC to backstop an edit war over it. It's subject to reversion followed by discussion on the talk page just like any other content edit. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there was no edit warring on either side. That was and is a false accusation. As long as fut.perf. does not attempt to act on that warning, I am not going to "try to right great wrongs" and insist that another admin tell him that (thus causing unneeded friction between them), but you won't see any other admin supporting the accusation any time soon, because the facts don't support it.

Secondly, what you are suggesting above is that editors analyze RfC closing statements by uninvolved administrators, and if they decide that the admin was wrong, act as if the content dispute was not, in fact, settled by RfC. That may seem like an inviting prospect when you are on the losing end of the RfC and it is you who thinks the admin got it wrong, but I assure you that you would not be happy if both sides were allowed to do that any time there is an intractable content dispute. When an uninvolved administrator closes an RfC and writes up a closing summary, that is, by definition, the consensus. And local consensus on an article talk page cannot override the global consensus of the RfC. See WP:LOCALCON.

Of course admins do make mistakes, and you do have options if you think the admin made a mistake in this case. They are:

• Post a more specific RfC on the same page as the existing RfC that covers the exact situation that you are claiming the closer was wrong about the first RfC covering. More specific RfCs override more general RfCs. I would note that the closing admin himself suggested this as an option for you in his closing summary.
• Ask the closing admin to reconsider on his talk page. This is a required first step if you are claiming that the admin made a mistake in an AN or ANI filing.
• Post a request at WP:AN asking if any other uninvolved admin is willing to vacate the closing and replace the closing summary.
• File a case with the arbitration committee.

What you are not allowed to do is to behave as if there isn't a global consensus or that the consensus is anything other than what the closing admin, right or wrong, said it is. Sometimes Wikipedia has content disputes. I regularly mediate them in my role as a WP:DRN volunteer mediator. Sometimes agreement cannot be reached on the talk page, at DRN, or anywhere else. We need some way of settling these disputes, and that way is the RfC. We don't want the disputants arguing about what the result of a hundred or so RfC comments mean, so we ask experienced and uninvolved administrators to close the RfC and make a determination as to where it applies. In this case the determination was that it applies to "all articles". You need to either accept that or dispute it using the steps outlined above.

TLDR: Sometimes Wikipedia has content disputes. Sometimes agreement cannot be reached. We need some way of settling these disputes, and that way is an RfC closed by an uninvolved administrator. This settles the dispute. We do not continue arguing about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was pretty clear for natural persons, and equally so for non-natural persons such as companies, according to examples provided. It did not address states. If I may quote:

In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter in regard to secular / atheist philosophy in in any article, because the arguments would be identical in each case.

I can't think of a way of clarifying this. Anyone taking that as explicit support for a change in respect of countries, is going well beyond the intent or the letter, it pretty obviously applies only to the examples actually discussed and would immediately be void if (a) someone did provide an obvious reason or (b) a second RfC was started. Either of those outcomes is fine by me. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have posted an RfC at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

I did ask specifically for "additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc.",[38] so I assumed that "etc." and "in any article on Wikipedia" included nations. Again, thanks for clarifying that it does not and that we need an RfC to assess community consensus. Of course all article edits by me concerning religion in infoboxes of nations have stopped pending the result of the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone may be impersonating me

User Michael thomas 89 has contacted me about being approached off wiki be someone claiming to be me. He said that the person had claimed to have checked their declined draft article Draft:New_Net_Technologies and directed him to my user page “I am a Wikipedian with high privileges, check my user page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarahj2107 ” . The person then offered to rewrite the article and get it approved.

Michael thomas 89 claims that they took the person up on their initial offer and the page was published. The person then demanded $300, said they had requested the page be deleted and it would only be reinstated when the money was paid. He didn’t think that was right so he then contacted me on my talk page and forwarded some more details to me via email.

New Net Technologies Ltd was created by blocked user user:Coralbatch on 22 May 2015 (the same day as the first email sent to Michael thomas 89), only edit by them and then deleted on 10 June by Guerillero under WP:CSD#G5.

I would really appreciate some help in dealing with this. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you know if he was sent a copy of the article to be approved prior to its use? If so, I would like that emailed to me for further evaluation. It may be possible to tie this in with certain paid editor groups.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, two other sock accounts are in play and should be checkusered against the already blocked editor as well as the one who is conversing with you.

• (draft history) by Neilmacleod (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• (revision history) by ECooke1804 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Michael thomas 89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• (already blocked by Guerillero) Coralbatch (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This may be related to an existing SPI case.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Does this constitute a criminal offense? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this scam has been pulled before (possibly impersonating other admins as well) and just hadn't come to light because the "customers" hadn't followed it up or the articles they paid for did get created and have so far slipped under the radar. It's quite worrying. Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: He was sent a link to User:Coralbatch/sandbox asking him to review the draft and let them know when he is ready for it to be published, along with payment details. I will email you what was sent to me. He is also saying that Neilmacleod is just a customer who created a page when they found there wasn't already one, and Emmacooke is someone from the companies PR department. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been pulled a few times before theres as OTRS ticket[39] about one we dealt with earlier in the week that resulted in a CU block of an account. I wasnt privvy to full details on the reasons behind the block unfortunatley. The blocking admin may be able to endulge other CU's though. Amortias (T)(C) 16:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm I have handled at least two of these through OTRS. The modus operandi I am aware of involves creating an article in mainspace, then contacting a representative of the company and demanding money. If not paid the original author requests deletion via G7. I raised the issue at AN but it never came to anything unfortunately, because it would have required to go fishing with CU at the very least (or there simply wasn't any interest). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm having seen this in relation to another user, though I can't currently find the email I sent them about it. It was very similar (I'll help with your article for a fee, I am this user), and received by a user who came onto IRC rather angered by it. I'll post again if I remember/find out who they were impersonating. Sam Walton (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I've remembered a little more about the case I saw and it was slightly different from this one. A user was contacted about an AfC draft they had started from someone claiming to be an administrator who could accept the article for them for a fee. The user they were impersonating hadn't edited in a while and was neither an admin nor an AfC reviewer. Sam Walton (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That matches the case I dealt with. Amortias (T)(C) 17:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen what I suspect to have been similar, --see [40]. I have heard rumors of many others. I'm not aware of any case where an actual administrator has been doing anything of the sort. (Arb com will of course as always be interested in any admin who does use admin powers to support any article they have written, paid or unpaid) I've alerted WP:LEGAL about this discussion. At the very least, the WMF ought to make public statement that a/nobody has the authority to promise that a WP article will be accepted or will be given a particular quality designation. and b/ that anyone offering to write WP articles without giving full disclosure of that fact on Wikipedia will be in violation of our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

For those with OTRS access and interest in this, #2015040210025176, #2014092910015601, #2014082110017591 , #2014080810016151 and #2014080610021121 should be interesting reading. I know of at least one company in the UK possibly involved with these. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree wih DGG; this kind of thing needs to be escalated as it could be happening on a global scale. I would like to assume that nobody would fall for it, but they must have had a few bites if they keep trying. I don't believe these are "legitimate" paid editors, but are impersonating people because they're scammers out to get credit card numbers. Is there a way to put any kind of overall notice warning people of this? —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DGG was right to notify legal, and they do need to get involved. It's not only an organizational issue, it's also a personal issue which can have unpleasant consequences for the editors who are being impersonated. This impersonation may have affected other editors as well, but it just hasn't come to light. I frankly doubt it's a scam to get credit card information, though. Writing Wikipedia drafts on boring businesses, is not terribly efficient way of doing that. But for people desperate for a bit of cash, it's a fairly quick $300, if you get someone to take the bait. Sarahj2107, did your correspondent say what method of payment the impersonator had asked for? Have any of the other OTRS tickets specified the payment method? Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Voceditenore. Payment details have been sent up the ladder although I'm not sure if they are in an OTRS ticket or not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I dug out the IRC logs from the day the user came in regarding this and have some more details regarding the case I saw. The user had a draft that they had been working on for some time and were contacted by someone claiming to be a particular Wikipedia user. They claimed to be a Wikipedian with "high privileges" who was a "member of Article for Creation review department" - the person they were impersonating had only autopatrolled and reviewer rights and had not reviewed any AfCs. They were told that they "will do online research and rewrite the content in encyclopedic tone and get it approved" and "it will cost you $150 pay me when page approved and published." Sam Walton (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning notices?

• Maybe we could use a template for userpages. Something roughly along the lines of "This user is NOT a paid editor and does not contact or solicit anyone for paid work on Wikipedia. If someone has contacted you claiming to be me, please use this email link or post on my talk page so that we may clarify. Thank you."
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• User page notices can help on the personal level. But we need notices at the organizational level too. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk is the ideal location for scammers to find potential clients. About 75% of the help requests there concern rejected "advertorial" drafts about non-notable companies, their founders, their products, etc. One person actually wrote "I hired a gentleman from India on fiver to create this page and I fear that he has abandoned me... Please help." The draft was indeed created by an IP that traces to India. The IP's first edit produced a remarkably "finished product". It might help to have prominent warning notices on that page as well as on Wikipedia:Articles for creation, Wikipedia:Article wizard, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Voceditenore (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - also think we need a general template message. It reminds me of the old days in the 90s when AOL had all these scams, and they had to put up messages reminding people that no AOL employee is going to contact them and ask to confirm billing information. I also think, even if these people were not all scammers, they're certainly not legitimate businesses. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with this concept. Mdennis (WMF) can you ask WMF Legal to craft a fraud warning about illicit content creation services that could be sent to the possible purchasers of those services? The notice should include an explanation about the proper and transparent ways to have content added to Wikipedia in compliance with our COI requirements. Also, the functionary email lists should be informed, and depending on the scope of this problem, it may also be appropriate to post a watchlist notice and centralnotice. --Pine^✉ 02:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser Results

Here are the results of a fresh checkuser:

• Coralbatch (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to Neil and Michael. Please note that this account appears to be editing through a botnet so checkuser is worthless here. (CU shows that they are connected to Faulkerfod (talk · contribs), who started the page, as well as Cameronag (talk · contribs), JennaelkinsTA (talk · contribs), Jacelegan (talk · contribs).)
• Neilmacleod (talk · contribs) and Michael thomas 89 (talk · contribs) are  Possible but I think they are innocent people who are on the same network.
• ECooke1804 is too old to CU

This behavior truly concerns me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Thanks. My guess is this might be just the tip of a WikiPR-like iceberg, and I think there's more than one group of people or companies involved. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Neil and Michael blocked indef as spam/advertising accounts by JzG.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I received an email from Michael questioning his block. Since he did not receive a block notice, he had no recourse for filing an appeal so I have left a note on his talk page. Although he hasn't filed that request yet, I will state that blocking a whistleblower isn't necessarily in WP's best interests.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He's not a whistleblower, he's a person frustrated in trying to pay for an article on his company. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's true, JzG, but an insta-black for anyone who complains will hardly encourage others to come forward and might make it harder for WP get to the bottom of this or at least learn its true extent. If others in this situation are blocked, they need a clearly worded block notice and an explanation of their options for further communication concerning the problem. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

But he was approached by what he thought was an admin so he thought that he was complying with WP in his actions. See this. He brought it forward after smelling a rat and did the right thing. He has cooperated by sending information via email for the investigation. Sarah and Handpolk have been helping guide him in the right direction and he has only posted material on his talk page to supply sources. It isn't as if he is trying to hide his conflict of interest. I'm not sure that it would hurt if he is allowed to work on the draft.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll chip in that Michael should probably not be blocked, or at the least should have a clear way forward handed to him on a way to get unblocked. It seems likely he felt he was following the rules and got conned by someone. I would like to get a clear statement that he now has read and understood WP:COI (which is not the easiest thing to understand I'll grant you). Hobit (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock Michael thomas 89 per Hobit. He seems like he was primarily ignorant about how articles are created and fell for a scam and now is being blackmailed. Definitely doesn't warrant an indefinite block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have now unblocked User:Michael thomas 89 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Extortion and identity theft

Is anyone following up the extortion (holding articles to "ransom") and identity theft issues, to report them to relevant law enforcement authorities? These are real world crimes, not merely Wiki-offences. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia's legal department has already been alerted by DGG. If anyone has the ability to do that with any authority, they do, but don't expect them to be public about it until something is set. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have had this happen to me (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Fake e-mails). Three editors have contacted me replying to a supposed e-mail that I had sent offering to fix up their pages. I asked one user for the text of the e-mail and it also used the phrase "high privileges", so it is likely the same faker.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:DGG alerted WMF Legal on the 12th, and as of yesterday (five days later), he hadn't even received an acknowledgement. I'm going to ask Maggie Dennis (aka Moonriddengirl) for some input here. Maggie is the Senior Community Advocate at the Wikimedia Foundation. Perhaps she can fill us in as to whether the WMF even considers this within their purview, and if so what advice and help they can give. My own impression is that impersonation of editors for the purposes of committing fraud and extortion is a legal issue. But perhaps WMF doesn't consider it their legal issue. Perhaps they don't care what's going on or have decided to give a very low priority, despite the clear violations of the Terms of Use and damage to Wikipedia's (and thereby the WMF's) reputation Either way, it would be good to know. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the inbox and logs and don't see User:DGG's email anywhere in WMF Legal. :( It may have gotten lost, unless, DGG, you sent it to an individual lawyer or another email than legalwikimedia.org. If you sent it to WMF Legal, can you resend and perhaps cc me at mdenniswikimedia.org? I'll give you an instant confirmation (as soon as I see it) and see what I can run down. If you sent it to an individual attorney or another address, if you let me know who, I'll see what I can do to faciliate! (In terms of it being "their" legal issue, User:Voceditenore, I'm honestly not sure - the ethical requirements for WMF attorney representation is complex. They are not permitted to represent users - which is why they can't demand takedown of misused Wikimedia content, for instance - but when the line between user-issue-they-can't-touch and WMF-issue-they-can is crossed would be their determination. It's beyond me. :) In any event, they acknowledge inquiries.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I sent it to an individual, and meant to resend properly to legal. I'll do that. DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Institute of Financial Accountants

Justgivethetruth (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA contributing only to the page Institute of Financial Accountants, and keeps adding unsourced claims of equivalence with British qualified accountants e.g. [41], and does not use the talk pages despite being requested to observe WP:BRD. He was apparently also using IP socks so I activated pending changes. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Judging by the conversation that has since been started on your talk page, well, JGTT's declaration of "[having] not even started to get the hang of [Wikipedia] yet" seems pretty accurate. It just sounds like a new user who needs to be adopted, is all. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering JGTT only joined last year and has a (rather massive) 31 edits, I'd say there is plenty of space for gentle nudging towards the WP:RS and WP:V policies, not ANI. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose spamming accounts

Several times a day over the past few weeks, a new user account is set up, and makes a single edit, adding a spam link to an unrelated article. The only obvious connection is that the edit summary is always the same: "Added informative link". Examples: [[42]], [[43]], [[44]], [[45]] - any suggestions as to how these edits can be traced and dealt with? . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

1. Revert and block the offending account as a first step. (There's no need for escalating warnings or short initial blocks for editors whose first edit is a promotional link; such steps just waste the time of constructive editors.)
2. If particular websites are being repeatedly spammed, have them added to the spam blacklist.
3. If particular articles are regular targets for spam, consider semi-protecting them.
4. If the frequency of this type of spam seems high (or you've identified reasons to believe a particular group of accounts are linked), consider asking a CheckUser to look into it to see if there's a blockable underlying IP range (or open proxy) responsible.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I second taking this to SPI -- the similar usernames, edit summaries and behaviour should be enough to get a checkuser. MER-C 13:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamesm.martinez21 with checkuser requested. Deli nk (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

An edit filter which catches the edit summary could also be helpful? Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• These are domains of no conceivable utility to the project, spammed by sockpuppets, so I have blacklisted them. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• If we put an edit filter for the edit summary, they will use a new edit summary for future links, it is not a long term solution Spumuq (talq) 09:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a reason the edit filter is hidden. Sam Walton (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

More accounts

Sorry to reopen this thread, but using Special:Linksearch on the links spammed by the previously blocked socks, I have found another two dozen accounts. They follow the same behavior, have similar names, spammed the same links, and used the same edit summary. I suspect there are still more. I have reopened the SPI as well. More accounts may need to be blocked and more links may need to be blacklisted. Deli nk (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that this seems to be quite widespread, I've created an edit filter to detect these editors. Sam Walton (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have blacklisted another 41 domains added by this new batch of socks and cleaned the domains... but found another batch of socks. MER-C 03:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If the new socks are taken to WP:SPI, the updated name for the casefile page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craytonconstanceb for reference. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at the SPI, it looks like this has ballooned into an incident involving over one hundred accounts spamming dozens of links. This would suggest the involvement of a commercial organization. Is there any way of identifying the organization (without outing individuals) responsible for this? Deli nk (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Connect the dots. User:Boistonpublic used the same distinctive edit summary but was the only account to create a user page, so it is special. What was the link it inserted? www.areyouonpage1.com, which is apparently an SEO company. That site is registered to Paul C Leary of Westford, MA. The domains that are being spammed are probably all registered through a proxy registration service, but I would guess that most or all of them belong to the same person. This isn't a crisis, it's just another small-time spammer getting ambitious. Corpesawoke (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Even more accounts

The edit filter caught more accounts over the past couple of days. Will add them to the SPI, can someone with more knowledge of how the blacklist works blacklist the URLs that aren't already there? Sam Walton (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Spamming is still continuing, but perhaps at a lower frequency: [[46]], [[47]], [[48]], [[49]]. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've improved the edit filter to catch the edits that it was previously missing, based on the examples linked here. Sam Walton (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• I have blacklisted two additional domains from the accounts listed at the SPI. MER-C 11:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Can a checkuser determine whether it is possible or appropriate to rangeblock underlying IPs? Deli nk (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

More of the same

The latest spamming blitz consists of a new account adding a one-word greeting to his user talk page such as "hey" or "ola!", a nationality template to his user page, then adding a spam link masquerading as a reference to a single article. Examples ; [[50]], [[51]], [[52]], [[53]], [[54]], [[55]], [[56]], [[57]], [[58]], [[59]], [[60]], [[61]]. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, this sockfarm may be a different set and a separate SPI has been opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imsess. Deli nk (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

3 x IPs from Different Locations Editing Same Articles with the Same kind of Info

82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
114.134.89.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
78.146.41.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
The above IPs have been engaged in editing a certain articles only as can be seen in their contributions since the past 48-72 hours. Surprisingly, they are from different locations but they have synchronized their editing habits and edit/add/undo exactly the same info to the same articles. They have been talked with at the respective talk pages and explained that their actions are against Wiki polices by leaving comments during reverts, however they have failed to pay any heed. Instead, few senior editors have come to their rescue indicating socking. PakSol ^talk 13:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So?! If different people disagree with you on the same point, it dosen't make them sockpuppets or violators of any policy. I have no clue as to who those other IPs are. You're the one who is repeatedly violating standards of neutrality and historical accuracy by misrepresenting sources. You're user ID suggests you are associated with the Pakistani military. Then your POV-pushes in 1971 articles have a serious conflict of interest.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So, yes, different people can always agree on the same point, but the way three of you have been synchronizing your efforts and have ganged up on me to commit reverts thus leading to 3RR warning. It is indeed surprising that all three of you instead of reverting the changes that have been reverted by other editors add in exactly the same sources and the words that the other IP have added. Coincidence? My user ID suggests nothing, this again shows that you have a habit of misinterpreting things to your own favour, nothing else. PakSol ^talk 15:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

When you're pushing an outrageously biased and controversial POV not supported by any credibility, it's only but natural that people will try to stop you.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) PakSol, which article(s) are you referring to? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be Balochistan, Pakistan. Blackmane (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And this one too: Balochistan—TripWire ^talk 17:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

92slim and Indian foeticide article

92slim (talk · contribs) is engaging in disruptive edits to an artice he/she has proposed for deletion, Female foeticide in India. User wants article deleted because of POV pushing over abortion.[62]. After AfD discussion, I fixed the lede so it was more clear that all abortion is not female feticide ([63]). However, 92slim continues to change the lede to his POV to get the article deleted: "Female foeticide in India is the act of killing a female fetus outside of the legal channels of abortion, for assumed cultural reasons." This is UNSOURCED and completely factually incorrect; female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion. I have warned 92slim multiple times and have now hit the 3RR on this. User is also trying to get Femicide in China deleted btw. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You have repeatedly ignored the deletion discussion with personal attacks [64][65] and repeatedly vandalised my talk page. "female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion" No, it's not. Sorry, find a source to back this up, as it's requested. --92slim (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not vandalize your page - I put warnings on there. I also don't see how I personally attacked anyone. Yes, female feticide is possible legally: Woman finds out she's pregnant with a girl, woman has legal abortion. This meets definition of feticide (killing a fetus) and is why the 1994 law banning ultrasounds was put in place. If you want to argue that abortion is not feticide, take it somewhere else. Your attempts to get this article and the Chinese article deleted suggest a topic ban might be a good idea. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You did vandalise my talk page, because you blatantly ignored the deletion discussion and went towards pointing fingers. Feticide (a legal term) is not a type of abortion. This is not an eBay bidding. --92slim (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To try and end this back and forth about content before doing anything else, do either of you have reliable sources that support what you claim to be true? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Here. --92slim (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

PhantomTech: The definition is pretty straight forward—92slim is trying to introduce a definition into this article that is not even at the feticide article—it's destruction or abortion of a fetus. See definition at MW dictionary, Oxford dictionary, medical definitions, law book, and in Law & Medicine book by Indian doctor. Adding information that feticide excludes abortion done within legal channels is WP:OR and in this case, POV-pushing. Btw, I feel I'm very neutral about this subject personally, and encountered this article only when user proposed for deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:OR. The definitions you have included are medical [66]. For the legal (and etymological one, provided this is the English Wikipedia): At the pages 1852-1853 of the article I provided, which you haven't taken the time to read obviously, it's stated that "Indiana originally enacted a "feticide" statute that criminalized knowing or intentional termination of another's pregnancy, with exceptions for abortion,and mandated a maximum eight-year penalty" Note another's and with exceptions for abortion. You're the one pushing blatant POV. --92slim (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The definitions are general, medical AND legal. The link you provided refers to Indiana's criminal code; it does not change the definition of feticide but says people who engage in legal abortion in the state of Indiana are not to prosecuted for feticide. By the way, I would suggest you try to change the definition at feticide and see how that goes! Good luck! —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For example, Indiana originally enacted a "feticide" statute that criminalized knowing or intentional termination of another's pregnancy, with exceptions for abortion, and mandated a maximum eight-year penalty. seems to indicate that abortions are a form of feticide because it seem to have to explicitly exempt abortions from feticide. It is also about the legal definition in the United States, whereas the article is about India. Wikimandia's sources seem to indicate that the definition they are supporting is more widely used, is there a reason a legal definition should be used over the seemingly more common one? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: No, they're only medical: your "law book" says "medical"generic definition; the rest are the same. As explained above, the term has important legal distinctions from abortion. I suggest you stop reverting without proper reasons. It's written in English, not in Indian, so no it has nothing to do with India. @PhantomTech: "seems to indicate that abortions are a form of feticide because it seem to have to explicitly exempt abortions from feticide" No, it doesn't. Another's pregnancy is not an abortion. --92slim (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When you terminate another's fetus, you are performing an abortion and the wording in the source seems to indicate that, without exclusion of legal abortions, those abortions would fall under feticide. Without having to agree on what Indiana's legal definition is, is there a reason why Indiana's legal definition should be used over what seems to be the common English definition in an article about India? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to intentional termination of another's pregnancy refers to abortion in as such that medical workers who perform abortions are excluded from prosecution under this statute. And it's not written in "Indian"? LOL. Which of the 7,000 languages in India is "Indian"? Are you aware English is the primary language of the Indian government? You may feel the term has "important legal distinctions" and you are entitled to your opinion; however, we apply WP:NPOV here. I have no problem if you want to put in the article on feticide that some feticide legislation allow exemptions for legal abortion, but that doesn't mean you can change the actual definition, nor is it justification for deleting the feticide in India article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: No comments on that rant. @PhantomTech: Have you read the source provided? In sum: feticide is both a legal and medical term. There is no "common English definition" as you said. There is a law on feticide in India from 1994, but equating the word feticide with abortion means that either abortion is a crime or feticide is abortion, neither are true nationwide in the United States at least. I don't understand why India is even mentioned here; this is not the Indian Wikipedia. Feticide is not a Hindi word. --92slim (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I have read the source, I've also read the many dictionary sources provided by Wikimandia which are where the "common English definition" comes from, most Wikipedia readers are not doctors or lawyers and are therefor likely to use the more common definition. If we are to use the legal definition, you should provide a source for India's legal definition and explain why it should be preferred, also keep in mind that it cannot be assumed that definitions in the United States have any influence on legal definitions in India. English, in "the English Wikipedia", refers to the language it is written in, not the scope of the content, and, as was pointed out, there are English speakers in India. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, English IS an official language of India. FYI PhantomTech, here is how the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, defines it: "Female foeticide or sex selective abortion is the elimination of the female foetus in the womb itself." 2006 Handbook on Pre- Conception & Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 and Rules with Amendments . I don't know how anyone can actually argue with that source. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thus this Indian handbook conflates abortion and foeticide, as opposed to US law which makes a clear distinction. Great start; at last the discussion is over. Well, I will make a clause later in the Feticide article (notwithstanding Wikibandia's blanket reverts), as this is a diametrically contrary definition to US law. As you can see, there is no POV pushing; I am only arguing legal definitions (which do matter), not medical. --92slim (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not arguing any definitions but your own POV. A U.S. state's penal code is not relevant to an article on India, even if it was "diametrically contrary" which it isn't (it's pretty clear to the rest of us that it DOES refers to abortion as feticide). That you don't seem to understand/accept this reinforces my opinion that you would be more helpful editing articles where you can be more neutral. Look forward to you withdrawing the AfD. Many lulz over "Wikibandia." —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: I highly recommend you use the talk page of feticide before editing it. Based on what's happened here I expect there to be some resistance, if I'm wrong all it will do is delay the change a bit. If the content part of this dispute is complete, it's time to settle the editor issues you've both brought up. Unless either one of you feel no further action is needed against the other and would like to withdraw your complaints:

• 92slim claims Wikimandia has broken 3RR
• Wikimandia claims 92slim has engaged in disruptive editing, POV pushing and breaking 3RR

Can both User:92slim and User:Wikimandia confirm that those are the problems you each feel need to be dealt with, correct any mistakes I've made, or withdraw anything you want to withdraw? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Get a clue, you refused to discuss this issue (the legal definition) beforehand just to have some "lulz" and opted for ANI; I don't think I'm the one pushing POV here. Don't speak for others, thanks a bunch and enjoy your pro-life stance. Nothing to add here. --92slim (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's it. And 92slim has graciously withdrawn the AfD. @92slim: I did not create the ANI for lulz; the lulz were a beautiful unexpected gift. Obviously I was right to do an ANI, as you were incorrectly inserting unsourced text to support your POV, adding back in text that had been removed as challenged, in violation of policy, as it was your burden to gain consensus first before adding it back WP:CHALLENGE, and you had been warned twice at the AfD and twice on your talk page. And as I said, I'm not even pro-life! GG! Thanks for playing! —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I inserted "unsourced text to support my POV"?????? Maybe you're the one who's challenging my faith in Wikipedia, troll. --92slim (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I propose 92slim be topic banned or at least blocked for a short while for POV-pushing, uncollaborative activity, and blatant disrespect at AN/I and the nomination for deletion page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me. I already had withdrawn the nomination so you can go away now. --92slim (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to draw admin attention to this comment that 92slim just left on my talk page, again accusing me of pushing a "pro-life POV." I have already been on the record stating I am in no way "pro-life" but am being as neutral as possible while going by all reliable sources. That this is somehow construed as "pro-life" reinforces that topic ban suggestion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should just think about your claims of "unsourced text to support POV", because they are unsourced. Btw I don't intend to edit your topic anymore, "pro-lifer". After the last conviction for feticide in Indiana last month (yeah, by the "prolifers"; all she did was to abort), I can safely say you have won the argument. Enjoy the rest. Oh yeah, just for the "lulz", she is an Indian woman from Indiana; sorry if I don't know what language she speaks. --92slim (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows, this sentence marks the first time a woman in the U.S. has been convicted and sentenced for attempting to end her own pregnancy. --92slim (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The infant was actually alive....outside her body. But alrighty then. Just stop POV-pushing and were square.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, please just don't stalk me or my talk page again. This is all another excuse for anti-abortion measures at a state level. --92slim (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, btw, there is zero proof the infant was alive. This wasn't confirmed; nice try though. --92slim (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've protected the article for three days because of the reverting. If all agree that that's a nuisance (e.g. if you want to improve it while it's at AfD), let me know and I'll unprotect, or if I'm not around ask at RfPP. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 05:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban from anything related to feticide or abortion for 92slim. If they continue to maintain their uncivil attitude toward Wikimandia, a temporary block or interaction ban may be necessary. Noting that 92slim has not yet confirmed they wish to continue to pursue action against Wikimandia. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to pursue action, I already did pursue all the legalese that I could towards people who were uncivil to me in the first place. Sorry for supporting an ethnically Indian woman from the US who is going to serve 20 years for aborting her child, just to be pursued back at Wikipedia; I'm actually distressed. --92slim (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Supporting an ethnically Indian woman...'" might be admirable, but that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Mr Potto (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess the purpose is the lulz. Please, refrain from giving lectures. You know that this is a legal matter if you read it. --92slim (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment upset you, as that was not my purpose. But can I suggest that sarcasm is not helping your case? Mr Potto (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. --92slim (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

92slim's continued behavior seems to show they're unwilling or unable to remain civil, for these reasons I support a block, in addition to supporting a topic ban from feticide and abortion. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not the place for continuing the content argument, so I've search for and added a number of dictionary definitions to the article talk page, which I hope will be of some help. Mr Potto (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Can an admin please remove the AfD template, as the nomination has been withdrawn by the nominator? Done Mr Potto (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Request action against 92slim - besides being generally obnoxious on my talk page, 92slim is harassing me at AfD: I guess I somehow support "jihad" and again with the pro-life accusations. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop stalking the pages I nominated! You are editing in bad faith. --92slim (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

???? I regularly contribute at AfD, as is evident by my history, and many people can attest. Nobody is "stalking" you and my comments on those AfDs were certainly not in bad faith. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I ignored your little blob about "your history and testament". Also, you are providing pro-life arguments ("it's gendercide, not femicide"; "feticide is abortion" etc) all the time after this topic was settled, essentially just to provoke, just so you know. --92slim (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was gendercide not femicide; I specifically said femicide was the correct term, and I did not say "feticide is abortion." I don't see how my suggestion was provoking, nor do I see how my comment on the redirect means I support "jihad." I'm beginning to think someone is a few Bradys shy of a Bunch. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, the correct term. Right, but you prefer "gendercide" [67]; unsurprising. And yes, you did say "female feticide is certainly possible by means of legal abortion" at your ANI post. --92slim (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not say I "preferred" gendercide. I was responding to Hithladaeus's statement that femicide was a neologism and that gynocide would probably be the right term; thus I said femicide was correct, that the general term is gendercide and its subterms are femicide and androcide. As I clearly wrote. And anyone can see. And yes, I did say female feticide is possible by means of legal abortion, as is supported by multiple reliable sources, including the government of India. All us AfD jihadists are very particular in our demand for reliable sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You blatantly did as per above. Have fun with your "lulz" (per your vocab); come back when you have time to actually read the arguments for deletion, medical vs legal arguments, sources provided and the difference between legal systems. Until then, I can attest that you have contributed nothing to solving our differences on abortion vs feticide (which was the whole reason for this drama you have come up with yourself for your POV political reasons). --92slim (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I would personally want you to be banned from interaction with me. You are by far the most obnoxious "user" I have met here, and that's saying something. A pro-life woman vs the legal right of a US Indian immigrant sentenced to 20 years in jail for legal abortion, a sentence justified with the "feticide". Good luck with your already meaningless life, I'm out of this. --92slim (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Words ending in -cide usually imply murder. If a given abortion is legal, then it is, by definition, not murder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's from the latin -cidium and denotes killing, not specifically illegal killing (cf justifiable homicide, suicide). Mr Potto (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: Mr Potto is right; the -cide prefix actually means killing, thus suicide (you can't murder yourself). —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't even begin to make sense. You're doing it wrong. --92slim (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Add to that "infanticide". It's not murder - that's why people are charged with that and not murder. 5.150.92.19 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Infanticide is considered murder; it's intentional, unlike homicide. Sorry for that. --92slim (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the word origin, in common usage a term like "homicide" by itself typically means murder: the willful and unlawful taking of life. If it's not precisely murder under the law, it typically has a qualifier, such as "justifiable" or "negligent". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Homicide doesn't treat it that way. It opens with "Homicide is the act of a human being causing the death of another human being." and makes a distinction for criminal homicide. Mr Potto (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So, the distinction then would be criminal feticide vs. legal feticide? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. The disagreement seems to be about whether the article should be specifically about illegal feticide or about feticide (both legal and illegal) in general, and I think that's something for discussion and consensus at the article talk page if anyone wants to change it from the way it currently is. I personally have no opinion, and only really wanted to help with the definitions. Mr Potto (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Mr Potto: The issue started because 92slim wanted to delete the article Female foeticide in India entirely because of claim that abortion is not considered feticide in many countries, therefore feticide in India is not a real thing. Then he changed the definition of feticide to say that "feticide is the act of killing a fetus outside of legal abortion," even though that's not the definition. Nobody has a problem with including the relevant information that legal abortion is considered exempt under some feticide statutes. Feticide is killing a fetus; laws concerning this act vary considerably from place to place. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The AfD is closed, so that is moot. The article does appear to reflect the view, which is supported by various definitions, that "Feticide is killing a fetus; laws concerning this act vary considerably from place to place". Hence my suggestion that any change to the article away from that would need talk page consensus. Mr Potto (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Like your confusion over the meaning of "homophobia", Bugs, you've shown by your comments about "homicide" that you don't seem to understand how the English language actually works.

The most obvious thing is to point out that prefixes and suffixes (like "homo/homi" and "cide") are NOT governed by fixed rules maintained by some authority -- there is not English Academy. Secondly, even given generally observed rules as to the meanings of certain prefixes and suffixes, actual usage -- whether intentional on the part of the coiner, definitional drift, or simply by being idioms -- determines actual meanings. Finally, for actual legal terms, there ARE given specific definitions which may or may not match "logical" combinations, your impressions, or even popular usage. For the last one, I'll point you to the Cornell University School of Law:

Homicide is when one human being causes the death of another. Not all homicide is murder, as some killings are manslaughter, and some are lawful, such as when justified by an affirmative defense, like insanity or self-defense.

This is Wikipedia, Bugs: words mean what reliable sources say they mean, not what you'd like them or how you've work them out in your mind to mean. If you're going to proclaim you understand the meaning of word, you need to check first. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Common usage supports what I said, which you'll discover if you Google the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, "because I said so" isn't actually an acceptable rationale. I have actual sources, especially to the legal definition -- not to mention an actual understanding of how the English language actually works (hint: do you know the meaning of the phrase "descriptive, not prescriptive"?) -- and you have -- vague handwaving about Google results. See that hole you're standing in? See that shovel in your hand? Now might be a good time put down the implement. --Calton | Talk 08:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Why should I believe you rather than common usage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinate block of 92slim per WP:NOTHERE; relatively new account; repeated personal attacks; made statement of "Sorry for supporting an ethnically Indian woman from the US who is going to serve 20 years for aborting her child" along with the uncalled for accusation that I am somehow "A pro-life woman vs the legal right of a US Indian immigrant sentenced to 20 years in jail for legal abortion" (and all of this regarding the article Female foeticide in India), comments on my talk page that I "obviously don't care" (about this Indiana woman I guess?) and claim that "this is a legal issue" suggest 92slim views WP as a great place to influence people and effect change offline. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support indefinite block of 92slim per WP:NOTHERE; not only for what is being discussed here but also for POV-pushing and repeated harassment of other users on and in relation to articles relating to Armenia. Thomas.W ^talk 13:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• I've blocked 92slim for 31 hours for battleground mentality and personal attacks. Considering that he had a clean block log, making a jump to indef seems extreme but I'm not opposed to leaving the thread open in case a different consensus forms.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block- 92slim's blatant pushing of his/her POV here and on the articles (whether they made sense or not) are distracting from any progress in actually improving them. Also, by the disregard for civility 92slim shows, with no sign he/she was going to stop, signifies a user who is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather impede it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you Berean Hunter. IMO 92slim's contribs history shows near SPA who edits only about abortion issues/Armenia and genocide/Ottoman Empire and Islam. Huge number of reverts and flippant remarks. In this recent edit, the editor MissionFix is actually correct that officially the Brazilian government has not recognized the genocide ("The Brazilian government has not yet recognized the Armenian Genocide, although the legislatures of Ceará and Parana have." —Armenian Weekly); Slim92 accuses MissionFix of POV pushing and Slim92's argument that the Brazilian Senate basically makes the laws (so I guess they're the state of Brazil?) is flawed and shows the same basic competency issue with interpreting information that we saw in this feticide drama. I know these topics are full of socks and vandals but this comment from IP editor seems familiar. It seems a bit odd that editor would create account in February and immediately jump into experienced user mode with this first edit, and not stop since then. Even creating this article redirect is POV. This is why I'm saying NOTHERE and possible sock of banned/topic banned user. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• Just as a comment, do any comments by User:Wikimandia above deserve a caution about Wikipedia:Deny recognition (especially "I did not create the ANI for lulz; the lulz were a beautiful unexpected gift")? -- Aronzak (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Aronzak, if you look at this ANI, I first mention lulz over him calling me "Wikibandia" (I honestly did laugh). Then he claimed I created this ANI "for lulz." So I said I did not, but it was lulzy. I don't see why I should be cautioned, nor was I aware of any rule saying you can't say lulz, or that saying this was offensive. Additionally, that essay seems to be about ignoring true vandals and trolls (ie don't feed the trolls), which I don't think 92slim is. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Deny recognition is an essay, the personal opinion of one or more editors, not a policy or even a guideline. Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary_sanctions apply here? Maybe some warning notices are in order. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I think the articles about feticide, infanticide, gendercide etc should be protected under the same discretionary sanctions that abortion and genocide topics have. I don't edit these articles normally but I imagine they are problematic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've alerted User:92slim to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAB, since the abortion sanctions apply to Female foeticide in India. 92slim was previously alerted under WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, thanks, but do you think it needs to be clarified somewhere that these articles fall under the abortion sanctions? 92slim's whole argument is that abortion is not feticide, so I think 92slim (and other editors with same POV) might dispute this. I don't have much experience working with sanctioned topics, so I'm not too sure how they work, except for noticing the warning template that comes up that they're protected. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to put a sanction banner on the article. Any edits, anywhere on Wikipedia that are related to abortion fall under the Arbcom case. The article Female foeticide in India refers to female feticide as 'sex-selective abortion.' If 92slim is hoping to avoid consequences with his argument that it's not abortion, the matter can be reviewed at WP:AE if he winds up being reported there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I agree it should apply so hopefully nobody will try to use that argument to split hairs. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of ownership by Sitush

Please can someone review what has been going on at Talk:Babur, certainly from this section onwards. Soham321 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly making claims that I have taken ownership of the article, although no-one else seems to be saying so. They've also alluded to possible racism on my part. I have told them that ANI would be the best venue to discuss such a serious behavioural charge, repeatedly made, but they are opposed to doing so. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The racism charge is definitely a serious charge. However, i made this charge based on something Sitush had written, and i gave the relevant diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Babur#Ownership_of_the_article Making crude generalizations about any ethnicity is simply unacceptable.

While investigating this complaint, the concerned Admins should also take a look at the edit summaries in the main articles of the following two pages: Daily News and Analysis, and Open magazine, and also the following talk page: Talk:OPEN_(magazine). I reverted the edits of Sitush on both the Daily News and Analysis page, and the Open magazine page a second time because i wanted to give appropriate edit summaries for future editors. I would not have made a third revert. In the talk page of the Open magazine article, Sitush claimed the reference i had given was an Op-ed. This was not true; it was an editorial (from the New York Times). I am mentioning all this because i have no energy to take Sitush to ANI again and again nor do i have the energy to keep fighting with Sitush. I only wish to make appropriate edit summaries in the main article (which is what i did in the case of Open magazine and Daily News and Analysis articles) or else i wish to make a note on the talk page of the main article (which is what i did in the case of the Babur article) and leave it for future editors to sort things out.

I appreciate the fact that Sitush has done some good work on wikipedia including cleaning up several articles. However, Sitush's repeated tendency of not respecting WP:OWN cannot be condoned because of this even if Sitush were to be an academic.

Again, i am not asking for any ruling on Sitush. I am leaving it for future editors to deal with the Babur article. I will reiterate, though, what i had said in the talk page of this article: A senior editor (Calvin999) had written in an edit summary in the the main article on Babur that he is beginning to think Sitush's edits are making the article worse rather than better. These are the exact words of Calvin999 and they were addressed to Sitush: Hello? Don't you understand that splitting it makes worse? Five paragraphs are too many. I'm beginning to think your intentionally trying to make this article worse...)Soham321 (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Sorry, the talk page on which Sitush and i interacted was of Daily News and Analysis: Daily News and Analysis. There was no interaction between us on the talk page of Open magazine.Soham321 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999 is in large part the reason why the mess at the Babur article has become so prominent. I'd take their opinion on the matter with a very large pinch of salt but, as it happens, they have not accused me of ownership or racism anyway. Only you have gone down that road. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have said all I that I wish to say on Babur's talk page. Again, Sitush, saying that whatever I say should be taken with a pinch of salt is WP:BADFAITH and rude. I do not want to get involved with any accusations being made that I am reading above and have no knowledge of with regard to racism and ownership, though the recent edit history is not on your side with regard to the latter. If you feel so strongly about Babur's article, why are you only just voicing your opinion on it now, since it's been passed as GA? Because prior to this, as far as the edit history goes, you've never even edited it. You're creating a lot of noise. Stop shouting about things which you deem "wrong" and just improve on what you see. No one will thank you or give you a gold star for moaning instead of doing.  — Calvin999 11:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I skimmed the talk page and noticed Talk:Babur#Copyright violations where Soham321 claims that Sitush was wrong to revert an edit as a copyvio. Sitush pointed out that the source said:

Thus, Rani Padmavati, the widow of Rana Sanga, sought Babur's support for her son, Vikramjit, who was being harassed by his brother. ... Babur received the Rani's envoy with honour.

while Soham321's diff included:

Thus, when Rani Padmavati, the widow of Rana Sanga, sought Babur's support for her son Vikramjit, who was in conflict with his brother, Babur received her envoy with honor.

Soham321 argues on the talk page that if Sitush thinks there is a problem, Sitush should fix it rather than reverting the edit. In an ideal world that would be true, but in that ideal world, editors would not copy/paste text from sources into articles. The talk page show other evidence of significant problems with two contributors, one being Soham321, and it is quite understandable that Sitush cannot spend hours fixing other people's problems, particularly copyvios.

There is a claim above that an edit summary by Calvin999 supports Soham321's position: Calvin999's edit joined two paragraphs in the lead, presumably to satisfy the formula that four paras in the lead is good, but looking at that edit shows that Sitush was correct to split the paras as they deal with quite different issues. In summary, Sitush is helping the article, while others are not. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please give the relevant diffs instead of putting words in my mouth inaccurately? These are my exact words to Sitush: Even for close paraphrasing you would have to show that the pattern is being consistently maintained throughout the section. While paraphrasing it is inevitable that i would occasionally not do a good job on the first attempt. Also, i was using the american spelling of honor. And this is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Babur&diff=prev&oldid=666864209 Soham321 (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge Johnuniq has never made a single edit on the page of Babur, either in the main article or in the talk page. However, in an August 2013 ANI discussion involving me and Sitush, Johnuniq had supported Sitush and had voted for a topic ban for me. Even though John had not made a single edit on the page under discussion at that time (the page on Digvijaya Singh). (I was new to wikipedia at that time, and had unfortunately engaged in edit warring with Sitush being unaware of most of the rules here and was handed--quite rightly in retrospect--a one year topic ban. This was in August 2013.) I am sure there is no restriction, but in my opinion it is in poor taste for someone to repeatedly offer opinion in an ANI discussion on a wikipedia page on which one has never made a single edit, particularly when the problem involves a conflict between two different editors who have been making edits on that page. Soham321 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a good enough reason of have a five paragraph lead, with two of which being one sentence long. It doesn't matter that the issues are different, if it did, we'd have 20 paragraph leads, all one sentence long, otherwise. Point is, why is Sitush suddenly so concerned with this article? In fact, why are all of you suddenly so concerned? None of you look as though you cared before, now suddenly everyone is so interested. A lot is being said, but nothing is being done. If people don't agree with me passing it, improve it. Don't spend days moaning about it.  — Calvin999 11:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Johnuiq makes a valid point, or many valid points, actually. However, I think we're stepping into a content dispute, which shouldn't be here. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 11:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We are, but the accusations of ownership and racism need to be addressed: Soham made them and then expanded on the things 24 hours later. Even their initial accusation was wrong - I've never edited Battle of Chanderi. FWIW, the intention is to improve the article but first we need to eliminate the obvious problems - so obvious that it should never have passed GAN. There are voluminous comments about this on the talk page and elsewhere. I am aware of the material that Soham321 added but prune-and-rebuild is sensible when things are as bad as this. The rebuilding requires reading the heavyweight academic sources that were totally ignored and, as Abecedare notes, But the main issue is that the article does not cite some of the best available sources on the subject, which are currently listed in the Further reading section. Fixing this will take more time and effort. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That has passed. You are focusing on the wrong thing. Okay, you think it shouldn't have passed, we all get that. You've said it countless times. If you feel that strongly, improve the article how you seem fitting.  — Calvin999 11:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to John and Soham re: rephrase or remove the copyvios in the context of demonstrating ownership. Those were added after the GA pass, although there were also some in the article from before the pass. I'm not arguing here that you are unfit to review GANs, though that might be a conversation for another day. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that you were arguing that. And I didn't miss your point. But you have persistently missed mine: you've gone about this the wrong way. Prior to last week, the history shows you'd never even edited Babur.  — Calvin999 11:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I have edited it before last week. I don't know what tool you are using to derive that impression but it is yet another unfounded observation, like the claim from Soham re: Battle of Chanderi. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

May I recommend the "Edits by user" link on the article history page? The scroll buttons don't work, but you'll notice it mentions 208 edits. If you set "Max edits" to a value higher than that, you'll see a list going back to 2011. NebY (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is also not hard to look at the entire history which shows 3155 edits: Sitush's first edit was in December 2011, while Calvin999 started in 10 June 2015 and Soham321 in 12 June 2015. Sitush made 109 edits before June 2015. There are two quite separate issues: the first is Soham321's inappropriate editing and personal commentary, and the second concerns Calvin999. The second is a minor distraction—it concerns the three-day review to promote Babur as a good article (GAN permalink and Talk:Babur/GA1) and claims that promotion should not have occurred (examples: Talk:Babur#WP:GAR and Talk:Babur/GA2). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, so having seemingly followed me to Babur and a few other articles up to that point, Soham321 appears to have pounced at Caste system in India almost as soon as I restored a sourced statement pending the outcome of an ongoing talk page discussion. Labs is playing up (yet again timing out) but I'm pretty sure from memory that they've not edited that article before, just as they hadn't edited Babur. I'll also add that if the accusations of ownership at Babur made by both Soham and (sort of) Calvin held any weight then why would I have appealed for help at Talk:Babur and then accepted suggestions made by Aristophanes68, and why would I have thanked Soham for an edit to that article as I did at 18:50 on 13 June. Now I'll slink back into my hole; see you all next week or whenever. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And more of the same accusations now. FWIW, yes, I have checked quite a lot of Soham's stuff. Anyone with experience and time to spare would do so when they have spotted some copyright violations going on. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarded allegations of stalking, it is true that i have been observing what India related pages Sitush has been editing. Having said that, it is also true that Sitush has been observing which pages i have been editing. The record shows that Sitush reverted my edits on the pages of Daily News and Analysis and also Open magazine soon after i had made them, and this was the first time Sitush had made edits on those pages. On the page of the caste system, Sitush is insisting on an edit which is really amusing. As per the edit (which is included in the lead of the article):Caste is often thought of as an ancient fact of Hindu life, but various contemporary scholars argue that the caste system was constructed by the British colonial regime. And i have replied to Sitush's copyright allegations in an earlier post in this section itself. Soham321 (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed some trolling by 152.130.7.64 which Soham321 failed to recognize. The technique of apophasis (attacking someone by pretending otherwise) works in the media but attacks are recognized as such at Wikipedia—ANI is not a forum where opponents can be poked. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha. It used to be if you wanted to shut someone up you would label them a communist. In 2015, the label used is troll. 152.130.7.64 (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained / POV removal of content by User:Packerfansam

User:Packerfansam has been around for a long time and has accumulated tens of thousands of edits, many focusing on Wisconsin legislative and / or political articles. He has created more than 3300 articles – many of them very short biographies, but a lot by even that measure. With this depth of experience (and a clean block log) it’s perplexing that in the past few days following a several-month editing hiatus, he has begun to remove substantial chunks of content from a variety of articles, accompanied by vague (and sometimes misleading) edit summaries. In many of the cases, the excised material relates to Jews, Muslims, African-Americans or LGBT matters, raising NPOV concerns.

Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims

New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism

Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject

Hamburg – removed references to Muslims, Jews

Kansas – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state

I raised concerns about this on the editor’s Talk page, first in brief narrative fashion, followed by templates when the edits continued without response. See link. Since then the unexplained and apparently POV edits have continued:

John Johnson – dab page – removed link to John Johnson (Latter Day Saints), "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism"

Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.

I am bringing the matter here because the edits are, to my eyes, troubling, and need attention; and the editor is unresponsive. Furthermore the editor has a long and apparently productive history here, and these excisions are not so plainly “vandalism” or disruption that they’re suitable for AIV if they continue.

Thanks in advance for any comments and / or assistance. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary shortened, simplified and removed possible redundant content is not reflective of the edits which are often completely removing all mention of specific groups of people. How can content be redundant if you remove all of it that concerns gays or Jews? These edits definitely are imposing a strange POV where some people are just erased from the public record. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He's trying to purge Wikipedia of any evidence for the existence of people who aren't Christian and Republican. In May, he even removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles (and was reverted).[68][69][70] I would support an indefinite block for deceptive editing. KateWishing (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block - even though he has a long history and a clean block record, this editor appears to either have become very extreme of late or decided he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia anymore. These edits account for vandalism in my opinion and given the particular topics of his dislike, I don't see the editor cheerfully avoiding them in the future. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, he's not responsive at his talk page, the last time he responded there seems to be to thank someone over 5 years ago. As for the recent edits, the edit summaries clearly misrepresent the edits, and his removal of content has become clearly disruptive. Despite his constructive edits, these edits suggest WP:NOTHERE. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC was concerned about the wrong citations Packerfansam had added to several Wisconsin Legislators article very recently. I had been looking at Packerfansam's Wisconsin Legislators articles to see if a category, etc., needs to be added. I did add the correct Wisconsin Blue Books citation to the articles that JohnInDC was concerned about. And I was concerned about about Packerfansam removing the political affliations of several Wisconsin Legislators articles with no reasons given. I hope this helps-Thank youRFD (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible this account is compromised ? Considering his long history of productive edits, then this sudden shift ... maybe it's something to look at ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought but in the main, the edit interests seem to have been pretty stable. I guess in the final analysis it doesn't matter - the edits are unacceptable no matter who's responsible. (It is mystifying though.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note that he stopped editing in August of last year, and when he returned 24 April, this is when the problems began. The possibility of a compromised account is real, as is a CIR issue. He has never been one to communicate, I didn't see any talk in his contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, I thought this was possible but even as of today, he continues to create articles on Wisconsin politicians as he has been doing for years. Please look at his contributions. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A CIR issue may still be at hand. Medication, life events, all kinds of things can change a person's competency, either temporarily or permanently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

First things, despite the assumption, I'm a 'she'. Second, to answer people's suspicions, I have numerous health issues that have escalated in recent times. I don't feel it's necessary to go into specifics, but is it possible they can effect my judgment? Sure. That, along with other issues in my life can explain gaps between logging in, such as the last couple days. Now, I think along with some of the other issues being discussed, my not logging in for two days is being exaggerated. It was not because of these accusations, I didn't received a notice of this until I just logged in for this session. Sometimes health and other life issues take my attention. The extended length between updates last year involves family issues that, again, I don't think it's necessary to be specific about. If, during these times, I was hacked and I haven't realized it, my apologies. I have recently changed my password, maybe that would help to stop other possible issues. Now, the concerns about the links to the Wisconsin Blue Book tend to can be tough I understand. Google Books reverts you back to the original page you were on prior. If you were looking as something on page 1 and later decide to post a link for page 2, it decides to take you back to 1. Some of the re-categorizing is simply because it doesn't seem like the article necessarily belongs there, such as with Category:Mayors of places in Wisconsin, where there were some subjects whose job titles didn't match the criteria. Thanks to those who have offered their support. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response here, and good luck with your health issues. Can you please offer an explanation, for example, for this edit [71] to Precursor (religion), where you removed sourced materiel regarding non-Christian religions. This type of POV edit, with no (in this case) or misleading (in other cases) is the heart of my concern, and perhaps others. Was it judgement impairment due to illness, as you suggested some of the unaddressed issues might be? Or, are you asserting that your account was WP:COMPROMISED? The key is to understand (a) which other edits your account may have made, like that, with no or misleading edit summaries, that still need to be fixed, and (b) can you offer an assurance that such editing will not happen again. An acknowledgement of why it really happened will help other editors have confidence in your continued participation. Otherwise, why should you not be topic-banned from editing articles about religion and politics? JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Packerfansam: could you please address some of the issues such as Joe's question above?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let me first address that if anything I did seemed to be misleading or deceptive in articles, I deeply apologize. It seems to me, among other things, if you have a certain location (city, state, etc.) where the residents are overwhelmingly affiliated with a certain group or denomination, it bloats the article and makes it excessively long if you go into detail about other groups that make up a microscopic (sometimes like 0.15% or less) portion of the population and the culture. Thanks Packerfansam (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As for being compromised, I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible. Packerfansam (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm unpersuaded. That reasoning would maybe explain removing mention of Jews in Kansas (though it's 2%, not .015%) but it certainly is hard to square with editing out Jews in New York City or mention of the "largest gay and bisexual community in the United States" that is found there. That's just one counterexample - there are several others cited above, and below as well. JohnInDC (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

First, let me point out that it was 0.15 not .015, there is a difference. In regards to NYC, there was a section about the city's many, many landmarks and none of the others were mentioned by name, except for I think it was Greenwich, as if it were special or more noteworthy than the others. Without getting into what's right or wrong even, it seems strange to me that one should be especially singled out and recognized apart from the others. Packerfansam (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, but that is an inadequate if not disingenuous explanation for this [72] edit to NYC, where, as you did with many other edits, you removed all mention of non-Christian religions:

Christianity is the most prevalently practiced religion in New York, followed by Judaism, with approximately 1.1 million Jews (יהודי) in New York City, over half living in Brooklyn. Islam ranks third in New York City, with official estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1,000,000 observers and including 10% of the city's public schoolchildren, followed by Hinduism, Buddhism, and a variety of other religions, as well as atheism or self-identifying with no organized religious affiliation.

References

Try again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please let's don't go through these one by one, arguing whether ".15" or ".015" makes the edits any more defensible. A full-throated denial would be a good start - if Packerfansam doesn't want to go through her contribution history to identify the odious edits that were made by a hacker using her name, the examples here are sufficient to tell her in an instant whether she was responsible for them. Absent a straight-up denial, which we don't have, an acknowledgment or recognition that maybe, perhaps, it's problematic to remove references to, e.g., Jews in New York, Muslims in Michigan, gay marriage from the Republican Party, the Jewish ancestry and civil rights advocacy of a German lawyer, the sexual orientation of a the first gay Republican legislator in Wisconsin, or - by the IP a day ago - the sexual orientation of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach. And that's before we even start on the misleading edit summaries that accompanied these changes (for which she offers a conditional apology). So far I see nothing to assure us that Packerfansam recognizes these edits as problematic or that she will not make similar edits going forward. JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued problematic editing that is continuing to occur noted here, together with Good hand/bad hand editing noted here are both of considerable concern. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is what certain people seem to want to see - yes, I made updates that are causing this debacle. You can argue about my judgment and whether it's been altered. To me, in my judgment in what I recall, it seemed proper. I don't necessarily know if it was to the excess others believe it was, so I can't rule out a hack. I don't have plans to go out and make particularly controversial edits, my plan for the imminent future is to continue with legislator bios, creating and updating articles as would be appropriate with that. Packerfansam (talk), 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Response & comment - This is at best a grudging acknowledgment by Packerfansam of the problems she has caused with her POV edits and misleading summaries, not to mention (indeed not mentioned) the edit warring and sock puppetry. It isn't just "some people" who want to see an explanation and assurances, but nearly every single person who has participated in this discussion. I do not believe that Packerfansam appreciates that her edits contravened Wikipedia policy, or that that were in any way improper or disruptive. That being said I also believe that the foregoing is about all we are going to get out of her on the subject, and, as halfhearted as it is, it is something. She is, at least, speaking about it. Going forward, which I assume will take place without a block, I personally would like to see something a little more explicit about the ground rules, whether it comes from her, or from us, by rough agreement. Maybe something like, "no edits to remove content from articles re religion, sexual preference or other demographic characteristics" - I don't know. What I do know is that "no immediate plans" to make controversial edits is not reassuring, and isn't very helpful as a standard against which to measure future behavior. Thoughts and / or comments welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea what can offend some people. To me, for instance, creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like that doesn't seem like it should bother anybody. But I can't be sure what somebody could have a problem with. Can I give 100% certainty that nobody will ever have a problem with something I write ever again? No. Do I want to go through this stress again when I already have enough in my life? Also no. Packerfansam (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If what you mean by that is that you intend henceforth to stick to creating stub articles for Wisconsin politicians, then you are much less likely to run into POV and bias problems. I would recommend including the political affiliation of the subjects, when it is in the sources, and ensuring that the sources you cite actually link to the subject of the article you are creating. I, we, are not asking you to promise you'll never offend anyone again; rather we are asking that you stop removing material from articles because something about it offends you. Thanks. Now let's see what some of the other editors have to say about this. JohnInDC (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I found your response to be very disappointing. I had thought you "got it", and were willing to move forward, but just didn't want to explicitly own up to your mistakes. But your answers, above, make me wonder. Do you really think the issue was a vague, hard to understand "some people" being "offend"ed? Do you really think the issue was anything to do with was "creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like "? If so, you have a serious problem of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and or a problem with competence. Examples were laid out for you very clearly here and on your talk page. You are ignoring those details here, and have repeatedly blanked them on your talk page. As a reminder, the problems include this list and many more:

Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims

• New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism
• Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject
• Hamburg – removed references to Muslims, Jews
• Kansas – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state
• John Johnson – dab page – removed link to John Johnson (Latter Day Saints), "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism"
• Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.
• [73][74][75] removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles
• [76] remove mention of Jews in New York City
• [77] removal of the sexual orientation of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach
• Special:Contributions/24.178.45.221 most troublesome, was your Good hand/bad hand editing, with your logged out editing all, with 2 exceptions, being reverted by editors as being disruptive

Are you really sure you want to continue in this way? JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Time to close We do not know the full circumstances under which Packerfansam is editing. We know he has health issues and we should leave it at that. He is constructively engaging editors about issues they have, and although we may strongly disagree with some of the edits he has made, he clearly wants to edit constructively and with good faith. Could there be future problems? Sure, but we can deal with them should they arise. Let's assume good faith and encourage Packerfansam to continue editing. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, it's she, either way, much appreciated. Packerfansam (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for getting your gender wrong! --I am One of Many (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not too much to ask that Packerfansam state precisely what she intends to do, or not do, going forward; or that we collectively outline our expectations of her. Her POV and misleading edits were blockable and while she is now at least discussing them, she has given no indication at all that she appreciates what the problem is (apologizing if she has been misleading; confessing to having no idea which of her edits "might offend some people", as though unpredictably thin-skinned readers were the heart of it) and I would like just a bit of clarity about what is expected of her going forward so that if, three or four weeks - or 5 months - hence, we see a new run of POV purges, someone can point back and say, "that is not what you said you would do". If she does not understand the problem, then she can't exercise meaningful judgment in avoiding it in the future. Other than that - yes, I agree, we are done here. JohnInDC (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is too much at this point. Packerfansam has edited here, without issues, for years. If there are issues in the next few weeks or months, we can deal with them. If the edits in question were due to misunderstandings and/or lapses in judgement, then moving on means she moves on to continued constructive editing. If we continue to push this thing, maybe she says "The hell with this, I don't need this in my life.", she moves on, and we lose another editor. You have accomplished what is important: She is aware of the issues, acknowledged them, stated that she wants to contribute constructively. Now, let's assume good faith and deal with issues in the future if they occur. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to indef block Packerfansam for POV editing, misleading edit summaries and refusal to engage

Given the speed at which matters move up and out of ANI, I’m a bit worried that, a few editors having offered their views, the matter will languish without resolution. Several commenters have suggested an indef block, so I now formally propose it.

• Support, as proposer and per above - repeated removal of content reflecting political / religious bias, misleading edit summaries, refusal to engage. JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – given that this is apparently a long-term editor who did lots of good work before, but has maybe gone "off" lately, an indef block against a previously "clean" block record seems like overkill. I could support a relatively long block (e.g. months) here for Packerfansam, but even that seems like it might be overkill. It does seem clear that a block of some duration is probably in order here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This should surely be more of a cause for concern than an opportunity for a very punative block. I suggest further research is required- surely we also have a some responsibility to WP:ENGAGE...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - He has ignored my attempts at engagement (other than to blank the template warnings) and continues to make the same kinds of edits. If another editor can get his attention, that'd be great. JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Modify — A sanction of some type, not indef, and allowing for discussion at the user's talk page or here. But the nature of these edits is such that we need to put some immediate protections in place while we try to engage. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reluctant support - given this editor's long history of sound edits, I'm distressed to say that we have to do this: but something has gone wrong since early May or so, and we can no long rely on an edit by this account to be a sound one, the way we used to. If they refuse to communicate, a block of at least one month minimum seems called for. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support shorter block, given the editor's clean block log until now; it will get their attention as well as an indef, which is always an option if needed. On a block log, an indef (which I know isn't infinite) looks worse than a block of fixed duration, and this editor may be salvageable. Miniapolis 22:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I've never seen what function an "attention-getting block" really serves. Either the account is compromised and an indef block is appropriate, or the editor is really an inveterate POV warrior who should not be editing as long as they think that such is appropriate. In the latter case an indef block is also appropriate--a block which can be lifted as soon as...well, fill in the blank, but it starts with "Packerfansam". Drmies (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, we can use escalating blocks in an attempt to recover this editor. Something like a week for the first block would be sufficient. Chillum 22:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  So your premise is that blocking an editor is a good way to recover one? As opposed to alienating them? Strange. Eric Corbett 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Please don't try to explain my premise, you never seem to get it right. We have to weigh damage to the project against keeping the editor. Chillum 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  If he's taken a sudden turn toward the Dark Side, it's probably too late already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  It is not hard to reblock if shorter blocks do not work. Chillum 03:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, especially as it appears he's never been blocked before. If he's uncommunicative, a reasonable short block might get his attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't usually agree with Mr. Corbett, but I do here. As I said just above, I don't believe in attention-getting blocks, and the whole concept of escalating blocks--well, I spent a few years in a place where they believed in something like that, and it never increased my desire to live by their rules. Blocks piss people off, and they should be applied judiciously and appropriately. "Getting attention" is like keying someone's car because they parked it in the wrong place. If it's in the way, you tow it. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• The goal is not to get their attention, the goal is to prevent disruptive editing. I suggested escalating block instead of an indef because it give the user a chance to recover while preventing disruption. Remember that communication has already been tried. Chillum 22:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose indef Something has gone wrong since May and a user with a clean block log is up for an indef. Please do not hand out indefs so lightly. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC))
  • Comment - Just - to be clear, I don't care particularly whether the editor is indef blocked or not. Anything that works is fine with me. As for the scope of the problem, I can add that, at least among the articles he has recently created, he reports the party affiliation of the subject when it is Republican or Independent, but omits it if it's Democratic. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme - these are legislators who served 120+ years ago - but these deliberate omissions are irresponsible at best, and make wholly unnecessary work for others. JohnInDC (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef - I see no reason to suspect account compromise. Editor is STILL creating new articles for Wisconsin politicians. If any reason should be considered, editor can appeal the block and attempt to provide explanation. Regardless of reason, editor is no longer here to contribute. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Although Packerfansam doesn't respond directly to warnings, his/her behavior has been altered by them. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am One of Many What do you mean by his behavior has been altered? He obviously saw the many warnings as he deleted them from his talk page. Then just today he removed the table about religion demographics from a town in Norway that was 1.5 percent Muslim. His edit summary for the removal of the demographics table was "bars were out of place." I really don't know what to make of that. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, he didn't make that edit today, but on June 14. He also removed the whole box on religion, so we can't say he was targeting Muslims. Finally, I don't know how to interpret his edit summary, but it could just mean he didn't like how tables lined up, so he removed them. I'll also add that I see no evidence of edit waring when he is reverted. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That edit summary shows it was made on June 15, at least by Wikipedia time, and more importantly was after he had been warned. If he felt the table wasn't properly aligned, he could have moved it somewhere else. It's below another demographic table that was not deleted. Based on his other pattern of removal of information, this is highly suspicious. Additionally he was warned over and over and continued his behavior, as you can see by the activity on his page along with his contributions. If his behavior has truly been altered by being told to stop, this would never have come to ANI. Edit warring is only one form of disruptive editing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. He doesn't refuse to engage, he just hasn't engaged on this topic this time around. He uses talk pages:
• 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8 but typically blanks messages he receives and then goes to their talk page to reply. He responded here but that editor didn't reply back(!). He traded replies where he blanked and then replied here with another editor...that editor replied back to Packer's talk page so the thread gets lost in the shuffle. Packer is removing posts after he has read them as part of his norm. I would suggest that he isn't talk page savvy but that doesn't mean that he doesn't communicate at all. I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics. This change on his userpage may reflect a change in POV. He hasn't engaged JohnInDC; that shouldn't be taken that he doesn't engage with everyone. Calls for indef above seem extreme to me. The first warning might be construed as a nuisance as he may think his summary isn't off the mark and suggesting he has to play Mother may I and always use talk pages...well, I'd ignore that too. Being templated thereafter doesn't help but kind of has the ring of Don't template the regulars. Apart from John, the only other editor that has attempted to engage him on this is Ed. None of the supporters above bothered to try. This can be characterized as isolated between two editors. A more cordial approach may work.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - As I noted above, I don't care what's done as long as the unacceptable editing stops. (I am skeptical that his 36 hour editing pause is significant.) I would note further that his disinclination to explain or defend questionable edits is not limited to the immediate non-conversation with me - three times previously, on three separate occasions (beginning here), other editors asked him about and warned him against systematically removing party affiliations from Wisconsin legislator articles. As far as I can tell he did not respond to any of these messages. He did ultimately stop removing the material, but then switched over to selectively omitting the information from articles he was continuing to create. I get that this is a longstanding editor with a lot of good work to his credit, but - you know, so am I, and in all honesty if I started removing content reflecting a clear political bias, and camouflaged it with misleading edit summaries, and refused to discuss it - well, I'd expect to be blocked, at least until I evinced some willingness to acknowledge and discuss the problem. JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You've got that a bit wrong. What you link to above was on his talk page but he responded on the other editor's talk page and the last sentence leads me to think that he may have thought that removal of party affiliation may have been trying to correct where he thought that he had "been overdoing it" when he had wrote those in before.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You are right. I missed that. Thanks. That being said, it is a "response" only in the most literal sense. He ignored the first Talk page message on May 12 (continuing to remove party affiliations), responded to a second (rather stern) May 13-14 Talk page message as you've noted, and then started right back up at it on another 20 or so articles (blanking Democrats only!) and didn't stop until a third Talk page message on May 15. I do not dispute that my messages to him were not the best for eliciting a response from him (I wish I'd done that better in retrospect) but: We've been talking here at ANI for a day and a half, and another editor has left a thoughtful narrative message on his page inviting a response, and so far we have nothing. The only thing that gives me pause is that he hasn't edited for 36 hours, so conceivably he hasn't seen Ed's message or the ANI notification. But I don't find his past level of engagement at all encouraging. JohnInDC (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
        • The response on Capitalismojo's page here (after Capitalismojo told him to stop being disruptive) was after he removed the Democratic Party from four politicians ([78], [79], [80], [81]) and oddly just removed the wikilink to the party from another one [82], in under 10 minutes. And he responds innocently "what did I do that was so disruptive?" Capitalismojo probably did not follow up out of exasperation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Do you realize that he was the one who wrote those articles as well as wrote the particular sentences of affiliation in the first place? Odd that he is called disruptive to edit on this one when no other editor had touched it. I believe that he saw himself as trying to correct perceived mistakes. He removed whole sentences about party affiliation when they stood alone to that fact but as you note with the delinking, he wasn't trying to obscure facts. Note that he didn't remove the categories of political affiliation? Being told that you are disruptive on an article that only you have edited is just a bit bizarre so yeah, I think his question was in good faith. He wasn't really edit warring or anything like that. He reverted once in this history but he was trying to communicate also. He was misunderstood in this thread ("overdoing" wasn't in reference to the reverts he was doing that day but the inclusions in the past). The hard clamp down and admonishment in that light looks bizarre and I imagine frustrating. We should wait and put the pitchforks and torches up for the time being. He really isn't being that disruptive.
             — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Oh, but he is being that disruptive. Removing political affiliations is, as I said above, small change. Beyond that little stuff he has been routinely, almost systematically, removing information from articles relating to Jews, Muslims, Mormons, gays & lesbians and other groups. I didn't provide an exhaustive list at the outset because I figured my examples were sufficiently representative, and distressing, that more would be perceived as piling on. But if there are questions about the impropriety of his edits, here are a few more (still not exhaustive - there are more still) examples from just the past six days:

Todd Novak - removed reference to the subject's sexual orientation (gay) and associated categories. No edit summary.

Madison, Wisconsin - removed text re Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and others with the edit summary of "simplified".

Argus (dab) - removed all dab links to Greek Mythology. No edit summary. I can't see anything particularly biased about this but it is plainly disruptive.

Precursor (religion) - removing non-Christian examples; no edit summary.

What assurance - indeed even what indication do we have that he plans to discontinue these inappropriate edits, beyond the fact that he hasn't changed a page in a day and a half? Maybe the answer is, for now, leave him be and keep an eye on him and see if he continues his POV editing when he picks up the cursor again; fine. But I can't swallow describing these things as "not disruptive". JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters that he created those original articles, there is no WP:OWNERSHIP. I don't see why he would decide to strip them out now unless it's related to his edit that he only works on Republican articles now or he's losing his marbles. I'm rather surpised that anyone would think removing entire sections related to Jews and gays from articles is not really that disruptive, but I suppose it explains why you're defending him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In my oppose above I stated "I do think that he should be more conversant on the POV topics." I too, would like to hear an explanation about those edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Berean Hunter and Drmies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment-I agree with Dennis Brown that medication or some health issues may be involved with Packerfansam. Packerfansam mentioned about some health issues on the talk page. I agree with JohnInDC about keeping an eye on Packerfansam and see what happens. There is a possibility that Packerfansam may ceased editing again for a long time. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong SupportNeutral I am concerned that this editor's contribution history needs to be carefully reviewed for POV edits and unexplained removals with corrections made - I've made some over the past couple of days. Regarding the former, just a brief review of history shows many stub articles of Wisconsin politicians were created by this editor. For members of the Republican party, their party affiliation was included by the editor in the original article and remains to this day. For members of the Democratic party, no party affiliation was included by this editor at any time. Other editor(s) added the affiliation after this odd anti-Democrat etc. POV editing was noted. Regarding removal of content and tags, in addition to the misleading edit summaries noted earlier, most such edits have no edit summary at all. Both of these sets issues I mention come down to fundamental lack of trust regarding this editors contributions. I've looked at several pages of his contributions and found that these issues are consistent. How far back one must go to review and correct these clearly intentional dishonest edits? An indefinite block while such a review and correction takes place, such as what was done with Colonel Henry, is necessary to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Once corrected, and after the editor responds constructively in an unblock request, then the editor can hopefully begin editing in accordance with WP's policies. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am switching my !vote to Neutral based on the interactions here User_talk:JoeSperrazza#Many_thanks- and here [83]. I believe the editor "gets it", and we're not going to get a point-by-point "mea culpa" - which we shouldn't need (but I admit a little more of an affirmative "I understand what the concerns are and will do better" would have been the best response. Nor do I think we're going to get help fixing old problems (everything from their IP is fixed, and going back a month on their contributions I don't see any serious issues that have not been fixed that are left - but there was plenty of fixing required". Those who work in Wisconsin articles should keep an eye on the editor - I'll periodically take a look, too. Future problems should lead to a very swift topic ban from "religion, sexuality and politics, in any namespace, broadly construed". Finally, perhaps the editor would like some coaching or mentoring if in doubt in the future, or just to informally ask some questions. If so, I volunteer to help. Best regards to all, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't edited in two days and no current disruption is occurring so you have time to review his contribs and make corrections if necessary. He has a clean block log, many articles to his credit and I believe he should be allowed to reply before any decisions are made. If he refuses to engage and starts editing in the same way then blocking may be called for.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps he should not have a clean block log. This is very obvious NPOV editing, done in a way to hide his changes. Lacking a response soon, how can no action be a correct response? JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll say it this way, if and when he begins to edit again he will need to address this issue within an hour or two - giving him plenty of time to respond after seeing the messages on his talk page and reading through this thread. If he makes more POV edits without responding or fails to respond entirely, my "oppose for now" above will likely be converted to "support indef blocking" and if consensus supports the action, I'll do the block myself. By the way, I attempted to email him but he does not have a specified email address.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That clock just started 15 minutes ago as he is back and blanked the notice.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

He responded above about 30 minutes ago. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. I edit-conflicted and was going to remove my comment when I realized that. :) I was reading my watchlist from bottom up. I haven't read the reply yet.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. As noted here User_talk:Packerfansam#Incorrect_citation_.2F_reference_in_several_articles [84], the editor is continuing with problematic creation of and edits to articles, yet has dissembled in response to questions about their edits and not, as of yet, either paused in their edits nor given any effort to identifying or correcting their problem edits to date. A block is designed to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. One is needed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see any disruption here. The only issue is a content discussion that is ongoing, not disruptive in any way. Mentioning that the population of NYC is 1.5% Jewish is negligible, for example. --92slim (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It's more like 15% and, as the largest concentration of Jews outside of Israel, not "negligible" under any sensible meaning of the word. JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I was starting to wonder if I'd been too harsh in recommending an indefinite block until she posted the excuses above, which are just another example of deceptive editing. Worst of all, 30 minutes after "apologizing" for her deceptive behavior, she logged out to continue it.[85][86] KateWishing (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Summing up thus far: By way of response from Packerfansam, we have:

• Some of those edits might have been made by someone with access to my account, or not – I don’t know. (“I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible.”)
• I apologize if any of my edits were misleading.
• There was nothing wrong with removing mention of non-dominant religions from various articles, nor with my edit to New York City.

She has neither denied making, nor offered to explain, any of the several other examples set forth here.

Whatever happened between August 2014 and May 2015, as of now, someone with access to the Packerfansam account believes (again, just by way of example) that mention of non-mainstream Christian religions makes Wikipedia articles too long; that references to a subject’s homosexuality or Judaism are best omitted; that “Playboy” is not a reliable source and that material sourced to it should be removed (from the University of Wisconsin–Madison edit war) – and appears to see nothing wrong with any of this.

Since returning from her 48 hour absence, Packerfansam has made 37 edits, including 6 new articles and 2 new categories. She has had ample opportunity to consider the comments here and respond thoughtfully but has commented here only four times and offered no meaningful explanation. She has a clear history of disruptive and POV editing, and I do not understand why, absent clear statements from her that she 1) understands that the edits are unacceptable and 2) pledges to make no more of them, ever, a block of at least some duration should not be forthcoming. JohnInDC (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• After again blanking their talk page, the editor is engaging in a discussion at my talk page User_talk:JoeSperrazza#Many_thanks-. I would like to be able to convince the editor to do something to regain our trust. Answering some questions I posed is one way. Perhaps there are other ways. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Please check 24.178.45.221 as a possible sockpuppet of Packerfansam. Examples of similar edits: [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92] - [93] - [94] - [95] - [96] - [97]. 32.218.32.164 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Same edits, same squishy edit summaries, same time of day, a Wisconsin emphasis, some of the same articles - indeed the same edit war at University of Wisconsin-Madison - no question. Nice catch. JohnInDC (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see anything inconsistent with WP:VALIDALT. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps not. But it yields several more examples of biased editing, we can add edit warring to the list of problems (odd that I hadn't noticed it before, even Packerfansam alone), and it calls into question Packerfansam's assertion above that she had been away from the computer for two and a half days inasmuch as one of the IP's edits comes in the middle of that period. JohnInDC (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• In the UW-Madison edit war JohninDC referred to, Packerfansam's POV edits were reverted 4 times, then 24.178.45.221 took over, making the same edits. (See last 6 edits listed above.) That's classic sockpuppetry - using an alternate account to deceive or mislead other editors or to avoid sanctions. The most recent example involved Packerfansam making an innocuous edit at 21:02, then 24.178.45.221 returning almost an hour later (3 minutes after Packerfansam's last edit and after commenting on this board), to make a questionable edit that was reverted by JohninDC. That's a clear attempt to evade detection. 32.218.32.164 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is good idea to stop the mind reading for now. There are good possible explanations for everything that we just don't know right now. First, if he is concerned about others using his account, he may log off every time he leaves the computer and sometimes forgets to log on when he returns. It may be that he removed minority religions based on a good faith assumption, but he will come to see that it is not a good idea. Let's see if we can get this resolved peacefully so that everyone can get back to constructing an encyclopedia and retaining productive editors. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, please look at these edits, clear examples of WP:EVADE, made after these issues have been raised at the editor's talk page and WP:ANI and after the editor responded here:

1. Revision as of 01:32, 2015 June 17 [98], [99], [100] Editing Legal issues with fan fiction as 24.178.45.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), removes cited information without edit summary or talk page explanation. The 2nd & 3rd edits noted remove sexuality and religion information, edits that are consistent with other problematic edits that have been made by this editor.
2. Revision as of 17:02, 2015 June 17 [101] Editing Fond du Lac, Wisconsin as Packerfansam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), adds reference to a Wisconsin political stub article * [[Thomas S. Weeks]], Wisconsin State Assemblyman
3. Revision as of 17:53, 2015 June 17 [102] Editing Fond du Lac, Wisconsin as 24.178.45.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), removes referenced information about other than Christianity (in this case, Atheism, but as documened elsewhere, she has been similarly removing Judaism, etc.) 42.7% of Fond du Lac residents do not affiliate with any [[religion]].<ref>[http://www.bestplaces.net/religion/city/wisconsin/fond_du_lac Fond du Lac, Wisconsin Religion Data]</ref>
4. Latest revision as of 23:58, 2015 June 17 [103] Editing Gottlieb Wehrle as Packerfansam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), makes a minor edit to another Wisconsin political article.

This is not supported by the "I forgot to login" excuse, just as their other problematic edits are not explained by the "I was hacked excuse". Per Special:Contributions/24.178.45.221, this has been going on since May 15th of this year. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoaxing again at Kenny Loggins

We need a range block because of recent activity by the long-term hoaxer, the Kenny Loggins vandal. IPs involved today are:

• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:5413:8F44:17A6:5B40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:316C:945D:AF85:E19A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Perhaps we can temporarily rangeblock 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And now another spate of hoaxing by 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:A1D3:9BE1:C1A2:3BFC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

15 of the last 16 hoaxer IPs started with 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0, so it would be very helpful to block this range. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And very quickly after that one we have this one: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:7132:4B62:E645:80BE (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Still looking for an appropriate rangeblock. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• HEY. ADMINS. SOMEBODY GIVE BINKSTERNET A RANGEBLOCK PLEASE. I'd do if if I knew how to. I mean, I can, but I'd probably block a whole state. That still doesn't make me care, as long as it's not my own state, but the Foundation will probably cut my allowance. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Maybe this will help: IPv6 range calculation tool. It was recommended last time this came up here, and I bookmarked it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I really shouldn't be messing with any ranges... Drmies (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The range needed to cover the four above IPs, as calculated from that tool, is 2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64 - I have no idea if this is a sensible range to block though. Sam Walton (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
        • mw:Help:Range_blocks/IPv6 implies that this covers 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, so perhaps not appropriate. That said, that's a fraction of the total possible IPv6 IPs, so I have no idea. Sam Walton (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Pinging Mr. IPv6 Jasper Deng to see if he can help out. And (canvassing) perhaps more admins could put in their two cents here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• @Drmies and Samwalton9: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 indeed is the range you want to block. The duration you should use for this is the same as you would use for a single AT&T IPv4 address, although this should be considered more static than a dynamic IPv4. If it's a residential Internet provider, a /64 in IPv6, i.e. having the first four digit groups in common, is easily treatable as a single IP. Do not be deterred by the number of addresses blocked, because by design very few of them will be used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Jasper, I appreciate the note, but I'm just not going to venture there. I wish we had a button we could push that would pull up a list of admins willing and able to make rangeblocks. I'm not one of them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm blocking 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two months. The log shows that the previous rangeblock by User:Monty845 expired on 14 June, which does fit with the dates of the above vandalism reports. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to add a technical note, while a /64 should be, and appears here to be a single user akin to an IPv4 address, the protocol is new enough that we should keep in mind the possibility that it may not always be, with either rapidly changing /64s from one user, or many users on one /64. Also, when this block expires, if we need to extend it again, linking the previous range block log may help get a quicker block. Monty₈₄₅ 00:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I do have to emphasize that looking at WHOIS is of utmost importance with IPv6; my comment strongly depends on the ISP being residential. It most certainly does not apply to mobile or satellite ISP's.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war at Mark Lippert

I'm sorry to report I am finding myself drawn into a slow edit war with White Anunnaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at this page. Here are the basic facts:

• Mr. Lippert is the U.S. ambassador to South Korea.
• A few months ago he was assaulted by a political extremist who apparently believed that an appropriate way to protest for peace was to slash a diplomat in the face.
• White Anunnaki added some content to the article that was backed by a source that I found to be of dubious quality[104]
• I reverted them,[105] and we had a discussion on my talk page, see User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 34#Mark Lippert.
• They argued that it was an official government news source and therefore reliable
• Turns out it was an official government news source. Said government being the Kim regime in North Korea.
• To me that seems like an obvious propaganda outlet for the DPRK as most North Korean people do not speak English and almost none of them have access the global internet due to both lack of infrastructure and the fact that it is against the law for them to even own a device capable of doing so. I've also never read a neutral news report that referred to the "puppet police" and "madcap saber rattling." So, this isn't a news source for North Koreans, it is obviously directed at outsiders.
• Yet White Anunnaki insists I am simply projecting my own biases onto the source and that all news sources have a bias of some sort, so we should use it anyway, and they have restored it again [106]
• Full disclosure: I am an American, and as it happens I went to high school with Mr. Lippert. We weren't friends or anything but I think we may have had some clasees together at some point. I haven't seen him or spoken to him since I graduated right around this time 25 years ago. I had no idea what had become of him until I read about his incident, but there it is.
• I wonder if White Anunnaki may also have something they would care to dsclose regarding their motivations for insisting on using such a questionable source when sources form actual, reputable news sources exist and they are aware of them.

So, I don't want to keep reverting them, but I also don't want DPRK propaganda websites being presented as reliable sources on Wikipedia. I therefore ask for other admins to step in and do whatever they feel is best. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted White Anunnaki and I removed the source. This discussion should be moved to the article talk page and the user should be warned about adding unreliable sources to BLP's. Frankly, anyone named "White Anunnaki" (a veiled reference to racist theories claiming white people are descended from aliens) should probably be blocked. Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I did caution them about using reliable sources when they first added it, as even before I realized it was the DPRK it was abundantly clear to me that it was not an acceptable source. And as you indicate, I'm not so sure this one incident constitutes the entirety of the problem, that's why I brought it here instead of the article TP. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. My motivation is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. The bias against Korea is typically Anglo-American. The facts that I obtained from the source are not even controversial or extraordinary: it's only the name of the organization of which the perpetrator was a member of, and that information is confirmed by other sources, as discussed on your Talk page. White Anunnaki (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What bias? I live in the United States and Koreans are some of our most beloved immigrants. We love their food and their culture, and South Korea is one of our closest allies and trading partners. Where is this bias? Don't make me start singing Katy Perry now... Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to North Korea... The "reliable" American media prints the stupidest stories about them which are then proven to be false. Here's one example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/06/story-kim-jong-un-uncle-fed-dogs-made-up White Anunnaki (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So you are engaging in WP:POINT editing then, by adding sources from North Korea? That's not how it works. Yes, the US media has very serious problems, but you don't solve it by compounding the problem. For example, I made the mistake of turning NPR on this morning only to find it cheerleading the candidacy of Jeb Bush -- after spending the previous week cheerleading the candidacy of Hilary Clinton. Great, just what we need, a 40 year legacy of the same two political dynasties whose policies don't seem to change or differ when implemented, meaning we now have a monarchy, not a democracy. It's a bit different than North Korea, however, because I haven't been disappeared (yet). But that's neither here or there. Stop adding crappy sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No idea what NPR means nor do I really understand any of your references... But sure, I won't edit that page anymore. I want to make it clear I didn't engage in edit war, though. I only reverted his edits twice, and once I added an extra source from a different country to please him. And I also took the time to explain my edits on his Talk page. White Anunnaki (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be fairly disingenuous (not to mention irresponsible) to accept a North Korean source to support a claim about anything in the West, or South Korea for that matter. I'm sure I don't have to go into detail about how much of a clusterf*ck North Korean "media" is. They should only be trusted as a lightly used primary source, and humor. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to make the point (before I even realized this was from DPRK) that no reputable news source would describe the joint U.S.-Korean military exercises that are held each year as "madcap saber rattling" nor would they describe the police as "puppets" and insinuate that all Koreans agree that slashing the U.S. ambassador's face was an legitimate way of protesting those war games, but they were not receptive to that message. DPRK's English-language internet news obviously does not serve the purpose of informing the Korean public, it is a mouthpiece for the party line, directed entirely at the outside world.

I'm concerned that their response to all this is just to say they won't edit this one article again, as this is obviously a more basic problem of understanding what is and is not a reliable source. I would feel the same way if they had used certain U.S. sources, such as Infowars or similar wingnut websites. They are obviously not competent journalists known for fact-checking and accuracy. Anyone should be able to see that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I used the search function and went through articles to see where the DRPK news service was cited, and found that it was used to represent the position of the North Korean government. I may have missed some, but I think that the source is generally not being used as a reliable source per se. BMK (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fairbairn

B. Fairbairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User was edit warring previously with editors on removing political figures on country pages. After the various wars, he " switched sides" and began making pointy edits by adding political figures to pages. Additionally, he constantly blanks his user page making warning tracking very difficult. He seems more interested in disrupting other editors than editing positively to Wikipedia. His page history is full of edit war notices. Example of his recent pointy crusade: 1 2 3 Jcmcc (Talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand and agree with his initial point. Pictures of US presidents and the White House were over represented on foreign country pages and should be removed and added to the /relationship pages. That's typical Anglo-American bias (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus). White Anunnaki (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't feel one way or the other about it. He simply happened to add a pointy picture to one of the pages I actively watchlist. I started looking through his history and quickly found that he is a problem-user. His actions have been almost all some form of troublesome editing (edit warring, being pointy, or blanking his own page) Jcmcc (Talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block as WP:NOTHERE. His talk page showed he even built a table dedicated to these photos, breaking it down by country. The reason so many of these photos are used is because U.S. government photos are copyright free and thus we can use them. In some cases we have few or no other free images of these world leaders at our disposal to use. This campaign, plus other disruptive edits, shows his purpose is not to build an encyclopedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not to get all patriotic over here, but Wikipedia has made me a very big fan of the apparently uniquely American concept that almost any image or other document produced by a representative of the U.S. governemt in the course of their duties belongs to everyone and can be used without permisssion. If other countries were so liberal in this regard (I know, I know that sounds crazy, but apparently in this one way we are actually more liberal than most other countries), I'm sure we would all be happy to reuse those images as well. I'd be interested to know if this user is aware of this situation and if that changes their understanding of why we use so many such images. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I know what you mean. If only B. Fairbairn would devote his energy to getting every government to make all their libraries open copyright. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guys, If you go through my long history you will see I have made some useful contributions e.g. putting lists into tables, adding extra information, correcting misinformation. Unfortunately I have also got into the habit of not backing down when confronted by bullies.

For the future it may be best if I stay away from country pages altogether, and make an effort not to wantonly annoy self-appointed guardians. B. Fairbairn (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

People who don't agree with you are not bullies, they simple don't agree with you. All wikipedians are self-appointed guardians of Wikipedia. Please read over wp:point. This is not about your disagreements with the other wiki users, its how you go about it. Your list does not contribute constructively to Wikipedia. From what I understand, its a list for your point. From your contribs, I have concluded that you are Not Here to build an encyclopedia. That is why I put you on the noticeboard. Jcmcc (Talk) 11:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

People who don't agree with me are not bullies: Agreed
People who continually revert posts, start hate discussions and threaten others with expulsion are bullies.
A guardian helps protect others. The self-appointed guardians I refer to make a point of interfering with all posts they do not agree with.
The one particular list you refer to is mine: that is why it is on my page. If you cannot handle it, remove it, or stay away from there.
You put me on the noticeboard because I argued with your friend. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thats a very bold accusation, and unfortunately for you, its wrong. Look at my contribs and you will find that I have been editing the page Albania since before this whole thing started. It was only when you added an out-of-place picture of George W. Bush to the page that I noticed what you were doing, placed a disruptive editing warning on your page and left it be. Recently you appeared on my watchlist due to having other people put warnings up. I then looked into it again and found you had not ceased your disruptive editing. This is not a "hate discussion" its a determination on if you should be removed from the community. Your actions and words are self-condemning. You appear to have no remorse for your disruptive editing and are acting defensive about your *painfully obvious* intent to disrupt Wikipedia. Jcmcc (Talk) 12:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, the three edits pointed at earlier in the discussion (on Ireland, Albania, etc.) are completely useless and suggest a misunderstanding of what we're doing here. I have no interest in plowing through all the user's edits; I am interested, however, in seeing if the user understands why those edits are useless (let me state, for the record, that adding a picture of some US head of state with country X's head of state on the page for country X is typically useless, unless some moment of huge historical significance is clearly depicted--one thinks of the Big Three at Jalta, etc.). If they understand that and stop doing it, then we can move on without blocking or banning everyone. They must also understand that they're not being oppressed. I'm also interested in Beeblebrox's assessment. Thansk, Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The "adding a picture of some US head of state with country X's head of state on the page for country X is typically useless" is a statement I completely agree with, however after clashes with a few stubborn individuals I tried applying an alternative approach: "If you can't beat them, join them." The idea behind this was to try to encourage somebody else to join a crusade to get rid of the same silly face/faces ungracefully appearing on many country pages.

Unfortunately all it served to do was to present a self-righteous individual with an excuse to start his own little campaign. B. Fairbairn (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of vandalism

Reference this incident of allegations, user Abdulqayyumfsc has levelled serious allegation against me with incivility. This has hurt me as anyone would be. I suspect it to be the case of meatpuppetry or perhaps sockpuppetry as similar allegations were posted after I AfDed the article.¹ He has been canvassing as he cross posted in an attempt to get my edits nuked and blocked.^{2 3 4} With just 27 edits in English Wikipedia and 3 edits in Urdu Wikipedia, it is strongly suspected sockpuppetery. User Wikimandia has reverted my edits confirming the allegations in edit summary.⁵ Therefore, I request administrator intervention. Regards.  sami  ^talk 03:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Samee, I truly apologize if I hurt your feelings in my edit summary; however you deleted almost the entire article! [107] Except for the infobox, you cut the article down to two sentences. It is one thing to delete the promotional info, but you chose to remove neutral information such as the section about his education. You even deleted the WP:PERSONDATA, which seems to me the result of someone trying to delete as much as possible and not carefully editing the information. Since you had already nominated it for deletion and it was kept, this is retaliatory editing IMO and if not vandalism, is certainly disruptive. This is not acceptable. Also I don't understand the edit summary that "Removed wordpress reference and another reference that is the main domain www.ptv.com.pk (can't be used as reference)". Wordpress is not a blacklisted site, but if it's self-published it's preferable to just put "better source needed" instead of removing the information. I don't understand why Pakistan Television Corporation can't be used as a reference either. I don't know if this constitutes vandalism, but (as I said above) it seems to me to be rather disruptive. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• • There is no problem in citing Pakistan Television Corporation but does citing the main domain make sense? What if I make a claim and cite only the main domain that does not back the claim. While wordpress is not blacklisted, the wordpress reference used in the article was not acceptable and reliable. My edits were not retaliatory in any sense. Because you're just assuming it a retaliation and not bothering to check references, all my edits to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia would only appear vandalism and disruptive. The very wordpress reference you're favoring refers to the comment made by Mr. Rehmat Aziz and who knows this blog is not self-published but one thing that is confirmed is that the comment made by Rehmat Aziz is self-published. The education section was not cited with references for years and one reference that was cited was the website of Allama Iqbal Open University that did not back his claims. In fact, my edits to the article were in accordance with the policies.  sami  ^talk 04:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Per this rfc PERSONDATA is deprecated and subject to removal. As for the rest, Samee's edits are clearly not vandalism. Vandalism is limited to edits made in bad faith, typically with intent to harm the encyclopedia. Even without judging the quality of the edits, its still clear they were made in good faith. (That doesn't mean they are right or wrong, just not vandalism) Please be more careful in calling other editors vandals; it is extraordinarily rare to come a cross an actual vandal with more then a few dozen edit, and calling editors vandals when they aren't is highly inflammatory. Monty₈₄₅ 04:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Ahh I didn't realize that about PERSONDATA. However, I don't agree this was done in good faith, given his desire to delete the article and then basically deleting it through editing. If only promotional things had been removed, then yes, I would agree, but why remove the very first section about the man's education? And he also removed the sections about his awards, including an award from the Pakistan Ministry of Education. Please note that the fact that the article subject had received these awards were among the reasons some gave to keep the article, per WP:ANYBIO. I really don't know how you can look at the before and after edits and say that was done in good faith. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
      • AfDing the article was not my desire to get it deleted but to have community consensus. I respected the consensus and my edits were in accordance with the opinions held in discussion. Award from the Ministry of Education is again not backed by reliable sources. Do you want me to add {{Cn}} at the end of each sentence. I once again REQUEST you to assume good faith. I am curious to know what is making you believe that I edited in bad faith and the other user in good faith.  sami  ^talk 04:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree that you were seeking consensus; you wanted the article deleted. You stated several times the subject fails GNG, "If the subject is really notable, they should not have spammed multiple Wikipedias just to have autobiographies and biographies," and also argued that his contribution of designing a virtual Khowar keyboard was not legitimate. His article has huge number of sources for his awards at the bottom; they're not properly inline. Yet you deleted the whole award section and all these links describing his achievements.[108], [109] (very specifically mentions the Ministry of Education commendation), [110]. Why are these not reliable sources? Why did you delete them instead of using them to improve the article? I don't know who the "other user" is that you're talking about, since you and I are the only one who has edited this article in the last month; please show me those edits and I'll take a look. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell you're headstrong and not willing to collaborate, engaging in discussion with you is in vain. You have been rightly blocked.

What do you mean by consensus. Consensus does not always mean keep it. Once again you're quoting my comments out of the context to weigh your arguments, which I have already told you on your talkpage. Taken from your talkpage and written by you Fine. Since WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I'll edit anyway, and not this talk page. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:57 am, Today (UTC+5), your statements are self-contradicting. I was referring to the user Abdulqayyumfsc that approached you and cross-posted the same on some other users' talkpages per WP:CAN. Should that user had any objections, the user should have reverted my edits or started discussion on talkpage instead of initiating the proxy discussion and levelling serious, unethical, and uncivil allegations without evidence against me. That's my view. That's quite similar to what an administrator Monty845 has hinted as above.  sami  ^talk 08:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone is a sockpuppet in this group.Cosmic  Emperor  15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For reference —from Wikimandia's talkpage

Vandalism by User:Samee One Vandal namely User:Samee nominated article namely Rehmat Aziz for deletion. After consensus the decision was strong keep. Now the Vandal Samee removed all content from article Rehmat Aziz, deleted all references, all photos, all sources, all external links for his personal enmity with the renowned personality Rehmat Aziz. It is pertinent to mention here that he is the confirmed vandal in urdu wikipedia and the administrator of urdu wikipedia revoked his admin rights due to his vandalism in Urdu Wikipedia and his username has been banned. He is a confirmed sock puppet of User:Farhad Uddin, User:Deepak Chitrali and User:Najaf ali bhayo and they have moved article Rehmat Aziz Chitrali to Rehmat Aziz without any reason. The three users are the same person. User:Samee has been blocked for his vandalism by the administrator of Urdu wiki. Please blockUser:Samee and remove his adminship access and block him for abuse of admin access. I don't think he is qualified for admin or any access in Wikipedia. Please revert all his edits done by the vandalUser:Samee and restore all article to their original position--Abdulqayyumfsc (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Hello. Thank you for the note. I have undone the changes as I did not think it was appropriate. However, I don't know if Samee is a sock puppet of those, as his English is much better. Also, he is not an administrator as far as I can tell. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC) @Abdulqayyumfsc: Think twice before you speak lest you hurt feelings of others. You should be careful and are responsible for allegations made without evidence. Firstly, anyone can nominate an article for AfD (with valid rationale) and that does not make any user a VANDAL provided the integrity of the Wikipedia is not compromised. As far as Rehmat Aziz Chitrali is concerned, the consensus was not STRONG KEEP but only keep. It was opined in the discussion that the article had promotional issue and required NPOV edits. The article was already tagged with maintenance templates and per WP:BOLD, my recent edits to the article does not make me vandal. I have never been an administrator on any Wiki. This is English Wikipedia and here we have consensus instead of democracy and bureaucracy as in the very Wikipedia you're referring to and sugar coating won't influence opinions. You're alleging me a CONFIRMED SOCK PUPPET, have you any proof? A confirmed sock puppet should have an investigation page and I believe that user should be indefinitely blocked. Am I so? Be familiar with Meatpuppetry and I suspect it to be the case of meatpuppetry.3 Instead of accusing others I would suggest you to be bold and revert the edits or start a discussion on article's talkpage instead of spamming.1,2, and here I'll be taking you to ANI. @Wikimandia: I have grave reservations over your edit summary. How did my edits to the article constitute vandalism? If the whole of the article does not conform to the standards, deleting it won't be vandalism. I edited that article per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and subsequently WP:BOLD. Some of the references I deleted just cited main domain of a site and others deceptively cited.  sami  talk 03:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Samee: You deleted almost the entire article! Except for the infobox, you cut the article down to two sentences. It is one thing to delete the promotional info, but you even removed the section about his education. Since you had already nominated it for deletion and it was kept, this is retaliatory editing IMO and if not vandalism, is certainly disruptive. This is not acceptable. Also I don't understand the edit summary that "Removed wordpress reference and another reference that is the main domain www.ptv.com.pk (can't be used as reference)". Wordpress is not a blacklisted site, but if it's self-published it's preferable to just put "better source needed" instead of removing the information. I don't understand why Pakistan Television Corporation can't be used as a reference either. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC) There is no problem in citing Pakistan Television Corporation but does citing the main domain make sense? What if I make a claim and cite only the main domain that does not back the claim. While wordpress is not blacklisted, the wordpress reference used in the article was not acceptable and reliable. My edits were not retaliatory in any sense. Because you're just assuming it a retaliation and not bothering to check references, all my edits to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia would only appear vandalism and disruptive. The very wordpress reference you're favoring refers to the comment made by Mr. Rehmat Aziz and who knows this blog is not self-published but one thing that is confirmed is that the comment made by Rehmat Aziz is self-published. The education section was not cited with references for years and one reference that was cited was the website of Allama Iqbal Open University that did not back his claims. In fact, my edits to the article were in accordance with the policies.  sami  talk 04:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I disagree - what do you think the "better source needed" and "citation needed" tags are used for? You're not supposed to remove giant swatches of non-controversial text. I would suggest you do not edit this article anymore. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Have I edited the article after your edits? I suggest rather REQUEST you to assume good faith. This is a BLP and major portion of the article was not properly referenced and constituted original research and it was not an obligation on me to necessarily add citation needed or better source templates only.  sami  talk 04:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC) @Samee: I assume good faith when it is warranted. Based on the AfD, it appears you have an agenda with this particular person. Neutral people looked at the coverage and decided it met GNG, but you continued to argue otherwise, including saying things like, "If the subject is really notable, they should not have spammed multiple Wikipedias just to have autobiographies and biographies." This is not how notability works. You also argued, about the coverage of him related to the keyboard, that "As far as keyboard is concerned, there is nothing new in developing a keyboard layout." We don't argue that an article subject didn't deserve the coverage they received. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC) You're driving to another direction. This discussion is not about the notability of the person. AfDing once did not mean I have personal agenda; applying your rationale this AfD would translate the same. You're quoting out of the context to weigh your arguments. You say neutral people argued Keep but it should also be remembered that some also argued in deletion or were uncertain and there was no unanimous consensus. Deletion of the article would neither benefit me nor retention would harm me. Should all claims were backed by reliable sources, I would have no objection. You're getting biased in the assumption of good faith.  sami  talk 05:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Renominating an article for deletion that was closed as no consensus (especially when it was not even my original AfD) is not the equivalent of your deleting all but two sentence of an article after your nomination to delete that article failed! It doesn't matter that it was not unanimously kept; consensus is what matters, not unanimous anything. That you're still arguing about the AfD outcome (who cares if it wasn't unanimous? Where is that a requirement), your comments in the AfD, and your apparent personal issue with the article creator show me you were not editing in good faith when you deleted everything except two sentences. We both know it. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) You're twisting the discussion. It was you who quoted out of context AfD comments and ignited the notability debate arguing neutral people agreed to keep. I have already written at ANI that I respect the outcome and it depends on the consensus and was not my desire. When I said it was not unanimous outcome, it was in response to your above comment when you quoted out of context comments and insisted as if all neutral people agreed to keep. I am restating and STRESSING that I have no personal issues either with the subject or the creator/author of the article. I have never been in arguments with them. It is only you and the one with 27-edits, who has levelled allegations against me, think so. The article was not my original nomination and it was previously nominated at AfD twice and last time there was no consensus and then I renominated it. My nomination did not fail but in fact helped to gain consensus. Instead of collaboration, you're distorting the discussion just to bring arguments in your favour. This discussion is not about the notability of the subject but to defend myself against impolite and uncivil allegations. Thus engaging in discussion with you is in vain.  sami  talk 07:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC) OK, as you wish. I already apologized if I hurt your feelings by referring to your edits as vandalism. However, I stand by my statement that they were disruptive and not in good faith. In the future, please think twice before you delete 90 percent of an article, especially one you want permanently deleted, and use your critical thinking skills to consider alternative ways the article could be improved. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Tag-team editing

There seems to be tag-team editing going on between User:Strangeguy80467 and User:Creepywhore749 , presumably with the intention that the first makes an edit, then the second makes another edit that "bakes it in", so that when the second is reverted, the first's edit remains. Note that these edits are similar to those made by User:Fatwhore945, User:Iamawhore872, and other similarly-named accounts, suggesting that this is a sockfarm. -- The Anome (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@The Anome:, your edit-summary seemed to break off? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That's because the edit summary line has a character limit, and I just cut and pasted my comment above into it, truncating it in the process. -- The Anome (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: And also now User:Dumbass8683. -- The Anome (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me start a quick SPI. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Creepywhore, Fatwhore, Imawhore and Dumbass should be name blocked in any case. BMK (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone should take a look at User:Thekillerinside as well. BMK (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there's anything to investigate here. Except for an overlap with the article topics and dates (over a one month period), and a red link user page with a slightly provocative name, I don't see any connection. The entire contribs can be summarized as:

• May 3: Maria Brink - moved genre to front of list and capitalized / not reverted to date
• May 6: Black Widow (In This Moment album) - added single release to list / not reverted to date
• May 31: Blood (In This Moment album) - removed stray comma
• May 31: In This Moment - removed nu-metal genre and associated reference / reverted June 10 in roll-back of other copious vandalism, possibly not targeted specifically

-- Willondon (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So, except for A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H, there's no connection between the editing of the accounts that you can see, is that right? BMK (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I took your suggestion to mean looking for a connection where the accounts are acting in concert. The goal of the other accounts is obviously vandalism. I summarized Thekillerinside's contributions because they were few and easy to analyse (eight edits spanning four articles), and because I didn't see any intent to vandalize there. I've amended "doesn't like there's anything" to "doesn't look like there's anything" (oops). I'd be happy to further amend it to add "to me" at the end there. Or maybe I misassumed what you were suggesting we look for. Willondon (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to nameblocks for Dumbass8683, Creepywhore749, Iamawhore872, and Fatwhore945? They go beyond "slightly provocative." The other names mentioned do not appear to be as blatant. Edison (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'd fully support nameblocks for those, myself – especially the last three. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Already done. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

nazism sidebar

Director called my edits vandalism just because i pointed out we dont have to have Strasserism twice in the sidebar its redundant, whats more is that he thinks that its up to him to decide what logo should be be used on the sidebar despite not having consensus on it Dannis243 (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

One I realised that Strasserism is not the same as the philosophy of Alfredo Stroessner, I looked through the page history and could find nothing problematic on DIREKTOR's part. Why didn't you attempt to talk with him about it? Just a couple of minutes ago, he even removed the duplicate link. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

i did not remove anything i moved it to the proper place! i already said that that is not mainstreampart of NSDAP ideology and should be in the related topics in the sidebar not in the ideology section just like neo nazism! Dannis243 (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please do something about this fella? He's been edit-warring and generally being disruptive on the Nazi Germany article and Nazism sidebar, posting fake RfCs, demanding the same changes over and over again, ignoring consensus, etc. This is a good example: he's edit warring to push some flag instead of a logo for a logo entry in a template.. reverted, and not a word on the talkpage. Seems a kind of grudge after he couldn't have his way at Nazi Germany for the fourth time... -- Director (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

you have also been edit warring and ignoring consensus in the TALKPAGE there is no soupport for your version either! i never said it has to do with some south american dictator, i olny said Strasserism (Strasser brothers of germany) was not a mainstream part of NSDAP ideology and therefore should be mentioned in the related section of the sidebar just like neo nazism, also he keeps removing my logo in the sidebar even though his version does not have any consensus either Dannis243 (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This sort of discussion should occur on the "TALKPAGE" Dannis! Yes I changed the logo. A couple weeks ago I replaced the one I myself(!) introduced with consensus years ago. And we introduced the previous logo because there was no simple Nazi swastika to contend for the spot (there was some Luftwaffe decal or something). Now there is a simple swastika, so I introduced it in good faith. Only to have you childishly restore the stupid flag from years ago, with no imaginable coherent rationale. I can't even get my mind around the logic that says "you replaced the old version - so that means I can do what I like!". If you're for the "consensus", then restore that. If you're against it - then seek consensus for that flag. But I will say this: a flag is not a logo, and it looks out of place.

Strasserism was a part of Nazi ideology until 1932. Strasser was a Nazi until 1932. For most of its existence, it was a branch of Nazism. It belongs in the Ideology section, where it stood for years now. -- Director (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

but who gave you the monopoly deciding rights about the logo?!, so has i introduced a new logo in good faith too just us you claim, but your logo does not have any consensus either Dannis243 (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, what has been done to try and obtain consensus on the talk page; it may require a RFC. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The guy went for AN/I instantly... This is just a childish grudge over another dispute, he's just following me around undoing edits. -- Director (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

you know i'm getting pretty tired of your accusations, "he is following me" "childish grudge". Dont you see your making this childish not me. And dont tell me am edit warring and then revert my edits repeatedly without discussion! it easily show who is doing more damage, you say i dont discuss but then i dont see a talkpage or a rfc with several opinions! Dannis243 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere changing every biographical political article infobox to officeholder

Therequiembellishere appears to be engaged in making wholesale changes of infoboxes on biographical political articles to Infobox officeholder, despite being advised otherwise on his talk page by Bagunceiro and I, which he appears to have ignored for the past four weeks despite my best efforts to redirect him to respond to the discussion on his talk page several times in the edit summaries as well as two messages I sent on his talk page.

Therequiembellishere was asked by Bagunceiro on 12 May why he is changing MP infoboxes to "officeholder and going against the instructions for Template:Infobox officeholder which states that the appropriate derived template should be used, and Infobox MP is clearly the most appropriate.

He responded on the same day claiming that he's "been told" in the past that using those titles involves an unnecessary redirect and that "officeholder" was best but understands that it's possible the precedent has changed since then.

I responded the following day, supporting Bagunceiro stance that the template provides clear guidelines on infobox to use. I added, there is no harm in there being a redirect that is the whole purpose of redirects therefore there is no reason for doing this and asked him to please stop doing this.

He failed to respond to this and continued to change the infoboxes on 22, 23, 26 and 28 May.[111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119]

I reverted these changes back and sent him another message on his talk page advising him again that Template:Infobox officeholder states; "Please use the most appropriate name when placing this template on a page." Therefore, despite previously being advised of this (from Bagunceiro and I), why he is changing every infobox to officeholder? I asked him to either stop doing this, explain why he continues to do this (as per WP:BRD) or the matter can be taken to WP:ANI.

Therequiembellishere decided to ignore this again and on 11 and 15 June continued to WP:EDIT WAR and change the infoboxes to officeholder.[120][121][122][123]

After I reverted these back, he finally responded on 16 June appearing to concede that the most appropriate infobox should be used but then continued to do the same thing.[124][125][126][127][128][129][[130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142] Tanbircdq (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It says clearly at the top of this page: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."

You have not done so; please do so immediately. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Userlinks for convenience. Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Addendum. User notified by Robert McClenon, here Blackmane (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've had similiar problems with this editor over a few years, concerning succession boxes. Also note, the editor's talkpage hasn't been archived since 2009. This may be a WP:COMPETENT issue. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm in a pretty busy period right now and haven't had time to reply until now. Which is why I've not been terribly available over the past few weeks to answer Tanbircdq's comments. That is, I admit, shitty, but I largely avoided the pages in question until I was more available to answer knowing that I wouldn't be able to competently reply at the time. I finally carved time out to respond after Tanbircdq's reverts became significantly more like wikistalking and I finally addressed him/her on the merits of his contention.

I'll talk about the wikistalking first since it's on my mind. This "dispute" started out with a few frontbench British politicians and he/she followed me to very niche articles like new American ambassadors and federal judicial nominees that he had never had real activity in before. In our recent communication he/she claimed that I couldn't possibly know the usual articles that he/she edits, and condescending said "many editors are involved in editing those articles, not just you" as if I was claiming ownership. I wasn't, I was annoyed that he'd broadened this dispute out to articles that he hadn't previously been attracted to which I know because I've been a part of the federal judge's articles for at least the past seven years and recognize most of the usual editors involved. Tanbircdq is not one of them. Tanbircdq claims he/she only made these edits after receiving an undo notification but, using this as just one example, that's a lie.

As far as the meat of the dispute itself, this is honestly jut so ridiculous to me. Firstly, Tanbircdq is claiming to be a part of some collective action with Bagunceiro, but that it patently untrue. Bagunceiro asked on my talk why I had been changing to officeholder and I replied that under the previous precedent (that I had been hounded for in the past when I was doing exactly what Tanbircdq seems to be obsessed with now), I was told that the specificity of what political office they held created an unnecessary redirect to the standard "Infobox officeholder" and that it was best to use that as the standard. Because, at the end of the day, no matter which marker is used, the information is displayed in exactly the same way every time. I also see additional issues with persons like Tom Carper and George McGovern who serve in multiple roles over their career. Are we supposed to determine which role was most notable to their career and use that as this distinguishing marker when "officeholder" as a neutral mode serves the same purpose? Regardless, Bagunceiro never commented again.

Then Tanbircdq started getting involved and has been hiding behind this, in my opinion, pretty insignificant issue to revert all my work to various infoboxes wholesale. He claims is issue is a technical one (whether to use "Infobox judge" or "Infobox mp" or whatever), but has been making his point by removing the content edits I've made to the rest of the actual box. In particular, many of my infobox edits do serve a technical function make make it easier for editors for finding and editing the infobox by standardizing the information displayed to be in a more columned format (using evenly spaced equal signs between the section header and the information), arranging the sections more like the order they will appear in the box and in removing unneeded and empty sections that amount to bloat that needlessly increase the bytes of the article, often by over 1,000.

After finally replying to Tanbircdq, I went back to all the articles he/she had removed my edits from and brought them back. I said he/she was free to go in and put the "Infobox ..." marker in but my primary concern was just getting the edits back. Which Tanbircdq did, but didn't reply to me in that time I was still at the computer and so I assumed the issue was by-and-large a settled matter. So I have to say I'm honestly pretty surprised this has continued to exist at all, especially going to ANI without me making a single new edit in between. Or in notifying me, which I have to say reeks of trying to get some administrative action put against me without my knowledge, even after being told here to do so, my notification came from Robert McClenon and, indeed, Bagunceiro came in to make it easier to locate. I also have to add that I don't really understand GoodDay's comment here, since the issues are totally separate and my dispute with him was a content issue, whereas this is a technical issue at best. Furthermore, his bringing up of competent, using my unarchived talk as an example is just insulting. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Therequiembellishere: I have not made further comment because I did not feel I had anything constructive to contribute and have not been following the matter closely. This should not be seen as tacit support.

For the record my position is as follows:

Your reply to my question appeared to recognise that you were in error but it seems that you have continued to make these changes.

You do not appear to understand templates, or the benefits of indirection and inheritance. There is no shame in that, but it does mean that you should be even more assiduous in following the instructions for them.

Alternatively you may have a deeper understanding than I and although you haven't yet explained what it is, a good reason for these templates to be deprecated. In which case you should discuss these concerns to obtain consensus for changing the instructions. I guess the talk page for the template is the best place for this, perhaps with heads up messages on pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. If that is not the right place then someone there will be able to suggest where. Unilateral wholesale action is not the right answer.

With regard to what you call stalking by @Tanbircdq. I have no idea whatever of his motives, but his action in reverting your changes quickly was beneficial. Subsequent edits would have made unpicking the mess much more difficult. I imagine the job was a bit tedious. If the two of you have any history of animosity then I would urge you both to put it behind you.

Please stop what you are doing and engage. Bagunceiro (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin eyes please - Rachel Dolezal, Transracial, Transracial identity, Racial transformation (individual), associated AfDs

Hello all, there is currently an off-wiki campaign in the wake of the Rachel Dolezal case to have an article on the neologism Transracial or similar. The fact that we don't currently have an article on what would be a clearly important medical or sociological condition should tell you all you need to know. Some reliable (and unreliable) sources have used the term (mostly in scare quotes, it has to be said), and some editors have dug up older (as old as 2008!) references to the word. Earlier today I blocked User:Andhisteam for clear trolling on this issue (see Dolezal's talk page and elsewhere for that one), and I have just AfD'd Transracial identity, assuming good faith as it was an established editor who created it (though they haven't edited much recently). Given that this is, for Dolezal, a BLP issue - not to mention a serious issue of WP:OR, WP:V etc., more eyes are requested on all of these articles. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Black Kite - I note you've been WP:CANVASSING editors to your AfD of the article I recently created. I'd like to request you not do that. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That accusation is evidently flatly wrong. The article you created is the third article on a WP:HOAX concept that Internet trolls have propagated in the last week, and the third subject of an ongoing AfD over the same term or concept. Obviously users who have participated in the AfDs of the other attempts to get this hoax into Wikipedia have a legitimate interest to be made aware of new hoax articles based on the same Internet meme. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please calm down. This is an edit discussion, not the Battle of Waterloo. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you've read WP:CALMDOWN. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Callmemirela. My bad. Comment stricken BlueSalix (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's Bloomsday, when everyone should consume calming Guinnesses and kidneys. The Battle of Waterloo is the day after tomorrow. Paul B (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If I'd wanted to canvass the AfD, I'd hardly have posted in on the Rachel Dolezam talkpage, which is currently habited by people who support getting the whole Transracial issue into the article. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transracial (2nd nomination), which isn't going anywhere--the discussion isn't, and that DAB shouldn't be going anywhere either, at least not now. I'm tempted to revert the page to an earlier stage, something that makes sense considering that the two recent additions are under discussion, but I'm afraid that will only add to the shitstorm. I suggest we let the two other two AfDs play out. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that is the right decision, Drmies. While I don't think the concept is a hoax, there are clearly some trolls involved in recent editing which you can tell by the gibberish in the edit summaries. There is no deadline and I think when this subject is expanded upon, and I think it eventually will be, there will be sufficient sources to write proper articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, not a hoax, but not ready for primetime. Trolls will need to be handled in the usual way; semi-protection can be liberally applied if necessary. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You won't believe this, Drmies, but I heard on the radio that one of the television broadcast networks has plans to air a series called Transracial. It may not make it past a pilot episode but if it does, I guess there will be an almost completely unrelated article about this sociological concept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if this WIKI were a dedication to the slang word "whigger" (apologies). The term transracial by definition means "involving, encompassing, or extending across two or more races" in regards to adoption (such as the word (multiracial). The identity issue isn't new, but it is currently popular as media gossip and fodder for social forums. I don't believe the WIKI is a hoax nor should be removed, but I would rather see an interaction in FORUM discussions. It could get very soap-boxy in here. This is a current trend & public interest story, so let's see if there's any longevity to it. Although I agree we'll probably face an editing war, I think it's an interesting enough content to make a really good Wikipedia article.--j0eg0d (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

TWO blatant NPAs by Viriditas on my talkpage

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

---

I'm quitting Wikipedia anyway, because of the ongoing hypocrisy and harassmwent nature of its overweening bureaucracy and as many know, I loathe this place which I consider a bearpit of negativity and institutionalized hypocrisy. But a classic case in point of that hypocristy was just made by Viriditas on my talkpage and it sums up the rank perversion of this place and its pretenses about "behavioural guidelines". The diff is here the NPAs are

• "indictive, vengeful, unforgiving, resentful, jealous and bitter"
• and last but not least " find a good psychiatrist who will treat you. "

All who make such psychiatric pronouncements as that last one are not qualified to do so - especially coming from someone who refused to read anything I said about the POV problems and my opponent's own behavioural violations and took their side while claiming to be a moderator. Driving someone to anger and frustration as was done to me as a way t o find others to side against me is the tactic, trotting out the 'go find a psychiatrist line and others who have said "paranoid delusional" and worse is WP:BAITing and against guidelines. this is such a rank and obvious violation of NPA that I must make this comment here, even though I am quitting Wikipedia and will NEVER be back. I will, however, be writing about t his kind of behaviour and those who perpetrate it as a way to avoid discussing content issues and instead turn it into attacks on those who raise them. A recognizable propaganda technique, in fact, and that's not paranoid pointing that out, it's a statement of well-documented fact.

I doubt any action will be taken against him (or her or whatever he/she is); there are those here who get away with bloody murder while pretending to be the voice of reason as he/she has. but nothing in their scolds against me has been rational, and it's all b een personal attacks. I noted also a while back while researching this user during my block that I'm not the only one who's had such problems with him/her.

I have little faith in this place; in fact, I have zero faith in it; no doubt there will the "shut up Skookum1" crowd show up, and those repeating other NPAs they have made here in the past.

But who are you all really, those who make such personal attacks with such ababdon? A bunch of nobodies, that's who.

But an NPA is an NPA, and he's/she's made several against me before. So is anyone going to do anything about it? I'm not holding my breath.....

To think that me calling WTM "ill-informed" (which he is) was an NPA and comments like Viriditas' are stock-in-trade and par for the course.....adieu Wikipedia, I'm done done done done and done.Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record: User:The Interior blocked Skookum1 for three months beginning on 16 March for "battleground and disruptive editing, personal attacks".[143] After the block expired, Skookum1 returned to Wikipedia on 17 June to attack six different editors.[144][145][146] [147] Here are some highlights from this barrage of personal attacks and incivility:

• User:WhisperToMe ("pandering to whining and pleading by WTM...harrassing me and demanding I stop 'interfering...American-Texan-Chinese now OWNing articls about BC... Sino-globalist bias is also very much not just in evidence but his whole agenda... i still think he's not one editor but a team, and if he isn't then prove it by opening his edit summary instead of concealing it; CHECKUSER is called for but given the bureaucracy is staffed by the same kind of people who have hounded and condemned me I have better things to be doing with my life and time...WTM went out and looked for enemies to help condemn me with - he was polling, in other words...he hasn't been honest or respectful ever since he barged into Canadian wikispace. He's played you, and won. Maybe he'll be Number One someday...He is a liar...the battlefield has always been of his making; and he enlisted supporters and blatantly polled for support by those hostile to me. but who gets blamed? His victim...")
• User:Legacypac ("his ally-in-enmity LegacyPac...Legacypac and others from the political-activist branch of Wikipedia will no doubt be happy that I am gone...")
• User:Moonriddengirl ("MRG, you plunged in from the start saying you didn't want to have to research the previous months, and the lot of you...yourself...Moonriddengirl; your comment about nobody else commenting about POV being there is no consensus is completely out of line...that you refused to take the time to read - is incredibly hypocritical and alos ironic - because you, too, are ill-informed and willfully so...you can never admit you're wrong and what you claim are guideline-driven actions on your part are actually policy violations.")
• User:The Interior ("...The Interior...b.s. about me writing 20,000 character opuses was a laugh...if you don't have the time to research what you're pronouncing judgement on you shouldn't be pronouncing judgement on it, never mind taking sides as you have done...he token British Columbian who levelled the block against me...")
• User:Viriditas ("...Viriditas...you're nothing more than a hypocrite...you are a harassser and a scold...how many there are out there who intervene on subject and title discussions who have no clue what they're talking about. That includes YOU...You have always been a waste of time...My anger is justified; and so is my contempt for YOU in particular...hilarious that V. 's barntar for me had been, in part, for 'calling a spade a spade'; but when the shit was on his own shovel, he/she turned nasty. Or is he/she on your payroll too, as are Moonriddengirl and The Interior?")
• User:Anna Frodesiak ("...Anna - refused to read anything I had to say, whether here or on the article talkpage...You have supported not just a POV fork but a blatantly OWN one, with loads of ESSAY/TRIVIA bunk and washed your hands of it and walked away...I want to publicly explain to Anna below why her question is a conundrum and list off the controversies that I engaged myself in that needed engaging and gee, which for the most part, I won.")

In addition to engaging in the very same behavior that got him blocked three months ago, Skookum1 immediately returned to the same disruptive editing that got him blocked, adding numerous maintenance tags to articles User:WhisperToMe was working on,[148][149], using the article talk page to make unconstructive comments and personal attacks yet again,[150] and making the same attacks on the NPOV board.[151] For coming off a three month block and going right back to the same dispute, making the same personal attacks, and disrupting the encyclopedia in the same, exact way that got him originally blocked, I have asked the original blocking admin to consider reviewing the block that just expired.[152] Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just from my personal view: no matter what happened going at each others' throats is a very adolescent behavior and unnecessary drama. Both users, from the diffs, were seriously out of line and just plain ignored all rules. I am not from the "Shut up Skookum1" party. I am condemning the lack of maturity from both users. I mean seriously? Whether Skookum1 was blocked for whatever in the past, but to go out attack? Viriditas, I am sorry but you shouldn't be talking. If you expressed such disapproval of the user, you should had known better than to violate WP:NPA and just report or talk to the user. And I mean talk by talking, not being a douche and go out of ways to make yourself feel better (from what I see). I suggest that both users be punished. This was such an adolescent, childish behavior (even if Skookum1 is leaving Wikipedia or not). It doesn't matter if they started it, you have the choice to finish it by reporting them. I expected a lot from experienced users. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 05:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you truly understand what's going on here or are familiar with the history. Except for WhisperToMe and Legacypac (Skookum's sworn enemies, although I know Whisper tried to help Skookum1, I don't know about Legacypac), all of the users listed above are editors who have tried to help Skookum1. Many of us spent hours, probably the equivalent of several days in total, trying to help Skookum1 resolve his long-term dispute with WhisperToMe. In return, we have been mercilessly attacked, over and over again. I would suggest that you read the thread in its entirety on his talk page and search the archives for the past discussion. Failing that, you can read Block review - Skookum1 (March 2015); Battlefield behavior in Canadian article; interaction ban? (January 2015); and Ongoing personal attacks by User:Skookum1 and Skookum1 again (April 2014) as background reading. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And yet nothing justifies your adolescent behavior and your personal attacks towards Skookum1. And I agree with Jusdafax. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 14:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reading partway into the block review was enough for me, along with the WP:DIVA comments at the start of this thread. Since diva's usually stomp off in a glorious huff and then return, I'd suggest a ban or indef to close this sad chapter. That said, Viriditas deserves a WP:TROUT. Come on man, tone it down a notch or two, thanks. Jusdafax 06:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Jusdafax and have blocked. :( I had hoped that this could be avoided, but should have just done this when I was first alerted to the problem.User:Viriditas, I was very grateful when you tried to mediate this, and I wish wholeheartedly that your efforts had been rewarded. Things went badly south and evidently spoiled a working relationship of some long-standing. I think at this stage you'd probably best just disengage. I don't see conversation between you two going anywhere good for anybody right now. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked Skookum1

• Indefinitely blocked User:Skookum1 for immediately resuming WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior with User:WhisperToMe upon the expiration of the block. Another timed block, clearly, will serve nothing. As he indicated at the NPOVN, he is adamant that his dispute with the content justifies his behavior ("using behavioural guidelines against editors frustrated by POV edit/content disputes is against policy," he says). In the block reivew on AN, I noted that this had "been the most unpleasant, prolonged harassment I have observed on Wikipedia in nearly eight years of editing." The block did receive consensus support at the time (from User:Iridescent, User:Euryalus, User:Resolute, User:Beeblebrox, Guy, User:Anna Frodesiak, User:Nil Einne, and User:Lankiveil, with User:SebastianHelm encouraging patience) and several users indicated that indef may have been more appropriate or might be appropriate if he returned without modifying his approach. I do not believe that Skookum1 should be unblocked without some strong indication that he understands the issue and will stop the battleground approach. Content policy concerns do not void behavioral policy concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  It is both unfortunate and inevitable that this action had to happen. To come come back and repeat the same behaviour literally the same day a three-month block expired for the same reasons is both silly, and an indication that he carried his grudges throughout the duration. I hope Skookum finds another activity that he does enjoy, because I just can't see an unblock happening here soon, and certainly not without some serious reflection on his part. Resolute 13:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  This was another "last chance," thrown away like the ones before. Agree with the indefinite block. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  I would add that the statement "find a good psychiatrist who will treat you." is well beyond the WP:NPA threshold, Viriditas. Not enough to take action for a single instance, and you've been here forever, so laboring it would be pointless, but please refrain from statements like that in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. This is what I am exactly saying. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 15:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• So an involved admin comes in and uses the tools to solve the situation? I'm not shocked to see everyone lining up to rubber stamp that. All i see here is an attempt to justify "two wrongs make a right" and piling on.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• After the last incident this did seem like the likeley result upon his return, although perhaps not so incredibly fast. That he so immediately turned to such harrassment speaks to an attitude that is incompatible with editing here, which is a shame because he wasn't always like that, it seems he just got burned out and rather than taking a break or retiring he elected to go out like this. I can't imagine he didn't know this would lead to an immediate block.

And I cannot agree more with Dennis Brown's comments above. When somene is bahving like this revert, block, ignore is the best approach, not taunt, mock, and gravedance. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I have neither taunted, mocked, nor "gravedanced", nor have I ever done such a thing. I have, in fact, spent an incredible amount of time trying to prevent Skookum1 from being blocked, and I opposed the last proposed block here (see the link to the old discussion above). Further, I worked closely with Skookum1, as did others, to try to resolve his problem. Finally, Skookum has complained about being in poor health throughout these discussions. IIRC, it had something to do with his teeth, but likely had to do with other things as well. He was not happy here yet continued to come back. Prior to his last block, he began to engage in a series of erratic behavior. After his block expired, he launched right back into where he left off. Seeing this, I welcomed him back and asked him to confirm my observations. His response was to carry on with the same attacks. Worried about his state of mind (and his declining health), I recommended that he pursue the help and support of a professional. This was not a personal attack of any kind. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's disappointing but not entirely surprising that we've ended up here. I endorse the block as necessary, it doesn't matter how good someone is at writing articles, if they can't work collaboratively and respectfully with others, then they're a liability to the project. With that said, User:Viriditas, while you might have said what you said about the psychiatrist with the best of intentions, it came off as pretty rude and insulting. Advising someone to seek help from a mental health professional is almost never going to go down well or reduce the heat in a situation. It's not worth making a song and dance over, but worth considering next time the same sort of thing comes up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC).

Speculating about an editor's mental or physical health or saying an editor has "had a meltdown" (which I've seen several times on ANI) is not helpful to anyone whether or not they are going through problems. If you have some concerns, send them an email message. Recommending an editor seek a mental health professional in a public forum like a talk page is not doing someone a favor, it is trying to undermine their credibility by implying they are irrational, unhealthy and generally not making sense. It also doesn't help to say things like "sorry you are so upset/offended" or "you are so emotional about this" (and I've seen both statements said) which also is frequently a tactic on Wikipedia to make another editor seem less than reasonable and rational (see WP:CALMDOWN). If you truly care, send a message privately. Talking publicly about an editor's private health issues is invasive and rude. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Obviously I endorse this. Enough is enough. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• I, too, endorse this now. — Sebastian 17:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Problematic behavior by Seattleditor - Probably COI, personal attacks, disruptive editing.

User Seattleditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing on Roger Libby the past few days. Their edits on the article's talk page indicate a conflict of interest and, up until now, they've mostly keep their editing to that talk page. Today, after I edited the page to reduce its SOAPy nature, they began removing maintenance templates from the page. I attempted to engage the user about it (here). They had done similarly in the past ([153]) saying it would negative effect the article subject's customers. After this, the user made this edit on my talk page accusing me deliberate malice that requires admin review and that I explained to you that as a practicing psychologist and psychotherapist, it is highly damaging to this licensed mental health professional to have his biography marked up with questions and errata.

I am requesting admin action on this. It appears that either the user is unable to handle their COI or they are NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

agreed, there's a dearth of sources on that article and those that are there are almost all primary sources, Seattleditor is removing the tags indicating that fact, that's not cool at all. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, their use of "we" in their post on my user talk page makes me think the COI here is strong. Their post was completely out of line. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In Response, EvergreenFir Has Misinterpreted Both Intent and Concerns

I am a practicing journalist, one who abides by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, who wrote an article about this Dr. for a Seattle area publication. There is no COI on my part. However EvergreenFir has several COIs. First, his only authored page, for a Murray A. Strauss, bios a person who is a rival of the good doctor. Most ironically, the two doctors authored a major research paper together on sex and violence (which contradicts the claim of no secondary sources, the editor's own biographical subject was a collaborator.) I mean no personal animosity or offense but the other apparent COI is in the editor's (EvergreenFir) profile where he has elected to make various statements about his own gender issues. Regardless of personal bias, it is not clear to me how a distinguished position title within an organization can be secondarily sourced. Where such attribution exists, it has been provided (such as to membership rosters on publicly accessible pages.) What is curious is why the editor does not choose to actually edit the text which has gone untouched for a great many months, and instead inject uncertainty and doubt. In fact, I had expressed my misgivings that this could do harm if the patients of this practicing sex therapist found that the same page that had been untouched for so long is suddenly pockmarked with multiple assertions of errata. When I "Talked" about that to EvergreenFir I stated that, for my part, I was open to any edits he may like to provide but I requested he did not make the doctor appear unworthy or uncredentialed in light of the concurrent sensitivities of doctor-patient relationships. I presumed he was okay with that so I removed the template(s) for that reason and that reason alone. Please be advised, I did not author the section on the countless TV and radio appearances made by Dr. Libby which EvergreenFir has since removed. The "We" in my writing simply connotes that Dr. Libby sought my help since he was aware I had helped contribute to the original content. I have no COI whereas EvergreenFir 's COI is well documented. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Roger Libby is America's premiere Sex Therapist. If that is disturbing to this editor, he is welcome to call in a colleague. Oh, he actually did that and the colleague acknowledged that the academic credentials (post-doctoral) being beyond reproach. It seems to this relative neophyte that Wikipedia needs a way to make sourcing changes, IF necessary "behind the scenes" and not in a shameful, public way that casts doubt on the credibility or authority of a biography, especially in the cases of practicing health care professionals. Seattleditor (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you might be a little confused as to how Wikipedia works. Writing an article for inclusion in a magazine kind of skirts the line of WP:NOTWEBHOST. But more importantly, if negative things about your friend can be reliably sourced, I'm afraid that isn't a violation of policy; see WP:BLP. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please take care of these personal attacks? How does my gender identity have anything to do with this? And if the subject of an article asked you to come and comment on their Wikipedia article, that's a WP:COI (whereas writing articles about criminologists is not)... Seattleditor if you are the author of that article, then you are Searchwriter and currently sockpuppeting... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• The bio is certainly problematic as it contains just one secondary source, and most of it is unsourced. One solution is to remove anything unsourced and slowly re-build it. Seattleditor, if you're editing with two accounts, please pick one and retire the other (or link them in some way). Also, please don't make personal comments about EvergreenFir. Sarah ^(talk) 01:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• There's also an issue with the image, which Seattleeditor added as his own work, but the image is on Libby's website. [154] Unless Seattleeditor took that photograph, it needs a release. Sarah ^(talk) 01:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the image, since it appears on the banner of a copyrighted website, I've requested deletion at Commons unless the uploader can show OTRS either ownership or a license to use the image from the copyright owner. BMK (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I whittled down the article quite a bit (diff) which was the apparent impetus for the hostility. Quite annoyed at these attacks and ridiculous claims. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Searchwriter started the Libby article at User:Searchwriter/sandbox on 20 February 2014. The image was uploaded by Seattle24x7 on 21 February 2014, and Seattleeditor says he is Seattle24x7, so the three accounts do seem to be one person. Yes, the attacks need to stop. Sarah ^(talk) 02:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• It seems from a brief look at Seattle24x7 and related websites that this is SEO/marketing. Perhaps it's better handled at COIN in case other articles or accounts are involved. Pinging Jytdog in case he wants to take a look. Sarah ^(talk) 04:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I left a long message for SeattleEditor at their talk page. Too long for ANI. I'd ask that folks give him a chance to reply there. Basically I am recommending that SeattleEditor change course or that we indef him per NOTHERE. Let's see what he says. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thank you for taking the time to do that. Much appreciated. I hope the user responds favorably. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, ditto, thank you. Sarah ^(talk) 17:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of paid editing

As noted above, the Roger Libby article began in the sandbox of User:Searchwriter, as did the article Lane Powell, about a Seattle law firm. Both of the articles appear to have been intended to be promotional, and have only been rendered acceptable by stripping out large amounts of information which is unsourced or attributed only to primary sources.

The user page for Searchwriter says:

This is the User Page for the editor of Seattle24x7.com, a Seattle news bureau Website. Thanks for your interest and comments. Everything we contribute to WikiPedia is fully "white-hat," attributed, and well-documented and includes citations.

The account name User talk:Seattle24x7 was username blocked in 2010. No edits exist in their contrib list, but their talk page indicates that they wrote an article on a book titled "The High Road Has Less Traffic", which was prodded as being self-published, and subsequently deleted at AfD as being non-notable.

The account User:Seattleditor was created just a few days ago, apparently for the purpose of editing the Roger Libby article. On their userpage they acknowledge that their former user name was "Seattle24x7", the name of their "Seattle-based e-zine". An examinination of the website shows quite clearly that it's a public-relations outlet: many of the articles are written by the CEOs of the companies they're about. This is clearly not a WP:RS, and not even a blog, it is, as its browser tab quite clearly states "Seattle's Internet Business Directory and Calendar".

What we have here is, I believe, paid editing on the part of Seattleeditor aka Seattle24x7 and Searchwriter. Seattleeditor is not " a practicing journalist ... who abides by the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists", he's a PR guy for hire, who'll do up an article on your law firm or your controversial medical practise, or whatever for his own "e-zine" or for Wikipedia.

I suggest that the unblocked accounts be blocked unless they comply with our requirements for paid editors as outlined on WP:TOU and WP:COI. That means an admission on their user page, and on article talk page of their conflict of interest and their status as a paid editor. It also means that they cannot directly edit the articles, but must make suggestions on the talk page which other editors can implement if they agree. BMK (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, folks should read Seattleditor's reply to Jytdog on their talk page here for an example of how not to write in a comprehensible way, how to hide the true nature of one's publication in convoluted and deceptive language, with phrases such as "pro bono" thrown in to make things look better, and how, in particular, not to answer straight-forward questions in a straight-forward manner. BMK (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Three other items:

• A picture of Dr. Libby was previously uploaded on en.wiki by user Searchwriter, and deleted for permission problems. Admins can look and see if File:Dr. Roger Libby in 2014.png is the same image that's currently in the article, which I have requested deletion of on Commons for the same reason.
• There's no doubt that the three accounts are the same person. After User:Seattle24x7 was username blocked, User:Seattleditor refrerred to it as his previous account. On the talk page of User:Searchwriter the editor reveals his real world name, and on the "Seattle24x7" website, the person of that name is described as "founder, publisher and managing editor of Seattle24x7, the founder of SearchWrite Search Marketing, an SEO, PPC and Social Media Thought Leader, and an SPJ award winner for Seattle magazine." This accords with the information in Seattleditor's response to Jytdog;s inquiry, and also reinforces the suspicion that SEO/promotion is what's going on here -- i.e. paid editing.
• Seattleditor's response on the Commons deletion request is informative. [155]

(Incidentally, my understanding is that my second item is not WP:outing because the user revealed the information on their talk page. If an admin feels it oversteps the bounds, please delete the item.) BMK (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

BMK FYI, in my first iterations of my note to SeattleEditor I included their name in a quote from the "about the author" section of the seattle24x7 profile of Libby, and later redacted it. I emailed oversight and asked them to oversight the pre-redaction versions. They declined, saying it was not a violation of OUTING. So we are OK on using his RW name. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. BMK (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Propose indef per WP:NOTHERE

So SeattleEditor's reply was not what any of us wanted. They are NOTHERE and appear to be dug in so far that there is no teaching them how to be HERE at this time. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (add missing "no" Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

• Support EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per their response to Jytdog. BMK (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per their response to Jytdog and another response to me. I asked two simple yes/no questions and got more evasive, combative, non-responsive verbal spew. We don't have the time or energy to waste on this gaming of the system. — Brianhe (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I support sanctions against User:Seattleditor. I wish there was a WP:POMPOUS essay, but I'll just have to be left with citing meta:Don't be a jerk (in reference to comments aimed at EGF). (Oh, and is WP:PEACOCK even allowed as an argument against an editor's comments? Well, then, that, too.)

In addition to NOTHERE cited in the title, for the record I also agree that there is a violation of WP:NPOV here that rises to WP:COI. I was hoping for @Jytdog:'s promised WP:COIN post before weighing in, but the original {{long}} comment is incorporated by reference to the reply to it, above.

I also agree that there may be a WP:SOCK issue here (I'd hope EGF will file a WP:SPI if appropriate). I'm not really sure which is worse, COI or SOCK, I feel they are both duplicitous.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Since Jimbo probably wouldn't approve, I'll refrain from suggesting an alternate title for an essay on how to respond to such contributors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

New user Kaffeburk using a talk page as a political Forum (rather than an editorial discussion space).

There's an editor who by the looks of things has signed up to preach about "Cultural Marxism" on the talk page for the Frankfurt School article. They've been told multiple times to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy, both by myself and by other editors, both on the talk page in question and on their own user talk page. They've already been pointed to WP:FORUM multiple times by multiple editors, so I think this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU (particularly in regards to policy) and that a cooling off period is required so they can familiarize themselves with policy and come back with constructive editorial discussion once they understand wikipedia a bit better. Some administrative action to drive the point home seems necessary at this point as it's become WP:HORSEMEAT and the talk page is long and aimless as it is. --Jobrot (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well as usual Jobrot put forward his personal opinion as a "fact". He got quite an arsenal of trick he is using against me and others in order to push his bias political agenda. To slander with false accusations of not following Wikipedia guidelines seems to be the favorite trick in order to avoid discussions regarding the content of the article. I try to give a few examples:

(1) Input to discussions clearly aimed at improving the article gets by Jobrot misrepresented as the opposite, as "WP:NOTFORUM" and similar. The favorite trick. I can give quite a few examples. The strategy is to first discredit the user in order to discredit the input from the same user. He uses that strategy to close valid sections, witch in effect is close to vandalism.

(2) Misrepresentation of Wikipedia Guidelines. Jobrot twists them around to suit his purpose.

(3) Repeatedly avoidance of central issues.

(4) Repeatedly using Non-independent sources.

(5) Repeatedly characterizing subjects not by their basic or core meaning, but by some controversial statement of the effect of the subject, thus creating a straw man.

The basic problem is that this article handles a fringe conspiracy theory from a few biased left wing academics as if it where a fact. When that is brought up the "book of tricks" is opened up and a cavalcade of smokescreens are put in effect. Neutral point of view is ignored, and so is consensus. Its all about "victory" and keeping the page in it current state for obvious left wing propaganda purposes. I would like some more experienced editor to step into this, and if they have left wing (or any other bias) be able to balance this with intellectual honesty. To "win" is not the goal. Kaffeburk (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Jobrot just did it again. Look at the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frankfurt_School#Conspiracy_or_not.2C_the_heart_of_the_matter. The input is clearly a discussions aimed at improving the article, bur he falsely label it as More WP:IDHT WP:OR, really starting to violate either WP:NOTFORUM or WP:ADVOCACY. Please check the section and see for your self. This is in effect vandalism by Jobrot. Kaffeburk (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism? Read WP:VAND before coming back here and calling this vandalism. In no way are the edits of Jobrot vandalism, and More WP:IDHT WP:OR, really starting to violate either WP:NOTFORUM or WP:ADVOCACY was from Ian.thomson, not Jobrot (diff). I'd suggest Kaffeburk read the links he has been given (by various users), and drop the stick. The discussion is over. It should stay that way. Not to mention I don't see much in the way of improving the article in the mess that is the talk page (especially in the hatted discussions). All I see there is a political discussion vaguely disguised as attempting to have impact on the article. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well what can i do? If you all agree that the left wing version is the truth of the universe its noting i can do. I thought it was just a few radical lefties, but if that's the bulk of the editors the fight is over. It is how ever extremely cowardice of you to not even try to discuss the matter but just use brute force in having more numbers, but if you not do have a democratic view of things then you don't. My wikidays are over. Kaffeburk (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem is that you are here to prove something instead of dispassionately looking at the totality of sources (not just equal numbers of each view or just the ones you like) and summarizing those sources proportionately. This is not about "The Truth", it is about sources, which you've repeatedly refused to bring up beyond copying existing article citations for books you've clearly never looked at.

For your sake, I recommend you avoid political topics, because you are incapable of editing that field dispassionately. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

All the sources used to remove the article of Cultural Marxism are non-independent. Martin Jay, Chip Berlet and Jérôm Jamin. They are all members of the New Left, they all support the Frankfurt School's ideology and all have performed Gramsci's "the long march trough the institutions of power". You not only allow them as sources, you even regard their view of their own critiques to be an academic consensus when clearly its not! Its a fringe minority bias conspiracy theory by totalitarian political extremist and you pull every dirty trick in the book to bury the truth. You don't want to defend your position, because you would loose hard and the you would have to reinstate the article about Cultural Marxism. Yes of course it about sources and you cant find a single independent source that supports your fringe conspiracy theory. Kaffeburk (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think WP:DENY needs to be invoked here. But Kaffeburk, Wikipedia is far from being left-wing versus right-wing, so if you keep doing what you're doing, don't be surprised if an admin imposes a topic ban on you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

-

Kaffeburk Neither politics nor personality are the cause of this disagreement. Policy is. The facts are that wikipedia holds academia at the top of it's sourcing tree, next are journalistic and other sources proven to have strong editorial oversight. Below that are websites and experts who have attained a small amount of proven credibility in specific niche fields. Seeing as you're trying to prove a relative neologism, finding sources that back up the popular claims will be difficult. On top of this, the popular claims can be dis-proven. For instance, it's claimed by proponents that The Frankfurt School is responsible for feminism, gay and LGTBI rights, civil rights (see stormfront), and atheism - when ALL of these things can be shown to have either existed before The Frankfurt School or find more important seeds before the Frankfurt school (the 1924 Society for Human Rights for instances championed gay rights before The Frankfurt School even existed). Another popular claim of 'Cultural Marxism' is that it's responsible for "Political Correctness" yet the philosopher who coined the modern usage is on record as stating that he wasn't influenced by The Frankfurt School [[156]]. If academia backed up your claims, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That's the core issue. It's not a political issue, it's a sourcing issue. Proving "influence" is notoriously difficult, for instance, were you aware that a number of conservatives including Pat Buchanan have read Antonio Gramsci's The Prison Notebooks? Yet to prove it's "influenced them" is a highly subjective matter, and would most likely require them to go on record saying so (just as to disprove influence, we have Foucault coming forwards and saying he was NOT influenced by The Frankfurt School). On top of that, even if a number of them came forwards as "influenced" this wouldn't suddenly form all those influenced into a unified movement (and this is disregarding that 'Cultural Marxism' and 'The Frankfurt School' aren't the same thing, and the former as a neologism, isn't likely to be mentioned - and the latter already has mention in various places on wikipedia, but that doesn't constitute a unified movement aimed at destroying society. Progressives aim at lifting oppression on targeted groups - not at destroying society). I'm sorry, until your claims find a description in academic sources, nothing can be done. --Jobrot (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Erpert I never claimed "Wikipedia is...left-wing versus right-wing", that's a straw man. I do however observe that on some subjects there is a clear left wing bias. Antifeminism and feminism are other pages with a similar conflict and similar behavior.

Jobrot I never questioned the hierarchy of sources. I question the sources independence and the neutral point of view of the article. Academic sources are not excluded from Wikipedia's requirement of neutral sources and if reliable sources is used that is non-neutral then they should be balanced by other sources that are not left wing. To claim "academic consensus", in this case to prove there is a conspiracy and at the same time only use academic sources with a clear conflict of interest is problematic. The alleged Cultural Marxists are born in the 1940's, went to school during the 1960's, was part of the radical left wing student movement and did perform "the long marsh trough the institutions of power" as Dutschke reformulated Gramsci. They went to university for a political reason. They did become members of the New Left. According to the concept of Cultural Marxist, then they are Cultural Marxist. To use solely academic sources that are accused of being Cultural Marxist in order to label Cultural Marxism a "conspiracy theory" is to stretch things a bit to far. If You are accused of something, then you are defending yourself and can not be expected to have a neutral point of view. If academic consensus is claimed by Wikipedia when academic disagree up on the matter and the only consensus that can be found is by those accused of being Cultural Marxist's, then there is no consensus and the claim must be removed.

So you think it wrong that the "Frankfurt School is responsible for feminism"? Fine, but that does not make it an "conspiracy". The claim is not that the Frankfurt School started all those movements. Its that its influence later dominated those movements. In the case of feminism that critical theory became an integrated part and that woman power, not equality became the core issue. You write "Progressives aim at lifting oppression on targeted groups - not at destroying society". That's your opinion. Perhaps you are right, but what if the effects in the long run did from some perspective destroy society? But it does not matter who is right or who is wrong. What matters is that the article should cover the subject from a neutral point of view. Tho have a non-left wing view of the world is not equal to be insane and have delusional conspiracy theories. Kaffeburk (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support WP:NOTHERE block. Editor will either drop the stick or have it and all editing privileges taken away. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block WP:FORUM Kaffeburk your argument is with academia, not Wikipedia. WP:NPOV doesn't extend to covering original research as if it were fact. See WP:OR. --Jobrot (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support block - Editors who come here with an agenda don't usually last long, and this one is no exception. He's been pushing his agenda from his first edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So let me then ask a question. A decision have been made to regard some academics's work as a "Conspiracy Theory" (Lind, Buchanan etc) and to not regard some other academics work as a "Conspiracy Theory"(Martin Jay etc), but instead as academic consensus. If I find this decision to be against Wikipedia's guidelines, what is the proper way for me to act in order to correct what i see as a mistake? Is there some way I can initiate a vote regarding Martin Jay's view being an academic consensus or not? Kaffeburk (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll answer that on your talk page, as this is not a suitable place to discuss this. --Jobrot (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support block I believe Kaffeburk is sincere but WP:CIR with regards to at least assuming good faith and cooperating, in case one is totally incompetent when it comes to gathering sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think that a block is appropriate yet, but it is apparent that Kaffeburk is a WP:SPA editing with an agenda, that he's dealing with Wikipedia as if it was a political WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that he's here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and undo what he perceives as a left-wing bias. He is also intent on using talk pages in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. None of this is acceptable, and if he does not take this thread, and the !votes for being blocked, as the voice of the community telling him to stop, and instead continues to edit in the same manner, then a block would certainly be more than justified. BMK (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support block - based on the editor's postings below. Definitely WP:NOTHERE except to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. BMK (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, following this ANI discussion, the editor's first act was to return to the talk page here to start asking about the Cultural Marxism AFD. If there's a move towards re-hashing that, I think that justifies putting a stop to all this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Might a topic ban from politics would be more in order then? Still, this is the only edit he has made that wasn't utterly useless soapboxing. Only one, out of (currently) 47. So, like 2%. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The core of the problem is when those who are accused of being cultural Marxist's or promoters of cultural Marxism defend themselves, this defense is by the article regarded the objective truth in the matter. The concept of cultural Marxism implies betrayal of the western civilization by a designated group. Regardless if the accusation being valid or not, those accused will defend them self and I find it improper that supporters or members of the Frankfurt School and the New Left are regarded as neutral experts in this matter. If Wikipedia let the Frankfurt School define itself and lets the New Left define it self, what is the next step? Let the Nazis define the Holocaust? On such an enormous accusation against the New Left, their proponent's can be expected to forcefully retributive the accusation and declare it delusional, a conspiracy theory or likewise. But such an retribution must be carefully exterminated and perhaps classified as a political statement regardless of existing academic formality's. Is there any evidence that a conspiracy theory is at the heart of concept of Cultural Marxism? I never seen any. Is there any evidence of an conspiracy theory at all in any part of the concept of cultural Marxism? This is how Paul Gottfreid himself answer that question: "Neither one of us has argued that there is a Frankfurt School or Cultural Marxist “conspiracy.” Indeed we have stressed the opposite view, namely, that certain Frankfurt School social teachings have become so widespread and deeply ingrained that they have shaped the dominant post-Christian ideology of the Western world." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/misadventuring-on-wikipedia/

I hope this article can be changed so it reflects the standard that Wikipedia is using in majority of it articles. There is a political battle between the New Left and the conservatives all over the western world, and Wikipedia should remain neutral, should not pick sides. However, in this article Wikipedia have chosen to fully endorse the New Left's position, or can anybody show any difference between the Wikipedia article and the New Left's position on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeburk (talk • contribs) 07:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

1) The wikipedia page to which that Paul Gottfried article refers (Frankfurt School conspiracy theory) actually no longer exists [157], and now only serves as a redirect to the current section (IMO the redirect should be deleted entirely, as to kill the link in the article so everyone else knows the page has changed). Also Gottfried is no longer mentioned in the current section (so that information in the article is now irrelevant). 2) I've already told you and explained WITH EVIDENCE (specifically from Lind who is spoken about in that article) why it's classified as a (global systemic) conspiracy theory (using Barkun's model), both on the talk page, on your user talk page, here, and in MULTIPLE OTHER LOCATIONS. Of course proponents of the conspiracy theory don't believe it's a conspiracy theory they just BELIEVE. Much like people who believe in Big Foot, Chemtrails or Reptilians don't say they're conspiracy theories (of course they don't - they believe them to be real). Their belief isn't founded in fact - that's exactly why they SHOULDN'T be allowed to write on those subjects on wikipedia. Because they're wrong about the subject! Much like anyone who is wrong about The Frankfurt School shouldn't be allowed to write about it! 3) lets the New Left define it self, what is the next step? Let the Nazis define the Holocaust? this is your second Godwin on the subject and also shows you have utterly no understanding of Wikipedia's function or policies (specifically WP:EXPERT). 4) Wikipedia is on the side of facts, as am I. I am not part of "The New Left" - nor is Wikipedia. As I've stated before you need to understand Wikipedia's role better (we do not report incorrect opinions as if they are fact. This is a fact based encyclopedia Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), and you should be blocked so you have time to understand this position. Put down the stick. WP:HORSE. --Jobrot (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Your "proof" is this line by Lind? "that the Frankfurt School originated Political Correctness". That as a very strange interpretation or perhaps original research you have done. Most things originate or have influences from other things. Some say that the Catholic Church teaching's have influences from Greek Philosophy. If they are wrong, is it then to create a conspiracy to make that claim? What is your source for the claim that if something wrongly is described as originating from something else, then its a "conspiracy theory". By the way; do You deny that political correctness has strong ties to the New Left and that the New Left ideological roots to a large extent is the Frankfurt School? But regardless of this, where is your source that a wrongful alleged originating equals a "conspiracy theory", or is it your own original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeburk (talk • contribs) 10:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"U are using solely not Independent sources. Wikipedia have rules regarding Independent sources:

Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)...."

"Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the majority of information to independent, third-party sources. "

You have zero independent, third-party sources for your claim of an conspiracy. You cant even use them according to Wikipedia's rules without proper backing by third-party sources. But you not only using them, you present them as factual truth witch violates another rule "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeburk (talk • contribs) 13:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, when you classify the whole of Academia biased due to being effected by your conspiracy - then yeah, you're going to read all academic sources as biased (as you have Jerome Jamin for instance. But your rejection of academic standards will not be taken up by Wikipedia, not NOW not EVER. As for my proof that it's a conspiracy, it's on the talk page (and is not limited to the claim on Political Correctness, Lind is as I've stated using his own quotes, proposing a global system conspiracy which needs to be "unmasked" and is a deception of the unwitting public (rather than just the public making a free political choice, no, for Lind it has to be 'the commies' or as he puts it in his own words "Old Karl Marx himself"). You can find all this on the talk page (Lind's quotes being used as proof) - you should read it. But if you want the extended version, more can be found here: on my sandbox --Jobrot (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S Good to see you're finally indenting. It helps keep things orderly. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

BöriShad

• BöriShad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We have a user here named BöriShad, who has recently been really in-collaborative and uncivil/aggressive [158]. He has recently made many random reverts/removal of sourced information with no proper explanation [159] [160] [161] and has clearly not wasted any time to accuse me and other people of sock-puppetry [162] [163], or attacking other ethnic groups [164] [165]. I also warned him that he should stop this kind of behavior, but he didn't really seem to care [166]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• The content disputes here are not at all clear to me. We're obviously not dealing with vandalism, but rather a POV-driven matter. However, edit summaries like "iranians ruined it" are unacceptable. Note also the anti-"iranian" comments here, Talk:Atabeg#Atabeg. BöriShad, I'm not saying HistoryofIran is without fault (they also appear provocative), but you're crossing a line. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

For God's sake. These people are sneaky and doing everything secretly. Provoking others and then report them. I wasn't here for couple of weeks (I barely edit wiki anyway) and when I returned back, I saw that I've been reported as sockpuppet of some other user because they don't like you, if you add something they don't like to the pages. They immidialtely call you SP. I don't understand a user with name history of iran keeps changing Turkish/Turkic pages? and a new user named Krakkos -claims something greek- I'm 100% sure he is iranian as well cuz replacing anything Turkic with iranian. There are numberless sources on Avar page that clearly describes Avars as Altaic/Turkic yet they changed it to unknown origin. So, let me ask you; when they remove refs is ok but why everyone loses their mind when I remove their non academical refs? I added a riddle from Codex Cumanicus to describe meaning of Zengi (an iranian claimed Zengis were iranian as well) and kansas bear removed my statement because it was against supreme iranian ideals. They believe everything in earth is iranian. history of iran added Baghatur, an ancient Turko-Mongol title as iranian and he has no source that they used that title befor the arrival of the Turks. We all know for ages Avars were Turkic people but they change it regularly because they don't like it and people who change these pages are only iranians. The first people in history call themselves 'Turk' Ashina clan is iranian according to them. Funny, no? But it's on Wiki. go check it. So tell me what of my statement was wrong, destruction or iranian part? BöriShad (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If HistoryofIran is indeed Iranian, that certainly doesn't mean that s/he can only edit Iran-related articles. Speaking of that, though, your comment above contains some borderline racist statements, so I suggest you avoid talk like that in the future. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

HistoryofIran - as someone who was also singled-out and attacked for being "Iranian" I should give you some advise ... the current climate here is one that finds this behavior tolerable and excusable. I am currently under "double secret probation" (basically a sanction privately communicated to me via Talk, out of view of the community) by an admin from the "Military History" project (a set of topics in which I have no interest but, predictably, attracts a certain type) that I am not permitted to raise the issue of my treatment at ANI vis a vis being described by a friend of this admin as an "Iranian" "anti-American" during a copyedit discussion. The same admin asked I agree to Wikipedia's first-ever "preventative TBAN" (a TBAN on a set of Iran-related topics ... I wasn't involved in editing). I've just finished a six-month block for refusing to "voluntarily" accept said "preventative TBAN" (my first-ever block - he went straight for the sixer). Anyway, I understand your frustration, but my advise is to chalk it up to learning, move on, and be cautious not to reveal your ethnicity here until the current climate has mollified a bit. You should also consider applying for a name change, as well, to something like IKEAFan or FunnyCatLady or basically anything that will better conceal your identity. Is it sad we have to do that in this day in age? Maybe, but that's life. Best of luck - DocumentError (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/212.8.45.194

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

---

IP address which deletes relevant pictures with no explanation at all, please block. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:AIV is thataway. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Dropped a final warning on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Antifeminism

I've been trying to improve the Antifeminism article, because I think the current one is very bad for many reasons (it's very biased in tone, it doesn't accurately reflect its sources, and it's sloppy in general). There has been a huge resistance to this from a few editors though, who clearly want to leave the article in its current state, are unwilling to work cooperatively, and instead dismiss all criticism I have of it as original research, which lacks sources. Now I've tried to explain to them repeatedly that I disagree with this, because the criticism I had was criticism of the article, not of which information it should contain, or which sources it should use. They completely ignore this though, and instead keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Now I've been trying to assume good faith, and kept assuming that they were misreading what I wrote, but it's getting so weird that it's becoming really difficult to maintain this. See this thread [[167]], and especially Fyddlestix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) second reply. The section was about something I removed, because it was unsourced, but which got reverted back. I tried to discuss this, and explain why it wasn't supported by the sources, but instead they went on pretending that I was trying to add information, which wasn't supported by sources. There's just no way that such a reply can be made in good faith to the what I wrote above it. It's becoming clear enough that they're just intentionally being impossible, probably either to frustrate me to a point where I would give up, or provoke me into questioning their intelligence, so that they can block me over personal attacks.Didaev (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This appears to be basically a content dispute, although it may be complicated by stubbornness and incivility. I suggest that you ask for formal mediation. A mediator may be able to get the parties to explain and work on their differences. If the other editors do not agree to formal mediation, then the next step for dealing with conduct issues would be Arbitration Enforcement under the gender-related sanctions under WP:ARBGG. But I suggest that mediation be tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see this less as a content dispute and more as a problem of disruptive editing on Diadaev's part. This user has been lobbying for changes to the article on Antifeminism for a couple of weeks, but their talk page posts are based on their own subjective opinions & reasoning, rather than on RS (this is probably the worst example). They've been prodded for sources and asked to stop making subjective arguments several times, and they've been given a formal warning for failure to cite sources and disruptive editing.

In the comment Didaev refers to above, I was simply trying to impress upon them the importance of citing sources - I was hoping that engaging with some sources might refocus the conversation and make it less subjective. But Diadev has chosen to raise the matter here rather than do that. So I don't see how mediation is going to help unless Didaev is willing to make some sourced, non-subjective arguments. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, a mediator would insist on citing sources. On the other hand, if User:Didaev is ignoring advice to cite sources, then that may be good-faith editing that is nonetheless disruptive editing. If this is seen as a conduct dispute, it is my experience that Arbitration Enforcement works more efficiently than this noticeboard. Has Didaev been notified of gender-related discretionary sanctions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, it looks like they hadn't been warned about the DS. I added the warning just now. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely Didaev is editing in good faith, but unfortunately is still not getting the point about how all of our work on the article must be based on the summarization of reliable sources. Didaev is offering criticisms of the article which are personal criticisms. This is not helping the situation at all. What is needed is for Didaev to refer to reliable published sources when making arguments about what to change in the antifeminism article. Until that happens there's not much influence that Didaev can have on the article. Lacking any leverage based on what is found in the literature, the talk page complaints by Didaev are ultimately disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the 'reliable source' doctrine is being abused here to skew the page towards a particular point of view. On the original discussion page, Binksternet et. al. have explicitly stated their belief that the only valid sources of information about "antifeminism" are feminist scholars. This must lead to a one-sided characterization. JudahH (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization - as far as I've seen, no one has argued that feminist scholars are "the only valid sources of information" about anti-feminism. Rather, they've argued that there just isn't all that much (or any) academic literature about antifeminism itself that takes a "pro" antifeminist perspective. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Andyjsmith

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

---

Please check the edits of User talk:Andyjsmith. He doesn't seem to know what is best for WP. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You would need to provide some specific diff's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just check all of the shit of mine that he is reverting. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

118.93.90.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Really? Edit warring over categories is near (or already in) WP:LAME territory. The next time you revert him, I will take you to WP:AN/EW. --TL22 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at all the other stuff that he is doing. He doesn't have a clue. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What I see is the OP edit-warring and making personal attacks; and practically begging to be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at all the other stuff that he is doing. He doesn't have a clue. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Name something specific. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• A good example is the spat at Peter Singer. See also my comment on that article's Talk page. Andyjsmith (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And his edit summary here Andyjsmith (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Andyjsmith has been trying to communicate with the IP editor, as well. The IP either is unaware he has a talk page or is pointedly ignoring it. If anything, it's the IP who's being disruptive. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: When opening a discussions about an editor, you should notify them on their userpage. In this case, I have been kind enough to do so for, you, but it does say in big red letters at the top of the page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Please keep this in mind. Thank you -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Andy left a pretty lengthy message on the IP's talk page about the IP's behavior hours before this thread was opened, so I definitely think we're in Australia again. In addition, this edit summary is grounds for a block, imo. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• I disagree that this one edit summary is enough for a block. However, this IP has been at it for a while--I see that a high-ranking admin already left a kind of a warning there a week ago. BTW, their edits all appear to be good-faith and all that. So I really don't know. They're acting like an ass, that's true, and that's blockable. How about another final warning? And maybe another admin have a look at this? Drmies (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• FWIW the user seems to have gone away. There are clues in the history of one of the pages he's edited that his IP address changes every few days, always in the range 118.93.x. This particular problem is probably over for now and this discussion can be closed. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Sneaky vandalism on Kings of the Sun (band) page

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

---

Kings of the Sun (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page is a subject of repeated disruptive edits done by Sball19776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Soothsayereastcoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who are obviously the same person if you look at their edits. (for instance:[168] and [169] or [170] and [171])

This same person had a go at the page before as KOTStrafJEFFHOAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FullFrontalAttack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). To clarify who Jeff Hoad is - he is the former member of the Kings of the Sun band and he even introduced himself here. After this person was warned by the administrators on both user pages last year, disruptive edits (for instance [172] or [173]) have stopped until recently when reappeared under user names mentioned in the first paragraph.

Even after recent warnings, the disruptive edits continue. The facts are:

• Clifford Hoad (Jeff Hoad's older brother) is the original founder of the band and owner of the band's name - this fact can be easily verified via Search For a Trade Mark function on this Australian Government's website. Both users constantly change this fact and remove it including the link that supports it. ([174] [175] [176] [177])

• Jeffrey Hoad was convicted before the Brisbane Supreme Court on drugs production charges and sentenced to a wholly suspended 12-month prison term. This fact was again repeatedly removed including links that support it. It also mentions that he is the former member of Kings of the Sun band at least 3 times. ([178] [179] [180] [181] [182])

• Jeffrey Hoad himself refused to play ever again with the band in 2012. Again, this was removed including all 3 links which support this claim. ([183])

• Jeffrey Hoad still promotes himself as a lead singer and frontman of the Kings of the Sun band, including making bogus "official" Kings of the Sun websites on wix, Facebook, YouTube etc. and keeps adding them to wiki article. The only official websites are those mentioned in the article - www.kingsofthesunband.com, which is also linked with official and verified (blue tick) facebook page of the band, and Clifford Hoad's YouTube channel. By doing so, Jeffrey Hoad is not only lying and confusing the fans, but also breaching the trademark law. ([184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191])

• Besides, Clifford Hoad officially stopped all the activities under the Kings of the Sun name and continues with new band and a new name - as mentioned and linked on the Kings of the Sun (band) page. Therefore no one can legally use the KOTS name and claim that the band still exists. At least not until Clifford Hoad decides to resurrect it again.

• By the way, that same person also submitted Jeffrey Hoad wiki page draft for review lately, which was declined. The draft was resubmitted a couple of days ago and is waiting for the review. Of course, it still claims, besides other things, that "Jeffrey Hoad is the lead singer, guitarist and songwriter of Australian hard rock bands Kings of the Sun and also The Rich and Famous." It is a lie as KOTS are officially disbanded (as mentioned in the previous bullet) and regarding The Rich and Famous (which is the name that KOTS band had used in the 2000's) band - as of this day, there has not been any official gig nor any new material recorded by that band with Jeffrey Hoad and his alleged new lineup. I believe that pipe dreams should not be published on Wikipedia. It seems that Jeffrey Hoad is just talking the talk and not walking the walk. Yes, Jeffrey Hoad did a couple of solo acoustic performances at the Hard Rock Cafe in Surfers Paradise (where his wife happens to work as an Events Manager [192] [193]), but that has got nothing to do with Kings of the Sun nor The Rich and Famous band.

This all speaks volumes about the intentions of the person making these disruptive edits, submitting them as minor edits or describing them as "fixed grammar" or "removed superfluous sentence" (=deleted the sentence regarding ownership of the name including the source link [194]). Most of the sneaky vandalism definition applies to these actions. Currentpeak (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Two suggestions:

1. Consider opening a thread at WP:SPI if you truly feel they are all the same user.
2. No discussion took place on the article's talk page about the problems, so I opened a thread myself. Consider listing your issues there. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article and taken steps to ensure the user restricts xyrself to one account. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Ponaganset High School

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

---

Quick assistance is needed at RPP & AIV for the above article. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done - all sorted, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

A user who is not here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

Apart form the obvious username problem, all of the edits of Pederasty (talk · contribs) consist of inserting hoaxing vandalism in to language articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. All done here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Saturne160 and WP:V

This user apparently has poor understanding of WP:V and WP:BLP. I spotted them in Julie Bresset when they added the category Category:Breton people. The article has no evidence that Bresset is Breton (which I know very well, since I have written the article). The user apparently believes that if Bresset lives in Brittany that makes her Breton. They already made four reverts, but have chosen not to react at the message at their talk page, and also not on the message at the talk page of the article. Today I found one more article where they had a similar problem, they reverted me within an hour. For the record, I speak French, so their claim that I can not find in French articles what s written there is not really justified. May be someone can help me with explaining policies to the user. They edit infrequently (not every day) and did not overstep 3RR. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I posted a note on their talk page, we'll see if it gets their attention. They don't often use their user talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed, they prefer reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Since they do not reply (their usual tactics, if they have their version, they do nothing), I am going to revert again and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

WIKIHOUNDING/Accusations

This is to report 2 x IPs

• 78.146.43.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Who have been WP:WIKIHOUNDING and constantly accusing me of being in the Pakistan Army and hence that's why I was carrying out certain edits even though an investigation by Joseph2302 ruled against their accusations.

Collapsed 8 x Instances of Accusation, WP:WIKIHOUNDING, WP:PERSONAL, WP:BULLY & WP:HARASS by 82.11.33.86 & 78.146.43.52.—TripWire talk 18:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1st Instance of Accusation (IoA): 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) conjectured that I (presumingly) being from Pakistan Army have no right to edit info related to Army (Diff). This is did because he has been hounding me since I dont know when. I dont mind if someone is following my activity here, but then no one has the right to accuse another editor basing on this. This was the beginning and since then he and the other IP has added no worthwhile info on the talk page rather have focused their energies on me as a person. 2nd IoA: Following the suit 78.146.43.52 (talk · contribs) instead of discussing the dispute accused me of being in Pak Army, and hence 'this is why he removing infos on army atrocities in balochistat and is pov pusher.'(Diff). 3rd IoA: 78.146.43.52 (talk · contribs) then WP:WIKIHOUNDING and claimed having a screencap of my page. Why would someone have a screencap of someone's userpage at the first place? 4th IoA: 78.146.43.52 (talk · contribs) then reported me to WP:COIN here, but after investigations by Joseph2302, he gave the decision that there's no evidence that I worked for Pakistan's Military and even if I did, that wouldn't necessarily be a COI. Having understood this clear message by Joseph2302, 78.146.43.52 (talk · contribs) instead of quitting his WP:WIKIHOUNDING again threatened me that it will post links to 'my' blog - (Diff), which was a clear violation of Wikipedia Policies and the decision by Joseph2302. Just to reveal the extent of hounding by 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs), I will like to add that he even followed me to the talk page of Joseph2302 (Diff) 5th IoA: I then further explained my stance, however, once again in clear violation to an Admin's decision 78.146.43.52 (talk · contribs) again accused me that because I am from the Army and therefore I had removed the from Balochistan (Diff) Pertinent to mention here is that 78.146.43.52 (talk · contribs) made the 5th accusation relating to the Balochistan, not on the relevant Talk:Balochistan page, but on a Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War page which had no link with the edits at Balochistan. This is despite the fact that a discussion was already being carried out at Talk:Balochistan at three different tiers: Discussion-1 here RfC here (this discussion was carried out on the RfC raised by none other than 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) himself) Discussion-2 here And 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) had participated in all the three discussions. Moreover, the fact that 78.146.43.52 (talk · contribs) found/tracked me and made the 5th accusation involving Balochistan Page at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War, could likely mean that he had participated in the above discussion by using another IP:78.146.41.162 (talk · contribs). If that be the case, there was no need for him to come into the Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War page and instead of adding to the discussion being done there, accuse me once again? This is some serious hounding! As per the discussion on Talk:Balochistan, following reason was given for the edits not by me alone,but 3 other registered editors: The info being added by IPs had no connection with Balochistan as this page was not about Province of Balochistan, but the Balochistan Region and hence info specific to Blochistan Province logically should not be reflected in the page of Balochistan Region which spreads over 3 x countries (Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan). The IPs were also being told to see the talk page when their edits were reverted even by other editors example. Still, they carried on with the edits and resultantly 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) was banned for a day or so. Also, all the above 3 x IPs have been editing the same articles and surprisingly have been reverting other others edits and adding exactly the same info including the same references (which otherwise were declared unreliable at the talk page by other editors) at all the pages. Moreover, all 3 x IPs are newcomers, as seen from their edit count and date since they began editing, still they seem well conversant with the reporting procedure and have already reported me twice (their plea rejected both the times). This could mean one of the following things: All these IPs are in communication with each other and are caryingout planned activity to disrupt my edits. Either of the these IPs are socks of another more experienced user(s) (as can be seen on the talk pages involving my discussions) and / or have teamed up against me by those editors. I simply fail to understand that why they are feeling threatened me? Probably because the few edits I have made (all having been talked) carry weight because of the sources and reference I have quoted and thus they dont want me to carry on with me participation at Wikipedia? 6th and 7th IoA: Later, showing no respect for policies both 78.146.43.52 (talk · contribs) and 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) continued with there rhetoric and accused me again here and here respectively and ruined the discussion on the talk page instead of adding something worthwhile. 8th IoA: Resultantly, I indicated both the IPs that they should stop or else they would be reported but to no avail (Diff). Instead 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) accused me once again (diff). Although I did not report them.

I then simply stopped responding to their accusations as they were false and I didnt care what they said. However, today when I was engaged in an healthy discussion with another editor Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs), 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) instead of giving arguments came out of nowhere and once again declared that "AS member of Pakistani army you should not even comment here" (Diff)!

I mean, why?!

This last accusation prompted me to write this report.

Going by the understanding of these IPs, anybody trying to remove wrong info/info that does not fit the scope of the article/info that has been discussed at the respective talk page and then removed, even though the info was reverted back pending further discussion is a member of Pakistan Army??? Really?! Moreover, conversely, anybody who tried to add info to pages related to Pakistani Military must then also be a member of Pakistan Army? Similarly, going by the same definition, if anybody who remove info regarding the revelations by the Indian Prime Minister on pages like Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Mukti Bahini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as done by 114.134.89.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 78.146.41.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should then also be a member of Indian Armed Forces or have had volunteered for Mukti Bahini in the past? I guess not.

For instance, Faizan (talk · contribs) has done a commendable job while building Zarb-e-Azb , this would then automatically mean that he too is in the Pakistan Army?

Sir, I having understood the policies of Wikipedia have stopped from carrying out edits and instead spend more time and effort at talks pages as can he seen here.... so that consensus can be reached before an edit is carried out especially to pages which are controversial. But sir, I beg that I cannot continue if I have to be hounded and accused constantly, and random IPs will continue to follow and disrupt my activity and contributions at unrelated pages and respond to my edits with the same prejudice. Irrespective of the above, is Wikipedia uneditable by soldiers or those who have interst in Military History? —TripWire ^talk 14:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. However, when you start a discussion here, you must notify any editors who are specifically reported. I have notified the two unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, actually I was in the process of doing it, just had been stuck. I have notified both, and then read this msg of yours. I would request you to just give a cursory reading to the report, I am sue you'll understand. Thanks —TripWire ^talk 14:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User was paksol and he said he was in Pak amy on his user page[195] And on another person's user page [196] he links to his blog which was on his use page as well. So he is in amy and should no delete info critical on army atrocities 82.11.33.86 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You simply dont know that, and I have already clarified here that the blog was of some other. This in no way give you and your pal the right to hound me and disrupt and ruin my discussion especially when you dont have anything worthwhile to add. Lastly, the info you are hell bent in including has been included in the relevant page Balochistan, Pakistan instead of Balochistan and was later reverted by some other editor AFTER the discussion and NOT me, so you dont have any right to accuse me of anything everytime I comment on a Talk Page.

I have NEVER tried to hide that I was PakSol, rather I have myself told this at numerous instances, I have nothing to hide. I even info others that I have changed by username. But it seems as if it is you who dont have anything useful to add to Wikipedia and thus are harassing others —TripWire ^talk 15:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't really want to get involved in this, but seems I already am. I threw this discussion out of WP:COIN because it was clearly related to a content dispute among multiple users and pages, and there was no evidence presented that there was any conflict of interest, only a claim that someone worked for Pakistani military, which appeared unfounded, and wasn't necessarily an actual COI on the page listed. I then threw all discussion of this off my talkpage, as I hate my talkpage being used for arguments, especially ones in topics I don't edit. I have no knowledge or comments to make about anything else here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Unfortunately, neither your discion at the WP:COIN nor your subtle indication of ignorance to 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) had worked. As can be seen in the refs I have provided, I have tried to clarify all the accusations by the IP, even to extent that I ignored his comments and shifted my focus to another topic. This is despite the fact that he has been disrupting my comments regulary even after you had decided the case. However, even today when 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) again without any reason or provocation barged into a healthy discussion which I have having with Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs) and declared )that "AS member of Pakistani army you should not even comment here", I have had enough and decided to bring this issue here. WP:HOUNDING states that:

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

And I just didnt come running here at the first instance of accusations, but after it has been done atleast 8 x times and only after I have clearly referred/indicated what WP:HOUNDING is to 82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs). Please, get him off my tail. Thanks —TripWire ^talk 18:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Which lie we believe, you are in army, now you are no? And is fiends blog lol, One cannot change history, and you edits all can see. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC) 82.11.33.86 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969 misuse of rollback

Diff: 07:08, 18 June 2015 (-1,383)

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted twelve consecutive edits of a fellow editor with an edit summary "Rev npov edits which go against consensus on talk pag", please see diff. The edits were reverted from an actively discussed and edited, contentious article, Americans for Prosperity. The article is within the scope of discretionary sanctions including climate change and the Tea party movement (ds alerts). The edits rolled back included:

1. 00:21, 18 June 2015 "- unnecessary, non-neutral, cherry-picked legal implication of filing status; lede summarizes notability of subject; legal details for body, thanks", an edit intended to trim a recent undiscussed addition to the lede
2. 00:33, 18 June 2015, a neutral, minor copy edit
3. 00:44, 18 June 2015 "add rs ref", a neutral edit to add a high quality reliable source (no new content) reference to unsourced content as per WP:VER
4. 00:52, 18 June 2015 "fix ref, name ref", a neutral edit to add a publisher and magazine name to a reliable source reference (no new content)
5. 00:53, 18 June 2015 "add rs ref", an edit to add a second, high quality reliable source reference to contended content (no new content)
6. 00:53, 18 June 2015 "a very few words of brief description in text for clarity, drawn from lede of target wl, as per WP:LINKSTYLE", a neutral edit, word-for-word from the very lede sentence of our article
7. 01:14, 18 June 2015 "brief description in text for clarity, drawn from reliable source, as per WP:LINKSTYLE", a neutral edit which provides the only context for two highly significant actors in the article
8. 01:28, 18 June 2015 "add noteworthiness of 2010 funding source", a neutral edit, a paraphrase of a highly reliable source The Guardian, which adds a statement of the noteworthiness of contented content, and adds the relevant excerpt from the reliable source to the reference
9. 01:32, 18 June 2015 "+ wl, + highly significant subject of the sentence as stated in reliable source" a neutral edit which adds a wikilink to a highly significant actor in this article on first mention, and paraphrases the highly reliable and noteworthy source The New York Times Magazine more neutrally and accurately by restoring the highly significant subject of the sentence from the source recently deleted without discussion
10. 01:34, 18 June 2015 "ce, nation -> US", a neutral copy edit, word choice
11. 01:43, 18 June 2015 "add excerpt from reliable source to reference", an edit which adds a brief, highly relevant excerpt from a highly reliable and noteworthy source The New York Times Magazine in support of a contended content
12. 01:48, 18 June 2015 "move content to relevant subsection" a neutral edit which moves content to the appropriate subsection, no new content

Our behavioral guideline WP:ROLLBACK restricts rollback to certain specific applications. Clearly, at least some of these edits are good faith edits which cannot reasonably be construed as part of any neutrality dispute. Our policy WP:PRESERVE recommends steps to be taken before deleting the contributions of a fellow editor. Our essay WP:DRNC recommends against deleting content with an edit summary of "no consensus." Thank you for your attention to this. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I see some undoing of edits, but that was not with the rollback tool but with Twinkle rollback. I just thought I'd point that out in case of confusion. Dustin (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, Twinkle rollback. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No misuse of rollback. From the same guideline: "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." If proper edit summaries were added, using rollback is accepted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"If proper edit summaries were added, using rollback is accepted." The edit summary is improper. The edit summary mentioned NPOV and "no consensus." The edit reverted 12 edits of a fellow editor, most of which are clearly good faith edits that could not reasonably be understood as non-neutral or contrary to talk page consensus, see comments above. This rollback was reverting an editor, not edits WP:BATTLE, and feels very much like an attempt to reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia WP:HARASS. Hugh (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the sequence of edits is another attempt by HughD to assert his non-neutral POV on the article. His edits were in direct contradiction of the consensus on the talk page of the article. This editor has also campaigned on other pages to assist in promoting his POV. This editor has also been counseled in the past about his contentious editing on this page. While some of his edits are valid, his consistent incessant editing makes it impossible to "undo" the edits which are contrary to the talkpage consensus, however in this instance, each of his sequence of edits was in direct contradiction of that consensus, so therefore is not a violation of the rollback privilege. The other editors involved in the consensus were DaltonCastle, Capitalismojo, and Champaign Supernova, and (just recently) Comatmebro. I have asked HughD to refrain from editing the article until consensus was reached, and while I feel it has been reached, I was waiting for more comments from other editors in order to achieve a broader consensus. HughD has been asked several times to wait for consensus, and in spite of the current consensus being against his edits, he made the unilateral decision to edit adversely to the current consensus. This editor, I just realized is just back from a ban on editing from a similar incident on this talk page, and has been banned several times in the last 3 months for similar behavior. It is very wearying and time-consuming dealing with editors like this. Not sure what to do with him at this point. But thank you Dustin V. S. and NeilN for your above comments. Onel5969 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Hugh has been consistently editing against a clear talk page consensus, and is continually re-inserting his preferred content despite the fact that no other editors have expressed agreement with these edits. He appears to be engaged in article ownership and since he cannot build a consensus for his preferred edits, he is resorting to filing merit-less incident reports. The community is growing tired of these disruptive antics. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Hugh, this is getting old. We see your pattern: ignore community consensus, accuse accuse report, repeat. You dont come out of this looking like a victim. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that HughD has posted "discretionary sanction" warnings like these without any followup or intention of pursuing them is both WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BULLYING. Opening this thread, which has so little merit, adds WP:HARRASS and WP:WIKILAWYERING to the mix. When notifying Onel5969 of this thread HughD directed O to AN rather than ANI. I hope that was just a mistake but it does add to the issues that make a WP:BOOMERANG something to be considered. MarnetteD|Talk 22:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hello MarnetteD, any editor may alert fellow editors to discretionary sanctions, please see WP:ACDS. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to suggest we close this here as no action with regard to Onel5969. Instead of deciding on a boomerang for HughD here, we can just close it without prejudice to anyone filling an WP:AE request, (or and admin directly invoking discretionary sanctions if they are so inclined) as that seems like a superior venue for dealing with this sort of thing. Monty₈₄₅ 00:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, Monty845, but the WP:AE thing... is that something I should do? Or is someone else going to do it? Bit new to this ANI thing, so I'm unclear. Sorry to bother you. Onel5969 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd wait to see the outcome here first, as you don't want anyone to suggest your venue shopping. If my approach was taken, its something you could do if you think its necessary. We could also just discuss it fully here, but I'd prefer we pass it to AE, as the regulars there are often better at dealing with this sort of behavior. Monty₈₄₅ 01:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Monty845 - As I said, I'm not real familiar with this venue, so wasn't sure how this is "closed", or if I needed to bring the matter to AE. I've only been involved in two "incidents" (both coincidently in the last 2 days), and in the other one the nominating editor was blocked for a year for their nonsense. I'm guessing there will be some decision by which I know this discussion has reached an outcome. Onel5969 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Diff: 19:14, 18 June 2015 (-2,758)

Hours later, Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) rolled back 10 consecutive talk page edits from Talk:Americans for Prosperity, reverting the talk page to a previous edit of his. The reverted edits included 8 talk page contributions of a fellow editor. The talk page involved is that of an actively discussed and edited, contentious article, Americans for Prosperity. The edits rolled back included project additions and talk page comments:

1. 18:17, 18 June 2015 "+ project as project member"
2. 18:19, 18 June 2015 "+ project as project member"
3. 18:22, 18 June 2015 "request focus"
4. 18:25, 18 June 2015 "request focus on topics appropriate for article talk page"
5. 18:30, 18 June 2015 "responding to nonsense", a self-revert
6. 18:34, 18 June 2015 "responding to nonsense", a self-revert
7. 18:37, 18 June 2015 a request for focus on content
8. 18:52, 18 June 2015 contribution to talk page thread
9. 18:56, 18 June 2015 "request focus on discussion appropriate for an article talk page"
10. 19:14, 18 June 2015 rollback

Thank you for your attention to this. Hugh (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

HughD is absolutely correct, when I attempted to revert his non-neutral edits, I clicked "restore this version", which not only reverted his incorrect edits, but also included valid edits by both him and other edits. Since he has incessant edits, I accidently pulled other edits in my reversion. I have corrected. Onel5969 (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal Vendetta

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

---

I think User:theroadislong has a personal vendetta against me he is always reverting my edits and at first I thought it was because my edits were bad but he persists and I think he is attacking or has a vendetta TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 17:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I take it you didn't notice the massive orange sign that fills the top of your screen when you posted that report? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I also suggest you provide diffs, so editors can examine the evidence for themselves. And you should probably bear in mind that since an OP's own behaviour is scrutinized (in order to prevent malicious reports), you will probably want to acquaint yourself with WP:BOOMERANG. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion- this thread should be closed now, otherwise I think a boomerang might happen. I doubt very much that @Theroadislong: has a personal vendetta against you, everything I've seen on your talkpage from them was valid- you haven't been using edit summaries, and you've been edit warring at Cédric Soares. Reverting other people's edits is fine if they've given a reason. Please identify some diffs where you think they've wrongly reverted you, as part of a "personal vendetta". Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is not having a proper discussion- you cannot call a discussion closed just because someone disagreed with you. See WP:CONSENSUS. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - All I know about this dispute is what I saw on the Steve McClaren article, and in that case, I believe User:Theroadislong was correct that McClaren has been appointed as Newcastle's head coach, not their manager. It's a subtle difference in terminology, but it would be incorrect to describe him as something he isn't. – PeeJay 17:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thread and Discussion closed I am withdrawing my complaint, I am wrong and @Theroadislong: was right. Thanks for all help in this matter TeaLover1996 ^{Talk to me ☏} 17:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the discussion is closed. This is the second example today of you only doing the right thing as a result of pressure from other editors. And as you know, this is not the first time your activities have led to questions being asked of your commitment or competence here. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think in general, they are a good editor, however like all of us, they do make mistakes. Although accusing someone of a personal vendetta is quite a big mistake. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Asdisis block evasion

Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a block evasion using IP address. He is indef blocked by this report. He used this IP address (post edit: I provided bad link) before being blocked and assumed it and now has edited today from this IP adress. Again, issues relating Serbian-Croatian divergences, and see the two IP geolocations, exactly the same, no doubts it is Asdinsis evading his block. FkpCascais (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: your link to the first IP is malformed – can you please correct it? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notice.

This is the IP he used before being blocked. And this is the IP he used today. The geolocation is the same. FkpCascais (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

They don't look strongly related to me. Asdisis never edited on football topics. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, beleave me, the fact that FIFA and UEFA recognized Serbia as the only successor of Yugoslavia made Croatia protest. Asdisis anyway never edited anything besides issues related to Serbia-Croatia conflict, and his only reason of involvement at Nikola Tesla was just to add he was Croatian. The geolocation is absolutely the same, the issue is again the same related to Serbian-Croatian disputes, so there are no doubts. Am I in the right place at ANI or should I go to some other noticeboard? Otherwise I would have just told this to Asdisis blocking admin, but he is on vacation. FkpCascais (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence it's the same person. (1) Croatia-Serbia conflict is common. (2) The two IPs are on different service providers: Hrvatski Telekom fixed broadband in Zagreb and Iskon Internet d.d. in Split. (3) No one is going to block for a single edit made eight hours ago. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa OK, this is strange now, because at the time I checked the geolocation of the IP which Asdisis used on my talk-page it gave me the same exact place in the road between Livade and Primišlje as the 78.3.75.119 is giving me (78.3.75.119). But now the IP Asdinsis used at my talk page is giving a new geolation near Zagreb, see 89.164.170.144 (89.164.170.144), exactly the same as from another IP accout that has been active yesterday at Nikola Tesla article, the 141.136.243.205 (edits from IP 141.136.243.205. So he evaded block yesterday anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

89.164.170.144 is definitely him, and the IP 141.136.243.205 is a match for service provider and location. I have blocked that IP 48 hr for block evasion. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. Just one question, is it possible that at time when Asdisis made that comment at my talk page, the geolocation gave me one place (the one from the other IP in the road between Livade and Promišlje) and that now it gives a different location, near Zagreb? Cause I swear you I am not crazy lol, Asdinsis IP really gave me a different place then and now. FkpCascais (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the answer to that. -- Diannaa (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope he stops making socks pretending to be someone else defending the same POVs got him indef blocked for. FkpCascais (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Usage of free image in templates

Hello admins, there has been a dispute between me and User:IM-yb regarding the usage of an image in a template. The template is this: Template:Olympiacos sections and the image is this one: . I created this image, it's totally free without any copyright violations or restrictions in usage. It's a mere image of red and white stripes. It's not a fake sports flag, it's not a logo, nor an official emblem. Consequently, it doesn't hint at any of wikipedia's red flags, it doesn't violate any wiki rules and it's free from any restriction whatsoever. Every editor can use it in all articles and templates. User:IM-yb (if I understood correctly what he's suggesting) believes that I can't use this file in the templates, and suggests that it's against wikipedia rules to use this image in this particular template or in any other template for that matter. You can take a look at our entire conversation here User talk:IM-yb#Templates, User talk:IM-yb#Misunderstanding and here User talk:Gtrbolivar#Fake sports flags. We want the admins to give us a ruling regarding that issue. I repeat that this image is free, it's my own work, it merely depicts colours (stripes) and has no usage restrictions. Thank you so much, we're really looking forward to your ruling. Gtrbolivar (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There should be no copyright problems at all with using the image, in my opinion. It's properly licensed on Commons, and arguably uncopyrightable in any case as an arrangement of simple geometric shapes with no artistic element or selection involved. But I don't think that's IM-yb's objection. Can you ask them what Wikipedia policy they think you're breaking by making these edits? -- The Anome (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello to all. My objection for use of this and other similar files, is based in that note commons:Template:Fake sports logo. This Template:Olympiacos sections used only in the articles of the club (Olympiacos). In that articles we have logos with fair use (official emblem). About fake logos and their usage, please read the note of commons. --IM-yb (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion doesn't belong here. It belongs at Template talk:Olympiacos sections so that if it get re-hashed later, people can find without hunting around your talk pages and ANI and wherever you two discuss this. If you want a 3rd opinion or something more, that's for WP:3O or WP:DRN or other places not here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is about interpretation of note of wikipedia about logos. Not for consensus. If I'm wrong, correct me.

In this commons:Template:Fake sports logo read:

" Warning!

This flag, as well as other fake sports flags, is fictitious and is useful only to facilitate visual identification of some articles within Wikipedia. This flag has some visual elements that are similar to official logos or coats of arms of certain clubs, such as colors or some symbol, but they are NOT official and don't have any direct relation to the crest, symbol or official flag of the club. Thus, even if you consider that this symbol reminiscent of some elements of the club, this image does NOT correspond, and is not even similar to the official symbol.

Official symbols must not exist in Commons because they are protected by authorial rights (copyright); in this way, if you want to localize the club's symbol, crest or official flag, try to make contact with the club: ask for the official symbol and a possible license of use to your purpose.

Note to Wikipedians: use this flag only in a very small size, only to facilitate visually the identity of a club within a context that has several clubs together. To use it in normal or big size may induce the reader to misunderstanding. Moreover, you should use the flag only if it's clear at 20px, which is the size the flags have on many wikiprojects about soccer. "

According to the above, fake flags or logos can't be used in clubs articles. --IM-yb (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This problem is about many templates and articles. Why we don't follow the note of commons? We want problems? It is not about consensus. --IM-yb (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The rules on Commons are not always the same as the rules here, so you can't generalize from one to the other. What problems do you envisage might arise here, on enwiki? -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusion about symbols of the club. Clubs has official logos, flags and other symbols. If someone enter first time in article of a club and see the symbols, it is easy to believe that it is real, official.

About copyright, the Gtrbolivar falls into contradictions (I replaced the white thing with the red-white stripes, trademark of Olympiacos CFP. The image is free with no restrictions and can be used in any template).

Very please to find a substantial solution for all the same templates (like many others Template:Ferencvárosi TC sections, Template:CSKA Moscow sections, Template:Partizan sections, Template:CSK ZSU sections... who built based on that logic). The follow of note of commons (who built based on some logic by other wikipedians) is a real solution.

About policy guideline of enwiki, Wikipedia:Logos, read:

" Many images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes. "

Who is the encyclopedic purpose about the usage of fake flags, logos and other symbols in articles? --IM-yb (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Other policy guideline of enwiki, WP:MOSLOGO, read:

" Free images

While legal problems may not be present (no intellectual property right being claimable), all of this guideline's rationales against use of icons as decoration still apply. Generally, addition of logos to article prose or tabular data does not improve the encyclopedia and leads to confusing visual clutter. "

That i say above. --IM-yb (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No matter what, discussions about content don't belong here. You are not going to get a resolution about that here. Take it to the talk page for the MOS then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:danielkueh playing games on Talk:Race (human classification)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_%28human_classification%29#Lead_sentence

I noticed this article claims the race concept in humans is entirely social in the first sentence, which can be read as biologically meaningless. I pointed out that some scholars think this, while others, prominent ones, don't. While pointing this out on talk and providing sources, User:danielkueh appears to be stalling by "playing dumb" and deliberately misunderstanding my sources and points. For example I provide a quote from Mayr which is specifically about the word race and how the biological concept it refers to can be applied to humans in the same way as animals. danielkueh claims "Race, as it is used by Mayr, refers to "breed" or "varieties"." He then asks why we have two articles, ie. race (biology) and race (human), if there is one definition. I repeatedly point out that there are several biological definitions of race, which all go in the biological race article, and all of which applied to humans go in the human race article, along with the social definitions and the controversy. Unfortunately he ignores this and repeatedly asks me why we have two articles if there is one definition: "Really? So there is only one definition of race? And one commentary by Mayr trumps everybody else? Interesting. So why do we have two articles again?" This can only be taken as a deliberate attempt to stall discussion. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Captain, WP:ANI is for disputes over editor conduct, not content disputes. Please discuss this difference of opinion on the article talk page and if you find, after substantial discussion, that your dispute is not resolved, go to dispute resolution and get some mediation to help. Also, if you come to ANI again with a complaint, please provide diffs that back up the claim you are making about misconduct. You need to provide evidence, not just your opinion and this is not a place to rehash your disagreement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a conduct issue. He is clearly deliberately missing the point eg.

It wouldn't be defined differently if the POV pushers on this article put in the biological race concept applied to humans. And we include any other social definitions and POVs, including race is biological meaningless. Multiple definitions and POVs are possible in an article. This is what NPOV is about. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Captain JT, Really? So there is only one definition of race? And one commentary by Mayr trumps everybody else? Interesting. So why do we have two articles again? danielkueh (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point I am reporting you for wilfully misunderstanding me. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute being complicated by incivility. Even if there is incivility, one of the dispute resolution procedures may be able to help you resolve the issue by enabling the parties to communicate. The first step, before any dispute resolution procedure, is discussion on the talk page. Good luck. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing on the talk page. He keeps mocking me. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, you have a very mockable username--"Verity"--and come in with blazing guns, into a highly contentious topic area, with more zeal than wisdom. For the record, I didn't see much mocking, unless "good luck with that" counts as mocking. I did see a Grumpy Andy pointing out some very basic things to you, and you didn't seem to be listening. My crystal ball and my tea leaves both tell me, though, that you are going to run into trouble if you keep this up, this forumming and Ididn'thearthat-ing. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"Ididn'thearthat-ing"? Isn't that exactly what we see above? Ironically, isn't that what you are doing now? It's easy to "point out some very basic things" as if the other person didn't know that, to poison the atmosphere against them. However we have a specific incidence of Ididn'thearthat-ing on this specific talk page which is stalling discussion (no doubt on purpose). This is what I would like addressed. I don't want to hear "yeah well you didn't listen to your mom in 1988" or some such diverting tu quoque irrelevance. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone recognize this supposedly new editor from previous now indef-blocked disruptive editors on this topic? As Drmies implies above, the user name is a bit too arch to be an innocent choice. BMK (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to "Captain JT Verity MBA". "Verity", of course, means "truth", and it's been a long-standing observation that editors who choose to include "truth" in their usernames have an agenda, are usually here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and often end up being blocked or banned. I have to wonder if "JT" means "Just The", as in "Just The Truth", and I'm also reminded that one of the editors who was banned from Wikipedia because of disruptive editing over race also had "Captain" in his user name. Given all this, I'm wondering if an SPI might be worthwhile to find out if "Captain JT Verity" might not be the return of Captain Occam, or one of his cohort. BMK (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is all content discussion, which should take place on the talk page, not here. BMK (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that my username has been cited in this ANI discussion, I would like to explain my position. Contrary to what Captain JT Verity MBA claimed, I was not stalling. I was trying to engage him in discussion. Because topics such as race can be controversial, discussions are often long and deliberative, which is not a bad thing. At first, I was confused by Captain JT's position in the discussion. Based on his history of editing the Race (Human classification) and Race (biology) pages as well as his discussions with other editors, he appeared to swing between two contradictory positions (See [197] vs [198]). Thus, I thought he might not have considered his position more fully. I tried to encourage him to consider the broader picture that we have two articles of the same name (race), which may have different meanings depending on the context that it is used. I even encouraged him to take a look at Webster's definition of race and see which definition fits into which article. Then Captain gave the above reply, "It wouldn't be defined differently if the POV pushers..." I understood his first sentence to mean that he didn't agree with there being multiple meanings of race as claimed by "POV pushers". I could not make out the meaning of his second sentence (And we include...) and I wasn't sure where he was going with the third and fourth sentences because we were only discussing one sentence. So I only responded to his first sentence (It wouldn't be defined...), which directly addressed my previous comment. Hence, more rhetorical questions followed, which he did not like. He therefore decided to file a complaint here. Even today, I have repeatedly tried to engage Captain JT Verity in discussion, encouraging him to provide sources and reach consensus. But he does not appear to be interested as he considers them to be "a time wasting stratagem." Thus, I asked an administrator, Doug Weller, to adjudicate. Doug protected the Race page for three days, which I am glad as I do not wish to engage in edit conflicts as I don't find them to be productive. I haven even templated Captain's page on the seriousness of edit warring, twice ([199], [200]) but I don't think it worked. I hope this explanation clarifies any misunderstandings or confusion. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC) "Multiple definitions and POVs are possible in an article. This is what NPOV is about." You don't understand this and take it to mean I think there is only one definition? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC) No... I said "I only responded to his first sentence (It wouldn't be defined...), which directly addressed my previous comment" because "I could not make out the meaning of his second sentence (And we include...) and I wasn't sure where he was going with the third and fourth sentences because we were only discussing one sentence." danielkueh (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC) So you understood my third and fourth sentences? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, but the third and fourth sentences contradict your first sentence. Plus, I don't know where you're going with that. Hence, I did not respond to them but only to the first sentence, which directly addressed my comments. danielkueh (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC) No actually they don't. Race (human) currently only supports "social" race. Including biological race means it wouldn't be defined differently, ie. it would include all viewpoints. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC) @JT Verity, if you don't see the overall incoherence of that paragraph, then there is really nothing more for me to add. That aside, if you wish to have productive discussions on any Wikipedia talk page, then do take some time to learn some of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:consensus WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Learning these policies is far more productive then filing a baseless accusation about me "playing games" or "stalling," which is clearly a waste of everyone else's time. danielkueh (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Captain, read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Reliable sources determine the weight of alternative viewpoints, they do not all need to be included. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Specifically which scholars here are fringe and undue? Talk:Race_(human_classification)#Cherry_picked_sources Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC) "@Captain JT, You're missing my point. You need to figure out why the word "race" is defined differently in both articles. For starters, take a look at Webster's dictionary on race [1]. You will notice there are multiple definitions of race, depending on the context. Try to figure out which definition fits here and which definition fits there [Race (biology) article]. danielkueh (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC) It wouldn't be defined differently if the POV pushers on this article put in the biological race concept applied to humans. And we include any other social definitions and POVs, including race is biological meaningless. Multiple definitions and POVs are possible in an article. This is what NPOV is about. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC) @Captain JT, Really? So there is only one definition of race? And one commentary by Mayr trumps everybody else? Interesting. So why do we have two articles again? danielkueh (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)" "Yes, but the third and fourth sentences contradict your first sentence. Plus, I don't know where you're going with that. Hence, I did not respond to them but only to the first sentence, which directly addressed my comments. danielkueh (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC) No actually they don't. Race (human) currently only supports "social" race. Including biological race means it wouldn't be defined differently, ie. it would include all viewpoints. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC) @JT Verity, if you don't see the overall incoherence of that paragraph, then there is really nothing more for me to add. That aside, if you wish to have productive discussions on any Wikipedia talk page, then do take some time to learn some of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:consensus WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Learning these policies is far more productive then filing a baseless accusation about me "playing games" or "stalling," which is clearly a waste of everyone else's time. danielkueh (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)" I don't see what's incoherent about my paragraph. I complained only one view was represented. You asked me which definition to choose for each article. I said all definitions should be included. You pretended I thought there was only one definition. What's not to understand about that? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Bizarrely Danielkueh is now following me around accusing me of having a "Napoleon complex".[201] (I'm 6'2" FWIW) Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

He didn't really have very far to go, did he? You must be from a race of giants. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I must express my disapproval of BMK's collapse of this point. It's clearly a behavioral issue, I cannot believe a reasonable person could fail to understand the point I was making so it's stonewalling effected by IDHT and misrepresentation, a behavioral issue. Does BMK have a partisan history in this area by any chance? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It must come in very handy for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Because ANI is not the place to have debates of how to define race. I think BMK is trying to draw this to a close because it might boomerang back on you. Please read up on the policy pages that have been suggested to you so you understand expectations of editors on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to define race. I'm pointing out stonewalling by deliberate failure to address my points, ie. misrepresenting what I'm saying to stall time and annoy me. Do you really not see this? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, Captain, annoying other users isn't a blockable offense unless the editor is editing disruptively. Collaborative editing involves a lot of annoyances because we need to work with other editors with whom we might strongly disagree. You need to find a way to work with others as you can't come to ANI every time an editor frustrates you. If you do this, you will be seen as disruptive and might face sanctions.

What people here are telling you that whatever you judge to be bad behavior is not considered serious enough to warrant sanctions. And if you refuse to drop the stick, it could cause others to see you as the problem. Editing on Wikipedia will become easier once you accept that you might not always get your way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Well obviously. But the point is that in this case it's not simply a case of me not getting my way, but a case of the other editor deliberately misrepresenting my statement to stall time, which should be a sanctionable offence. If you or other wiki admins can't or won't see or admit that is what is happening then obviously there is nothing I can do about that. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz isn't an admin, but she is right. Our goal is build an encyclopedia, not a polite online society. If you can't overlook little things, you aren't going to have a good time here. Admin can't block for every little infraction or we'd have no editors left. No admin either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I resemble that remark. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Improper use of template:disputed at Caste system in India

Two editors Human3015 (talk · contribs) and Soham321 (talk · contribs) have taken turns to place an improper disputed tag at the Caste system in India article. The grounds for the tag is apparently that they don't agree with a thoroughly sourced statement appearing in the lead (third paragraph). There has been an ongoing discussion about it initiated by another user. However, a sourced statement cannot be billed as a "factual inaccuracy" based on the whims of the editors. The discussion Soham321 engaged in at Talk:Caste system in India#Disputed content is extremely low-quality and repeats the same biases. I would request Human3015 and Soham321 to be cautioned about the proper use of the disputed tag. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is purely a content dispute; there is no place for this dispute in an ANI discussion. Soham321 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Furthermore, there was another user--ABEditWiki--who was repeatedly deleting the disputed material from the main page. The disputed material--in the lead--is quite amusing. According to it, the caste system as it exists today is a creation of the British. Aside from some western scholars, there is a solitary Indian scholar whose book is cited, but the page number is not given. Is it because the book is available in its entirety online? Even with respect to western scholars, it should be remembered that there are many cranks--like Koenraad Elst and David Frawley--with Hindutva connections. These people have been repudiated by genuine scholars like Michael Witzel of Harvard university.Soham321 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The disputed tag is not meant for flagging up "content dispute" whatever that might mean. It says clearly that the "factual accuracy" has been disputed. You haven't described any such inaccuracy. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Do i have to give references from the hindu dharmasastras like the Manu Smriti, from epics like the Mahabharata, and even from the Vedas to show that the caste system as we know it today was in existence much before the coming of the British to India?Soham321 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are primary sources. You really don't have an understanding of Wikipedia policy at all Soham321.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

All right, i can give many secondary sources also. Starting off with History of Dharmasastras by PV Kane. It is a shame that this monumental work by a great Indian scholar is not being cited in the page on the Indian caste system--and i am referring here particularly to the disputed content--and rather Indians are expected to learn about the caste system from mediocre western scholars. Soham321 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your constant racial comments are disturbing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

would it be acceptable to put some disputed content on the wikipedia pages (and that too in the lead sections) of the american war of independence or George Washington or Oliver Cromwell or Sir Issac Newton and give references to six or seven relatively unknown Indian or Chinese scholars?Soham321 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stay focused on topic. If there is content that should be added, you are free to add it. But that doesn't make the existing content "factually inaccucate." It is still an improper tag. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The existing content of the disputed material is inaccurate as per PV Kane's History of Dharmasastras which is the foremost authority on the Hindu dharmasastras and which describes the origin and evolution of the caste system. That is why you cannot put the disputed material within the lead of the article, although you are welcome to place it elsewhere. Soham321 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources exist with different viewpoints, then all of them should be described according WP:WEIGHT. The existence of different viewpoints does not make any one of them factually inaccurate. You are again bringing up the lead vs. body issue which has been refuted on the talk page as per WP:LEAD. Don't go there again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The comments of Kautilya prove that this is a content dispute, and it was not proper on his part to bring this to ANI. Anyways, my conversation with Kautilya is continuing in the talk page of the article. Soham321 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever "content dispute" there might be, it is not tagged as a "factual inaccuracy." The complaint here is about your misuse of the disputed tag. You haven't said single word about what in the article is factually inaccurate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a misuse of the tag because of WP:I just don't like it, plain and simple. There are multiple reliable, scholarly sources and the sentence in question is a quote. There are four cites on the quote alone and one of those cites links to four more scholars supporting the quote. This is a content dispute, plain and simple. Ogress _smash! 23:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• As an admin, this is a fine line to walk. Generally speaking, that tag is used when there is verifiable inaccuracies within the article. If there is a case to be made that there are OTHER viewpoints that aren't being represented, that is a matter of editing and sourcing, not tagging. I can't speak as to the content here, but there is a difference between WP:WEIGHT and WP:VERIFY. If the claims are sourced multiple times, tagging for inaccuracy is misleading and contentious. There is a tag that says " article lends undue weight to certain aspects of the subject but not others" which may or may not be appropriate, but "inaccurate" seems, well, inaccurate, given the context. I would recommend removing the tag or replacing it with something more accurate. Otherwise, reverting back into the article is a bit disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

is it appropriate to formulate a lunatic fringe theory, give a lot of references to it (some of them without mentioning the page number of the book being cited), and place this in the lead of the article? Note that in the talk page of the article, not only have i given a reference to one of the foremost authorities on this subject who controverts the lunatic fringe theory, but i have also given as a reference a contemporary scholarly article demolishing the new lunatic fringe theory. In the talk page, i also gave reference to a newspaper article which cited hindu fundamentalists in England voicing the same lunatic fringe theory--that the modern caste system is a creation of the British. Soham321 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your use of hyperbole here and on the talk page isn't making your case, and is in fact, undermining it. As to the merits, I simply don't care. My concern is policy and behavior, not the content or dispute. We don't settle content disputes at ANI. I would warn you not to make a WP:POINT with the tag, and instead work on getting a consensus on the talk page, which I don't see at this time. Otherwise, there is no "factual inaccuracy" to tag about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The tag was originally not placed by me but by another editor. I reintroduced the tag since i felt some warning had to be given to the reader of the article. I have no objection to some other tag being placed, but the fact remains that "factual accuracy" of the edit is indeed being challenged. Incidentally, the material under consideration, along with other material, has been challenged in the US and the view being espoused by Sitush and others has not been accepted in the US. For more on this, see here: California textbook controversy over Hindu history, and do a control-F on "caste". Can we still allow Sitush, Kautilya, and others to place the material which was not accepted by the State of California to be accurate in the lead of the article on the caste system? Soham321 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321 clearly does not have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia. The California textbook controversy has nothing to do anything. And he continues to make racial comments.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This was part of the disputed material in the California textbook controversy case: Once their society had merged with the local population, a late hymn of the Rig Veda described the four castes.Hindu organizations in the US wanted to alter this text to: "A late hymn of the Rig Veda describes the interrelationship and interdependence of the four social classes.” Their proposal was not accepted by the two scholars Prof Bajpai and Prof Witzel who represented the State of California. Please see California textbook controversy over Hindu history once again. Soham321 (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, all I know is that you are alone on the talk page. You need to either build a consensus, or accept that consensus is against you, and stop worrying about tags. Otherwise, you will end up getting blocked for disruptive editing. We aren't here to Right Great Wrongs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have tried, and failed, to come up with a reason an admin shouldn't just topic ban Soham321 under IPA DS and be done with it. I'll think about it a little longer, but barring a very compelling reason not to the blatant racism and IDIDNTHEARTHAT is quite enough for me. I'd be perfectly willing to handle it myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 tagged him before I could for IPA. This means that any actions AFTER the tagging can be considered. You can't use actions before the tagging. Hopefully, it will be unnecessary to block or topic ban, but the more I look, the more I understand the community frustration here. Now that the Arb notification is in place, admin pretty much have a blank check in dealing with any future issues, should they come up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm a bit late to this dispute, it would seem, but what brought me here was not Soham321 placing the tag (I don't watch the page) but their behavior on talk pages outside my watchlist was disruptive enough to bring their behavior to my attention indirectly. In addition to the pointy edits and lack of understanding of NPOV, there are the constant insinuations with racial overtones both on this talk page and at Talk:Babur, constant use of hyperbole, edit warring, and this instance of blatant canvassing. I don't know about a tban, but cooling off of some kind is required. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame you Blade. I was contemplating what would be the least amount of force, and was thinking 30 day Tban would be insufficient. Maybe 90 at a bare minimum, but the hardheadedness of this individual doesn't give me hope. Either way, you have more experience than I, so I would be happy to defer to your judgement here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC) And i have now removed the tag pending further discussions on the talk page of this article. Soham321 (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note at your talkpage, and it does appear you're taking the feedback on board. Accordingly, I think it'd be best to hold off for a little while and see how it goes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Misguided campaign to remove words "misgender", "cisgender" from Wikipedia by User:Godsy

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

---

Godsy (talk · contribs) has been systematically vandalizing transgender articles by removing these words under the pretense they are neologisms. Thy are not, they are listed in the Oxford: misgender, cisgender. This is an extreme disservice to our articles on transgender topics is most likely a discetionary sanctions violation. Skyerise (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Diffs are missing for specific alleged violations; a quick perusal of the user's recent edits doesn't help me. Without further evidence I can only call this a content dispute. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Diffs:
  • Microaggression
  • Death of Leelah Alcorn
  • Transphobia
  • Sexism
  • Transphobia
  • Travesti
  • Janet Mock
  • Orenchi no Furo Jijō
  • List of The L Word characters
• Skyerise (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

My personal home dictionary, The Reader's Digest Great Encylopedic Dictionary, doesn't contain the term. That was printed (second printing) in 1967, so naturally, I checked some other dictionaries. Neither Merriam Webster [202] or Dictionary.com [203] define the term. According to the Wikipedia article on Transphobia it was coined by Julia Serano, the date of the "coining" is not given. A neologism, again from this encyclopedia, "is the name for a newly coined term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language". I think this word fits within the definition of a neologism, and its use should be avoided per MOS:NEO. I don't think any of my edits are "vandalism", as they were characterized by Skyerise.

They are important words related to transgender issues, and they are now accepted into common usage and listed in dictionaries. You did not look into it enough if you are using nearly 50 year old dictionaries. Skyerise (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"so naturally, I checked some other [current] dictionaries. Neither Merriam Webster [204] or Dictionary.com [205] define the term." I'd advise reading my whole comment before posting next time.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother to Google? Around 600,000 hits for "misgender", over 400,000 hits for "cisgender", and the words are used in the titles of mainstream media articles (e.g. Huffington Post, Slate, Time, etc.) Skyerise (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved, Non-admin comment here. I did notice some of this editing. The Oxford English Dictionary is widely regarded as a highly reputable source. Clearly more reputable than very old dictionaries. It seems to me to be highly inappropriate for an editor to unilaterally seek to remove a concept from Wikipedia without discussion or consensus. Add to use in the Guardian several times AusLondonder (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

As my comment about my home dictionary is being taken out of context, I'm striking it. I removed "misgender" (and various forms of it) from under 10 articles, its usage is not very widespread. I did leave some occurrences of it in the transphobia article. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Simple content dispute, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Godsy: Maybe would be better to discuss in future before making such widespread changes. Also, discretionary sanctions apply to topics related to transgender issues AusLondonder (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but "it would be better to discuss" applies both ways here, imo. Skyerise left a message on Godsy's talk page, then ran here 12 minutes later though Godsy had made no further edits of this type in that time. That does not give me a sense that Skyerise was willing to try and talk through a disagreement that doesn't belong here at this point. Resolute 23:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Running to ANI/mommy is a last resort (Arbcom comes first, haha). "Evidence" of disruptive editing is not provided by giving diffs of edits--it's giving evidence that certain diffs are disruptive. Dictionary.com (and Merriam Webster) are not to be cited (online dictionaries are a joke). The OED cannot be expected to be totally au courant. In contentious areas, one should be much more careful than in non-contentious areas. So, I think I boomeranged this all over the place, to all editors involved. Off to the talk page you go, all of you, except for Resolute and me, who shall be at the cocktail bar. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

With the occurrences of "misgender" (including "misgendered" and "misgendering"} being in so few articles (under 10), I didn't really view the changes I made (which I believe have all been reverted by Skyerise already) as widespread. But alas, hindsight is 20/20, discussion would have been the way to go in this case.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Peter.Mancini making legal threats.

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

---

See this section of my talk page. User making legal threats to me and demanding private information based off a CSD recommendation. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 02:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for unambiguous legal threat. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Z07x10 indef block or topic ban request

I request that User:Z07x10 be indefinitely blocked or topic banned from Eurofighter Typhoon. He is currently on a 72 hours block for this vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enumclaw_horse_sex_case&type=revision&diff=667607533&oldid=666540696 for which he shows no apparent regret, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z07x10&diff=667633469&oldid=667627682].

User:Z07x10 has been engaged in tendentious editing on the Eurofighter Typhoon page since late May. Z07x10 then engaged in an edit war for which he was warned for edit warring and false sock accusations against me, see:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned). User:Z07x10 has the proceeded to forum shop his way through DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 116#Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_Rafale, OR: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Eurofighter Typhoon and Comparison to Dassault Rafale, an attempt at Mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon 2 and finally at an RFC Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RFC: Inclusion of Radar Cross-Section Comparison where he has edit warred my response, see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: )

This failure to work cooperatively with other Users, forum-shopping and insulting Users who disagree with him is part of a pattern that has been evident for the past 18 months, see: Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 5#Typhoon max speed, Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 5#Warning about Max speed and [[206]] and therefore I believe that an indefinite block or at least a topic ban in relation to Eurofighter Typhoon is warranted. Mztourist (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite Block User has displayed WP:IDHT behaviour for years now. User has accused others of COI without evidence [207] has accused others of sock puppetry without evidence [208] and has been a time sink for literally years. This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block since Z07x10 has been doing what he's doing for at least two years now. See this discussion on AN/I, dated September 2013. Thomas.W ^talk 15:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block Multiple issues as reported above, a never-ending POV push. Scr★pIron^IV 15:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef per above. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Indef Per above TheMagikCow (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

When I blocked the user I made it clear any further attacks would result in an indefinite block. [209] No issue if there's consensus to indef block now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest that Z07x10's response to the block [210] is quite sufficient evidence to suggest that they have failed to get the message. And looking through their edit history, there seems to be evidence of earlier vandalism: [211]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Indef but see below. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Formalize it as a site-ban

I suggest formalizing it as a Site-ban. Tendentious editing and flaming for more than one-and-one-half years would warrant a topic-ban, but the vandalism, and then laughing about it, really indicates that they can't play by any set of rules, and formalizing it as a ban reduces the likelihood that they will attempt to game the system to get unblocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Site Ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban per above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban I remember this from a really long time ago. User has been doing this for years and is unlikely to edit elsewhere if tbanned. KonveyorBelt 19:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban I closed two of the AN3 complaints about this editor. There is really no progress here; the editor is unusually stubborn about his favorite issue and is constantly getting reported to AN3 about the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban per my comments above Scr★pIron^IV 20:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Z07x10 either can't change or doesn't want to change, and has been given more than enough rope by now (see the final comment in the AN/I discussion from 2013 that I linked to further up...). Thomas.W ^talk 20:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban, since the user seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Miniapolis 23:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support At first glance, this seemed to be an overreaction, but the deeper you look, the more you realize that this person's activities are parasitic to Wikipedia. In the end, if an editor consumes more time from others than they give in meaningful contributions to the project, we simply can't afford to have them here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban The user is extremely stubborn, does not listen to others ans seems incapable of learning anything after years of being here. --McSly (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban for reasons given above Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. There really isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said, but this situation just reeks of WP:NOTHERE. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious interfering with RfC

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

---

On 13:23, 18 June 2015, Discuss-Dubious changed one of the entries of the RfC at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.[212]

He changed

"In infoboxes on articles about non-religious nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed."

to

"In infoboxes on articles about non-religious (as opposed to anti-religious) nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed."

With no indication in the edit summary that he was changing the scope of the RfC.

Discuss-Dubious is of the opinion that the religion parameter should be removed from People's Socialist Republic of Albania, an anti-religious country (1976-1992).[213] This appears to be an attempt to make the RfC not apply to that page.

I reverted the change as soon as I noticed the change,[214], but during that time the !votes for omitting the parameter increased from 20 to 23 (the next most popular !votes remained at 3 and 2). I don't see any justification for restarting the RfC based on those numbers, but if there is a consensus that I should I will do so.

Changing the text of the question being !voted on in the middle if an RfC is, in my opinion, disruptive editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like clear and unambiguous disruption to me - editing another contributor's post to change the meaning is generally bad enough in itself, but making a substantive change to the meaning of an ongoing RfC has to be worthy of sanction if anything is. As for what else to do about it, I'd suggest contacting the individuals who participated after the change, and asking them if they wish to change their position. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and AndyTheGrump:

I thought it was okay because you told Future Perfect he could and I guess I misunderstood. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the above comment, I am inclined to WP:AGF and accept it as an innocent mistake. Discuss-Dubious, in the future, try to describe what you are doing and why in the edit summary, OK? Thanks.!

I think this can be closed as "no action needed" now. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I will remember next time. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Death threat

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

---

Please block Orlando407321 for this death threat and general disruption. Thanks.- MrX 16:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Talk page access might have to be revoked if they edit again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, NeilN.- MrX 16:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@MrX and NeilN: has anyone passed this onto the WMF yet? Mdann52 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't either.- MrX 20:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin do this, since I no longer have access to the rev deleted material?- MrX 20:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Doing so now. Yunshui ^雲_水 20:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable behavior of editor

Hello,

I want to inform you about unacceptable behavior of the editor Croata concerning the articles Bulgars/ Dulo clan.

During the past 3 months (since the beginning of March 2015) he was constantly removing all my edits on these articles stating that they were "vandalism", "unrelated info", "false positive edits", "fringe theories edits" or simply calling them POV. He denies the reliability of obviously excellent sources as Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank stating that they represent minority point of view. For example on 19 June 2015‎ he removed my edit on the article Bulgars where I have added information about the origin of Utigurs, a major Bulgar tribe, stating that the edit is "false positive" and "unrelated info". On 6 June 2015‎ I have warned him that in his version of the article Dulo clan, his conclusion "Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" is not supported by the cited four books - nowhere on the cited pages there is such a conclusion. He ignored my warning and reverted the article 6 times after that without bothering to correct this sentence or to remove it. On the talk page of Dulo clan article I have suggested many ways how to improve the article, for example :

• I have suggested to move the information about the historical rulers of the clan from the section "Research History" to the article's intro where this information should be placed because it is well documented
• I have suggested to removed the information that early rulers of the clan were claiming Attilid descend from the article's intro to "Research History" or to restate it in the form that some historians think they had such a descend. It is not known if they were claiming this.
• I have suggested to improve the article Bulgars by replacing the very first sentence "... semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction" with more accurate statement " The three major tribes were Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs, whose origin is still unidentified"

None of these suggestions (and many more) were accepted. The editor Croata doesn't accept any independent additions, he considers his versions of the articles to be final and set in stone. Also he tends to place disproportionate importance of the Turkic theory about the origin of Bulgars and Dulo clan and doesn't accept other theories about their origin to be added to the articles. Such a behavior is unacceptable and it does not help the readers of these articles.

PavelStaykov (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've reformatted. You didn't notify Crovata, and misspelled his name. The very top of this page clearly states you must do this. I have gone ahead and done so. Now to look at the merits.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• This is going to take longer than I have to give tonight, but the other stuff still needed doing. User:Bbb23 is familiar with Crovata, so I would draw his attention here. Looking briefly, it seems more of a content dispute, but there may be some behavioral issues by one or both, so I will leave to B and others to determine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• No promises, but I'll try to look at this tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I experience technical problems and don't know if will manage to actively follow the discussion. However, I neither have time to waste discussing the same thing over and over and over again. The violation of WP:NPOV principles, lack of neutrality and knowledge of the editor PavelStaykov, and in general about the topic and dispute, you can read at his talk page, Bulgars Talk and Dulo clan Talk. The scholars Zuev and Pulleyblank were only lately introduced, not months ago, and their minor claims have no relation to Bulgars. It is related with Utigurs and their article. The Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were not Bulgar tribes, they were different tribes who in periods were part of Bulgar confederation, but whose names etymologically clearly show Turkic origin. The articles of Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs are badly written, and currently work on them. He never answered which "four books", and I ask him again to respond. A simple read of the Bulgars article is enough to dismiss his claims, and often personal original research (which he calls "independent"). The Turkic theory is the only theory with verified evidence, and weight per NPOV. It is generally considered and discussed, and does not dismiss other ethnogenetic and cultural influence like other theories, Indo-European or Iranian, which do not have substantial amount of sources, reliability or confirmation for such claims. Not to mention how are ideologically motivated by the Bulgarian scholars during the anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria, considered by unreliable "scholars" (PavelStaykov cited a scholar who is not educated in the historiography or linguistics, but medicine) and a minority. Such a fringe theory also has an article - Kingdom of Balhara.

The editor PavelStaykov denis and called modern scholarship considerations as junk and part of "some Russian propaganda". As far the points go, 1. The list of rulers follows the list of the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans and their names and meaning are discussed in the section 2. There is no need for this, and just for record, previously in March and April he strongly opposed the reshaping of the statement as personally considered it was Attila itself and denied scholars general consideration 3. It is generally accepted they were most prominently of Turkic extraction (with some admixture of Hunnic, Iranian and other Indo-European origin and influence).--Crovata (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Futurewiki

User:Futurewiki was indef blocked here about a week ago based on competence issues and failure to communicate. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Competence. He had previously edited as User:Dragonrap2, assuming the Futurewiki moniker after (apparently) losing his password. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dragonrap2/Archive. No one knows for sure because he doesn't say. Evidently however he stumbled across the password again, because no sooner was Futurewiki blocked here that Dragonrap2 resumed editing after a six month break. A new SPI was opened but hasn't gained any traction, and I can't see any reason that Dragonrap2 should be allowed to continue editing in the face of Futurewiki's indef block. Thanks for any help. JohnInDC (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Moderator intervention needed

Both me and User:Doug Weller have left notes on User:Artin Mehraban's page as well as through edit summaries, that he should stop creating self-formulated maps and making edits on articles that clearly violate WP:OR. Both me and Doug left him a message yesterday asking this again, and yet, even though promising to cease the Wiki-policy violating activities, he still continues to do so. As of just a few minutes ago, he created this; another nonsensical pseudo-historical article about an alleged empire that has never existed, nor any scholar has ever mentioned. I mean, I get that he's (kinda) interested in history and stuff, but he's violating WP:OR over and over now with these self-created maps, articles, etc. [[215]] This is an encyclopedia I believe, not a fairy tale's forum where we create and make up stuff that we want to believe.

Anyway, honestly I think it's been kinda enough right now as it has gone way out of hand, and we have shown enough willingness in order to make him stop doing this (and most importantly to make him understand why his edits are incorrect) and though I left Doug himself a message some minutes ago prior to writing here so that he could look at it himself, Artin Mehraban just continued creating more of those OR articles/maps/pictures (as I've demonstrated above). Thus, in order to have this stopped before it gets even worse, I brought it here.

- LouisAragon (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll get back to this later today, but there is a problem with this editor. I've given him warnings, advice, suggested a mentor, etc. but to no avail. As have others, eg User:WikiDan61 and User:Dr.K.. A number of his uploaded images have been deleted as copyvio. I see he hasn't been notified, I'll do that now. Doug Weller (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I put File:Conquests of Azad Khan Afghan.png up for deletion because it was particularly ill-defined, with no geographic identification at all. I think all of Artin Mehraban's map creations should be looked over, especially by editors with some background in map creation and use along with knowledge of correct map sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Oversight some especially nasty vandalism?

[216]Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oversight not really needed, Shirt58 RevDel'ed it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I didn't really know the difference between oversight and RevDel. Anyway, there's some still there (the diffs that I've given cover more than one edit).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

IP's six - month block for removing vandalism

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

---

There's a lot of negative sentiment towards IP editors at the moment but Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Leave the archiving to the bot really takes the biscuit. I'd like to highlight the disparity of treatment of IP and registered editors. We know that tempers become frayed in Ramadan but the fast hadn't even started when an edit war broke out on the article.

Debresser went toe to toe with a number of other editors, reverting them ten times. Six of these reverts were on 1 June alone. One editor told him Reverted 1 edit by Debresser (talk): Discuss, don't revert - no consensus, too much ownership behavior. This editor has a block log as long as your arm, but has never been blocked for more than one month and for the latest infraction wasn't blocked at all.

Can we discuss the obvious demerits of the IP's block? 5.150.92.20 (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a single IP that edited Ramadan or that thread you link to (I have no idea how the two are related) that is currently blocked, let alone for 6 months. The disparity of treatment between IP's and registered editors is that you were only blocked for a few days for trolling, while a registered account would likely have been blocked indefinitely.--Atlan (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

156.61.250.250 is the unfortunate editor. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

What has that IP got to do with what you're writing here? It's a public terminal/access point in London, England, that has been used for repeated trolling and disruptive editing. So the six month block the IP got seems to be well deserved, especially since it's not the first time it has been blocked. So why don't you stop your repeated childish trolling here, and go play outdoors instead? Thomas.W ^talk 09:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That IP has zero edits to Ramadan, zero edits to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Leave the archiving to the bot, wasn't blocked after June 1, and wasn't blocked by Debresser. You complaint makes absolutely no sense, and is just more trolling and trying to discredit User:Future Perfect at Sunrise.--Atlan (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So how is removing the false claim that Dionysius Exiguus screwed up when he initialised the anno domini era worthy of a six month block? 5.150.92.19 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No-one has been blocked six months for that, the block the IP got was for persistent disruptive editing, including edit-warring to get WP:OR into articles (see IP's contributions). The block has also been reviewed by another admin, who declined an unblock request, so you're not going to get any support here for your crusade this time either Thomas.W ^talk 10:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

... And I have reblocked the complainant 5.150.92.19/5.150.92.20, once more, for block evasion, as it's long been plain obvious that this is the exact same person about whose prior block on the other IP he is complaining here again. If he turns up under some other IP again, please somebody block that too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if Future Perfect thinks other administrators are stupid. Unlike him, they investigate whether an edit is blockworthy before hitting the block button. W Thomas says an unblock was refused, but the rationale for that was people who use public terminals rarely edit Wikipedia and if they do they are probably unaware of the existence of the talk page. Whoever made the unblock request was probably unaware of the collateral damage policy so I'm highlighting it here.

W Thomas also says that

The block the IP got was for persistent disruptive editing, including edit - warring to get WP:OR into articles.

Future Perfect didn't say that and there are no diffs, so W Thomas' credibility is seriously undermined. It appears that it's W Thomas, not the OP, who is misrepresenting the case. W Thomas' credibility is further undermined by his omission to state that the administrator who 'blocked for block evasion' was Future Perfect at Sunrise.

Future Perfect's conduct is unsavoury to say the least:

• 09:56 he blocks without discussing here beforehand although he is clearly involved.
• 09:59 he reports here, and confirms that it would be improper for him to block again.
• 10:01 he blocks again.
• 10:02 he reports here, and confirms that it would be improper for him to block again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.177.139 (talk • contribs)

Another IP who, just by coincidence of course, geolocates to the same place as the OP and the blocked IP the OP was posting about. Thomas.W ^talk 11:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that W Thomas spends his time checking the locations of editors rather than addressing the argument suggests that the OP was right. 188.220.96.85 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Watford? Did you you really have to travel all the way from Hackney to Watford to find an open network that you hadn't gotten blocked yet? Thomas.W ^talk 13:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Mafia Capitale

This article has been deleted twice in the last few days, once for BPL violation and once for copyright violation and now Manox81 (talk · contribs) has recreated it. Now it is up for AfD. This same article was deleted on the Italian Wikipedia]. Please look in to this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If the reasons for speedy deletion have been avoided in the current version (and I see no BLP or copyright concerns in it now), then AfD seems like the correct route to me and I don't see that it has anything to do with admin at this stage. Mr Potto (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there might be a copyright problem, depending on http://wikipedia.moesalih.com/Mafia_Capitale - is that anything to do with Wikipedia? Is it a mirror? But that still seems to me to be within the remit of the usual deletion processes and nothing that needs ANI attention. Mr Potto (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That page is a wikipedia mirror. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I've just paraphrased anyway, but I think that puts the copyvio issue to bed. Mr Potto (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I believe I am being attacked by another editor User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, they seem to not be assuming good faith with my edits. Also they have made an accusation of sockpuppeting here which has no ground, and also a recent personal attack here. The user was warned by JMHamo, here being told that the message left on my talk page could constitute harassment. And finally they have previously served a block for personal attacks here. I don't usually report other users but I do if I feel threatened or I believe I am the target of harassment. I did report a user User:Theroadislong recently but I withdrew it as I realised he was only acting in good faith reverting some of my edits. --TeaLover1996 ^☏ 12:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Somebody should close Fortunata down [217],[218].188.220.96.85 (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations should take place at WP:SPI only, nowhere else. I have placed a note on the user's talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User: Stemoc

After continually being reverted by this user, I've decided that it would be best to take this to the Administrator noticeboard. Over the past several months, the user Stemoc has continually reverted my edits, for the sole reason of being disruptive. I think their latest statement made in an edit summary clearly states that they do not wish to act in a civil manner, and simply wish to violate Wikipedia policy outlined at WP:HOUNDING. The edit summary stated "UNDO long-term cross wiki vandal POV pusher whop uses the wiki for "self promotion"." This has continually been his reason, no matter the situation, in this case it was the addition of a different photo on the Donald Trump article which is non-controversial. (Note: There was a previous discussion at 3RR where it was agreed that I would not add photos that have already been uploaded for the sole reason of having my name in the title of the image, which I have ceased from doing. I have not broken this warning so that should not be part of this discussion.) But regardless, the user still seems to want to continue to revert my edits across several different projects, and was told to stop previously.

In a calm, measured response to a comment I left on his talk page, part of his response was to "stop acting like a pompous cry baby.." His edit summary here also indicates his unwillingness to act in a civil manner, and simply to be disruptive and revert edits without discussion. Quoting directly from WP:Wikihounding, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." As recent as a few moments ago, the user began participating in a discussion I created in order to gain a consensus on which image would be best at Jeb Bush. The user then personally attacked me stating "its Not a Communist regime either so we won't keep using your poor images all the time" to a comment I left in a related section where people began voting, despite policy that states Wikipedia is not a democracy. In that discussion, it was found that a different image was best to use, and I did not revert or try to disrupt that decision.

The user has had similar complaints left on his talk page, after he told another user to "get glasses" when trying to add a photo he uploaded in this instance. Here is part of the exchange...

“ No you LISTEN, you are the ONLY PERSON in the WHOLE of WIKIPEDIA that has a problem with the GOOD IMAGE being used. I tried solving it amicably but you decide to change the IMAGE again for the UMPTEENTH TIME, you REFUSE to a have ANY DISCUSSION but continuously KEEP changing the image, the post to have a discussion BARELY lasted 48 hours BEFORE you changed the IMAGE yet AGAIN... You are a VANDAL and I will NOW REPORT you....I wrote those in CAPS LOCK cause you seem to be blind or something ... ”

If that isn't a case against WP:Civility then I don't know what is. He has been warned for his uncivil behavior several times already, and yet they just ignore it and begin writing in uppercase and attempting shame others from editing. It also seems that he is doing the same thing that he accuses me of, as he is adding his own uploaded images to articles, without any sort of discussion, whether controversial or not, and most of the time without a reason given in his edit summary. I highly suggest reviewing his edit history, and his talk page.

Other violations that I believe he has made are outlined at WP:Disruptive editing, in response to this comment after I reverted him for reverting me because I made the edit, "Either follow our policies or LEAVE". That statement alone violates #6, which states "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles." I would also argue he is acting in a tendentious manner based on his recent edits alone.

Again, if this isn't a case of someone overstepping the line of civility, engaging in disruptive editing, campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and intentionally hounding someone's specific edits, then I don't know what is.

Here are links to edits where the user has reverted me in a hounding manner. [219] [220] [221][222][223][224][225] [226] [227] [228]

Calibrador (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Expect an accusational response from the user being reported saying that I'm adding my own photos as self promotion. This is not the case, and is not a violation of any policy anyway. As of recent, I have made sure to include clear edit summaries stating why I am changing a specific image, and created discussions in order to come to a consensus on which image would be preferred. Stemoc is simply acting in a disruptive manner no matter what discussion takes place, and no matter what my edit summary reasoning was for changing a specific image. Calibrador (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Before I begin, please remember that User:Calibrador was previously known as Gage Skidmore and he changed his name yesterday just so that he can knowingly continue to enforce his images into articles without setting off any alarm bells..Infact, just before changing his name, his last few edits involved enforcing his own images into articles and right after usurpation, he continues to do the same. The use has over the years continually used wikipedia for WP:SELFPROMOTION to an extent of removing better images for his own poor ones just so that he can use wikipedia to promote himself financially. The Quote he linked above was to another editor that is available on my talk page and it has already been solved "amicably" but he has linked it here trying to make people think that my comment was targeted at him..... I'm not in the habit of REMOVING other people's comments about him removing other images and replacing them with his.. He even threatened me on Wikimedia Commons to not upload his images from flickr which are under a free licence and as per Commons policy can be uploaded for use on wikipedia...The user has a long history of violation WP:COI and just by going through the users contribution history here, it will all be made clear. I'm NOT Hounding the user as he claims, I just found his "vandalism" unbearable and decided to take action by reverting them as he refuses to follow policies in regards to discussing his changes. Its either HIS images be USED on those articles or NO IMAGES and he will blatantly revert anyone else who decides to use a less controversial or better image...WP:CIVIL goes both ways and if admins refuse to warn and discipline this user who has previously been reported here in May, then this will be ongoing. The user is abusing our Terms of Use as was discussed in May on my talk page. He may not be a paid editor but he is using Wikipedia for Financial gain and that is against one of our policies as photographers get paid for the use of their images as tou can see here and quote

“ Gage Skidmore is a professional photographer currently based in the Phoenix metropolitan area. He began his career covering politics in 2009, covering the U.S. Senate campaign of ophthalmologist Rand Paul. Since then, he has been involved with a variety of organizations and campaigns, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, ASU Center for Political Thought & Leadership, Campaign for Liberty Foundation, Reason Magazine, Western Center for Journalism, and has been published in the Washington Post, Associated Press, Politico, and Forbes.

Media/business inquiries: gtskidmore@hotmail.com

”

If wikimedia blatantly allows someone to use the site to serve their personal monetary gain then this is not a place I want to be...I have been fighting Spammers and vandals across wikimedia since 2007 and users like him are the worst as they can usually get away with it..........oh and ofcourse you are Gage, do NOT deny it cause whats worse than violators are those that blatantly lie about it--Stemoc 13:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to destroy my character, you are getting very close to libel with your false accusations. I have never made a penny from my involvement with Wikipedia. Your response also screams a great level of paranoia. Calibrador (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

False accusation?, you accuse me of WP:HOUNDing you and when i point out that you are using WIKIPEDIA for your own personal MONETARY gain, I'm destroying your character?. You Intentionally enforce your images so that you can tell your "clients" about you work using Wikipedia as a reference for your OWN personal and monetary gain and when users remove your pics and replace or update it with one that is BETTER, you revert them cause you want ONLY your images with you name at the END of every image name because you are a humanitarian and you love wikipedia and you are helping the wiki out of the goodness of your heart?, is thats what you are telling me?....Never made a a penny, who do you think uses all the images that get added to wikipedia?, newsites and other websites and I won't be surprised if they pay you for the use of the images, oh and lets not forget, free publicity..Just admit it and stop lying please....--Stemoc 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

None of what you just wrote is true, I suggest you just stop please. Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Also I'd suggest acting more Civil instead of using Caps lock to imply shouting on the administrator noticeboard. Calibrador (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc, it's not clear to me how Calibrador is financially benefiting from Wikipedia. You link to his Flickr bio it doesn't refer to Wikipedia at all. And then you reference an article where not only is Wikipedia not mentioned but it states he posts all of his photos to Flickr under a Creative Commons license, making them available free of charge as long as he’s credited. and only charges for-profit publications for his work.

I can see how you could make an argument that Calibrador prefers using photos he has taken over other photos but you haven't presented evidence that he is financially benefiting from donating his photos to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• A month ago I reported Gage Calibrador at ANEW [229] so I'm not the only one to have an issue although since that report I've simply given up with the image-removal as I knew one way or another it'd end up with me being blocked, I still believe Gage Calibrador is using the image-titles as a way to promote himself. –Davey2010^Talk 14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Since that discussion, I have agreed to use edit summaries, discuss, and come to a consensus when changing an image is seen as controversial. Calibrador (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sanction

I hadn't responded since my last post on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's talk page since I appealed to the administrator's board for a resolution on this yet I get this heavy-handed sanction on the topic from NewYorkBrad? The question was an issue that was brought up by someone else in the first place then just a stream of insults followed. Is this right?--A21sauce (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)