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

Report on StanTheMan87 personal attacks

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

---

• StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The user recently behaved in an impolite manner toward me. I opposed a name change and when he saw my reasoning did not persuade him, he charged me with 'Pushing POV'. I told him that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" was regarded as personal attack. He had already said that Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the constant regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE" which was weird to me, because one may have a different opinion and it does not necessarily a sign of POV pushing. However, I tried to explain how I think about the issue and presented my own reasoning but he replied that he still could tell me that I had POV to push because of 1- My reasoning and 2- Because of the details on my user page. The second one seems like a racist accusation (refer to my user page please). I took another step and tried to further explain why I opposed the change, but he did not pay attention to my last warning on taking WP:PA seriously and said:"the current title is not precise. You are foolish to think otherwise." As, I had already asked him to avoid PA, I'm sending the report here.

Comment: Two other editors had discussed him about personal attacks and throwing insults (I'm not judging these two cases as I don't have enough materials to judge and just am commenting to let the admins know about the possible background of him). Mhhossein (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Commenting to point out this edit summary: Info-box is fucked. I cannot be bothered manually editing all the shit I added. Congratulations to user Anasaitis for fucking around with it, you absolute hero. [1]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see enough here to warrant action. Uncivil a few times recently? Sure. But I don't see this rising to the level where an Admin is going to act on anything... And EvergreenFir already previously warned StanTheMan87 about one of the instances of incivility. Unless StanTheMan87 keeps at it, I don't think anything is going to happen here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me clear up one thing, the comment "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence was regarded as personal attack" is factually incorrect. It might be ad hominem, but not a personal attack. See Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, the gold standard around here. Single instances are generally overlooked, it takes a little heat sometimes. Ongoing ad hominem is disruptive, however, so action generally requires demonstrating a longer term pattern. I'm not saying he is right or should get off scot free, I'm just making sure you understand the standards here. The worst of it, [2] isn't technically a personal attack, although it borders on it and is uncivil. He is being more than rude, but I think your bar is set a bit too high here, EvergreenFir. StanTheMan87 does need to back off, however, or he will be looking some kind of sanction, sooner rather than later. I'm about to call it a night, but wanted to get those points across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not the filer, but I agree Dennis Brown. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, adjusting to new glasses and just flubbed that up. Hard to read now that they letters are crisp ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:@Dennis Brown and IJBall: As I mentioned above, he keeps accusing for pushing my own POV while I'm trying to present my own reasoning using the sources. For instance, he accused me by saying "No, of course "Islamic State (IS)" is not a valid search keyword. Of course. Because it doesn't fit your with your POV, so of course it is invalid.". His tone is really bothering and I'm trying to handle the case. That's why I asked him in that thread to take PA cautions seriously. I'll be thankful to be cautioned if my discussion seems like pushing POVs. Mhhossein (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • He's only made a couple of edits since this report was filed, mainly image. These are difficult areas to judge POV on to people who aren't specialists in the areas. The diff you provided here, he is giving rational arguments for his position. Not saying they are right or wrong, but he isn't attacking and is providing a specific basis, which is something that editors decide, not admin. As for the rudeness, he does need to dial it back but I don't see anything in the last several days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis Brown. May be I have to be more patient. The problem is that he, like many other editors, don't focus on the subject and instead try to address the editors, which is not the goal of the discussion. His rudeness is not tolerated. Mhhossein (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If "many other editors" find your person and inclinations to be the problem, could it be because there is something to it? Note that you are yourself "trying to address the editors" rather than the subject by bringing your dispute to this board.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's define those "many other editors"! Mhhossein (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: @Dennis Brown: I don't know what is regarded as personal attack if calling an editor a potato is not considered an attack. There he said:"Arguing with an an inanimate object like a potato could result in a better conclusion than arguing with you". How many times should he throw insults so that an action is made? Mhhossein (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment insult and the tendentious presentation of opinion as fact should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. GregKaye 05:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Potatoes? Why not rhubarb? And come back to this board when there is some real PA to report - there's worse stuff than this that even Arbcom wont ssue sanctions for. Closing, to beat the archive bot.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User's continued ignorance of warnings and website policies

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

---

Felipeedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to ignore warnings given by myself, Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie concerning their disruptive editing time and time again. They've continued to remove reliable sources for those of blog-like websites and continued addition of original research to several music-related articles. User has a long-standing history of disruptive editing, and is also a sock-puppet account. It seems to me that the user is not here to edit in a cohesive, collaborative way, and instead is editing for their own personal beliefs. User also refuses to talk with other editors, instead deciding to continue on with their pattern of disruptive edits. The latest string of disruptiveness is happening at List of 2015 albums where (s)he continues to remove valid sources (ex: Billboard, Herald Sun) and replaces them with blog-like websites which have been deemed unreliable (ex: Ultimate Music). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelikemusic (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 July 2015(UTC)

Definitely time for another block per WP:IDHT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban might be a better solution than blocking, which seems to escape because of backlogs at AIV. I'd really like to hear what he has to say, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to say anything to anyone anywhere. Regardless, this disruption needs to stop. KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that the user would abide by a topic ban based on previous history. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Something must be done, as the user is continuing to add blog-like websites as "sources" on the page and others. It's clear they're unable to handle editing on Wikipedia is proper ways. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

IF user is sockpuppet, of whom? (please ping reply)Pincrete (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The most disruptive thing is that the editor doesn't communicate. Their edits are not AIV material, since they are not vandalism (they do make valid edits too) and I can't see the user acting in bad faith. I get the feeling that they either don't understand RS policies or simply don't care. Probably latter, considering how many "final warnings" they have received. If it is a competence issue, I doubt that bans would make any difference. Widr (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I find Felipeedit's most recent edit disturbing. I dunno if it's "bad faith" or "good faith", but it's the unexplained removal of sourced content with zero edit summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: FWIW, Felipeedit has now contacted several editors on their Talk pages about this, and I've left them a note on their own Talk page. So this is moving closer to a potential resolution... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's leading to resolution; they've failed to communicate with any editor, until days following the opening of this report. And even following your note, they still do not add edit summaries, and their past behaviors lead me to believe that no resolution may come. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging Widr, Mburrell and KrakatoaKatie, since the OP attempted pings but did not sign their OP, hence the pings didn't work. (Pings only work when the user types four tildes when posted.) BTW, I am uninvolved in this matter.Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never found Felipeedit to be editing in bad faith. Felipeedit poorly uses citation conventions as laid out by Wikipedia, and shows an unwillingness to improve his/their citation skill set, but the information that is posted is always with the intent to improve the article. By using blogs Felipeedit shows a lack of understanding about what constitutes reliable information. However, many editors do the same thing. I have assigned myself the task of cleaning up a particular series of articles, the most active currently being List of 2015 albums, which means I try to clean up on hyperlinks, citations and notability. I welcome any editor who makes an attempt to improve the articles, even those who overwrite headers instead of using the appropriate format, because those editors are all trying to improve the articles. I have less patience with those who write in the Talk page asking for someone else to do the work.

With Felipeedit, sometimes I have to reject the changes due to lack of an appropriate citation, or move the addition to a new date, but I have never seen a malicious or vanity edit by the user. If the administration board wishes to censor the user until they learn to follow the wiki-rules, I cannot object, but so many users don't understand how to edit that this seems more like frustration that a regular user won't learn how to play by the rules. Mburrell (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think this discussion should be closed, with no action taken. We are dealing with good faith editor who is still learning the ropes. There is no need to punish anyone here. Widr (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

CFCF Not Here on E-cigs

CFCF(User talk:CFCF, CFCF) Has recently made several controversial edits, reverts and moves on pages related to e-cigarettes whilst refusing to engage in consensus building. These pages are subject to General Sanctions

here he re-reverts material that was disputed back into the article despite discussion on the talk page relevant to it that he was not involved in claiming established consensus.

here he hatted a discussion relevant to that controversial material he had added in where he was being asked to justify the inclusion of some material but he did not engage in it.

here he accuses me and/or S Marshal of vandalism for removing content which did not have consensus for inclusion and was being discussed at the talk page when reverting & here he accuses me of vandalism again. (I freely admit here I was slow edit warring however it didn't come close to vandalism, it was a content dispute that I was handling badly and have been sanctioned for). I posted to his talk page to ask him not to accuse me of vandalism when I was not doing that

and here he 1 click archives it without response. I Reposted a request that he engage in discussion to build consensus

and here he 1 click archives without response

here he admits that he finds discussions to seek consensus unproductive and so reverts without contributing or considering them.

here he re-introduced a controversial claim with a long discussion on the talk page which had not found consensus and in which he had not participated.

here Despite an ongoing discussion which CFCF had not participated in at the talk page CFCF moved the article from Chemicals in Electronic Cigarette Aerosol to Electronic Cigarette Aerosol. here CFCF had added a "Redirect you may have meant" tag to Cigarette smoke with no discussion. It had been reverted and he re-introduced without taking it to the talk page.

here When I posted to his talk page about the above he 1click archived it immediately.

here The part about being designed to appeal to 11 year olds we had reached consensus to remove, the later sentences, Quack Guru had Boldly Added, S Marshal Reverted because it was controversial. CFCF re-introduced without discussion

I could go further but this is already long enough and covers just the last week.

I know this isn't a major issue but I feel CFCF has earned at the least warning in an area of general sanctions because this pattern of behaviour is not conducive to consensus building in a topic which, touch wood, has calmed down somewhat recently from a prior battleground and is in some ways being productively edited. I know S Marshall has been frustrated by some of CFCF's edits and they show that CFCF has little or no interest in working collaboratively in this topic area per WP:NOTHERE.SPACKlick (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF has made good edits to various e-cig pages. This should be closed immediately. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This looks very much like abusing process to attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Admins take a bit of a dim view of that. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. My desire in this would be for CFCF to engage in the collaborative process so consensus can be reached on the disputed content but nobody can force that. The issue I have is that when discussion is on-going and the nuance of consensus is being reached, whether in the direction I initially wanted or not, CFCF makes driveby reverts without reference to that discussion or any of the consensus and kicks the process back a notch. Hence why I've asked for a warning or a prod and not any form of ban/block/Tban/Iban that would limit CFCF's contributions.SPACKlick (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The e-cig pages have greatly improved as a direct result of CFCF's edits. That's what the evidence shows. QuackGuru (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in CFCF's edits needing sanctions. I agree with Guy. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. CFCF's edits seem quite reasonable. This appears to be a content dispute and not sanctionable. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

[Some of] The edits would be reasonable if they responded to consensus but CFCF actively ignores consensus, ignores ongoing discussions, When he adds information and is reverted he immediately reverts back and ignores all discussion about the inclusion. Whether or not the content of his edits is good, and I won't weigh in on that here because there is content dispute, the lack of collaborative effort is a clear example of NOTHERE. SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once again I'd appreciate it if someone could restore order on that page. I certainly don't think all of CFCF's recent edits have been 100% helpful, but he's far from the only offender and what's actually needed is a large injection of clue.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Of Note CFCF again included without consensus. There is a discussion about this hatnote on the talk page. 4 editors see the hatnote as outside policy 1 has made an argument for it. CFCF claims to have made his point on the talk page. His one post on the talk page is No, you're wrong. WP:HATNOTE. How are these not WP:NOTHERE edits? SPACKlick (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagreed. See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Off Topic about QuackGuru
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Do you think your edit improved the page? How about me? Do you think my edits improved the page? Don't massage anything. I want your unfiltered opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC) I think that edit improved the page, yes. Since you ask for my unfiltered opinion, I think your influence on the encyclopaedia as a whole is a net positive because you're relentless in dealing with bad faith editors and highly active, but I also think you have poor encyclopaedic judgment and you often don't understand words in the same way I do. I think CFCF is reverting good edits and bad edits alike and he can't tell the difference. I think the best editor at work on that page is Johnbod and I wish he could get a word in edgeways. And I think AN/I is an extremely bad place to have this conversation because AN/I only ever solves simple problems, i.e. the ones where you can point to a clear policy violation using diffs. You can't come to AN/I saying "CFCF has bad judgment" and expect anything positive to happen as a result.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Do you want me topic banned or "just reined in"? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#QuackGuru_and_Electronic_cigarette. Rather than delete relevant text I consolidated two sentences to improve the readability. If you look at my previous edit I changed the word "abuse" to "addiction" to clarify the wording. The known unknowns cited to a MEDRS review is good information, especially when it is about young people. QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I know this was directed at S Marshall but IMO reined in, specifically passed through a copy editor. Most of the sources you find have good information and most of the information you want to add is good information to add. It's just how it's incorporated and where its incorporated that's usually where I end up with objections. If you could work closely with a strong writer who can keep things readable and increase the information transfer in the article, your net benefit on the encyclopedia would be significantly greater.SPACKlick (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• SPACKlick is pretty much a WP:SPA for e-cig topics per their contribs. The topic seems to draw such editors or turn otherwise useful editors astray. SPA warns about situations where there is "...evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake....") On their userpage SPACKlick makes their advocacy position on e-cigs very clear (which is very "pro"): here. In my view SPACKlick should be trouted for bringing this groundless case, and should be warned to broaden their editing at WP, with a topicban per WP:NOTHERE, per SPA, riding on their failure to broaden their scope of editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Once Again CFCF added a controversial hatnote without engaging in discussion, where the discussion was ongoing, where the bulk of discussion was not in favour of the edit. Likewise CFCF has repeatedly reverted inclusions by S Marshall without discussing it but not reverted the same or near identical inclusions when written by QuackGuru as discussed by S Marshall in this post on the talk page. Whether or not I am sanctioned per the below discussion. I would appreciate if someone could cast eyes and a decision over CFCF's interaction with the page which I feel is pretty clearly not in the benefit of either consensus and collaborative editing at the article or the encyclopeida's aims as a whole. SPACKlick (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A brand new account reverted the change. Before that an IP reverted the change without an edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As Quack points out another editor removed it after my above comment and CFCF immediately re-instated claiming consensus on the talk page. This is now bordering on Edit Warring Surely? It's ridiculous. Thats 4 reversions 1234 of the same hatnote with only 1 comment of non-engagement on a talk page where 4 editors (not including two who have removed the hatnote) have disagreed with inclusion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account only made one edit to Wikipedia so far. The IP made four edits to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Another IP making an edit to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

CFCF again added the hatnote, calling its removal vandalism. Still has not engaged on the talk page, the discussion still not having come to consensus. That's 3 reversions in 25.5 hours. walking right along the line of an edit war. SPACKlick (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The new account might be a throwaway account. The IP is from Germany. The editor from Germany was banned and indef blocked. Reverting a banned editor is not a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect DaleCurrie is a throwaway account but it's misleading to link to Fergus there Quack, because while they are banned they haven't been shown to make either of these edits, if there's concern you want SPI. By the way CFCF doesn't just do this on e-cig pages. he reverted me on Domestic violence for a formatting fix pointing to a consensus on the talk page. The formatting hadn't been discussed even once on the talk page. I'm rounding on the conclusion that CFCF has a problem with certain editors and fails to follow AGF.SPACKlick (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang topic ban for SPACKlick

Per comment above by User:Jytdog, I propose a topic ban from the e-cig pages for User:SPACKlick. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudjpg: Are you proposing a topicban for yourself too? Your edit count shows a "bizzarro-sock" of SPACKlick and not one with a longstanding edit history.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• This proposal is based on a fallacious and hypocritical comment by User:Jytdog, which itself seems a good justification for BOOMERANG. If SPACKlick can be considered a SPA, Jytdog should be as well.

Spacklick's top edited pages:

94 Electronic cigarette 56 Monty Hall problem 34 Roger Moore 28 List of Durham University people 26 Orthodox Presbyterian Church 25 Sean Connery 24 Electronic cigarette aerosol 24 Safety of electronic cigarettes 23 Top Gear (2002 TV series) 18 St Cuthbert's Society, Durham 17 George Lazenby 16 List of Old Boys of The Scots College (Sydney) 14 Zoe Quinn 11 Trial of Oscar Pistorius 11 College of St Hild and St Bede, Durham

Jytdog's:

675 Genetically modified food controversies 584 Monsanto 327 Genetically modified food 319 Glyphosate 220 Genetically modified crops 159 Genetically modified organism 155 Organic farming 139 GlaxoSmithKline 137 Electroconvulsive therapy 128 ZMapp 124 Organic food 108 A2 milk 99 Séralini affair 99 Novartis 98 Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms

SPACKlick is surprisingly the only editor to speak out against CFCF's unsupportable redirect from "Electronic Cigarette Aerosol" to "Cigarette smoke". A read of the resulting talk page section (where QuackGuru seems to speak for CFCF, who is absent) should have uninvolved observers questioning why it is SPACKlick who is being portrayed as the problem. petrarchan47คุก 22:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Petra you are so dependable! As I wrote above, per contribs. The bulk of my editing on GMO stuff was mid-2012- mid-2013, with spikes when anti-GMO advocates come around, or back around as the case may be, and yes that has been an enormous amount of work. If you look through the past couple years, the edit count would look very different than the totals you present there.

Getting back to the topic, if you actually look at SPACKlick's contribs in the past year or so, he has indeed become pretty much a SPA for e-cigs; those articles cause people to obsess and e-cig topics keep causing trouble. My recommendation is above. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Of my last 500 edits, a quick and dirty analysis says that 60% are e-cigarette related (if there's a tool for better temporal analysis I'd appreciate the link), including talk page edits and user talk edits. but that may have missed some of them. If we go to the 500 edits before that, very few of them are e-cigarette related. It comes and it goes. And I won't deny e-cigarettes has been my focus recently, just s monty hall was for a while. I come and go from the project with certain dense posting periods. I still monitor a lot of RFC's and where I feel I can contribute, do so. I had hoped to get started on a long project in project tree of life but real life got in the way and another stellar editor had done the majority of the legwork prior to my return. I edit where my interest is at the time. E-cigs has been a focus for a long set of editing bursts because it still has major problems and I haven't yet found a tack that leads to productive improvement although progress has been made. SPACKlick (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That User:SPACKlick finds the diffs listed concerning is I agree a concern in itself. Some time away from the article may due SPACKlick good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Of note, In all but one of the diffs I've posted above I have attempted, however (un)successfuly, to point out that my issue isn't the content of the edit but the context of the edit being ignoring, over riding or avoiding discussion between editors attempting to hash out consensus. The one I don't point to avoiding ongoing discussions relating to consensus is where he avoided BRD on a potentially controversial addition by unreverting his own edit. I also pointed out that this wasn't a major issue but it is an issue of disengagement from the process and the sort of behaviour I thought the general sanctions were supposed to nip in the bud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 July 2015‎ (UTC)

• Comment. SPACKlick is well aware of the sanctions.[3] Me thinks SPACKlick repeatedly deleted sourced text.[4] See Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Re introduction_again for the current discussion. He was warned by the admin User:Bishonen to stop making personal attacks.[5] Back in April SPACKlick wrote: this previous section at the e-cig talk page: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".[6] In June SPACKlick wrote" "QuakGuru, whether or not particle size is medically relevant is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of this article which is about the CHEMICALS WITHIN E-CIGARETTE VAPOUR. Particle size, is not relevant to what chemical a particle is. You're nuts"[7] He was recently warned again about NPA.[8] QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Quack talking about ownership: Me, I and myself. Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You wrote in your edit summary "I'll promise you my friend, I will not cease in standing by your side in battle..."[9] You wrote "I also shall not cease in doing so until you have learned and turned (until death, online or real, will takes us apart).[10] QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • And as you can see I did hold my promise.--TMCk (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions are failing

General sanctions on e-cigarettes aren't working because it's so hard to attract the attention of an uninvolved administrator. The only participant in this discussion who might remotely count as an "uninvolved administrator" is JzG and he's only contributed one sentence. Everyone else is divided along party lines. What's actually needed here is a referee; but I can fully understand why a previously uninvolved person would shy away from such an entrenched situation with such a lot of history.—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since this thread has attracted so little attention from uninvolved administrators, it should be archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Well, I can try to referee if you think it would help, but I strongly suspect that my long-standing support for WP:MEDRS and opposition to pro-CAM edits will not sit well with the group that makes up the pro-ecig side of this war. In the absence of uninvolved admins, and given the clear need for some firm action, I guess arbitration may be the only option. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I certainly do think it would help. It shouldn't be necessary to go to arbitration over this; that's like going to A&E with a hangnail. I don't think I could produce diffs that would be of much interest to arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I can also take a look, but I have some notifications and an Arbcom case evidence to do over the weekend, so if it can wait a couple of days for another set of eyes as well then that would help. Is it deteriorating notably fast? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. I'm finding the situation's improving, probably thanks to the extra eyeballs on the subject. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Georgewilliamherbert, please review the current atmosphere at the e-cig pages. I am not aware of "the extra eyeballs on the subject".
• S Marshall is well aware of the sanctions. In your edit summary you wrote "tag-teaming".[11] You claimed "Consensus can change, and it will. I learned this when I got broad consensus to change the first paragraph of this article in many ways, and then started an RfC to discover that changes in the population of this talk page meant my consensus was no longer there. Wikipedia's a waiting game, QG. A quick look at your block log tells me there are pretty good odds that you won't be active on this talk page forever, and when you're gone it will be possible to make the fixes you're preventing. Don't get me wrong, QG, I do think you're a net positive to Wikipedia despite the fact that I find you very frustrating to deal with. I've argued in many discussions before that you should not be blocked, just reined in. My views in that respect have not changed."[12]
• S Marshall, so why do you want me "reined in"?
• Both SPACKlick and S Marshall deleted a 2014 MEDRS compliant review from the Addiction section recently. The 2014 review is relevant to the section, especially since it is concerning youth. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I want you reined in because I'm a mean and nasty POV-pushing industry shill, of course!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Whew, glad we got that settled. <g> BMK (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Pretty sure E-cigs is going to need to go to ArbCom, since editors are reporting that GS are not working, and since there are or have been so many SPAs editing the e-cig articles. I propose that someone start to draft an ArbCom request proposal -- but it obviously shouldn't be drafted by QuackGuru or by one of the SPAs or virtual SPAs, past or present. I don't know that there is anyone editing the articles who is completely neutral about the topic, but perhaps Doc James might be willing to, as he has in the past edited on the subject, but has remained decidedly quiet when related subjects come up on ArbCom or ANI. If he or someone of his ilk would draft and post an ArbCom request, however brief, others could chime in on ArbCom with their opinions. Just a thought. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look in a two weeks as off to Wikimania. I am sure that some would view me as far from neutral. Especially those who continue send me hate mail regarding the topic. User:S Marshall has done some good work condensing the prose. QG adds generally well supported text. The discussion on the talk page get more snarky than it should be at times. Would be good if many of those involved would work more on other pages but of course we cannot mandate that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Someone reverting with a misleading editsummary to re-introduce utter unscientific fringe nonsense -- I sure don't have much (or any) confidence in them. Even less when the same supposed to be a scientist. But go for it anyways. It doesn't matter who is filing.--TMCk (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page showed the restored text is well sourced. For example, see Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol#Re_introduction_again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have started reviewing pages; I tagged one more with the talk page "under DS" notice. Still getting a feeling for how the conversations are going. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you check the archives too. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 24 and see Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 25. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+ and Alexikoua's behavior in Balkan-related articles

• Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of these editors have been duking it out in multiple Balkan-related articles. The Balkans are under discretionary sanctions as per WP:ARBMAC. Both users are aware of this: [13] [14]. Both users have been previously blocked for edit-warring, and are well aware of the rules there. Rolandi+ is just coming off of a block and Alexikoua has been blocked multiple times.

One of many examples of their warring is Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus.

• Full or partial reverts from Rolandi+: [15] [16] [17] [18]
• Full or partial reverts from Alexikoua: [19] [20] [21]

Other examples with some recent edit warring include:

• Illyrians
• Kara Mahmud Pasha
• Greater Albania

Both users have placed warnings on each others' talk pages but appear fairly oblivious that the warnings apply to themselves as well: Rolandi+ placing on Alexikoua: [22] [23] Alexikoua placing on Rolandi+: [24] [25]

Also note that Alexikoua went to several articles that Rolandi+ edited in a short period of time and reverted everything he did, which is possibly WP:HOUND. He clearly was singling out Rolandi+, at the very least: [26] [27] [28].

While both users are being fairly careful to avoid violating the 3RR, it is clear they they are engaging in disruptive behavior, and they're well aware of the rules given their respective block logs. It's getting to the point where a topic ban may be necessary. ~ Rob^Talk 16:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

On each case I initiate a discussion on the correspondent talkpage and I'm very carefull when to remove specific parts in case they are either poorly cited or not cited at all. For example in Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, I'm still waiting for Rolandi's talkpage participation but there is still no response [[29]]. On the other hand Rolandi's talkpage is full of warnings from multiple users (I count at least 4). Also comments such a this one [[30]] from a recent ani filled again him by another user, reveal an edit-warring nature.

About Rob's comments I have to add that my last blog was 2+ years ago (May '13), thus it's a bit unfair to neglect that fact, in addition that this is the first report against me from that time. Alexikoua (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The OP paints a very simplistic picture, which shows sloppiness and a lack of understanding of the topic and issues involved. Rolandi+ is in conflict with multiple editors, due to his falsification of sources, dishonesty, and incivility. He has repeatedly falsified sources, edit-warred over unsourced material, made stuff up and refuses to get the point. At Illyrians, he has falsified a source that makes the opposite of the claim he is pushing in the article [31] [32]. He edit-warred over this, made accusations of sockpuppetry, and is extremely rude in the talkpage [33]. He was blocked for edit-warring at Illyrians, and he is now resuming right where he left off [34], using low quality sources. This, after he was blocked 36 hours for breaching 3RR at two different articles in the same day [35]. He is also falsifying sources at Vlachs [36], and edit-warring over there as well. Here he falsifies one source [37] (the author states that the Italian census numbers are exaggerated, but he omits that and enters the number using Wikipedia's own voice) and removes another high quality source (Meyer) for no good reason, without even mentioning it in the edit summary. When he can't find even low quality sources to falsify, he just makes stuff up [38]. When a fellow Albanian editor mildly criticized one of the highly nationalistic, low quality sources he tried to use, Rolandi removed that user's talkpage comments from the talkpage [39]. To top it all off, he is extremely rude and refuses to get the point: [40] [41] [42] (referring to Greek editors as "penguins") [43], [44] (taunting a Serbian user about being bombed by NATO), [45] [46], [47], [48], [49]. Here is is taunting another user to "please" revert [50]. It's really not hard to find diffs of this user's disruptive behavior. Just go to any talkpage he has participated and they as plentiful as fish in the sea. This user has exactly ZERO positive contributions to wikipedia, has major WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. His talkpage is nothing but a graveyard of warnings by multiple users of all kinds of backgrounds [51]. Even in Japan-related topics he is making trouble [52], for which he was warned. Alexikoua has repeatedly tried to engage him in article talkpages and on his own talkpage, to no avail. It is impossible to reason with this user. He is here to here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS [53] (Greek sources cannot be trusted because "it made genocide,killed and stole albanians") and nothing will get in the way of that. This is in stark contrast to Alexikoua, who has kept a clean record for the last two years now, has created dozens of articles and DYKs, and is always civil and amenable to reason in talkpage discussions. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an unfair report regarding Alexikoua. Rolandi+ has exhibited WP:BATTLE behaviour including removing a fellow-Albanian editor's comments for not agreeing with him for which he was subsequently warned on his talkpage by an admin. Here after his block for edit-warring expired he tells the blocking admin: Actually I have been busy for some days so the block wasn't any problem for me. He has also exhibited bravura when reported at 3RRN challenging me to report him even as he had two, yes two, 3RR reports pending against him at 3RRN. In addition his talkpage is full of warnings regarding his falsification of sources and other disruption. Alexikoua's edits are a factor of stability in the Balkans, a troubled area of Wikipedia. There is simply no comparison between the two editors. The OP is completely misguided in his unfair comments regarding Alexikoua. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi , There are many cases of edit warring between us.It's true!I hope this will not happen in the future. As for "Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus" case I tried to explain him twice at his talk page that he couldn't delete others' edits and references only to add the greek hypothesis.It's normal to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.Also he can't delete well-established informations that have been there since a long time. As for "Illyrians" case,I had corrected my edits.My last deleted edits made it clear that Illyrians may be the ancestors of Albanians.(I didn't make it a fact,just a hypothesis).Alexikoua thinks that the Albanian hypothesis doesn't need te be included there,but the Vlach hypothesis yes. As for "Greater Albania" I stoped my edit waring and I have discussed that with Athenean at my talk page.I will discuss that at the article's talkpage soon as I haven't enough time now. I hope that there will not be any need for this noticeboard in the future.However it is important the fact that Alexikoua has a habit to delete almost all my Albanian related edits within 24 hours.If you see my edit history,the majority of my edits have been deleted by Alexikoua within a short time.He doesn't try to talk to me or discuss together. In our recent edit warrings another user is included.Athenean has the same habit as Alexikoua to undo the majority of my edits. As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.However,it is important for Alexikoua not to delete almost all my edits.If he thinks I have made disruptive edits in the future,he can try talking to me or to involve other users or an administrator for help. As for my past mistakes I have been blocked for 36 hours before some days so Athenean doesn't need to mention them here. I don't actually know why these three users contribute at the same pages at the same time.I think it is a kind of sockpuppetery or collaboration. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Japan related article,the warning was a mistake.Go and ask that editor.It not the only time I got warnings that were a mistake.See my warnings history and the involved users' talk pages please . As for the Vlach case ,as you can see,I hadn't falsificated any reference,just go and see .The warning editor falsificated the references.This story is explained but Athenean doesn't mention this fact.As for Italian census case I explained to Athenean what I meant with that reference at my talk page.But Athenean doesn't mention my explanation because the only thing he wants is my block.As for "Baku spirit" case,why don't you go and se the KSFT's talk page.I suggest to these three users to open as many noticeboard cases as possible ,there is no problem for me. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This case is only about me and Alexikoua.There was another ANI involving me before some days and these three editors commented against me.Isn't this a collaboration?You can easily note that there are many cases where these three users edit at the same pages at the same time .Isn't this some kind of strange collaboration or even sockpuppetery?Rolandi+ (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The topics you are editing have been the target of sockpuppetry, edit-warring disruption, falsification of sources and personal attacks by editors advancing low quality, nationalist-based edits. You seem to be doing most of these things so don't complain when other editors clean up after you. Also if you have evidence of sockpuppetry don't try to weasel your insinuations into the discussion. Either open a sockpuppet investigation against the editors you suspect or stop your personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks here,I am just defending myself.If you have sth against me,open another case.Also an unregistred user undid my edits at Thomaeus by claiming that my edits are " propaganda & false information".This is strange.He explains this by saying "(WP:V, WP:RS)and Jacques & 'scholars' from the Hoxha era are very unreliable sources".Who is this user in the reality?Strange.Rolandi+ (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are making personal attacks here,: Can you specify by giving a diff which part of my comments were a "personal attack"? Who is this user in the reality?Strange. Why are you asking me? If you have any questions about a user you can open an SPI to find out. Finally, do not ask other editors to intervene making false claims against editors who comment here because it is considered canvassing and uncivil. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a simple fact: Alexikoua has reverted the edits of Rolandi+ repeatedly and across multiple pages in short periods of time. Edit-warring is not excused by correctness. That's the only additional thing I'll say. This statement is not influenced in anyway by Rolandi's comments on my talk page; I was watching this discussion already, and would have commented this way when I had returned no matter what. I do agree with the point about WP:CANVASS, though. ~ Rob^Talk 22:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Alexikoua has not exceeded 2 reverts in a 24 hour period in any article. This is in contrast to Rolandi who has breached 3RR at least twice in the last few days. You seem to be painting the users with the same brush. That is incorrect. There is one user who has made countless valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has engaged in ethnic baiting, and one who hasn't. There is one user who falsifies sources, and one who hasn't. There is one user who has been blocked recently for multiple breaches of 3RR and one user who has maintained a spotless record for the last two years. Athenean (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations of WP:HOUND and excessive edit-warring against Alexikoua do not stand up to scrutiny. If I look at his contribs of the last 7 days (i.e. since Rolandi's block expired), he has reverted Rolandi a total of two times at Greater Albania, once at Illyrians, three times at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus, and once at Kara Mahmud Pasha. This is over a period of 7 days, and not taking into account that Rolandi was POV-pushing, falsifying sources, being incivil, and was reverted by several other users (because he was POV-pushing and falsifying source), not just Alexikoua. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen the HOUND allegations of the OP against Alexikoua. That betrays a total lack of understanding of the MO of the SPAs and socks in this area of the Balkans. Once an SPA is bent on changing the nationality to Albanian of many historical figures they do it across multiple articles and they do it by falsifying sources and enforce it through edit-warring. To follow such an SPA through multiple articles to correct their falsification of sources is good and standard practice not WP:HOUND. I don't doubt the good intentions of the OP but they are severely misguided and betray a total ignorance of the operating methods of the SPAs in this subject area. I am also concerned that despite the available evidence of widespread disruption by the Rolandi+ SPA the OP seems bent on insisting on treating Alexikoua's proper edits as somehow problematic. Such behaviour is not constructive. To gain a proper understanding of the nationalist-based disruption in this area one has to check SPI archives such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Malbin210/Archive and related cases as seen in the archive and also check the sockpuppet userpages and contributions. For example, one of the socks had tried to convert the origin of George Washington's mother to Albanian. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly you said that I haven't made any valuable contribution here.Then you mention "nationalism" ,Malbin210 and related cases.It is obvious now,the only problem for you is the fact that there are some Albanian editors contributing to Wikipedia.You don't want Albanain editors to contribute to Wikipedia.This is the only problem here.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What part of edit-warring disruption and falsification of sources did you not understand? Don't try to use the ethnicity of editors as a red herring against me, especially when you yourself removed a fellow-Albanian editor's comments because he didn't agree with you. Resnjari, whose opinion you reverted because he didn't agree with you, is also Albanian and he has my respect. This has nothing to do with ethnicity and you know that very well. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The previous ANI regarding Rolandi+ was initiated by me, but it apparently ended in no result. I don't think it's necessary for me to present the user's incorrectness – he's been warned countless times. It's strange that he is allowed to continue this disruptive behaviour. Alexikoua shows none of Rolandi+'s manners (has always been civil, etc.) and I fail to see why Alexikoua is mentioned as a subject in this ANI. --Zoupan 10:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Resnjari,I have talked to him.I deleted his comment because we weren't talking about chams in greece.Why don't you mention this fact?Zoupan says it's strange that I am allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.It's very strange in fact.Why doesn't Zoupan mention his falsification of sources as he did for example at Kosovo serbs?Why?How it's possible that these users undo all my edits (including Zoupan)?Why?Why do Alexikoua,Dr.K and Athenean delete all references that say the a X famous person or ethnic minority has albanian origin?How is it possible?Why don't you see their edit's history.Don't believe in our words...just go and control our edit's history.Alexikoua is very civil because after he deletes others' work and references ,he asks his collaborators for help.Before some days there was another ANI where I was involved.It was opened by Dr.K,while Athenean and Alexikoua commented against me.How is it possible that when I don't have the same ideas with Alexikoua,Athenean and Dr.K come and delete my work?How is it possible?It's unfair that the work of the Albanian editors is always undone by these three editors.How is it possible that all references introduced by Albanian editors(or by other editors who add the so-called pro albanian references)are "nationalism","unreliable","propaganda" and "manifesto"?It's unfair because Wikipedia has to be neutral.Look for example at Thomaeus article,I explained Alexikoua that he couldn't delete the well-established infos only to add the greek hypothesis.The right thing to do there is to include all the hypothesis about Thomaeus' origin.If you can't control these users,why don't you delete all the Albanian related articles,so they will not be vandalised anymore? Rolandi+ (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Also see at the "Greater Albania" talk page.These users put a map showing the presence of Albanians in the neighbour countries .Why don't they agree to put the map of "Greater Albania" there? Because they don't like it?Alexikoua says it is created by Albanian users?And what does it mean?Note the fact that Alexikoua uses greek politicans as references (for example at Souliotes)That article is about Greater Albania and not about the presence of Albanians in the neighbour countries.Everyone knows that the Greater Albania map is the map introduced by League of Prizren.Actually ,this is RACISM.Rolandi+ (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua,Dr.K and Athenean delete my references and edits .They say that my references are POV (Even when the reference is a non-Albanian/non-greek well-known scholar).On the other hand they use greek politicans as references. I can't even use the talk page,because the only thing they say is that my references are always "POV" and "manifesto".How is it possible that all my references are unreliable?Isn't this strange?Look at other Albanian editors.Their work is always undone by these three users because their references are always,but always "unraliable" and "POV".How is it possible?Rolandi+ (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi: To name an example, it's kinda weird to insist on adding citations such as this: [[54]], which claims that the Wars of Alexander the Great were fought by Albanians [[55]]. Even an editor who is not involved in historical articles will find it POV and unreliable. It's also not a case of ethnic conflict, as I've worked together with several editors that share the same national background with you.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did Athenean lie?He said that I falsified sources at "Baku spirit".My warning there was a mistake.Why don't you go and ask the warning editor?Also note he didn't warned me for falsification. Athenean said I had falsified the source at "Vlachs".Why don't you go at the Vlach's editing history and see the truth?Why don't you see what the book used as reference says in reality?Also Zoupan said there is a problem with me at "Vlachs".Which is the problem?Zoupan don't know how to lie! Athenean said I falsified the sources at "Illyrians".Where is the falsification there?My edit there said that according to some scholars Illyrians are the ancestors of Albanians (this means that it's a theory,I didn't make it a fact). Athenean said that I falsified the source at the "Greater Albania".I explained him that we had to introduce both greek and italian figures to make the article neutral,why didn't he mention this fact?Because the only thing Athenean wants is to lie about me. As I said the use of the Talk page with these users is useless as the only thing that these three users say is that others' references are always,but always "nationalism","POV" ,"propaganda" and "manifesto".It's not my fault that these three users always say that my references are "propaganda" and "POV". Also,Alexikoua,why do you mention only the case of Wars of Alexander?Why don't you mention all the cases where you have undone others' edits claiming their references are "POV" and "nationalism" and "propaganda"?Rolandi+ (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy.There is so many edit warring between us because these three editors always,but always undo my edits .The talk page is useless because the only thing they do is to claim the others' references are always,but always "unacceptable","POV","nationalism","propaganda","manifesto","unreliable".I can't use the dispute noticeboards for hundreads articles,because it is ridiculous.The only thing to do is to prevent these three users from vandalizing Wikipedia,especially albania-related articles.I am sure that if these three users stop deleting other's edits and references only because they don't like them,there will not be any edit warring/problem at albanian related articles anymore.Also I suggest you to help editors about Balkans-related articles (for ex. if their references are reliable/POV etc).Rolandi+ (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua doesn't agree to put the map of the Greater Albania at the "Greater Albania" article.He firstly said the the current map is detailed,but it's not the map of Greater Albania (the original map is based on the map of the League of Prizren ).Then he claimed that these maps are the the same,but they aren't.He said that we can't put the map of the Greater Albania there because "I am eager to see a map that paints everything in red" (meaning that I am a nationalist and maybe I have irridenstist ideas) while the national colours of Albania are the red AND THE BLACK.He doesn't agree because he doesn't like the map,this is the problem with these editors,they don't agree with others only because they want to control Wikipedia.Note that the current map shows Albanians in Albania and neighboring countries,not the Greater Albania based on the maps of the League of Prizren.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Balkans are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. Arbitration Enforcement may be a more efficient way of dealing with conduct issues than this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To Robert McClenon. About time this happened. More attention needs to be paid because to many shenanigans having been going on and some Albanian editors have been intimidated and i include myself in this as being as such. Few Albanian editors have been engaging with Wikipedia recently because of such things and some editors of a non-Albanian heritage seem to be making changes in articles without even discussing it. I call to your attention the article Aoös whose name was changed by Greek editors (such as user User:Hwasus > [[56]] without consensus (and due to Albanian editors no longer continuing for a while) while in previous discussions about a name change was resolved that Vjosa stays as the page's name ([[57]]). Who would i go to regarding this very serious matter.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua deleted many informations at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus,including the references that said that he Thomaeus might have been of Albanian origin,saying that "widely established international scholarship tend to disagree with what was written inside Albania during the People's Republic regime".Where did he learn that Thomaeus' albanian origin hypothesis is fabricated during the communist period in Albania?Also he deleted Jacque who isn't albanian.This is only racism and this is a big problem.Seriously this is ridiculous.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To Rolandi, some Albanian sources from the communist period are tainted because they were ideologically driven and or forced by Enver to produce material that has many problems. For a list of academics who managed to go against the communist regime and produce good research like Eqrem Cabej see book "Pipa, Arshi (1989). The politics of language in socialist Albania. East European Monographs. As for non Albanian western sources state Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus was a Greek. This is possible as during the time Nicholas was born there were some Greeks (merchants and so on) in Durres, as it was a coastal port and international city (its also had Albanians). See Robert Elsie article page 3 ([58]. The stuff on numbers in the Cham Albanian article, the Topulli stuff is resolved. Send me on my talk page the stuff from researcher Nazarko (he is a good source -full inline citation though and source). I'll work something out regarding Idromeno on that basis.Resnjari (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Resnjari.you said that western sources state that Thomaeus was greek.And Jacque,isn't he a western source?I am not saying that Thomaeus wasn't greek,I am saying that he might have been albanian (hypothesis).Also where did you learn that the Albanian hypothesis was fabricated by the Communist Albanians?The fact that many albanian scholars ideologically were driven and or forced by Enver Hoxha to produce material that has many problems doesn't mean that the albanian hypothesis was fabricated by them.See also sources like Jacque.Alexikoua deleted many infos that were there since a long time and added the greek hypothesis.The right thing to do is to include all hypothesis.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Comment": Rolandi+ is proving to be a problem editor on a number of articles surrounding the Balkans. I suggest that he/she is an aggressive editor who's WP:NOTHERE. Leaving missives such as this on my talk page is not appreciated when I have read through the sources he/she has used to introduce changes to content on Vlachs. The user has WP:CHERRYPICKING sources addressing a variety of complex issues and academic evaluation in order create WP:SYNTH. I made the mistake of allowing the user enough WP:ROPE to continue refactoring the same content, for which I take responsibility: I made the wrong call. As the "Vlachs" article falls under the general scope of WP:ARBMAC, I agree with Robert McClenon that this is something to be dealt with via WP:ARB. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

In my limited observation, there is a great deal of battleground editing and quarreling about articles about the Balkan region. One reason is of course that the Balkan region has too many times been a real battleground, including being the origin of World War One, which killed fifteen million people. ArbCom was prudent in putting the Balkans under discretionary sanctions as an area that the community does not deal with effectively at noticeboards such as this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're aware that most of my editing is in the area I know, being Eastern Europe. Being a glutton for punishment, I like to keep my hand in on other contentious areas where I don't have any doubts as to my neutrality. ArbCom is, unfortunately, an extremely arduous process for those who are involved in working through complaints (and my sympathies are extended to them) as there's a tendency for involved users to continue their battles there rather than follow the processes. Unfortunately, the end product is that problem editors keep getting out of being sanctioned by the skin of their teeth, only to keep their heads down for a period of time and resume when they're confident that enough time has elapsed for prior behavioural problems to have been forgotten. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Irina Harpy,why don't you mention the fact that the discussion (and the problem) between us started because you changed (falsified) the citation at the reference.See here what the source says.Another user deleted your falsifications and explained everything.Why don't you mention this fact?Why?I agree that Balkans related articles are almost all problematic and vandalised but this doesn't mean you can LIE!Rolandi+ (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy Rolandi just needs some more practice. One just needs to have a in depth discussion about things and too tone it down a bit. At the moment it seems i am the only one doing engaging with him without resorting to name calling and so on. I value Rolandi wanting to contribute; it’s just he has to be more cautious about certain sources or how the source is used in general. There are few Albanian editors these days on Wikipedia. Things have become dormant and some editors of non-Albanian heritage have taken it upon themselves to do for example article name changes (like the Vjosa example i cited) without community consultation or to call POV anything a editor might want to undertake in adding to an article (even when the source/s is peer reviewed and very credible) (see: Talk:Cham Albanians). I have had these issues multiple times now (in the end my edits have gone through almost in their entirety) but it has taken too much time, energy and effort which though was done in good faith. There were cases were even my cognitive abilities where questioned which was quite offensive. (See article Talk:Greek Muslims). What you might call "quarreling" i have an issue because not all editors are equal. Some who have privileges are editors from a background who may have less than polite views regarding people of Albanian heritage. There should be non-Balkan editors adjudicating certain articles so those who have those privileges don't abuse them or intimidate editors who insist on change (the later must make their case though). Merit and content based on Wikipedia policy should be the outcome everyone conducts themselves upon. More oversight is needed or absent that the removal of privileges (auto patrol etc) of some editors for those engaging in such behavior so as to make it a level playing field. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, it should not be a place where Greek editors have privileges over Albanian ones or vice versa.Resnjari (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The user makes up his own rules, again, and again.--Zoupan 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you mention the fact that there is a consensus at the talk page?Why?Why do you want to delete informations +add others without consensus?Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandi+ (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see a concensus in the talkpage. Can't understand what you really mean.Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no concensus about our recent edits,so they have to all to be deleted until a consensus.I said that at talk page,you commented but you did't said no.Zoupan and Alexikoua agree with the fact that my edits (and others made by other non-albanian editors) have to be deleted until consesnus (note that the edits of some other non-albanian editors have been there since a long time but you deleted them because you don't like them).But you don't agree with the fact that your recent edits have to be deleted until a consesnus too (as some of them are clear vandalism). You always,but always (just see your editing's history) delete others' edits and references.Strange.You always delete albanian's editors edits but you don't know what to say.Alexikoua deleted my edits at "Kara Mahmud Pasha" saying "rv poorly cited (you have been advised how to do that properly without false ISBNs)".Actually there wasn't any ISBN there.He LIED. This is what some specific users :Alexikoua,Zoupan,Dr.K ,Athenean do,they just destroy others' work,especially the work of Albanian editors. Note:It's the second time that unregistred users delete my work.After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!Rolandi+ (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

After the habit of those four user to delete my edits was introduced here,some unregistred users are undoing my edits.STRANGE!: Actually your insinuation is not strange at all. That was the favourite MO of blocked sock Bonender: Are you a sock puppet account of Alexikoua ? Cause i will seek investigation cf. Malbin210's SPI. Strange indeed. Isn't it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also here you accuse Athenean of being Alexikoua's sock: disruptive editing by Alexikoua's sock,maybe needs reporting Funny that. Very similar phraseology to Bonender's. Really funny stuff, ain't it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The real fun is that you claim that people that doesn't have the same ideas with you are socks.Why don't you go and see how many contributions you have deleted by claiming that others are sock...hundreads...thousands.How is possible that you edit at the same article at the same time?Rolandi+ (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Block Rolandi+ and move on I'm amazed at the lack of action and long discussions. This in an incredibly simple matter that does not need to take up anyone's time. Rolandi+ is definitely guilty of multiple policy violations as clearly demonstrated in the discussion. No other user appears to have done anything wrong. I suggest an admin just closes this discussion with a suitable block for Rolandi+. When a situation is this clear, there is no need for all the drama currently taking place.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

As I see Roland had already reflected on his wrong doing, which I fail to see on Alexikoua, and what is more outrages I see that people fail to understand the subtle difference of personal offences and arguments. Roland is being offended here and still is argumenting his positions. Resnjari is right, there are very few Albanian in Wiki, which is being 'taken over' from sources provided from our neighbors (as in the Vjosa case as he/she mentions). This to be honest shouldn't be normal and not fair. This is almost supression due to numbers. Wiki should be a place of consensus, harmony and inclusions, not the place where biggest actors surpress the smallest. QTeuta (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)QTeuta

Edit warring on Albanians

There is now an edit war going on at this article between User:Rolandi+ and User:SilentResident. See article history. I've notified SilentResident. Rolandi+ is already party to this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've notified SilentResident about discretionary sanctions, as he does not appear to have ever been notified in the past. ~ Rob^Talk 21:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I deeply apologize for the 3-revert rule, I just tried to revert the POV edits by the user Rolandi+. Feel free to check the page's history Albania. Again, my apologies if I broke the 3-revert rules, this was not my intention. --SilentResident (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

When Rolandi+ insisted on his POV edits on Albanians and refused to provide any reliable sources for his edits in the appropriate talk page, even after 3 reverts, I realized that I had no other option but to ask politely for a moderator's attention on the issue, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Unsourced_POV_edits_on_population_figures I didn't had any bad intentions, I just tried to prevent POV edits on the page. My apologies. --SilentResident (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions warnings should not be given on the basis of a single edit-warring incident on a single article. That's why we have the 3RR rule. Only when the editing causes disruption in more than one Balkans-related article and there is a pattern of disruptive editing in multiple Balkans-related articles a DS warning should be issued. SilentResident does not qualify for a DS warning under these criteria. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This has become ludicrous. Reverting edits by a DE does not merit sanction warnings. As noted by Dr. K, Rolandi+ has established a NOTHERE editing pattern and is oblivious to BRD to the point of being pure BATTLEGROUND. DS warnings for GF editors (particularly where they are obviously aware of the existence of the DS) smacks of punitive action inferring that the editor is acting in bad faith. Surely there is a point at which Wikipedia sysops should review the nature of incidents and not shift the onus to the reverter while ignoring the BURDEN on the contributor to back up their content changes/additions with cite checked RS (nor allow for non-sysops to play the blame game by using DS warnings to be used as badges of shame). This can only be construed as rewarding bad faith editing on some obscure point of POV righteousness. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification. If he plans to continue editing in that area, it's something he should be aware of. I meant nothing more by it than that. I agree that my warning did not meet Dr.K's criteria, but those criteria are not part of any actual policy that I've been able to find. ~ Rob^Talk 01:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A DS notification is just that - a notification. As the template itself states, it is not an implication of any wrongdoing, but merely a notification.: That does not mean that one should proceed with notification overkill or notify in the absence of good grounds for a notification. A DS is designed to warn about disruption in the Balkans area. An edit-warring dispute in a single Balkans article does not equal disruption in the Balkans area. Good judgment is needed when using Arbcom instruments. You will not find this requirement in any policy but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

DS notification is not a sanction. It's notification that special policy applies, for editors working in a topic area that have done something that merited attention. That something may or may not have been actionable but attracted attention.

We had prior arguments over whether it was a hostile action or abusive to DS notify someone, and the consensus was that involved parties should not under that circumstance but others' doing so was not a problem. Was there something specific here that was a problem?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you George. I have seen the prior debates and I understand the arguments. Having said that, I think a notification to an editor who has not exhibited disruptive behaviour in the area of the Balkans is not necessary. A single article in the Balkans area is not the area of the Balkans. Here we have Rolandi+, an edit-warring champion in the area of the Balkans edit-warring, as is his custom, with an editor who has no record of disruptive behaviour in the Balkans area. I think it is an overkill to give the latter a DS warning absent any evidence that his behaviour is going to spread to at least one more Balkans article. I think using discretion in such cases is a good idea. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

He was engaging in behavior that could easily lead to a report to WP:AN3 if it continued. Had that occurred, an admin would have almost certainly brought up the discretionary sanctions (if only to mention them). I'm of the opinion that an editor should not first hear about discretionary sanctions when they're being talked about on a noticeboard. They should know what they're getting into before they engage in any behavior that is borderline, as they may choose not to engage in that behavior if they're aware of the discretionary sanctions. Keep in mind that, on the flip side, an editor that is editing positively in a contentious area subject to discretionary sanctions will want to know about them so they can respond appropriately to disruptive editors if necessary. Knowledge is power, etc etc ~ Rob^Talk 03:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It is somehow speculative to assume that an admin at 3RRN will issue DS warnings to the parties but even if s/he does I don't see the problem with being informed at the noticeboard. I think it is preferable to see the warning at the noticeboard than being slapped with it at one's talkpage. There are also other ways to inform editors about DS without slapping them with a formal notice. Knowledge is power and other such slogans are ok but being slapped with a DS notice on their talkpage is intimidating to some editors never mind the disclaimers and associated slogans. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Echoing Dr. K's sentiments, the problem is that I would consider the notification as being a bad judgement call on behalf of BU Rob13. While experienced editors are aware of the fact that, technically, it isn't an accusation of wrongful editing behaviour, such warnings should be issued bearing in mind the context (it takes two to tango, but substantiating who's leading the dance is of primary concern). In this instance, the new contributor did not receive the same warning to at least meet with a sense of parity, whereas it was directed at a more experienced editor who was reverting badly sourced, POV content whereas the other party (whose amendments to the content actually carry the BURDEN) was not following through discussions per BRD. The new contributor has already been previously blocked, harrassed non-partisan editors and cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to the nature of their editing, and is treating Wikipedia articles surrounding Albanian issues as a BATTLEGROUND. I'll admit to the fact that I've already been worn down by the opponent by trying to comply with AGF, this courtesy has not been extended to any editors attempting to communicate with Rolandi+ (see the section on my talk page + the diffs outlining multiple examples of harassment of other editors in this thread, not simply this subsection).

While I'm not condemning BU Rob13 for posting the DS notification, at the very least a reciprocal alert should have also been posted on Rolandi+'s talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point Iryna, but I did that some weeks ago as soon as I realised we were faced with yet another edit-warring champion in the Balkans area. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban of Rolandi+

Just a few days ago, Rolandi posted this, saying (and I quote) "As I said ,we need to be more carefull in the future and stop edit warring.". Yet today he racked up 3 reverts at Albanians, no problem. Is there anyone here who still believes a word this user says? He has lost all credibility in my opinion. Any more warnings are a waste of time, he will make all the right noises to avoid punishment and then as soon as he thinks no one is looking he will revert to form (no pun intended). I am thus proposing that he be topic banned from Balkan related articles, broadly construed. Proposed. Athenean (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Support". While I would be reticent to support a general block against Rolandi+ (as has been suggested in the earlier thread), if the user is genuinely committed to being HERE, s/he needs to familiarise themselves with WP:PG by working on articles outside of the contentious ones directly and indirectly involving Albania. Throwing themselves into the deep end of an area they have partisan alliances to without any experience in moderating their behaviour is bound to be distressing for both the user and regular editors. At some point in the future, after demonstrably positive input, the topic ban could be reviewed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Irina Harpy,all the problem here is that I said you that I will report you because you sent me a false warning and because you falsificated the reference at Vlachs.This is tha all the problem.Why don't you go and see what really happened at Albanians?Why?That editor and me used the talk page and I explained him his mistakes.Also,my edits aren't reverts of his edits (except one only after we talk at the talk page),but improvements of his recent work.Go and see to believe it.So don't try to LIE AGAIN.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also go and see what SilentResident did at Albanians.Milliyet says that 500 thousand have consciousness of their Albanian origin while there are 1.3 mln albanians in turkey.This is POV .It means he isn't neutral and then the problem is me.The only problem is that some editors delete informations (not always added by me ,for example at Albanians ) claiming that the references aren't reliable.When the reference is a well known scholar,the problem is the user who deletes it.Also I didn't make edit-warring,I improved some informations (some of them were added by SilentResident) and reverted his edits only one time .

Also ,after this ANI was created and some Greek editors were involved on it,how is it possible that some other greek editors started deleting well established informations about Albanians?No, this isn't a problem,the problem strangely is only me! Rolandi+ (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also SilentResident doesn't need to LIE.He said he deleted my POV,but the informations that he deleted without any clear explanation and without concensus are there since a long time.Those informations weren't added by me.SO HE LIED AGAIN AS HE DID ABOUT MILLIYET REFERENCE.AND THEN THE PROBLEM IS ME!!!!You are very neutral!Rolandi+ (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban Rolandi+ has shown beyond any doubt they are WP:NOTHERE, and continues to violate several policies. The continued comments by Rolandi+ inthis thread further show the user is unwilling to hear and continues to insist the problem is everybody else. Broad topic ban only solution.Jeppiz (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+, you have just attacked me and called me a liar. This is very sad and unfortunate of your part. I have expected that, like how I am trying to be polite with you, I could have enjoyed a minimum level of reciprocity in my politeness to you. I wish you could show some maturity at least, because Wikipedia is not a playground where we fight with other Wiki users, nor it is a bar where we accuse them of blatant lies. While you speak with accusations and insults, I speak with logic. While you are resorting to edit wars with other users, reverts and insults, I have at least tried asking for your cooperation in bringing more sources for citation. I have nothing against you, and it only saddens me that Wikipedia is overshadowed by people of your kind whose the actions disrupt the peaceful environment and cooperation with other users. I am very sad, and I am sorry. --SilentResident (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And dear community, because I am involved in this unfortunate tension with Rolandi+, I don't think I am eligible in taking position regarding Rolandi's ban suggestion. (so I won't be voicing pro-banning or against banning him, and will stay neutral).--SilentResident (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose': My preference is that further discussion is had with Rolandi. When i have done so how certain sources or numbers may be an issue, he has taken it on board and relented (for example the Cham Albanian page or the Tomasso article). Some editors here who are advocating for a ban have in the past referred to certain proposed changes with peer reviewed material i have done as "POV" (while after backing off when i invoked Wikipedia policy and so on and in the end have gone through. They have also shown to be very selective with Wikipedia policy or even to the point of making it up to prevent peer reviewed material going into an article. For more see: Talk:Souliotes) and have said things such as questioning my cognitive abilities which was very offensive (For more see Talk:Greek Muslims). I do not trust some editors’ motives in this instance for banning Rolandi, due in part to my experiences with them. There are many Greek and Serbian editors, but so few Albanian ones these days. I call for outside adjudication regarding the matter so trust and good faith can be restored and some articles that are in need of a fix up to be done as such with peer reviewed material and free of intimidation and personal attacks as i have experienced repeatedly for a select number of editors here now going after Rolandi. Outside intervention is needed so as to prevent any ganging up like activity from occurring.Resnjari (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

SilentResident,your words are very beautifull.Why don't you go and see what did you do at Albanians article?Why?Also keep in mind that I do not intend to offend anyone,I said that you lied because you really lied.And your words (your lies about what really happened at Albanians )may send me to a block.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexioua and me have made edit warring (Alexikoua has made edit warring at hundreads and thousands other cases about Balkans related articles ,more than me) so Athenean proposed topic ban ONLY for me.Interesting!Rolandi+ (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to report Rolandi for trying to blakcmail me now, in the Talk: Albanians, he threatened me twice: "So revert your edits about the albanians in turkey,or I will report you after that ANI" and "I may be blocked for this topic,but this doesn't mean that I can't report you for your vandalism.So go and delete your edits about albanians in turkey". He is basically threatening me that if I don't undo his reverted POV edits, I will get reported! Please, any help? --SilentResident (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes,go and read Wikipedia's rules about the use of concensus when you want to delete well-established informations.I am involved at this ANI now,after that I will report your falsification of sources (see what Milliyet really says about the number of albanians in Turkey).I also will report you for your lies (you said that you deleted my POV,while they weren't added by me ) and for your vandalism (you deleted well -established referenced infos without concensus ).Rolandi+ (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I tried explaining to him the importance of having reliable facts and sources in Wikipedia's articles, and especially in the sensitive ones related to the Balkan region. This person however is pushing things off edge by trying to blackmail the me and accuse the others! I agree with Jeppiz and the people above, this user should be banned, at least from the Balkan-related articles. --SilentResident (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is about Alexikoua and me,but the discussion here is only about me.who are discussing?athenean,zoupan and dr.k who have deleted almost all my work and edits (and many other's edits,just see their history ).also,i had said to irina harpy and silentresident that i will report them,so thay came here talking against me!this isn't fair.why isn't there any problem with alexikoua's edit warring ?why?he has deleted many others' work and edits (not only albanian editors )only by saying "manifesto","nationalism""propaganda" etc. This isn't fair and it's sure this will not end here.if neended,i will try contacting wikipedia for the fact that the discussion here is only about me.you can ban me,but this will not end so easily. This is not a thread,i am just saying what is going to happen.this is ridiculous,the discussion here is made only by some editors that don't have the moral right to discuss here,for the only reason they have been accused from me for several things.on the other hand,alexikoua isn't mentioned on this discussion. Also note that I haven't made edit warring since that ANI.The only one is at Albanians where SilentResident deleted many infos (with a part I agree,with some no ),I tried to explain him the Wikipedia's rules (I would send him a warning but I am at this ANI now ).This isn't my fault.Anyways I will be more carefull in the future and I will solve problem at Albanians at ANI .Rolandi+ (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• To be frank, Rolandi+ has made no contribution (or "work"). A topic ban would possibly stop his disruptive editing if he decides to change his ways, and give him a chance to contribute. If he then continues his behaviour which we've seen thus far, definitely block as per WP:NOTHERE.--Zoupan 00:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan,you said I have made no contribution....where did you learn that?Go see my editing history (all my editings at balkans ralated articles and balkans non-related articles ) and then come and talk here. As I said: This ANI is about Alexikoua and me,but the discussion here is only about me.who are discussing?athenean,zoupan and dr.k who have deleted almost all my work and edits (and many other's edits,just see their history ).also,i had said to irina harpy and silentresident that i will report them,so thay came here talking against me!this isn't fair.why isn't there any problem with alexikoua's edit warring ?why?he has deleted many others' work and edits (not only albanian editors )only by saying "manifesto","nationalism""propaganda" etc. This isn't fair and it's sure this will not end here.If neended,i will try contacting wikipedia for the fact that the discussion here is only about me.you can ban me,but this will not end so easily. This is not a thread,i am just saying what is going to happen.this is ridiculous,the discussion here is made only by some editors that don't have the moral right to discuss here,for the only reason they have been accused from me for several things.on the other hand,alexikoua isn't mentioned on this discussion. Also note that I haven't made edit warring since that ANI.The only one is at Albanians where SilentResident deleted many infos not added by me (with a part I agree,with some no ),I tried to explain him the Wikipedia's rules (I would send him a warning but I am at this ANI now ).This isn't my fault.Anyways I will be more carefull in the future and I will solve problem the at Albanians at ANI .Rolandi+ (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan i am very concerned that you have inferred that Rolandi "has made no contribution (or "work")". He has contributed to many other non-Balkan articles and his edits have stayed. Only an administrator can make that call. The issue is with Balkan related material. My advice to you Rolandi is use google books and scholar if you do not have access to a university database of journal articles and academic books. Believe me you will save yourself a lot of trouble. Look for Western peer reviewed material that has done work in the field and do google the author to make sure their work does not have creditability issues or they as a academic. Then do as you will. I have been going through your Balkan related edits and they have been challenged on a variety of matters, a sizable amount with due reason. I understand where you are coming from as an Albanian. But be cautious. I do not want you to get banned. Going through the archive of some of the articles and their talk pages just very recently, a picture is emerging that it is a select few who have engaged in making editing for Albanian editors quite difficult. Nothing has been done about that, yet you are making yourself the focus of attention and giving them the justification to continue with such forms of intimidation while making them getting away with it. There are editors in here who have abused their privileges. The focus needs to be upon them, not you. I urge you most emphatically as one Albanian to another or as a brother to brother to reflect carefully and take into consideration what i have written and how to go about editing controversial topics. There are few Albanian editors and their numbers have shrunk here already and continues to do so. Don't allow yourself to be another in that line. Be aware its difficult for us like editors of other backgrounds like the Palestinians, Turks, African Americans and so on who also have low numbers contributing and have issues in having their voice heard. Its harder for us because this is after all a Western platform. Don't forget that. Take care Rolandi. Resnjari (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Resnjari's advice for me,I totally agree and I will be more carefull in the future.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with Resnjari that Rolandi+'s behavior is really affecting the rest of the Albanian editors negatively or positively. At least not for me. I don't know if Rolandi is Albanian or not, and that little matters. My unpleasant encounter with Rolandi+ does not affect in any way my attitude towards other Albanians. I have met other editors, of other ethnicities and their behavior can not (and should not) be compared to that of Rolandi+, and so, it is logical that here in the Administrator noticeboard, the matter is not the ethnicity of a person, but his behavior and attitude. Rolandi+ is subject for his indimitative attitude. Of course this in no way this means that the other Albanian editors of Wikipedia could be affected or related to Rolandi's case in any way, just because of his ethnicity. And this should not be allowed to happen. Wikipedia should and must encourage the and contribution of all the people regardless of ethnicity. --SilentResident (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Like i have said in the past, an in depth discussion free of diatribe with Rolandi will go a long way to solving these issues. How is it that after i have engaged with Rolandi that he has desisted regarding certain articles, while the rest of you continue with the path you have taken regarding him ? It has created a situation where all positions have hardened and no progress has occurred. I never said anything about Rolandi’s behavior affecting Albanian editors. But I definitely want him around. There are so few Albanian editors around and he has a passion for doing the editing task and patrolling pages. It’s just how he has gone about it that is the issue and needs refinement. You say you have had a unpleasant encounter with Rolandi, I have more than a few more than a few with Athenean who has even questioned my cognitive abilities (what the heck does that have to do with editing the article!) and called my peer reviewed edits and proposed changes better suited to a “blog” and even called changes regarding articles relating to Albanians “irrelevant”. And yet I have extended in a spirit of good will to him even after all of that to only engage with the material (and to do no personal attacks) and all he has done is repeatedly continued with such mannerisms. Alexikoua on the other hand (part from saying POV, POV, POV to my proposed edits based on peer reviewed sources in the talk page as a first reaction) has even made up Wikipedia policy in order in an attempt to restrict peer reviewed sources from going into a article (like the Albanian name of the Souliots) saying that a “10% threshold” was needed without providing any proof (It went through in the end, but not without much problems by other editors also). What am I to make of that then especially, for example, when Alexikoua has numerous privileges and undoing edits? All my edits are based on sources of the highest quality. I can vouch for all and albeit one (due to “original research reasons”), all have gone through. But how much stuff did I have to write to argue for the inclusion of those edits in the talk page because I was accused of POV pushing – and these are for edits I have proposed in the talk page. I have not edited them even into the article yet!) It has become an absurdity frankly! Also if did place these issues on the Administrator notice board who would act upon it anyway? It would be me pitted against people who have privileges. The system is not balanced and is currently two tiered. Because of this, my trust in the system is very minimal at the moment. It is on this basis also that I distrust this campaign against Rolandi. Yes Rolandi needs to clean up his act, but it’s a no to any form of a ban.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: I admit to have not read in depth the technical arguments in the articles and the full details the case with Rolandi+ and Alexikou. Nevertheless, I can clearly see that in relations to challenging articles related to Albania, the other editors belong to countries that openly disagree with the most Albanian-promoted version of histories, e.g. Greek, Serbian, Russian (all supportive of pro-slavic, pro-orthodox christian and anti-albanian theses). I find it equally disturbing that the users with common views opposing the Albanian vision of history, unite to ban an Albanian editor. I have the impression that this has nothing to do with Rolandi+ (despite his flamboyant temperament), since similar heated attitudes are exhibited by most other editors. Then, how do we solve the disputes? Easy, create an anti-Albanian majority and kick the Albanian out. While it might have worked in the past, it is not fair. Admins should be careful to not punish editors from the tiny nation of Albania, only because the opposing pro-slavic pro-orthodox sides (Greeks, Serbian, Macedonian, Russian) are more numerous. In my opinion, this anti-Albanian discriminating behavior is not fair and should stop. OppositeGradient (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, that is a comment without any merit, and it violates WP:NPA. There is no anti-Albanian conspiracy here. Personally, I don't think I've ever edited an article even remotely related to anything Albanian, I'm neither pro-Albanian or anti-Albanian. Your whole argument seem to be nationalistic (we shouldn't ban Rolandi+ because he is Albanian as well as there's an anti-Albanian conspiracy at play). At ANI, we should not care one way or another. Bad conduct is bad conduct regardless of a user's nationality. The fact of the matter is that Rolandi+ has violated Wikipedia policies time and time again, and continues to violate them despite several warnings. Everything else is irrelevant.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity-based arguments are the silliest form of discourse and do not belong anywhere and especially on Wikipedia. Same goes for ethnicity-based conspiracies which are an even worse form of argument. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz due to my experience with certain editors, saying that the Albanian factor is not present in their persistence regarding making editing difficult POV is very questionable. In my experience as I have mentioned repeatedly in previous posts now, I can cite many examples to the contrary. And it is some of those same editors now also going after Rolandi. Makes on wonder. Dr. K, it no conspiracy. Ask Athenean, why my cognitive abilities (or of any interest to him) were questioned or why Albanians are “irrelevant” in an article that relates about Albanians (e.g. Northern Epirus? The ethnic issue here is at play for some editors in how they view those changes done by editors who they don’t like. How else does one interpret their interest about a person's cognitive abilities, making up Wikipedia policy and saying Albanians are irreverent? Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you can be characterized as an Exception that proves the rule :) Please note that I mentioned well-known attitudes toward Albanians, instead conspiracies focus on non-evident facts. In fact, the question is whether the other editors oppose the Albanian guy i) because they had a full disagreement on the respective topic, or ii) because they blindly respect Wikipedia rules. Stated otherwise, those editors would be credible if they would find his behavior disruptive despite agreeing with him. Let me further iterate, Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? The only explanation is because they publicly share his opinions on the articles under concern. Jeppiz, it is very easy to blame a person without seeing the big picture. Perhaps you and I would also lose our cool if several editors gang against us because of our opinions (not behaviors). For instance, he mentions that his reliable sources are mistreated and ignored to the point of driving him mad. Analyzing those behaviors is highly important for the quality Wikipedia. For this reason I think we should not selectively punish Rolandi+. Instead we should all work together on trying to break the existing 'gang-style' lobbying in Albania-related articles. Meanwhile I advise Rolandi+ and all editors involved in heated discussions to cool down a bit and let go. OppositeGradient (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolandi+ is not significantly more combatant than for instance Alexikou, right (plus minus the same style)? Then, why do the 'neutral' editors above not raise a flag on Alexikou as well? This betrays a total lack of understanding of the content that Rolandi+ is pushing in this area. Calling Alexikoua "combantant" shows no understanding of the disruptive MO of Rolandi who is pushing his POV through falsification of sources and OR. But we have been through these points in multiple fora as well as in this report, so I am not sure why you seem oblivious to them. Alexikoua has been editing this area for years and is an expert in this subject area. He is a very knowledgeable and moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before. He has also faithfully countered wave after wave of relentless and disuptive socks over the years defending Wikipedia from socks who wanted to convert many historical figures to Albanian including George Washington's mother Mary Ball Washington. Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts through the years defending Wikipedia's policies not unfairly criticised haughtily from those who have no idea of the relevant article content. That he has a problem with Rolandi+ is indicative of Rolandi's POV-push problems. You are welcome to your opinion obviously but if you do not understand or investigate more deeply the parameters of this discussion you should not accuse Alexikoua for no good reason. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My friend, please do not tell me you think Alexikou is a hero :) The way I see it is two combatant editors showing similar attitudes. The only difference is that most editors commenting here have a history of disagreeing with Rolandi+, which makes the credibility of his inquisition questionable. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not patronise me when you address me. I don't know you at all, let alone consider you my friend. I will not repeat myself but I will just reiterate one point: You are completely unaware of the content issues involved so offering your opinion on a content issue you have no idea about is not constructive. And yes, Alexikoua has been defending the content policies of Wikipedia, a fact that completely escapes you because you have no idea of the content involved. But I said that before. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note everybody, "OppositeGradient" is a sock of User:Sulmues, one of the most disruptive editors to plague the Balkans topic areas [59]. He always thought in ethnic "terms" and that disruptive Albanian editors should not be banned no matter how disruptive just becaue "it's not fair". Athenean (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Athenean: I suspect that you're correct, and that a WP:SPI is in order. The similarities in MO (language, battleground, personal, harass, etc.) are distinctive. OppositeGradient is currently operating in the same manner on the current Kosovo RfC. S/he has admitted to being this IP, but has been active there as this, this, and this IP at the least. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"Alexikoua should be congratulated for his tireless efforts". Yep so then why does such an editor then try to make up Wikipedia policy. A selective "moderate editor who has reached consensus with many Albanian editors before". That is open to interpretation. Not all would agree. Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Editor clearly disobeys rules and consensus and gathers support from regular crowd of POV pushers. Naphtha Termix (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you mean Rolandi+ alone, or both editors involved in the combative discussions are responsible for the heat? By the way, who are the regular crowd of POV pushers supporting Rolandi+? I am particularly interested, since Rolandi+ is being 'attacked' by most editors expressing opinions here. OppositeGradient (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You for one. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Really, I am a "regular crowd POV pusher"??? :) Ok, Mr. POV-dreamer, if you would be thinking before you typeset, you would realize I was not part of any article discussions involving Rolandi+. How can I be POV if I was not participating at any discussion (for your records in contrast to most editors here opposing him). Thanks for the dose of morning smile :). That closes it from my side. OppositeGradient (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support Rolandi+ is a combative, edit-warring POV-pusher who has triggered all the POV-push alarm bells in this area of the Balkans. His edit-warring and POV edits align closely to the edits of countless socks which have plagued this area for years. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I Strongly Oppose any ban on Rolandi, in light of all things cited in my above comments.Resnjari (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You have already given your vote above, so please strike out this second vote. --T*U (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added the word comment to the above sentence. However I strongly oppose any ban on Rolandi for the reasons i have outlined and due to the editor involved in calling for such a thing.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The last thing to say is that I will be more carefull in the future .Rolandi+ (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Rolandi+, but oppose general block. I agree with Resnjari that Rolandi+ shows signs of willingness to learn how Wikipedia works, but the edit history in Balkan-related pages shows that the editor will need to learn how to edit in a NPOV way. After a period of, say, half a year or one year, Rolandi+ will have the chance to show ability to follow Wikipedia guidelines (and possibly also will be able to learn punctuation rules) and may then apply for lifting of the topic ban, which I will support if the general edit history shows improvement. On another note, I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion. --T*U (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• I also oppose an outright ban, he is willing to learn the rules and can edit constructively. Maybe three months will be enough to make him stop and think, I am sure after that he will be very welcome on those articles. Naphtha Termix (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Rolandi, subscribe to some of the journal databases that Wikipedia is offering access to. Francis and Taylor has much stuff that relates to humanities type material that involves Balkan topics. As for TU-nor's comment that "I will strongly lift my voice against all arguments above that are based on nationality. Being Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Siamese or whatever has no relevance to this discussion." I will most strongly lift my voice and disagree with that view due to the following. I have shown evidence to the contrary and can do so even more. All things come into play because some editors reason's for claiming POV or refusing peer reviewed sources and data in an article have been based not on Wikipedia policy but other 'reasons'. These same editors are the same ones most adamant in wanting to ban Rolandi. All things must be considered because they are selective when using Wikipedia policy and sometimes have tried to make up Wikipedia policy. If you want more evidence and exact words (+editors involved) and were its all located i am more than happy and willing to have that discussion here (i was not aware of this process before till a few days a go). Again i say, no ban of Rolandi for the reasons outlined.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully ) and I guarantee I have learned how to edit in a NPOV way.Also,you can see my recent constructive contributions in Balkans-related articles and in Balkans non related articles.So the best thing to do is to give me another chance.I know I have made many edit warring in the past but this will not happen in the future and I am sure for that.

I have read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and I will be more carefull in the future.

The right thing to do isn't to block me for some time,but to give me a "golden chance" and to patrol carefully all Balkan related articles.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I want you to not just patrol, but edit too, but to do it right. There are so few Albanian editors already and intimidation on other pages has occurred by editors seeking a ban for you. You getting banned will stifle a dwindling Albanian voice so limited at the moment. No ban. Wikipedia is a democratic forum, a ban of this nature will further curtail freedom of expression. A censure or something along those lines with a final warning that if it occurs again, it will be a ban for Rolandi. But no ban at this moment.Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for a specific period of time (up to a year). I have only glanced at this discussion, but the edits I have seen from Rolandi from my watchlist (particularly at Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus) betray both a POV-ish attitude and a general WP:IDHT mentality. Regarding Alexikoua, as others have said, counting reverts is not the fairest way to apportion blame when dealing with such cases. I am however in favour of giving at least one more chance to people, and prepared for now to accept the argument that this is due to inexperience, and that there is remorse and will for improvement. Thus I would strongly recommend that during this ban period, Rolandi engage in article-writing in other areas and topics, so that he can a) gather experience about how things are done here and b) demonstrate his competence in constructive article-writing away from contentious topics. This should be sufficient to determine if he is a WP:SPA or WP:HERE... I also advise Rolandi to seek out a WP:MENTOR if he is serious about contributing constructively. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Resnjari.The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.

Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

But you already said that, haven't you? And as soon as you thought no one was looking, you went and racked up 3 reverts over at Albanians in the blink of an eye. Why should anyone believe you at this point? Athenean (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

To Athenean,firstly,I knew that someone was looking me at Albanians.I know how Wikipedia works.

Secondly,when talking about my recent constructive contributions,I am talking about my construcive contributions after the Albanian case.Also we found concensus at Albanians.Also note that after the Albanian case I read the Wikipedia's rules carefully and now I know what is edit warring and why we need to use the talk page to make constructive contributions.

Thirdly ,I can say to the administrators.:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever.

I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever.

Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedi's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, don't go accusing Rolandi. I just checked and he has not done any edits very recently on the Albanians page. I am the last editor to have made a contribution and a significant one [[60]]. Frankly Athenean you need to stop your behavior of accusations toward other editors. With me, you have questioned by cognitive faculties (very offensive), referred to Albanians as "irrelevant" in the Northern Epirus article (on the talk page) which is about a territory within the sovereign borders of Albania with a substantial Albanian population and you have referred to my proposed edits (all from peer reviewed western sources and importantly academics of Greek background) there in the talk page as "fit" for a "blog", not Wikipedia. You also said that you would not allow me to undertake any changes to articles, or by condescendingly referring to me as "its you" and "i thought it was you". These are but are few of your memorable comments after i have repeatedly stretched out a hand of good will to discuss and edit (like at the Talk:Greek Muslims or the Talk:Northern Epirus. Don't intimidate and or bully. Wikipedia is a democratic forum. Moreover I was not properly aware of this administrators board for incidents, but if you continue, and i say this to Alexikoua also who made up policy (a so called 10% threshold to try a prevent peer reviewed material going into the Souliots article, See: Talk:Souliotes) which is a no no in Wikipedia, i will lodge complaints against you both. Like i have said to you many times (by having to quote at length Wikipedia policy) Athenean stick to the content, not the person. Also, a FINAL warning to Rolandi will suffice with some short probationary period, but definitely no ban especially since those calling for it are less than innocent and their motives more than suspect (as i have outlined in the above posts). Resnjari (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can perfectly understand most non-Balkan editors, who do not see how a majority of Greek/Slavic editors try to impose their version of history in most Albanian-related articles. I also dreamed of a world (and encyclopedia) where nationality is not important. Yet, all of us involved with any Albanian-related topic know this is not real. We cannot pretend that this situation is simply a random group of Greek/Slavic editors with randomly same opinion on Greek/Serbian-Albanian relations, all randomly start attacking a randomly Albanian editor who randomly happen to disagree to randomly all of them in randomly all disputed articles under consideration. Sure, the whole story is a random coincidence and has nothing to do with nationalistic views on history. If you think there is no difference between the ideal world and the Balkan reality, then I think this incident is destined to be misjudged. OppositeGradient (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Its why we need more outside oversight at times keep an eye on the editing process. There are those within Wikipedia who would object to material entering a article not its merit, but because it might go against a world view. For example the article Turco-Albanians was created by non-Albanian editors with southern Balkan heritage. It was created without any mention that the term has mostly pejorative connotations. Many editors who "contributed" and patrolled the article were against additions to that article or concerns of Albanian editors. Now because Albanian editors had either no access or were unaware of sources to make sure the article had no racism, those who patrolled (have a look at the page history bit of the article: Turco-Albanians: Revision history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turco-Albanians&action=history ) made things very difficult to get change there. Now i have made the changes there but it was not without its issues. Its because of this article that at first i was really annoyed, (its like having the article on the "n" word saying that its a friendly ethnographic term used by white people for African Americans) and overacted as Wikipedia says it does not promote racism. There also was a lot of POV on the Cham Albanians page (such as the unsubstantiated claim of Chams being involved in the deportation of Ioannina's Jews. It had a citation tag on there for more than two years). I found the source from where that had been copied and pasted. A Karl Savich article on the website Serbianna, a problematic website for one and two all the sources he had cited not one mentioned anything about it, and i checked them all !). Change was only done after a exhaustive process and accusations of POV. All my edits based on peer previewed material went through, but one for "original research" reasons. Currently i am in the process of editing the Northern Epirus article. As it stands now i have identified numerous issues of POV pushing and unsubstantiated claims made in there (as outlined in the talk page :[Talk:Northern Epirus]) and it reads more like a propaganda piece for the Greek Northern Epirote lobby than a encyclopedia article showing neutrality and balance. I have not even added my edits (based on peer reviewed material with inline citations and also mainly from Greek academics !) and into the article first, but on the talk page and invited editors to make comments on the content. So far, Athenean has come out with, no, no, no (to paraphrase his comments) and i have not even done the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle because i want everyone's constructive input, while Alexikoua had to be convinced that a article about a geographical place in Albania that has substantial numbers of Albanians which the literature on Northern Epirus states had to be included (see: Talk:Northern Epirus). It was not without its issues as at first, as i was again accused of POV pushing, then some edits i have made using peer reviewed material on other pages (about for example the remaining Albanian speaking presence in the Epirus article) and agreed to by those editors where in a way explained to me that they could be deleted if i persisted with these changes and only after exhaustively citing Wikipedia policy was a somewhat "normal" discussion started with Athenean's comments once in a while of no, no, no. But never a why, why, why, when asked. I urge non-Balkan oversight and outside intervention during the editing process of that article and to make sure that the discussion is had primarily on the content and that no intimidation occurs. I urge this of the administrators and others too of a non-Balkan background as there are also few Albanian editors and a fake consensus could also occur to block certain peer reviewed material relevant to the article going in.Resnjari (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

OppositeGradient, your passionate arguments in favour of a Slavo-Greek conspiracy would be much more believable (aside from the fact that one would have to completely ignore that Greek and Slavic nationalism don't make good bedfellows) if the case were actually precipitated by some anti-Albanian cabal ganging up on a poor blameless Albanian user, and not by the latter behaving in a typical tendentious manner that we all are sadly too familiar with. This thread was not started by Greeks nor Slavs, and complaining about cabals and secret agendas is always the last refuge of someone with no case and no arguments. The problem is Rolandi's behaviour and disruptive pattern of editing, which has caused this whole bruhaha. Of course other Balkan users will get involved, because Rolandi edits in Balkan-related articles, and pushing a particular POV he is bound to get in conflict not with German, Chinese, or American users, but with Greeks, Serbs, etc. i.e. with people who care about these articles. If his edits were more thought-out, if he provided decent sources, if he respected the WP:BRD rule, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Resnjari, I have seen you being engaged in page-long content disputes with Alexikoua and Athenean, but you are not reported at ANI. Why? Because you do not behave in a hot-headed manner, and argue on the basis of sources. I too would like to see more Albanian editors active at WP, but not if that means that we have to tolerate nationalistic hogwash POVs and edit-wars. Complaining about ethnic-based profiling and then arguing that a user should be cut more slack than usual because there are too few of his nationality around is a weird line of argument. I am willing to allow a period for Rolandi to shape up and matters to calm down, but with the provisional topic ban. Why? Because I've been here long enough to know that if he is WP:HERE to do serious work, then he will persist through this period and come out better from it. Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now. Constantine ✍ 17:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You said:"Without the ban, we'll in all likelihood be here again a month from now."Why are you so sure ?

I can say to the administrators:The best thing isn't my block topic,but to give me my last chance.I have made many contructive contributions the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles .If I will do any other edit warring or any other bad thing like that,just ban me forever. I read the Wikipedia's rules recently (carefully) and I will not make bad things anymore.I think I don't need to learn anymore,if I continue making edit warring or anything else,just ban me forever. Also note that I have made many contributions that aren't related with Balkans articles,so I don't need time to learn or to demonstrate my competence (I have read Wikipedia's rules recently and I have done many contructive editings the recent days in both balkans related and non related articles ).I am using the talk page now ,as you can see in my recent history,I am not and will not make edit warring or anything else in the future.The only thing I need is a last chance,not a topic block.Rolandi+ (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Constantine, the issue with Rolandi is no one here attempted to calm him down by properly showing the error of his ways that went beyond policy. I engaged with him in a manner, which lets be frank about it, has now stabilized the situation and he has but all ceased his previous activity. That is what dispute resolution is all about, while others kept fanning the flames. For example he deleted a comment of mine. So, i then placed another comment and explained what he was doing was out of whack regarding the material. I didn't go all paternalistic with him. He is an equal. No one is above or below and i stand by that. In general Rolandi will have to do much reading before editing some Balkan topics (like i said to him he should subscribe to the Francis and Taylor database, many good humanities journal articles there if he has no access to university stuff). He is in need of a last warning, that i agree, but no ban. I still think that a ban is not the way to go, due in part to some editors own behavior as i have pointed out. Athenean, has all but refused to engage with peer reviewed material that i put up as proposals, (not even in the article itself, but the talk page and has been disruptive when a consensus has been reached with an editor on the matter !) I have repeatedly urged him to engage in the discussion in good faith.) and has been very dismissive also (apart from his colourful commentary that has nothing to do with the article). Alexikoua also at one point made up policy (which is a Wikipedia no no) to try and prevent a peer reviewed source going into the Souliotes article which he as a editor with privileges should know better and so on (Will Alexikoua get a warning for doing that? I wonder). POVs occur when the material is in question. Why do i get repeated accusations and dismissiveness? Its not always Albanian editors engaged in POV pushing or edit wars. It also comes from the other side. I have given examples already to that effect, especially with regard to Athenean. To date all my sources have been of the highest quality (all peer reviewed) and so have my edits (yes at times the wording needs refinement, that's why in good faith i have asked for engagement and input in the talk page, not POV accusations which i still get), yet i still have to deal with these shenanigans. If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as they have intimidated people and violated Wikipedia policy. If Rolandi stuffs up again and we are all in here in a month as you say, then a ban is what he will get. But for now no. A definite, clear and final warning will do.Resnjari (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of Rolandi+ removing warnings and discussions regarding his behaviour. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. I do not see If Rolandi gets a (topic) ban than these others should too as realistic.--Zoupan 00:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Scytsari

Scytsari (talk · contribs) is POV-pushing on the article Tajiks in blatant disregard of Wikipedia's WP:V policy. The issue is that is he is clearly intent on adding several medieval Persian people to the article's ethnicity gallery who are not ethnically Tajik and which do not have any references on their pages which claim so. Most of these peoples' articles do not make any mention of 'Tajik' in any context. He has reverted my removal of this OR three times, each time alleging it was 'vandalism': [61], [62], [63]. In addition, he reverted User:Khestwol's removal once: [64]. In one of the aforementioned edit summaries, he also accused me of having a personal agenda ([65]).

I explained many times on Talk:Tajiks that references would be required (on the subjects' pages) for such claims and that my removal was in accordance with WP:V. His first comment on the article talk page does not address WP:V, instead addressing a different point, and goes on to question my education before calling my removal vandalism [66]. I again reiterate that references would be required on the subjects' talk page and he goes on a rant in which he tells me to go educate myself (he advises me to read a source which I had posted earlier in the discussion, nonetheless) [67]. In between his four reverts and uncivil behavior, he has not once bothered to provide a single reference on either the talk page or any of the subjects' articles in support of his claims. This is getting ridiculous; two other users have already told him to stop adding unreferenced original research: [68] and [69]. Yet he refuses to get the point. Elspamo4 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals – sanctions against Scytsari

• I propose a ban against adding images to Tajiks, unless he comes here and states that he understands now and that if he desires more images he will ensure beforehand on Talk:Tajiks that he has consensus and that the nationality/ethinicity is properly sourced with community-accepted reliable sources. Also, I propose a site-wide ban on using the word "vandalism" in edit summaries. Also, I propose a strict adherence to WP:BRD. I propose also that violation of any of these proposals will result in a block. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: problem is too extensive. Propose block instead. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• These are all thoughtful suggestions, but I would suggest an outright ban from editing the page Tajiks rather than a simple images ban. He has re-added completely unsourced material four times within a span of three days, including thrice in a single day. He has done so while being fully aware that he is in contempt of Wikipedia policy. His disruptive editing has unfortunately resulted in the page being fully protected. He's shown this same battleground behavior on the page previously, as well, when he reverted another user who tried to remove the pictures two months ago. Elspamo4 (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Can you also look at the few other articles he's edited? At a cursory glance, he seems to be exhibiting a battleground behavior on those as well; in fact Callenecc had to hat one particular PA/rant of his three weeks ago. This seems to be a battleground new editor with a very small degree of clue and a very large intent to disrupt, who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps a block, and possibly a lengthy one, is what is needed. Softlavender (talk)

Good find. Judging from Talk:Kandahar, he has previously edited under 99.240.250.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and has made some very battleground-like edits. On the article you mentioned, he removed mentions of 'Afghan' and 'Dari', which was promptly reverted. Also on the page Iranian peoples, he twice edited the page to insert his POV fringe claim that Iranian and Tajiks are synonyms. He was reverted both times [70] and [71]. Ironically, this is the same view he is perpetuating on the Tajiks page as well. He also removed information about Afghans from Herat twice: [72] and [73]. His first removal summary was "Learn to read, it's poorly edited and misinformation".

I took his nationalist edits on Tajiks with a grain of salt, but judging from his other edits its clear that he is WP:NOTHERE. All of his edits reflect on an agenda to 'erase' the Afghan identity and create falsities to promote his ideas about Tajiks in order to right great wrongs. This is just scratching the surface of his edits. There is also a good possibility that he is editing under different accounts or IPs. It's very unfortunate that his behavior has gone unnoticed for so long and is still going unnoticed. In light of this, I endorse a block, though I'm not sure what the appropriate length would be. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block of both this account and the IP account, and a CheckUser check to check for socks or sleeper socks. Per Elspamo4's evidence above, Scytsari has been editing under 99.240.250.20, which is already a suspected sock of two other sockmasters, listed at: User talk:99.240.250.20 -- Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block Looking at Beh-nam's sockpuppet investigation, the findings are conclusive and in-line with my comments on his nationalist agenda. Most of the socks' edits are virtually identical to Scytsari's (e.g NassirAkram1440's edits on Tajiks). It seems he has been disruptively editing Tajik and Afghan-related articles for some time now. A CU and indef block is certainly in order. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (P.S. I was too absent minded to check his talk page in my earlier post; thanks for bringing it to my attention.) Elspamo4 (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Taking the lazy way out by calling in my go-to anti-sockpuppet guru, if he will take the case: Bbb23, could you do a quick check and indef block these accounts and any sleepers? If so, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, I opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beh-nam. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK, Could you please request CheckUser, so that all other socks and sleepers can be caught in the net? If you do, I will chime in. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to request checkuser. I just attempted, but I'm not sure if I did it right. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a code to change from checkuser=no to checkuser=yes when filing new reports. Maybe when it's a re-opened investigation, CU is automatic. Anyway, I chimed in. Softlavender (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is very bad behavior. Regardless of the SPI outcome, if we see User:Scytsari making any more edits like those he has made at Tajiks an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE would be justified. The SPI should be continued because it may show how far the problem extends. In the unlikely event that Scytsari responds here we should listen to whatever he has to say. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I just saw this. I've had this account on my WP:Watchlist because he appears to me to be a problematic editor and a WP:Sock. Any new account that appears to be a WP:Sock to me, I put on my WP:Watchlist and/or mark it down in my online notepad; they usually eventually turn out to be WP:Socks (even if it's a year or more later). So I support whatever ban on this editor is needed, or an indefinite block for this editor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE: An SPI clerk has just declined CheckUser and hatted a relevant discussion on Talk:Tajiks which mentions Scytsari [74], and has inserted himself into the discussion [75]. I've asked the clerk to unhat the posts: [76]. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I hadn't noticed this previously but Scytsari was reported by another user for edit warring on Bacha bazi. His first 19 of 20 posts were on that page and almost all of them were disruptive. 4 of them were to remove mention of the Afghan ethnicity. It seems that almost all of Scytari's edits have been made to spread his POV and fringe theories. In the report filed by User:CompliantDrone, he stated "myself and other editors are beginning to suspect sock puppetry based on patterns of behavior". Anyway, I know we don't ban people based on suspected sockpuppetry and I'll leave the SPI on Scytsari to take course. Though, like Softlavender, I'm disappointed that the checkuser was rejected because I think the problem is widespread in Central Asian articles. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (The pot calling the kettle black) It is probably true that Scytsari (talk · contribs) is editing pages with a pro-Tajik WP:POV. However, it would also seem that Elspamo4 (who started this discussion) is editing pages with an anti-Tajik WP:POV (frequently removing references to Tajiks) which is hardly any better. In the edit reporting Scytsari for edit warring, Elspamo4 conveniently neglects to mention that the whole edit war started by their own removal [77] of long-standing material, a removal which Elspamo4 has repeated several times in the edit war [78], [79]. If any block or ban is introduced, I suggest it is handed out to both users. Jeppiz (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start with this. Firstly, do not accuse of me of having a POV when all of my edits are based on Wikipedia policies (namely WP:V). I have no connection to Tajikistan or Tajiks, or anything related to Central Asia. I have never edited on a Central Asian topic prior to Tajiks, which had come to my attention after finding historical Persians in Category:Tajiks with no references justifying their inclusion.

Secondly, I did not start any edit war. I removed unreferenced content which had been deemed problematic by myself and Akmal54 on the talkpage. I fully explained my rationale on the talk page. You reverted my removal and re-added the unreferenced content with a very patronizing and clueless edit summary: "No consensus to delete, and kindly stop the edit warring or you risk being blocked." You proceeded to use the talkpage as a soapbox and never provided a single reliable source to back up your or Scytsari's claims. Five editors (myself, Akmal54, Vanjagenije, Khestwol, Zyma) have constantly reiterated the requirement for reliable sources. I don't know if you have literacy issues or simply ignore anything which you don't agree with, but you seriously need to drop the stick. Heed our advice on the talk page and try finding reliable sources to justify these subjects' inclusion.

Your accusation that I am removing 'referenced information' for my own satisfaction is both troubling and misleading. You are referring to Hammasa Kohistani, where I removed false information which was not in the reference provided. I even explained this in my edit summary. You tried reverting my edit, claiming it was a 'false edit summary' before realizing your mistake and self-reverting. Please do not make any more baseless accusations in this thread, thanks. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jeppiz also accused me of being a nationalist sockpuppet on the Tajiks talk page. This is getting tiresome. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not accuse you. I merely point out we had a serious issue with several socks of a banned user; I have absolutely no idea whether you're a sock of that user or not but I've never believed you to be.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's worth beating a dead horse, but Scytsari recently came back and his first order of business was to revert User:Vanjagenije four times on Tajiks (5 reverts in total by Scytsari): [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]. His edit summaries are telling. He accuses me of 'vandalism' and sockpuppetry, and accuses Vanjagenije of having a nationalistic agenda and of using an automated bot. He says 'take it to the talkpage' despite the fact that discussion has been going on in the talk page ever since page protection has been applied, and Scytsari has not attempted to take part in the discussion. He hasn't even defended himself here or on the edit warring report filed by Vanjagenije (his response to that on his talk page). Like I said, I don't know if it's worth beating a dead horse when an SPI is already underway, but he has singlehandedly resulted in the page Tajiks being fully protected once again. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

"Singlehandedly is a bit strong when Elspamo4 is the one who "promised" to continue the edit warring as soon as the page protection was lifted [85] and then also did continue [86]. Scytsari definitely has been edit warring on the page, but so has Elspamo4 [87], [88], [89], [90].Jeppiz (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

lol, removing unreferenced information four times within exactly 2 weeks isn't edit warring. It's called clean-up. My first removal wasn't 'edit warring', as I've reiterated time and time again, it was removal of contentious unreferenced material which was challenged by myself and User:Akmal54. By the time of my second, third, and fourth removal (exactly 2 weeks later) the information was still unreferenced and there had been no attempts at finding references by either you or Scytsari. Nor have either of you indicated you would search for references. I even asked User:NeilN whether it would be 'edit warring' if I removed the information after page protection expired and he suggested I remove it and, if reverted, to call on the reverter to provide references - which I have done. So drop the stick. Elspamo4 (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're largely right on the content matter, the problem is that you have one of the strongest battlefield mentalities I've seen on Wikipedia. My comments here are on conduct, not content. One can be "right" regarding a content issue and still behave inappropriately. Across multiple pages, you have shown time and time again that for you, being "right" (ie sharing your opinion) is a blanket excuse for all kinds of conduct. I find that rather troubling and that is what I'm commenting on, not whether some persons should or shouldn't be removed from an article.Jeppiz (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

How else do you expect me to handle this problematic situation? Argue back and forth on the talk page for 2 months over whether or not to keep unreferenced content before giving up out of frustration? If it were a dispute over referenced content, or if someone said "Wait, give me time to find references", I would not have removed the material. But in this case there has been no indication that Scytsari is planning on adding references despite having been allowed 2 weeks to do so. Elspamo4 (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to block both Scytsari and Elspamo4

Having read Elspamo4's reply above, filled with violations of WP:NPA and refusal to WP:HEAR, I've come to the conclusion that both of these users Scytsari and Elspamo4 aren't here for the right reasons, and I believe Elspamo4's reply show it.

• Insisting that one is "right" and thus cannot be guilt of WP:POV is a classic warning. We all have WP:POVs, the point is that we should still respect policies.
• Second, Elspamo4's insistence that they weren't edit warring because you were right is another misunderstanding; being right is no excuse for edit warring, nor does it become less of edit warring because it's "right". I've pointed this out to the user before, their failure to WP:HEAR is worrying.
• Third, it's a bit rich trying to turn my use of the talk page (instead of edit warring) into a problem. Yes, I used the talk page of Tajiks when I saw Scytsari and Elspamo4 edit warring. When Elspamo4 argues that they are not only above rules about edit warring because they are right, but even ridicule users trying to take the issue to the talk page, it's very clear they are not hear for the right purpose.
• Fourth, completely needless insults such as "I don't know if you have literacy issues" above violate WP:NPA, bring nothing to the discussion, and are only intended to turn discussions into a WP:BATTLEFIELD.

I think Elspamo4 has made a convincing case for why Scytsari should be blocked from editing any article related to Tajiks. I also think Elspamo4, through their edit warring, refusal to hear, battlefield mentality and needless personal attacks, has made a convincing case for why they should not edit articles related to Tajiks either. I support a topic ban for both users.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Further on the same time, Elspamo4 makes it perfectly clear that they will continue to edit war as soon as the page protection expires [91]. In several years at Wikipedia, I've never come across a user who has been so convinced that being right gives them the right to ignore discussions, consensus, rules about edit wars and other details that stop them from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Jeppiz (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

And true to form, Elspamo4 did continue the edit warring as soon as the page protection expired [92]. The user obviously is WP:NOTHERE to cooperate with other users.Jeppiz (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Please consider this suggestion withdrawn. Although Elspamo4 may have been a bit trigger happy, I can understand their frustration at making a reasonable request and not getting anywhere. While I think a bit of patience might have been advisable, I'm an impatient guy myself and cannot hold that against them. Having taken the time to look into the whole matter and the behavior of all involved, I strike my suggestion that any action be taken against Elspamo4 who, by the looks of it, is a good faith contributor to the project. As far as I'm concerned, this part of the discussion can be closed by an admin.Jeppiz (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment I've provided my opinion on Talk:Tajiks.[93], [94]. We can't interpret the definition of "Tajik" by Wikipedians' personal analysis (who is Tajik who is not). We should consider how expert sources define it. The best solution is to start by reading related articles/entries at sources like Iranica. Both involved sides have some points. So it's better to request third opinion or dispute resolution. If involved editors don't reach consensus, or ignore valid concerns on talk page, and start edit warring after 2nd protection (current protection), topic-ban or block is necessary for all of them. They can easily solve this dispute on recent related section on talk page. I'm sure if we don't solve it, the next targets of such ethnic wars will be other related articles. --Zyma (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Violation of the article Utigurs

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

---

• 78.159.147.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Utigurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 18:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to bring to your attention the behavior of user 78.159.147.70 toward the article "Utigurs". He has been deleting almost the entire article (including parts supported by academic sources) several times after 11/07/2015 without any real explanation.

Thank you. 93.152.143.113 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Winner 42: any comments on your end about this IP? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @IJBall: Not particularly, just came across them while Huggling a few weeks ago. It looked like drive-by vandalism at the time, mass changes from one term to another with the removal of sourced content are almost always vandalism, but now I am not entirely sure. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Violation of the article Huns

Hello,

The user 78.159.147.70 has deleted newly added information on the article "Huns" supported by academic sources. He didn't really explain why.

Thank you 93.152.143.113 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Diff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Note that IP 78.159 has done it again, though I really can't tell if there's anything "untoward" going on here. It's removing sourced content, but I don't know if it's questionable content being removed or not. I suspect the bigger issue here is the lack of communication about said edits. I suggest one of the regular editors at these two articles try to discuss with the IP on their Talk page, to see if that gets anywhere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "sources" without actually providing the sources or an explanation is helpful editing. Anyone who wanders into Balkans and has a edit summary that a source is is not reliable, while changing what a source allegedly says (namely the century of a map and the earliest mention of the name) raises red flags. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

disruption is spreading

The same editors have taken the dispute to a third article, Kubrat, which was brought to RFPP. I've fully protected the page for a week to stop the insanity. I don't claim to know what's going on with Eastern European history, but we're getting into serious disruption territory and there's obviously a larger issue here. KrakatoaKatie 22:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for a week. First, next time WP:AIV is faster than this is, especially when you don't make simple diffs here. Edits like this are unnecessarily aggressive and borderline uncivil for fairly benign editing to me. This edit largely is removing a source under the false edit summary of "Per sources". There is no "source" that justifies removing a source. Let's see if we get a response or is this another of the line of line of editors in that space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Competence and civility issues with Koala15

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My latest encounter with Koala15 was on the Ted 2 page, where I fixed a fairly simple grammatical error [95] and was blankly reverted on sight [96]. I reverted back with the summary "Unexplained" [97] and he kept edit warring with the summary "Go home, your [sic] drunk" [98]. This happened again, until General Ization issued an EW warning on my talk page, and a civility warning [99] on Koala15's page. Koala15 repeatedly refused to apologize or even acknowledge that he was edit warring, dismissing General Ization with sentences such as "Have a sense of humor" and "There is no need for you to get so worked up over this", assuring him that he matter had been resolved, when in fact, it was not - and still is not. I explained very clearly on my talk page why I performed said edit, which prompted Koala15 to respond with a guideline that directly contradicts his edit - which I also explained. However, he refuses to "get it", while writing replies on the grammar level of a twelve year old - which I extensively tried to explain within the same discussion, examples being seeing him "use patently incorrect expressions like "more clearer", open a sentence with "hence", miss punctuation, or consistently not capitalize "I" as in first person", not to mention his first reply to me via edit summary: "Go home, your drunk".

A quick look on Koala15's talk page will reveal that he has been taunting other editors for a while, in an abrasive and unapologetic manner. A few select examples: User talk:Koala15#Reversions... [100], User talk:Koala15#July 2015 [101], User talk:Koala15#No [102], User talk:Koala15#Redirecting [103]. Another example of insisting on edit warring and being rude is here. I would like to finish this nuisance on the Ted 2 page and move on, but I would like to ensure that he doesn't spite revert me again. Please take care of this matter. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about this at all. Thank you very much. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i tried to work with you, but you don't seem to wanna work with me. Most of the things you are linking from my talk page are simple misunderstandings. And i don't think you can report anyone for a 'lack of competence". Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How ironic... you have just given another dismissive and offensive reply. You are either not realizing it or deliberately insulting me, and neither case is welcome on Wikipedia. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Koala15, which can be seen at Talk:Penguins of Madagascar and Penguins of Madagascar. Koala15 had initially participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over a copyedit tag about the article with a reason saying "And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals.". Not all IPs are vandals. Some contribute with no issues at all. I find that comment uncivil and rather a POV statement. They persistently removed the tag until they reached 3 reverts. They stayed quiet on the article, but they removed it again but this time with reasons but not valid ones. There was still WP:Consensus going on in the talk page, which Koala15 dismissed. Instead of participating in WP:Discussion and ask for opinions, they removed the template again. I reverted them, stating that they weren't the user who added the template and to remove it from a user who disagreed with it in the beginning is very questionable. They started edit warring, making 5 reverts within a span of 12 hours, I believe. If they reached the 6th revert, I was going to report them. My warnings can be seen on the user's talk page and PfM's talk page. In terms of Koala15, I do think they make good edits and they help the community, but my only concern is the way they act. Upon disagreements they edit war and so on, it seems. I do agree that saying a user is drunk is uncivil as much as saying to a user they need help. It seems they have had run-ins with other people, excluding me, EauZenCashHaveIt and General Ization. I would suggest a warning about continuing disruptive editing but I'm not sure. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well i apologize, i shouldn't have removed those maintenance templates without asking. And i don't think its fair to say i participated in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Koala15 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Per one of the bullets, "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental." You removed the template with this reasoning: "Uhm, yeah no." which certainly counts as you saying it's unnecessary without valid reasons and follows on of the statements "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." which you've given the impression (not even at this point) since the beginning and on the talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note for reviewing admins: here's the last "clean" version of Koala15's talk page, before he panicked and blanked it in order to invalidate the links I brought up earlier: [104]. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it was time they cleaned their talk page (no offense, Koala15). It was so long, over 200 posts. They kept some stuff, so I don't think it would really matter since it's their talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The timing though... anyway, I've said too much already. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• First, 200 posts going all the way back to 2012 probably needs archiving (and no, archiving isn't just blanking all the warnings) but that's not the issue here. Second, Wikipedia:Competence is required which includes social competency. Koala15's edits are problematic. Insulting and being uncivil is a concern. Individuals who cannot corroborate effectively have been shown the door before. I'd say there's civility here but I'll let some others chime on what they think should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Having had run-ins with Koala15 before, some of which have been referenced in this post, I thought I'd also chime in. While their edits themselves are not disruptive or problematic, aside from a lack of edit summary usage, Koala15's conduct towards other users is condescending, patronizing and downright rude in some cases. On multiple occasions I have been told by the user that I don't understand Wikipedia, ("You don't understand the guidelines") and that I'm a newbie who interprets policies wrong ("I understand that you are new here, but you seem to lack a simple understanding of the rules of Wikipedia."), which if anyone else has been on the receiving end of, would know that it's incredibly frustrating. Initially I thought I was the only one to be scolded as deluded by Koala15, but apparently I'm not the only one. A quick CNTRL+F searching for the word "understand" on an old revision of their talk page shows three distinct immediate instances where Koala15 downplayed other editors, brushing them off as not understanding some aspect of the project: I'm not even gonna bother responding to this nonsense, cause you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of Wikipedia., "Once again you show that you don't understand the guidelines." and "It sounds like you don't understand Wikipedia." and "You are possibly the most clueless editor i have ever met.". While Koala15's talk page only showed a few instances of their incivility, I imagine I wasn't the first to be insulted on their talk page or via edit summaries. A block doesn't seem appropriate to me, and would quite possibly chase Koala15 away, given how bitter and angry they already come off with a near-clean block log, but an assurance from the user that the'll try and be more civil and get off their high horse would be nice. Azealia911 _talk 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Koala15 care to respond? Azealia911 _talk 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its easy to take my quotes out of context and try to me make me look bad, but in the context of the conversation they were more or less facts. Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines. Which is fine, it took me a while when i first joined Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh Koala15, you really are being serious aren't you? You're not even trolling, sigh. I guess that means no chance of an apology for being rude and condescending? (the latter of which is ironically displayed in your most recent reply). Azealia911 _talk 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well its definitely not my intention to be "rude and condescending" that's just how I talk. I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words. In the future, i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much. Now hopefully we can put this whole thing behind us and move on. Koala15 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't... at least not while you maintain these dismissive and unapologetic replies. Each and every one of those reinforces the incompetence claim. You've been told the same thing by everyone here: apologize, show genuine regret, and we will move on. Your telling everyone to move on while sarcastically dismissing every concern raised on this page is nothing short of offensive. Notice that it's you who keeps brushing off every opportunity to make things right. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I second EauZenCashHaveIt's comments, completely accurate. Koala15, your replies just demonstrate what everyone here is trying to tell you, you just seem to not be hearing us, replying with the behavior and tone that landed you here. Back handed comments like "Either way you seem like a good editor, it just took you a while to fully understand the guidelines" don't do anything but frustrate me, and "I think its really a matter of how you choose to interpret my words" is absurd, so it's our fault for getting offended at what you say? "i will try to be more thoughtful with my reply's since it bothers everyone so much" you say, acting as if we're burdening you with actually being...nice?! Maybe take responsibility for your actions, genuinely apologize (which you have yet to do) and maybe then we can move on. Azealia911 _talk 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought i did apologize. But yes i apologize if i offended anyone, that was definitely not my intention. Hopefully we can move on now. Koala15 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising Koala15, yep, that's all I needed, take care. Azealia911 _talk 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

jeez a bit hypocritical to talk about incivility when you're saying he has the grammar of a 12 year old. and why would you care about grammar on the internet anyway? poli 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering when the usual devil's advocate would make their appearance. This is an encyclopedia, grammar is a basic requirement here. And most importantly: while Azealia may or may not have gotten their apology, the general issue is still unresolved. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

obsessing over grammar is so pretentious. i promise you're not smarter than anyone else here so chill. poli 22:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you like your name to be added to the report? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr.

User:InfoLeak, who has only edited the article in question, obviously has a WP:COI and refuses to recognize that Wikipedia is not a memorial. InfoLeak has persisted in restoring unsuitable material, so I have no choice but to request a block. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

WP "Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr."

Wikipedia Administrator

The Wikipedia page "Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr" was Originated and Created by Username: Infoleak who is Oscar's Son (Family)!

Username: Clarityfiend has repeatedly Vandalized and Deleted entire sections of commentary without any authorization or knowledge of the subject.

Therefore, I have to Request WP Administrator Block of Username: Clarityfiend from further editing of content to WP "Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr."

InfoLeak (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF. This poorly attributed paragraph length quote potentially goes against WP:COPYVIO. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

So InfoLeak is reporting himself as the son of the article topic. And the article history shows a WP:3RR violation. And InfoLeak has started an RfM. And I'm just gonna stop there. --Unready (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Five bucks says we get a legal threat from him before talk page access is revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm blocking him. He's pretty much been doing this for years and from what I can see, he's been basically asserting WP:OWNERSHIP over the article since he signed up. I don't see any specific warnings, but he's been making edits similar to this since 2013. The question here is whether it should be permanently or just temporarily. Clarityfiend, offhand I don't see where you tried to explain the reason for your removals in the past, but neither do I see where InfoLeak has asked for any explanation- and his tendency to treat the article like it was "his" genuinely bothers me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• The one thing that does give me pause is that he knew enough about policy to post to the edit warring noticeboard, which gives off the impression that he does have some limited awareness of policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Actually no, I do see where you made some edit summary comments in 2013, so there is some explanation on your part, Clarity. It'd have been better if it was a talk page but it is enough to where Info would have been made aware that this did not fit policy for some reason and the onus would somewhat be on his part to contact you to ask why these changes were done. At no point has he actually done that before seeking punitive action against you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• I posted a link to Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for the editor. I'd suggest giving a chance for them to actually review the ideas there and see if they will acknowledge it. They can still watch the page and interact via posts to the talk page like most COI situations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• I've also posted a longer warning, telling them that if they revert to the prior version they face at least a temporary block. (And a permanent one if they continue after that.) I've also asked them to refrain from directly editing their father's page and to go through a training program as a sign of good faith. So now it's up to them. I have to admit that their ownership/COI overtones aren't exactly promising. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  I would suggest replacing "permanent" with "indefinite". Mr Potto (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  Oh, and there appears to be a spurious "If someone is" phrase in there. Mr Potto (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'd started typing out a longer explanation, then checked here and saw Ricky's post, and then started writing something else partway through and forgot to remove the last part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• I've just noticed that the title of his book is "OSCAR RANDOLPH FLADMARK, JR. Biography By Gary L. Fladmark," so InfoLeak clearly feels some exclusive authorship of the article. The article is also an orphan, which makes notability questionable, even with all the local paper references. I'm kind of wondering if the purpose of the recent edits is to be able to generate and print pdfs for the 60th anniversary of his father's death, which kind of addresses WP:MEMORIAL even more. --Unready (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The original poster has filed a badly formed Request for Mediation, asking the MedCom to block User:Clarityfiend from edits toOscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr.. The fact that that isn't what mediation is for raises competency concerns. Since he has also requested this WP:ANI action, the original poster is also forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Competence? Really? You expect contributors with less than 300 edits to know all the complex ins and outs of Wikipedia dispute resolution policies? I think not. It seems to me that InfoLeak's problems are mostly due to an almost complete failure of anyone to actually explain to him how Wikipedia works - though I note that Tokyogirl79 has at last began that process. [105] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The subject looks notable from the current contents, and the user is trying to provide free knowledge. How about talking him through WP:COI and being neighbourly instead of this drama? Guy (Help!) 23:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Strike that. My bad. The article has referenciness, but the sources are crap. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of suggesting sending this one to AfD – if it's notable, AfD will probably figure it out, and if's not AfD will figure that out too! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

D'oh. You're right. This guy doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Is it permissible to Afd this during an ANI, or is it better to wait for this to wrap up? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just pointing that out that if you indelicately AfD the article on the 60th anniversary of the subject's death, you're probably going to amplify the reaction. This is an editor who has devoted his entire experience on Wikipedia to writing and maintaining his father's page. --Unready (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say under these circumstances it'd be best to wait a couple of weeks and try to look for sources. Unready is right - nominating it right now wouldn't be the most tactful way to go about this. If the COI here wasn't so strong (meaning that I don't really want the guy directly editing his dad's page) and it hadn't been in the mainspace for so long, I'd suggest sending it to the draftspace. However considering that non-involved editors are pretty much the only people left to edit the article are people that might stumble upon the page (something that is far more unlikely to occur in the draftspace), it'd be more beneficial to keep it in the mainspace during the waiting period. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• It'd also be good to have a little cool down period to look for sources since that way it wouldn't be seen as a knee jerk reaction. In any case, I am finding some profile listings in some museums. However I almost never edit articles on soldiers that aren't notable for some other reason, so I'm not entirely sure that this would really be something that would give a ton of notability. It might be a sign of notability but then it could also be a routine database listing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Tokyogirl79, I have posted a few additional comments to your posting on the InfoLeak talk page which should help you in your search for additional information regarding Wikipedia page.2602:306:CC4B:B989:2C1C:8F30:AAD8:2DE4 (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that InfoLeaks's purpose in creating the article was to create a book about his father, because that's the first thing he did after completing the article. Hence he doesn't want anyone messing with it. OK, so that's one problem. The second problem is his attitude, which is going to get him in some form of hot water if it doesn't radically change. The third problem is the notability of the article subject itself. Does anyone know the notability guidelines for soldiers? Is this article an AfD candidate? If so, who is going to do the honors? Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine and all but I think WP:THERAPY is relevant in that whether or not the editor will take this personal is not really our concern. Does the article pass Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People? If you think so, improve it. If not, list it for deletion. Either InfoLeaks will pay attention and be helpful or the editor won't be but that's not for us to solve today. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted every point I made. I said that InfoLeak's purpose in creating the article, and his attitude, are the problems. I also asked for someone else (not me) to decide whether the subject meets the relevant guidelines, and if not to nominate if for AfD (as noted, I'm not going to make that call). In any case, InfoLeak has disappeared from here, which is not really appropriate after filing an AfD. If we don't hear from him one way or another, perhaps this thread should be closed before it boomerangs on him. He's making far too many missteps for his own good and needs to calm down and learn (perhaps at the Teahouse) before he shoots himself in the foot. Softlavender (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I understood. I just disagreed that someone else had to nominate it for AFD. Whether or not he'll calm down, that's not our job to figure out past explaining the policies here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

AfD

An AfD has been opened. BMK (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sumit naithani SD - trip #2

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

---

I previously brought Sumit naithani SD to ANI [106] in December 2014 for persistently ignoring guidelines on image uploading. The user probably has at least 100 warnings on his talk page related to this. I am not so much requesting sanctions as just close scrutiny and guidance by admins, in the hope that sanctions could be avoided. I also note that many of the images he's uploading are watermarked with "SD", the last two letters in his username. [107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115] This seems self-promotional and it contravenes WP:WATERMARK. He's also causing more work for the folks who haunt the image realm of Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Sumit naithani SD was ever told about watermarks so I've placed a note on their page. However at a quick glance there are over 100 of these watermarked images in use. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Complicating the issue is that these are not free images, but fair-use images ostensibly meeting WP:NFCC. Adding personal watermarks to copyrighted images seems to be extremely questionable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, NeilN, and for your notice on the editor's talk page. I will point out additionally that the user has never edited in talk space, has created a number of articles on films of of questionable notability, and I'm not even sure he has ever remedied any of the problems he has been notified about. On May 4, he was notified by DPL bot that there was a disambiguation problem at Ek Thi Reeta that still hasn't been resolved. So, there are a few questions about this user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually given how long this seems to have been going on, I'd be inclined to indef and wait if they communicate after that. Watermarking fair use images is unacceptable and those need to be deleted, unless someone objects. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I was leaning toward deletion myself but posted here to attract some knowledgeable opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Watermarks amounts to derivative works based on unfree images, which is not on. I have blocked the account for now at least until he starts engaging with others. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks one and all for the assist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog and JzG: Doing a spot check, it seems that all images from December 10, 2014 onwards have watermarks. I don't see any objections to deletion here but am unsure what deletion process should take place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I just mass-deleted all the images and unlinked them from the articles. Let's not do this again any time soon! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Smirtovic

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

---

Hi, I would like User:Smirtovic to get a topic ban from creating new articles.

I noticed that this editor has articles now at AfD and looked at his talkpage with several PRODs and AfD notices (which has been removed) and when looking at his contributions he does not have many articles that has "survived" and those that is there no are mostly at AfD in progress. I dont think this editor has insight in notability guidelines.

To show some examples in [116] this diff from 2013 he says he created Tom Siwe that was put up for deletion here yet he has created same article again, now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Siwe (2nd nomination). Other articles created and now deleted includes FC Aesch (CSD A7 after he tried removing the speedy tag), Eldro Diacoşki (first PROD, then removal of BLPPROD without adding source and then deleted after CSD G7). Current AfDs are Matt Carter (footballer born 1997) (this AfD) and Tom Siwe as mentioned earlier (after he removed speedy again and he has also removed the AfD notice on the article).

Also the article for Matt Carter was created with copy-n-paste content (see [warning diff).

Editor has previously been at ANI here under a different username.

Not sure if this enough for a topic ban, but I thought it was best to inform administrators about the situation and let some one else decide. Qed237 (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - indefinite, until such time as the editor can show they fully understand our article notability requirements. GiantSnowman 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I have re-notified the user about this discussion after he removed the last one, hopefully he will respond. However a quick glance at their talk page history shows they unfortunately just blank any comments. GiantSnowman 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• We generally consider the removal of a notification as evidence of it being seen. Chillum 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I know, but I thought a notification from an admin might have a bit more weight and encourage them to join the discussion... GiantSnowman 17:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have not looked deep enough to endorse a ban at this point, possibly later. I will point out though that I have just closed this AfD as a speedy delete: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Danish_football_transfers_summer_2015. One of Smirtovic's recent creations. Chillum 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Given that this user seems to only have one form of communication which is page blanking I support a topic ban from new article creation. This user is clearly doing it wrong and refusing any sort of help. Chillum 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• My mistake, there was in fact a single occasion this person spoke to someone on their talk page: "fuck you, - mikrul". Chillum 17:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Support topic ban - Clearly lacking the knowledge to create new articles. A waste of time for everybody cleaning up after them. JMHamo (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and this timesink may indicate that the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Miniapolis 22:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CIR. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support an IAR competence indef block instead. I doubt there would be any point in a topic ban. They'd just ignore and continue sown this path they were to be blocked anyway. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, Chillum, JMHamo, Miniapolis, and Blackmane: How are the views of an indefinate block instead? User:Smirtovic has refused to discuss and has removed two ANI notices on has talkpage. He has also continued with poor article creation, now Marijan Ćorić at this AfD. A topic ban would probably not keep editor from creating articles. Qed237 (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And just as I wrote that he removed an other AfD message from an article (not his first). Qed237 (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I handed him a 24h block solely for that. No prejudice against making it longer including indef for the larger longer-term problem. DMacks (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks, do you mind revoking talkpage access as well for attacks like this? Qed237 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTHERE is appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I had already sided with an indef block over a topic ban. So I endorse Chillum's action. Blackmane (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Enough

Given the abuse the user has given since being blocked I have extended the block to indefinite. The duration is indefinite, meaning once the user decides to communicate in a reasonable fashion it can be reconsidered. As always I welcome feedback. Chillum 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Thomas.alrasheed evading block with Saudi IPs

User:Thomas.alrasheed was blocked on 26 June for vandalism, for making sneaky and false changes. Since then, a handful of Saudi IPs have been doing the same thing at the same articles.

These are the involved IPs:

• 14 July 91.147.158.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 July 5.41.92.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 July 37.16.140.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12–13 July 95.185.219.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12 July 5.41.33.123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 10–11 July 95.185.127.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6, 13 July 37.16.146.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 July 93.169.136.252 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2 July 93.169.59.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 July 93.169.12.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 July 78.95.255.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 June 78.95.244.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 29 June 93.169.155.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 29 June 93.168.23.175 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 June 5.156.128.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27–29 June 78.95.146.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24–25 June 93.168.204.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19–23 June 91.108.164.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The question is how to stop this guy? Do we protect articles, or block IPs, or set a few rangeblocks, or set a filter? Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced rangeblocks would be helpful looking at the IP ranges, edit filter might be the best way to go depending on the contribution changes, page protection is onyl other viable option . Amortias (T)(C) 18:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Thomas.alrasheed registered his account on 25 June but the problem started months before with other Saudi IPs, interspersed with edits by an IP from UK targeting all the same articles and doing the same vandalism. Another IP from the UK, Special:Contributions/80.42.129.101, vandalized by inserting the surname Al Rasheed, the same as the registered account.[117] So this guy has access to both UK and Saudi IPs. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• 9 January 2015 – 212.215.223.124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6 January 2015 – 95.184.30.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 6 January 2015 – 212.215.223.138 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 January 2015 – 212.215.236.62 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2 January 2015 – 212.215.205.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 January 2015 – 94.97.218.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 31 December 2014 – 94.97.169.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 December 2014 – 94.97.178.186 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 December 2014 – 185.5.153.45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• December 2014 – January 2015 – 89.187.100.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

(Non-administrator comment) I agree regarding the edit filter. This seems too broad to warrant mass page protection; I can't see much of a pattern to his targets at all. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 20:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The guy is still active, see Special:Contributions/95.185.33.12. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

A combination therapy might be the way to go. At least one of the target articles is semi-protected already. I'll think about creating a reasonably narrow edit filter. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks! Another IP appeared today, Special:Contributions/95.185.249.232, making just one edit but with the usual style and target. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And another: Special:Contributions/5.108.160.29. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/5.41.187.86. Persistent guy. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Also re-appeared on User:37.16.140.91, which could maybe use a 31 day block or smth. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC).

Ban proposal for User:Tamsin Kendra for Terms of Use and COI violations

• Tamsin Kendra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account is used as part of a scam that has been reported multiple times to OTRS. Relevant tickets are #2015040210025176, #2014092910015601, #2014082110017591 , #2014080810016151 and #2014080610021121, plus the latest one #2015070210016402 which finally produced this information. I have some additional off-wiki data that I can share, however I would probably be skirting WP:OUTING so I will not, at least not here. I apologize for using information that is not readily accessible to most editors, I hope one or two folks with OTRS access can verify that these are related. There are also two relevant threads at AN and ANI:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Something_new:_COI_extortion
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive889#Someone_may_be_impersonating_me

The methods of operation here as far as I can tell are to a) create an article, then demand money from the subject and mark with {{db-g7}} if not produced; and b) to trawl AFC looking for declined articles and demand money to get them accepted, claiming they have "special rights". The userpage of the account above is included in emails sent to targets of the scam and used to give credibility to the idea that the editor is an active member of AFC with 16,000 edits registered 10 years ago, which is of course not true since the account was created a month ago and they have exactly three edits. They have also apparently included links to administrators' userpages claiming to be them.

Now that we have an actual target account, I would like to propose a formal project-wide ban for this user (or users) for violations of the terms of use and WP:COI so they can be blocked on sight. I would also like to request an off-SPI CU, so that perhaps a few more accounts and related articles will surface. I honestly don't know if this is actionable based on the evidence and the lack of edits on this account, so if there is no consensus for this at least I'd like everyone to be aware that this is happening and how. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• No objections to the block. The details of the OTRS tickets are noted. An off-SPI checkuser investigation is already underway. Risker (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've had a couple of these through OTRS so we might have some more accounts we can use to pool SPI data. I'll go ticket digging. Looks like blatent undisclosed paid editing so that looks like our trumpcard. Amortias (T)(C) 19:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ticket #2015061010024265. Admins will have to gather the username in question as I cant see who the author who requested deletion was. Amortias (T)(C) 19:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Amortias. Since I'm not consistently onwiki right now (traveling), if you'd be so kind as to email me the ticket numbers, I'll make sure that the CU team is reviewing the whole lot. Risker (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have OTRS access at this time, but per confirmations above that the tickets are valid and investigations are proceeding off-wiki, I have indefblocked the account here for apparent violations of community standards and terms of service. I would like to request that someone on the OTRS and CU teams update the block once details are appropriately gathered. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the WMF Office aware of this incident, and has the above evidence been forwarded to them? MER-C 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That aside, it would be worth broadcasting this somehow to editors site wide, perhaps via a banner? As much traffic as AN and ANI get, the vast majority of editors would not be watch listing these pages. Blackmane (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@MER-C: Not this specifically, in the past I have forwarded what information I had to Legal but they never got back to me as to what they did, if any. @Blackmane: I think the best thing we can do is make sure admins examine any G7 deletions by new accounts with a bit more care, and also be on the lookout for new accounts fiddling with AFC submissions as well. Although they likely don't use the AFC tools, perhaps a filter can be written to detect when an article is created in mainspace by a new account that already exists in draft form. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, is there anyway to prevent new accounts from nominating articles to AFD? kinda how autoconfirmed works is what I had in mind Blackmane (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane: It is possible with an edit filter but that should be considered only as a last resort.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Obstinate reversions by User:JesseRafe at Jahlil Okafor

(moving discussion from WP:AN) User:JesseRafe has been paring down the Jahlil Okafor, which may have been overly detailed. As the primary editor, I am aware that I may have written more details than might have been optimal so I have not argued much about his edits. However, at the conclusion of his edits, I felt his reduction of the images from his high school career from 15 to 6 was not necessarily optimal and have attempted to restore the article to a total of 8 such images. We have been warring about whether a 6-image version or 8-image version is correct. Since that there was only one other discussion this year on Talk:Jahlil Okafor by July 2, I posted a centralized discussion on the issue at WT:NBA at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Removal of dunking and frontal face pictures from Jahlil Okafor except the main image, where I felt many interested parties would be watching. I also left notifications at a few other talk pages that a centralized discussion would be held at this location. Since then, several discussants have contributed thoughts on the images at issue. Epeefleche, Rikster2, DangerousJXD, Handpolk, Editorofthewiki and BU Rob13 have all contributed to the discussion. JesseRafe has not participated in the centralized discussion, but seems to feel that a comment at Talk:Jahlil Okafor in the section where I pointed out the centralized discussion was an adequate response. Currently, two images (File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG and File:20140221 Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor.JPG) remain at issue. I have summarized what I believe to be the opinion on these images in this edit. I have repeatedly notified User:JesseRafe via edit summaries that it seems that these two images are supported by something resembling a consensus. After weeks of debate, he has still not participated in the centralized discussion, but continues to revert my edits. Furthermore, it is my opinion that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG is about the best picture we have of the subject and his insistence upon its removal is not helpful to the reader. I have warned him not to keep reverting to his version at User_talk:JesseRafe#Warring_warning. Having warned him not to keep reverting, I am now asking for assistance here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Tony's claims in the edit summaries that he has consensus to keep the images are also not fully accurate. That discussion does not have a very clear consensus, and probably needs closure from an uninvolved editor or admin. Either way, the warring behavior in that article is inappropriate. As a side note, this belongs at WP:ANI or WP:AN3. ~ Rob^Talk 00:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Rob, at the time I posted this edit, there was a reasonable consensus regarding File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG, which JesseRafe keeps trying to remove, but I welcome a neutral closure regarding the two images at issue, which is why I have brought the issue to the attention of the admins.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about the consensus, but I also don't think it's clear-cut enough for someone close to the issue to be able to claim a clear consensus in their favor without a neutral closure, personally. That comment was meant to encourage a neutral closure, not claim any wrongdoing on your part. ~ Rob^Talk 00:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The above was moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Obstinate_reversions_by_User:JesseRafe_at_Jahlil_Okafor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like JesseRafe acted against consensus, at least from my perspective. BU Rob hit the nail on the head. I thought that we should keep the image of the face but remove one of the images from the high school section. An image of Okafor in a Duke uniform would be helpful. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's likely a subjective issue to determine how many and which images are needed, and perhaps can only be decided by a pure count of !votes, but quick glance seems to indicate it's a weak consensus at best. The edit warring by TonyTheTiger and JesseRafe needs to stop. Take the high road, and let another editor make the changes, if any are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Update The discussion referenced above, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Removal of dunking and frontal face pictures from Jahlil Okafor except the main image, has been closed by Ricky81682, who also update the article based on the outcome.—Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I closed the WT:NBA discussion, closed the related Talk:Jahlil Okafor discussion and changed the page back to the June version that was being discussed at the talk page. There's a number of changes that need to be done to update the page but hopefully those will not involve arguments about the images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If the only warring that is going on is between the new version with 6 or 8 images, why did the page get reverted to an old 15 image version that no one was arguing for? That seems to be a step backward and the current debate is really over whether we should include 2 specific images in the new version. There is not really a debate about most other changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• It appears that Ricky81682 has revisited the editing of the article and left both of the contentious images (File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG and File:20140221 Cliff Alexander and Jahlil Okafor.JPG) out of the version that he has "restored". It seems that almost all respondents feel that File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG should be in the article whether it be a 6-image or an 8-image version. It seemed that Epeefleche, Rikster2, Handpolk, Editorofthewiki and myself have supported the image being in the article (here or in the previous centralized discussion). Meanwhile, DangerousJXD, JesseRafe and BU Rob13 seemed to oppose that specific image or versions of the article including it. Ricky81682, can you explain why you have restored the 6-image version and not included this particular image, which is probably our best representation of what he looks like. The image seems like it would fit in the upper right of the junior year (where I had it in the 8-image version). Can you comment on this particular image, since these were the two contentious images and you have made no attempt to clarify the omission of this image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Feel free to clarify if I have misinterpreted you, Ricky, but I believe his closing statement made clear that he's reverted to the version that most closely represents the consensus on image density and expects talk page discussion regarding specific image choice. ~ Rob^Talk 23:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Correct. I originally went back to the exact JesseRafe version proposed before but it seems like significant text was edited out which wasn't reflected there. The discussion was not, in retrospect, formatted ideally in my mind. On the basis that the two final reverting versions were similar in their text lengths, I presumed that the one I finally reverted it to was the one that reflects the consensus supporting the text cuts and the consensus from the WT:NBA on the images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I got no issue with File:20120919 Jahlil Okafor.JPG being in the article. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)O.K. I have started a discussion on the images that were at issue there. DangerousJXD can you respond there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've commented there. Obviously, I'm involved now so I wouldn't be the closing admin down the line. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

LGBT right in Croatia

Hello everyone!

Almost a year ago LGBT rights in Croatia article was a victim of homophobic campaign, and I am sad to see it happening again. Almost a year ago, a particular user got banned as he was making numerous changes not just to this article, but to many other articles concerning LGBT rights. Few days ago I have noticed identical problems happening again, but with a different user called user:sdino, who funilly enough has received warnings for the same things as the user in the past. It might be a coincidence, but it is interesting how both users are from Poland, and declare themselves to be anti gay marriage, very religious, and obviously homophobic. Now, I am not interested in their personal views, but Wikipedia is not a place for this sort of political campaign. This user has made numerous changes to this article in the past days, had removed big portions of it, and has inserted a pie chart, translating Croatian into English wrongly, just to make a point. He claims 45% of people in Croatia are "extremely" against same-sex marriage, but this survey states they are "strongly" against it. This is exactly how the problem started the last time. I argued that we don't need a pie chart for this as there are numerous surveys, and will be in the future so I cannot see the point of having just one pie chart for one survey, and ignore all the others, Which brings us to my argument that we shouldn't really have pie charts for surveys anyway, as it would just create a mess. This might not seem like a big problem, but few days from now we will see this user changing terms, using different words, trying to present LGBT movement as "promotion of homosexuality" etc.

He will make more changes just to create an illusion how people in Croatia hate LGBT individuals, and I would appreciate some help so we can stop this right now. Many people contribute to LGBT right in Croatia article, and have done a fantastic job, so why let anybody spoil it for their homophobia? Thank you very much for reading this. 11raccoon1 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)11raccoon111raccoon1 (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:11raccoon1 has obviously chosen to go to this board instead of discussing itthe problem that has arisen. I am open to discussion and have put a substantial amount of effort into discussing the matter with User:11raccoon1. I would also like to be informed of this, because I was not, even though the header on this article states: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." – Sdino (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a week. Sdino broke 3RR and was up to seven reverts over three days. If they restore the pie chart again without gaining consensus on the talk page, they will receive a block. Number 57 16:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have reopened this thread. Sdino appears for all intents and purposes to be a single-purpose account whose only role on Wikipedia is to promote opposition to same-sex marriage. I would appreciate it if a few editors would review his contributions to see that they meet NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  hmmmmm. i wouldn't say they're single-purpose. they've edited a decent amount on other things relating to european politics. they definitely do have a lot of edits there, though, and i can definitely see some POV-pushing. poli 23:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

IP "Robb Auber"

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

---

125.63.73.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 125.63.73.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (seems to be the same user) keeps adding a red link (Robb Auber) to the list of people surnamed Robb see here although there is no article on this person and the person is not surnamed Robb. Now they also vandalize pages that refer somehow to Robb or to Auber, see their contributions. Kraxler (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked both for 31 hrs because these IPs are probably shared. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

user:Suastiastu

Hello, I'm here to report the behavior of user:Suastiastu on pushing POV in the article Joko Widodo and pushed the article into the brink of edit-warring. His/her edits more or less violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Most of his/her edits are negative and sounds like a smear campaign. The evidences are (here and here and here). He/she seems to ignore his/her talkpage and the article talk page after my attempts to invite him/her to address and discuss the editing disagreements. I would like to ask for a third-person/editor opinion and senior editor arbitration about this problem. What should we do to solve this...? Thank you. Gunkarta  talk  10:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User: Louis Belasco

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

---

Reporting User:Louis Belasco starting an inappropriate edit war on Zola Budd removing her married name from the article. His only response, via edit notes, is he doesn't like it. On my second revert edit notes I urged him to check out WP:3RR but apparently that didn't work. I'm now going to try to find the template to warn him more directly. Trackinfo (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User notified of ANI discussion. Blackmane (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have started a conversation on the talk page, which is where both of you should have gone. If I see one more revert from either of you on the article until a definitive consensus arises, the page might need to be protected. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So no admin is going to any action against Louis Belasco for reverting this section multiple times and removing section headers in another report here, after this was filed? Sorry, an order sending the kiddies back to the talk page is not enough. John from Idegon (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I generally don't block without giving a final warning of exactly what will get them blocked. Zzuuzz has done the deed. As for the article, experience has shown that if you go to WP:AN3 without any talk page discussion, at best you get no action and at worst you get a boomerang. Hopefully consensus will now form on talk and this will all blow over. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Ritchie333, but in this case, what you usually do is not effective. This dude gets called here, right or wrong, and his reaction is to repeatedly blank the report at ANI, and when that is not disruptive enough, starts blanking things in other places on this board? The thing complained about by Blackmane is only the tip of the iceberg. Check out this guys short history. Looks pretty much WP:NOTHERE to me. "Married names are stupid". "Fuck you, John. Your not the boss of me". Two gem edit summaries. "He was racist against people who didn't speak French." on the bio of a Quebec politician. Behavior mimics a 10 year old. Someone needs to be warned they cannot behave the way this guy does? No wonder we cannot keep decent editors. John from Idegon (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia, not dish punishments out to people. If he carries on, he'll get indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps this qualifies for the indef. agtx 19:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 60 hours (before seeing this - came via a request at WP:RFPP). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Prasenjitmouri

User:Prasenjitmouri has all the telltale signs of a spamming sockpuppet. Start with some token edits. Wait until auto-confirmed. Create a token user page so it's not redlinked. Create a redirect where an article will be placed [118] (redirect to avoid NPPs from seeing the article). Upload a fully formed promotional article with lots of references [119] (quality of the refs are not important so long as there is lots). Do other random stuff so you don't look like a single purpose account. Problem is (besides the spamming and socking) their busy work involved dumping in Fictitious references. [120] Reference talks about a person, Bianca Nickleberry, not the place Nickleberry, Texas. [121] Article talks about a current turntable, not the 1980s Mister Disc. [122] are not about Audio Visual Warning Systems. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these are indeed classic signs of what yiu describe, Duffbeerforme, but it's cicumstantial evidence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung. The fake references are not circumstantial evidence. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've witnessed similar behavior. User:Prasenjitmouri added a blank "Bloomberg" reference to SearchLock (see diff: Special:Diff/668136021/667376998) after it was nominated for deletion, and has not cooperated in helping me track down the issue number (since there is no mention of Searchlock in any online bloomberg publication), yet has had plenty of time to go on a "oneref" and "citation needed" spree on other articles. The Morningstar reference does not technically exist either, as it's from their automatic archive of Marketwired, a standard anything-goes press release website. Misleading. Wieldthespade (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

COI editor should probably be blocked

I happened to come across Donnie777 (talk · contribs) today. The account has existed since 2010, does not have a large number of edits, but all of the edits appear to be either to Serial Killers Ink, or to spam the latter in other articles, such as [123], [124]. In some cases, the editor has edit warred to force links that cover this website's sales activities [125]. I suspect a conflict of interest and/or outright spamming to promote this site's artwork sales. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Kindzmarauli:, have you talked to him about this? I can't see anywhere that he has had the WP:COI or spamming policies explained. The Taboo edits were from 2012, that's a little stale, and the rest of the edits seem scattered out over the years too. The COI and spamming policies that we have today do not allow us to punish someone for edits that were not violations of policy when they were made. GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The spamming policy has been in place since well before that account was created. You really want the spamming policy explained to someone who (to me, clearly) seems affiliated with SKI and is spamming links to Wikipedia to advertise their store? This is a slam dunk. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there are Wikipedia editors who break all sorts of rules but stop when those rules are explained to them. I am one of them. I cringe at some of the edits I made when I first started editing as an IP nine years ago. Warnings are almost always better than blocking without warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just AfD the article (zero notability), remove the site-wide spam, and report the user at WP:COIN. There's probably no need to block the user unless he persists after that or starts socking. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the site was covered in an episode of a show on the National Geographic Channel so it may be debateable, but I will have a look and consider. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think the subject has notability, I see no problem here -- just remove the links added to other articles that appear too spammy, warn the user, and report him to COIN. In five years he's only edited five articles besides SKI, so it's not really an endless spree. If he keeps edit-warring, then WP:AN3 is the appropriate venue for reporting. Softlavender (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Report on FkpCascais personal attacks

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

---

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

Hello, the user FkpCascais (talk) had been POV pushing for quite some time now and since he went from POV pushing to personal attacks I'm making this report.

It all started with this edit [126]. The edit is very simple. The RS listed on the article page states the following: "For Military Frontier, the king decided that it will remain within its present territory. However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation.". I wanted to include that in the article since the article is written in a simplistic way and it neglects the formal and the administrative aspect of the Military Froniter. The user FkpCascais reverted me without stating the reason([127]). In the second revert he stated the reason:"Removing controversial claim. Also, can we know to what exact period (year) the source is refering to?" ([128]). First of all the claim is not controversial but a direct quote from the reliable source listed in the article. This is already a sign of POV pushing. Another claim is that we can't know the exact period the source is referring to. This just proves the user did not even read the source as the year 1850 is clearly stated at the beginning of the passage, so yet another made up claim and another revert with no valid reason. My edit was initially supported by user Zoupan, who participated the editing that article for quite some time. He made several corrections to my edit and left it in the article. After FkpCascais objected he stated we need to discuss it on the talk page, so I turned to that discussion with my source.

FkpCascais kept objecting. He stated this "Now regarding your source (page 157), are you aware that it is not really a source for what you pretend here, but it is just Rudolf Horvat citing verbatim a decision from the Sabor? Was that decision acepted by the Austrians? Did that decision came into effect? You need a secondary source confirming that. We already saw secondary sources which told us how Croatian Sabor claimed Military Frontier, but Austrians rejected that.". This is a serious objection since he states I'm misinterpreting the source and that the subject of my quote isn't the king, but the Sabor. This is of course false and my quote clearly states the king as the subject. He further went to claim that I need a secondary source when in fact I provided a secondary source (another user will later provide the primary source).

To show that he is wrong in his claim that the Sabor is the subject and not the king, I asked him to provide a quote from the source, and provided a quote from the same passage that states the subject who makes the claim from the initial quote: "kings decision from 7th of April 1850. which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers". Also the initial quote clearly states the subject: "For Military Frontier, the king decided...".

The user did not accept the argument and refused to provide a quote(1) for his claim that the Sabor is the subject. He went on with his claims that "You don't even understand what your source is... That is just a proposal from the Sabor, not a fact." He went on providing sources that speak of the administrative aspect , while the discussion is regarding the formal aspect. He is deliberately deluding those two aspects is a single vague word "control".

I again asked for the quote to sustain the claim that the Sabor is the subject and not the king. He refused to provide the quote(2) and kept repeating the claim: "Regarding your source, simple grammar knolledge is enough to see that Rudolf Horvat in that entire chapter is just putting in everything that was ageed in the Sabor, that is why your "sourced citation" is in quotation marks. That is why it is primary source, and all you can do with it is just say Croatian Sabor claimed that."

Not to go to too much details he kept repeating the claim and refused to provide any quote to sustain it, although the passage we are discussing is only 2 pages long and although I already provided the quotes that are speaking of the subject. I stopped with the discussion with him and asked another editors to join so we can resolve that.

Tzowu had joined the discussion, found the primary source, agreed that the subject is the king and he made the edit. However, that isn't enough for FkpCascais since he made the following personal accusation "Even in a comment he is unable not to push the POV that MF was Croatia...". No I'm not he one POV pushing, the source clearly spoke of the formal and administrative aspect and Tzowu had already introduced that in the article. FkpCascais is the one who is POV pushing and now when he made this personal accusation, I'm making this report.

The second thing. FkpCascais had made an edit in the article in such a way that he manipulated the original quote from the source by adding vague terms, unsupported by any source. I reverted that and he went to edit warring over that. Again, his claims are false and the other user participating the discussion is agreeing with that.

Third thing. After Tzowu made the edit by entering the claim from the source, I restructured the text without adding any claims. FkpCascais went on reverting me by repeating the claims about the Sabor being the subject. He reverted me although I haven't introduced that claim to the article, but Tzowu.

He is reverting everything that doesn't fit his point of view, although it is supported by sources. He keep misinterpreting the sources and when asked to provide a quote to sustain his interpretation he refuses. He keeps edit warring with that kind of behavior and the final straw was the personal attack against me. I had to made this report.

The article Military_Frontier and the talk page [129], discussions start from "Austrian vs local control". Detoner (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Does the phrase TL;DR ring a bell? I actually read it and I can't seem to find the actual personal attack(s), just a content dispute gone haywire. That may just be me, though. Kleuske (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the long post. I'm aware I could have written it more clearly. The personal attack is at the bottom of the talk page. To repeat it:"Even in a comment he is unable not to push the POV that MF was Croatia...". This has already entered the article and I'm being accused for POV pushing although the other editor had introduced that to the article. So this is a clear personal attack. I didn't made the edit and I'm being accused of POV pushing because I agree with the edit. I haven't really bothered to make a case of POV pushing because it would be to hard, and because other editors had already agreed and introduced the source to the article, however I made one now along with the case of personal attack. I will also note that this is not the first time for this user to behave in this way. On Nikola Tesla article he also behaved in this way by using unreliable sources and rejecting everything that doesn't agree with his personal opinion. I really do not have the time to deal with him so I left that discussion, but he appeared on Military Frontier as well. Also I invite Michael_Cambridge to this discussion since he had been participating the Tesla discussions for a longer time than me and he had also warm about the behavior of this user. Also, may I ask you something. How did you managed to read this report and make your own post in just 5 minutes, not to mention the discussions. Detoner (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

No personal attack took place. I note that in your very long post you accuse Fkpcascais of POV pushing. By your own logic, you appear Ito have made a personal attack. Work it out on the talk page, because if everyone who edited in the Balkans area was blocked for accusing someone of POV pushing, I doubt there would be any editors left to edit. AniMate 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I made a report which is different from stating personal accusations on talk pages. And yes, I reported POV pushing which had escalated to personal attacks. I already stated I didn't make a case of POV pushing because it would be to hard. I agree with you, but the thing is that this POV pushing had escalated to personal attacks, and this is not the first time this had happened to the discussions this user is participating. I did not accuse the user of POV pushing on the talk page not even once even though I plead at least 5 times for him to provide the quote which he had refused. Instead he kept repeating that the source says something without providing any quote. I think any reasonable person would lost their nerves with this kind of attitude. This is an experienced user and he obviously knows he can get along with this kind of behavior on that talk pages. How else would you describe the behavior where someone claims that the source says something but refuses to provide any quote and ignores all quotes that disprove him. Well if you think that kind of POV pushing is allowed, then ok, but I made a case of the POV pushing that escalated to personal attacks and I ask of the admins to protect me from those attacks. I already left one article because of the behavior of this user, and I'm on the verge to leave this one as well. Finally, yes I made a report about the POV pushing, and not an accusation on talk page. Let's not accuse everyone who makes a report of POV pushing that he is making a personal attack. How else is someone to make a report of POV pushing? And lastly, this is not a report of POV pushing, but the report about personal attack, and the POV pushing is the context. And let me see if I got it right. The other editor makes the edit. I repeat it on the talk page, and I'm being accused of POV pushing. That is not a personal accusation to you?Detoner (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This user should be blocked. He is unable to drop the stick and accept that reliable scholar sources do not agree to any of his ideas. He was among the group that caused immense troubles and drove people to exhaustion at Nikola Tesla talk-page... As he couldn't make Tesla more Croatian, he is now trying to alter borders and history, but tough luck for him, this is an encyclopedia. FkpCascais (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of personal attacks by this user. His accusations are totally false, and like he refused to provide a quote for his earlier claims he is now doing the same thing. He makes accusations without a single edit of mine to sustain them. Please protect me from this kind of behavior. The case is pretty simple. Another editor had made an edit (supported by RS) and I had repeated it on talk page. Then this user accused me of POV pushing. Now he is calling for a block. I'm thinking of returning to editing via IP, because I can't handle this any more. I haven't yet seen a case where a certain editor is deliberately lying the source says a certain thing and when confronted by a request to provide a quote, he refuses it and goes to personal attacks. Detoner (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lets end up this charade OK? For anyone interested in seing what is going on, everthing is explained here: Talk:Military_Frontier#Proposal_1. This user claims Military Frontier was part of Croatia and all he has is ONE source in Croatian which doesnt even say what he wants it to say, while I provided 5 English-language reliable sources CLEARLY saying Habsburgs ruled directly Military Frontier till 1881 and only then part of MF was incorporated in Croatia. For God sake, it is widely documented historical period with plenty of English-language sources and this user is unable to find even one confirming his claims, and how many more I need to find? BTW, all other participants agree with me, and no one agrees with him, so what he wants besides a boomerang? FkpCascais (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, the other long time editor of that page had agreed and the source itself is reliable and listed in the article page. The edit had already entered the article and not by me. Why are you making personal attack towards me, when I haven't entered that to the article? Detoner (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

After knowing all we know from English-language reliable sources presented in discussions regarding Habsburg control of MF, your controversial edit is extremely disruptive and clearly POV-pushing. Also, anyone can read your discussion with Tzowu on your talk-page (section Reply) and see how he is not agreeing with you at all, and he is actually opening your eyes, but you keep ignoring everything and everyone. I am out. FkpCascais (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Again false and again without any reference to any edit to sustain that. He agreed with me by stating that "Certainly the Croatian Military Frontier formally belonged to Croatia, or the Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier (as it was called) to Croatia-Slavonia." and by entering that in the article: "and despite the Emperor's address in 1850 that the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constituted a single land with separate administration,[15] there was no merger of the Croatian-Slavonian Frontier with Croatia, but further separation of them.". The second quote is directly the quote I pointed to. Please stop accusing me of POV pushing because I haven't made the edit to the article. Detoner (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yet another big spam from a well-known troll called Asdisis, Michael Cambridge, now Detoner.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if we should jump to that conclusion yet. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 22:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Weegeerunner , the ip is himself a puppet and a disruptive editor that is already blocked from Serbian Wikipedia. I counted 4 editors that already complained about his behavior (including me). I made a puppet case and you can see it here. He is a puppet of FkpCascais and that much is obvious since they both had the same particular misspell in their posts. I made a much more extensive case so you can see on the link. Also, people who are participating the discussion now are summoned by the same user and they all together had already managed to block another user. I hope the quantity of them won't count, but the quality (or the lack of) of their arguments. Detoner (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not even going to comment this. I always proudly use my account, and that IP talks mostly about books in German, a language I have absolutely no knolledge, so nice try, but no. FkpCascais (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This user Detoner is WP:NOTHERE and his only purpose here is to add Croatia to Nikola Tesla article. Since his attempts didn't went well there, now he is tring to mess up the article about the administrative unit of the Austrian Empire Tesla was born in, the Military Frontier. His edits and his behavior at discussions are clear and pure WP:TE. He even now continues to battle at Tesla talk page pushing the same POV it was Croatian land he was born in (see diff) despite numerous editors having reached consensus there after tons of reliable sources were analised that he is not right. He just continues his crusade here and will not stop despite all evidence against. Senior editors User:MrX and User:Chetvorno can say the painfull reality that has been dealing with this disruptive user. Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indef blocked just because of the same attitude this user is having, I see that Detoner is even worste because knowing it all he just continues on and on with same arguments and no sources, it has been ludocris. We really shouldn't allow such nationalistic single-purpose accounts here on our project. FkpCascais (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

He is so obsessed with it, that even in comments he cant avoid not to continue to push it again and again despite tons of sources and consensus already established that MF was not Croatian, besides that diff I pointed out, another clear case of that is this one as well (diff). He says " it is hard to believe that the Croats were a minority in Croatia" despite knowing perfectly well it is not Croatia but MF we are talking about there, but he ssimply cant resist not to spread the POV that MF is Croatian. I am not good in reporting at ANI, but this seems clear WP:TE of the worste kind, every single intervention here, every single comment he insists on it, despite having been presented with numerous reliable sources clearly saying otherwise, consensus having been reached, having no sources, and absolutely no one supporting him. How to stop such a nationalistic warrior? Please help. FkpCascais (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The report made against FkpCascais by Detoner is accurate in every detail. In my dealings with FkpCascais, he seems to discredit any Croatian source. A reliable source is a reliable source regardless of the language it is written in. A section of the Military Frontier was indeed a part of Croatia and it was known as the Croatian Military Frontier, as evidenced by the following maps- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Kingdom_of_Croatia_(1848).png and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Kingdom_of_Croatia_(1868).png. Nikola Tesla was born in the Croatian Military Frontier. In the face of all the strong evidence to support the fact that Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia FkpCascais still refuses to believe it. FkpCascais' POV pushing, personal attacks and discrediting of reliable sources is way out of line. Appropriate disciplinary measures need to be taken immediately.Michael Cambridge 04:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

<self-confessed block evasion by User:Asdisis (using IP 82.214.103.10) removed> Mr Potto (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

All this new single purpose accounts (Detoner, Michael Cambridge) should be blocked just same as Asdisis was. These users have a clear agenda, and no matter you present them 20 scholar sources saying the opposite they will just keep on and on. Just read the comment from this user Michael Cambridge, who was present at Nikola Tesla talk page where all sources were analised and all senior participants clearly agreed it was not Croatia Tesla was born in but it was Military Frontier, and here he comes saying it is me refusing to believe??? Of course I refuse to believe since tons of RS say otherwise for God sake! (Anyone can just read the discussions at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity and see the consensus established there). They will never accept consensus or reliable sources, they are simply here with a purpose and that is extremely disruptive for us here dealing with them. Always turning everything around and even lying in order to get what they want, enough of this. Talking with them is like talking to coo-coos... but bad nasty ones with clear intention of misleading and getting what they want. FkpCascais (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There he goes again with his personal attacks, comparing us with bad, nasty, "coo-coos". It would be a good idea to block FkpCascais indefinitely.Michael Cambridge 14:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

• (just a sometime commenter on this subject) I agree with the sentiment this should stay back at the talk pages in question but seeing how the group of (pro-Croatian?) editors edit from a single POV, push, and other WP:NOTHERE behavior and jump into other threads to keep this going diff and even take those occasions as a chance to attack editors they don't likediff I really think its time for some blocks and bans, they are getting very disruptive. Just my two cents being on the receiving end of this stuff. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• I pretty much agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Without wanting to get sucked into the minutiae of who said what slightly rude thing to who, a great deal of angst could be avoided if we simply blocked users who fixate only on promoting a nationalistic point of view with respect to Croatia, per WP:NOTHERE. Most of us are here to build an encyclopedia; the whole thing, not just the Croatian military frontier parts. My instinct tells me that Detoner has much more experience than his three weeks of contributions would suggest. I believe that it's already been established that he has used a proxy to edit. I think it's likely that he is sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user. I also note that Michael Cambridge sometimes forgets to sign his posts, much like blocked user Asdisis did.- MrX 17:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have much more experience on Wikipedia as I have stated that I'm a long time ip editor and that I will be returning to ip editing if this kind of behavior against me is allowed. It has not been established that I have used a proxy, but I have clearly stated it as sometimes I do not have other means to connect to internet. Also, the last assertion is a direct lie. Michael Cambridge as he has some kind of problem (see his talk page), while Asdisis always signed his posts. You are linking an ages old post from 2 July 2014 asserting that it is related to the events right now, when in fact Asdisis had signed every of his posts as anyone can see from his contributions. Detoner (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I could not agree more with MrX, even if these users are not the same person their behaviour is near identical. The behaviour of several users and IPs editing at Talk:Nikola Tesla, Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity and other articles related to the the borders of Croatia at the time of Tesla's birth has been nothing short of filibustering. They have long ago had consensus find against the idea that Tesla was born in Croatia and now they appear to be engaging in a campaign of exhaustion. I am personally involved in the content of the page so I would ask that uninvolved administrators keep an eye on the page. I also ask that contributions be looked at and that singe purpose accounts are warned or otherwise addressed. I get the strong sense that we are dealing with less people than we have accounts.

• The Tesla article has been pretty much hijacked for years with this one already settled dispute. The talk page archives show hundreds of pages of the same arguments being made, now I am seeing the same thing happening on less watched pages where there the talk pages are not active. It is as though they think they can change history through being stubborn. Chillum 17:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess user Asdisis was right that FkpCascais had friends who will help his cause. I see now that the very same people participated in the blocking of Asdisis started by FkpCascais. I call for diffs if they are about to accuse me of something. I won't answer to made up accusations. If someone is POV pushing then that is FkpCascais and I made the case unlike these pure accusations. Please protect me from that kind of accusations, and if someone wants to make a case against me then they are free to do so. So far I only see accusations,and not a case against me. I made a case of personal accusation and I hope I will be protected against that. Detoner (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything from the nature of your "friends" accusation, your long paragraphs, the arguments you make, the tactics you use to your writing style reminds me of Asdisis. Funny how Asdisis was blocked on June 10th and you first edited on June 28th, yet you recognize that the same people are involved.

Even if you are not the sock puppet of a user blocked for being a single purpose account, can you please explain how this contribution history can be seen as anything but a single purpose account? Day 1 here you jumped into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis and have done nothing outside pushing this one idea since you got here. On your very first day here you make accusations against FkpCascais which still continues today right here and now. Chillum 17:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have observed the conflict at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity; these are just my opinions. Both groups, FkpCascais and Detoner and Michael Cambridge have clearly engaged in povpushing, personal attacks and BATTLEGROUND behavior. Although FkpCascais has been blocked several times for POV pushing, he also has a long history of general interest in Balkan articles that goes beyond politics; in particular he has done a lot of work on football (soccer) articles. On the other hand, Detoner and Michael Cambridge appear to be single-issue accounts, here only to fight for the Croatian cause. The open Asdisis sockpuppet case accuses them of being sockpuppets of Asdisis an extremely combative editor now blocked. It seems likely that they are either his sockpuppets or recruits, as they popped up soon after he was blocked. I'm sorry but I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr and MrX above that blocks or bans are in order, it is clear that these editors are not going to stop otherwise. In particular I think perhaps Detoner and Michael Cambridge should be blocked per WP:NOT HERE. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are some diffs: BATTLEGROUND:[130]. Edit warring:[131]. WP:NOTHERE:[132]. Comments in the same style as Asdisis: [133].- MrX 18:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a case and it is hardly better than personal attacks by other friends of the reported user. I plea to be protected from this editors who are clearly summoned by the reported editor to help his cause. They haven't participated in Military Frontier discussions and they appeared just now when the reported user needs help. I hope these personal attacks won't be considered as a valid case against me. Detoner (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that all this accusations against me are about the edit done by other editor and not me. I suggested it and the other editor accepted the source and introduced the edit in the article and now I'm being accused of POV pushing without a single case against me, just personal attacks. Once again, I haven't done the edit to the article and I'm the one being accused of pushing it to the article. Please protect me from that and from the continuation of the same accusations exhibited here in this report. I made a case with arguments and diffs and FkpCascais had concentrated to extend his accusations and called his friends which already participated in his cause earlier to extend those accusations. If someone says something and doesn't provide diffs, or just provides diffs and calls it POV pushing or something else without a singe argument then that is not a case, but a personal accusation. I'm extending this report to those personal accusations as well. It is incredible that the reported user is exhibiting the same behavior in this discussion as well. He is still accusing me of the edit that I haven't done, although I said asserted that several times. I really had enough of this and I will leave discussions if that kind of behavior is allowed. I guess that they think my report will be rejected if they put a lot of accusations so I'm discredited, as if that will erase misconduct of the reported user. Detoner (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You constantly excuse yourself by attacking me, and you constantly try to present as if it is just me opposing you, but as you can see no one agrees with you, not because it is you, but because you are not able to provide reliable sources for the extremely controversial and tendentious edits you pretend. You and Michael Cambridge are making huge problems and enormous discussions in several article for months now, always using the same POV and same arguments and you are simply not able to disengage. Both of ou are a single purpose account and both of you think you know the WP:TRUTH better than world-wide recognized historians. We all presented you tons of sources but you simply ignore and continue your battle by all means, so it is time to end this. FkpCascais (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that any ban is needed for anyone. The disputes on the Military Frontier article are now just about some irrelevant things like the exact wording in the lead (about one word with two letters and a year), which in either case doesn't change the context of the article. For most of the content there is a sort of consensus, and on the Tesla ethnicity talk page there is nothing going on right now. Tzowu (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Tzowu thank you for the comment. Could you please state that you had entered the Horvat source to the article as the user FkpCascais had accused me of pushing it to the article. I said that several times, but he continues with the accusations even in this own report against him for stating such accusations on the talk page.Detoner (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User_talk:Tzowu#Personal_attack can you guarantee they will stop pushing the POV? How can you say there is nothing going on when the user is announcing he will be bringing back the same telegram which is the basis for the claim about alleged Tesla Croatiasness? He claims secondary sources talk about the telegraph, I asked him to provide those sources, he does not provide them (cause they don't exist). So definitel more trouble coming from them. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Chetvorno, I did not just pop up soon after Asdisis was blocked, I was involved in the discussions long before he was blocked. FkpCascais and his friends behave like a gang, and love to use bullying and intimidation tactics to get their way which has no place on Wikipedia. I find this behaviour to be utterly deplorable and fully support a ban placed on FkpCascais. This gang-like activity appears evident especially on the Nikola Tesla talk pages regarding his ethnicity/nationality and country of birth. I suspect that most of the editors involved in gang-like activity are of Serbian origin and seem to claim ownership of the Nikola Tesla article simply because Tesla was an ethnic Serb. FkpCascais and his supporters are hell bent on suppressing information about Nikola Tesla's involvement with Croatia by withholding encyclopedic facts. I urge administrators to go through the discussions on the Nikola Tesla talk pages and pay close attention to the way they behave. They are very good at getting their own way and it wouldn't surprise me if they convinced administrators to not go ahead with the block on FkpCascais. Administrators need to be aware of what's going on and bring this deplorable behaviour to an end.Michael Cambridge 23:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

Do you understand how disruptive and ridiculous is what you are saying since no one who expressed their will for your ban here is Serbian neither has anything to do with the region? You know that well, it not nice at all to try to misinform admins here. FkpCascais (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Again with the accusations. I'm not suggesting any edit to Tesla's article as Tzowu had stated. FkpCascais is directly lying here. I don't have all days to answer every one of this personal attacks and I'm afraid that it will be taken for granted if I don't deny it. Detoner (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You make an edit-request at Nikola Tesla article and then you say you are not suggesting any edit? Is that a joke? FkpCascais (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Some in Croatia say that the telegraph is a forgery made to prove that he is a Serb, while in Serbia they say that it was made in order to prove his connections with Croatia. In any case, I would be against the adition of it in the article as there is much controversy about it (I also think that it might be a forgery, but for other reasons). And yes, I made that change with Horvat as a source for one sentence, but I don't see anyone opposing it right now. You two are actually agreeing on like 99% of the current content in the Military Frontier article. Tzowu (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Detoner (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang

By now we have plenty of senior editors that agree blocking this two single purpose accounts, Detoner and Michael Cambridge, would be beneficial for our project here. And yes, I also agree, not because they reported me, but because we are all tired of listening to their same old arguments which were proven wrong long time ago now. Reliable sources were analised, consensus was made with participation of numerous senior editors, so if the are not able to respect relable sources and senior editors, this is not the right place for them. FkpCascais (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone filed an SPI request? BMK (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Asdisis SPI in which Michael Cambridge and Detoner are accused is here. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about. The case is that another user had made the edit and you are accusing me of POV pushing and not him. Detoner (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

BMK we are all pretty sure those accounts are all related, either same person, or a group of friends, but I am not sure if anyone has made a SPI report. Same style, long comments, apparent politeness, victimization, all very similar to Asdisis. Unfortunately most of us are senior editors but not much of experienced in reporting and filling SPI. FkpCascais (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You know very well there is a SPI report since I made a case of your puppet accounts and pinged you several times. The link was also posted here 2 times. Here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detoner (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is so ridiculous I ignored it totally (I didn't even commented it). And it is a SPI report regarding you, Cambridge and Asdisis BMK is referring to I think. FkpCascais (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

At least I made a case there, and did not went accusing you across the talk pages. The same goes for your personal attack for some edit done by other user, and not me. Detoner (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason why an entire group of neutral senior editors support a ban towards you, ad that reason has nothing to do with me. FkpCascais (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how the same editors that already helped your cause had appeared all of the sudden here, and I don't see on their talk pages that you invited them publicly. Anyways they had not made any case, but only more of personal attacks and I had reported that. The case here is that you are being accused of personal attacks and you can't defend yourself by accusing me of POV pushing and socking. You are just proving my case about personal attacks and you are not stopping with them even in this very own report against you. I don't have time to deal with you. Detoner (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes we are all a very interesting mafia here on Wikipedia. FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The case is simple. You made personal attacks against me for something I did not do, and you still haven't apologized and have continued with the attacks although I said several times that I haven't done the edit. For the mutual POV pushing allegations, I made a case, and you invited other people to repeat more of the accusations without arguments. Please make a case like, is you feel so or stop with the accusations. I can't defend myself when there isn't a case, and I have provided you a case so you are free to defend yourself. As for mutual puppet allegations I also made a case and did not go over talk pages stating accusations. You can also make a case (well you already did). So please stop with the accusations and let the admins resolve the cases. I just hope they won't take your and your friends' accusations as valid cases. That is why I haven't really answered those false accusations. Detoner (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I just found the report on Asdisis, Here. He wrote a post in this report claiming the same people managed to block him. He was right. If you see the discussion, the very same people had participated in his block, and it was done in the very same manner, personal accusations without any diffs or any case at all. There is a stunning resemblance and I urge everyone to look for themselves. The very same users had participated in both discussions: FkpCascais, Chetvorno, Chillum, MrX, and Special:Contributions/65.220.39.79 <-> Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 which is without doubt the same person as stated in my case and by other users dealing with him, like Shokatz who said "Any other IP address you can post from? You know, changing IP address or posting from a different computer does not make you immune to Wikipedia policies." (speaking that there is the same person behind those two ips) I think it's obvious that FkpCascais invited them to help his cause ("boomerang") as they were not present in the discussions related to this report, they appeared just now and they weren't asked to join trough their talk pages. How could they all have known about the report? Please protect me from this. Detoner (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would you think that taking such a strong interest in the history of Asdisis, and who participated in the discussion which led to their block, would help convince other editors that you are not Asdisis? BMK (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no interest but on opened SPI which involves me, Asdisis and Michael Cambridge on one side and FkpCascais and 2 ip persons on other side, so I've done investigation on all of them, for the SPI case. The user Asdisis himself came here and claimed the same persons have blocked him so I investigated a bit and found the report and confirmed the claim that the very same users are present in both reports, although they do not have anything to do with this report (they are not involved in Military Frontier article at all, so it is obvious that they were invited here, yet there are no invitations on their talk pages). They just appeared here. Also there is a stunning resemblance between that and this report. So to conclude, I have no strong interest in the history of Asdisis, but I have a strong interest in the history of Asdisis, FkpCascais , 2 ip persons, Michael Cambridge and now Chetvorno, MrX,Chillum since Asdisis came here and claimed the same people have banned him, which I have confirmed. I have strong interest in all of them and I have done investigation on all of them, as can be seen from the 2 cases I constructed. Detoner (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Your response is a distinction without a difference. Your "investigation" goes far beyond what would be expected of an innocent editor in your position, since the evidence you're reporting back does not, in fact, serve in any way to show that you are not related to Asdisis. In fact, by throwing mud at the people involved in these discussions, you simply reinforce the impression that you are Asdisis, and that you carry a grudge against the people you feel were responsible for getting you blocking.

If you are not Asdisis, I suggest that you stop "investigating" and commenting here, because to my eye all you're doing is digging yourself in deeper and deeper. If you are Asdisis, then, by all means, carry on, it will only help get you blocked again. BMK (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think anyone reasonable would investigate the claim of another user that the very same editors blocked him, the editors I haven'e been dealing with and that just appeared here, God know how the found about this report. Yes,I agree I should stop now, there isn't any case against me. When there will be a case then I can answer it. Just a reminder that this isn't the SPI, but a report against the other user for personal attack against me. The SPI is already half finished. The CU was declined and the clerk participating said that his suspicion is that all should be rejected. The puppet allegations here just serve to discredit me so the report is rejected. That is why they are calling upon that here and not in the SPI report. Thank you for your participation. Detoner (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI Case

In order to curb this spammer I've opened the Sockpuppet Investigations/Asdidis case. Please, provide (or allow me the comments you posted here to copy/paste there) your comments there.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal conflict between two editors

I think that this has apparently degenerated into an endless personal conflict between two editors: FkpCascais and Detoner. I would suggest that the two editors be prohibited from referring to each other in any way, i.e. not by name, not by "that editor", etc. Breaking that prohibition would result in a block, first for a day, then longer for any additional infractions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed way the spammer Asdisis=Michael Cambridge=Detoner will be just encouraged to proceed his/her way of spamming and avoiding the current block imposed on Asdisis. Therefore, I oppose reducing this issue to the personal conflict.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There were no personal conflict of the Military Frontier talk page, just personal attacks by the reported user. I followed your advice that it is hard to took sides when 2 editors are participating in the mutual accusations so I have not done that on the talk pages. So there is no personal conflict on the talk pages. There is here since the reported user is not defending itself but continues with the accusations exhibited on the talk pages. Detoner (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob K31416 the problem is not our interaction, but them using me as excuse for their lack of sources for their desired edits. You came late to those discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that the suggestion is merely enforcing a fundamental principle of WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it's all about the comment on content. Handling a bad content/comment and bad intentions which were and are produced and demonstrated in abundance, must be stopped. The only viable way is to block the spammer.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

--72.66.12.17 don't worry, I am not Asdisis. I don't know how you can't see that. Do you think that only Serbians and Croatians have an interest in Nikola Tesla's ethnicity/country of birth? It seems that FkpCascais and his followers think they own the Nikola Tesla article. They seem to work together like a gang. The administrators need to investigate what has been happening and administer appropriate disciplinary measures against FkpCascais.Michael Cambridge 12:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

That would be helpful, but there is also the disruptive editing on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity and Talk:Military Frontier. It is pretty clear they will continue, even without referring to each other, especially the single-issue editors. There needs to be a topic ban in addition. --Chetvorno^TALK 12:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose FkpCascais should take more effort in not being baited, however this is a problem that goes beyond the interaction of two editors. While it may be the first instinct to iban two bickering people it would be a lot more helpful if the situation was looked into more deeply. An IBAN at this point would have a negative effect on the encyclopedia right now. Chillum 13:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - FkpCascais could help by not engaging in lengthy arguments with pop up nationalistic editors, but that is not at the root of the problem. The problem is that we don't have a process for quickly stopping the type for behaviour that we have seen from Asdisis, Detoner, and the long list of other throw away accounts, SPAs and IPs that want to do nothing more than wave their flag.- MrX 14:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that my suggestion of prohibiting FkpCascais and Detoner from referring to each other in any way does not preclude their commenting on each other's messages nor does it preclude any further action against either editor for other reasons. It simply enforces the WP:NPA principle of commenting on content, not on the contributor. I think it could only help the situation, while leaving open the possibility of any further administrator action if needed. So please don't oppose it, but implement it and continue with any discussion that you think is needed to further improve the situation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. Only the arguments and sources are important and not the mutual allegations. That's why I took your advice and did not write them on the talk page but instead I made a report. I would like to ask you one more thing. I provide a source that states a certain claim and provide the quotes. The reported user stated that the source does not say that. I ask for the quote for at least 5 times and he keeps repeating that the source says something and refuses to provide a quote. I see that us 2 can't reach a consensus so I ask other editors who are involved with the article to participate. Another long time user joins, finds the primary source to my secondary source. Enters the edit to the article, and I end up being accused of pushing it to the article. Is that a clear personal attack? Here is the discussion. Also could you state your opinion about the below section that calls upon unilateral ban? Have I really the only one to blame here although I haven't stated any personal accusations? Detoner (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Comment on edits, not editors" is a general talk page rule. It does not apply on AN/I, the entire purpose of which is to examine the behavior of editors. BMK (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think he was talking about the general discussions. Detoner (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Diffs proving Detoner disruption

I will provide diffs to prove that this is a nationalistic single-purpose account that only cares about defending the Croatian cause at Nikola Tesla article and some others. His contributions are clear WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE and he is unable to drop it when consensus is established but just keeps on the WP:BATTLEGROUND. He has done edit-warring as well.

• After consensus was established in Nikola Tesla talk-page, Detoner is unable to disengage and continues to claim same claims which were proven wrong always with this "I know the truth" tone and acusing me of "that kind of people": diff
• He creates a user page where he expresses anger because most senior editors opposed him: User:Detoner
• Ever since the beginning he often went to other users talk-pages asking to help him in his crusade.
• He makes a totally disruptive edit ([134]) despite having been presented just earlier a set of reliable sources saying otherwise, clear WP:TE and knowing it is controversial, challenged and... wrong. But this edit is all what he is here for but with lack of sources he tries to add it by force.
• Then he goes trying to convince an editor his countryman to help him diff. In the meantime he continually claims I am having a sockpuppet despite clear evidence against it: I allways use my account, and that IP he claims it is me always bring sources in German, a language I have zero skills in. I didn't even bothered to answer at his SPI report.
• Then he edit-wars to reinsert his edit despite all.
• Edit-wars again claiming it is just a better elaboration of the already existing text... yes, right...
• Reverts me.
• Diff continues asking for help in his edit-warring.
• Edit-wars (diff) Despite having been presented with 6 reliable sources mentioning 1881, he wants to use 1870s (indeed wording found in one source) just to make it look that Croatian control over Military Frontier started in 1870s and not in 1881 as clearly indicated by majority of RS.
• Edit-wars and edit-wars
• Asks for more help from other Croatian editor: diff
• Since all that edit-warring at Military Frontier didn't went well for him, he returns to Nikola Tesla article and makes an edit-request. He makes a totally nationalistical request to replace Serbian Orthodox baptismal record of Tesla with Tesla high-school diploma (because in the diploma it says in big letters "Kroatian militargrentze". Looks much nicer for a Croatian, doesn't it?
• Also, in that same edit-request, he reopens the question of the Tesla-Maček telegram. What is it all about? Well, it is the main argument for proponents of Croatian Tesla, cause in that telegram Tesla allegedly wrote he was equally proud of his Serbian origins and Croatian homeland. However, that telegram has long time been discussed and it is considered a forgery. But of course, if we want to make Tesla more Croatian, we need the telegram.
• Then he returns to Military Frontier talk-page and makes his typical alegations ([135]) like the ones that Austrian military being in charge of MF was not the same as saying Austrians are helding MF, but lets say the military is helding it, then he claims the word "Austrians" is vague (?). The entire issue is about not making it clear for the reader that Croatian lost control of MF to Austria, so lets mention Croatian in all cases, but lets avoid mentioning Austria and we will leave it with ambiguous wording such as "military ruled it" and similar. Typical nationalistic POV-pushing.
• Then I face ridiculous questions like this one.
• Returning to his edit-request at Nikola Tesla, he claimed that "I saw telegram mentioned in several secondary sources...", I asked him for those sources he refuses to bring them. Why would that be?
• User:Chetvorno, clearly aware that the edit-request deals with ethnicity and nationality issues, moves the discussion to the corresponding talk-page, but he is reverted by Detoner who plays this game that it is not related to it.
• Then he openly expresses his desire to make the telegram reliable ([136]) despite not bringing any sources to support that, and I asked him 3 times to bring sources.
• And even now, he makes edits such as this one. Lets remove the mention that it was Illyrian coat of arms (despite the description in the picture itself) lets just say it is oldest Croatian CoA.

Not sure how visible for an outsider is, but absolutely all his interventions are just about nationalistic POV-pushing. He didn't provided a single English-language source in all this period! He is unable to back his edits with sources, and refuses to consider the reliable sources presented to him saying otherwise. Of course, he knows better than world historians! We should believe him, how dare we to question him? Btw, yes, I kind of loose my patience towards them, but whoever remembers discussions at Nikola Tesla, he remembers how they attacked me posts after post. And they just use me as excuse, like if it is only me opposing, and calls other senior editors "my gang", ridiculous. We are really tired and had enough of this. FkpCascais (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just look at this: Talk:Nikola_Tesla#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_13_July_2015. He just talks and POV-pushes and presents ZERO reliable sources. This has been going on ever since, and he will not change. All he has is eloquency and hope he will convince someone, but zero Wikipedia:Verifiability for his edits. How long we have to cope with this? FkpCascais (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally a case after all accusations.

I agree with the present state of Nikola Tesla article and with the general consensus that he was born in Military Frontier. I do not purpose a single change as it is suggested.

There is nothing wrong to call upon an objective discussion.

Yes, I invited people who are long time participators in Military Frontier article to join the discussion. Nothing wrong with that. I haven't invited totally unrelated people to help my cause, like the reported user did in this report.

The "totally" disruptive edit is no such thing as the other user had entered the source to the article. I just restructured the passage so the formal and the administrative aspect is more elaborated. I haven't entered it to the article, but other user, did. This is the claim "and despite the Emperor's address in 1850 that the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constituted a single land with separate administration...". This was entered by other editor and I have just made more elaborate description about the formal and administrative aspect. So I'm not he one who should being accused of the totally disruptive edit since I have just restructured the already present state. The edit is most certainly not wrong since the claim is already present in the text (see the quote).

The diff you mentioned about the disruptive editor is about the ip person about who's behavior I already counted 4 editors complaining. He was deleting a RS from the article. I never mentioned the allegation of you having a sock in any talk page and it is understandable that you omitted that diff since it doesn't exist.

The mentioned edit warring was done by the reported user. He had changed the original quote from the source and when I reverted it to the original quote he went on edit warring. There was no consensus for his manipulation with the original quote and he went on pushing it to the article. How could I be edit warring when I just want to leave the quote from the source in the article and he keeps adding his text to the original source and changing it without the consensus. I reported that and in the later discussions his edit was rejected by other user who agrees it is vague and that it should not enter the article.

The dispute about the 1881 and 1870s is made up by this user. Those are not 2 distinct years and it is not the case that one group of sources is wrong by stating one year instead of the other. Both should be mentioned in the article and he is pushing to mention just one. Those years are not regarding the same event and he is pushing his opinion that they are. I think that the other long time user is disagreeing with this editor to neglect the sources that speak of 1870s.

The request on Tesla page I just that, a request. I haven't touched the article, I just put an interesting document and left it for the editors there to decide about including it. Also you are not repeating the false claim that the baptismal record is from Serbian Orthodox Church, although there was a RfC about that. Now who is pushing a nationalistic attitude here? I put his diploma to the request because I think it is interesting to see his grades and you instantly went of accusing me of "nationalistic agenda".

Yes, I asked for help about the telegram because this user had been claiming it is false with totally unreliable sources, so that got me interested in that. I found the telegram mentioned in RS and nowhere it is stated that it is a forgery. This user is pushing that stand with no sources at all.

Yes the term "Austrians" is vague and you have been pushing it without any source. The other editor agrees it is vague, so it is you who have been pushing it and went to edit warring over it.

Yes I refused to participate in a digress and talk about the telegram in unrelated discussion.

Tesla's diploma does not have anything to do with his nationality or ethnicity. I think that is obvious.

Lastly, this user goes on every edit of mine and reverts me. The last diff is the perfect example. I made a minor correction to the article which had called a certain crest to be Illirian , when in fact it is centuries older that the Ilirian movement itself. Also it is included in the Croatian coat of arms as the oldest Croatian crest. I asked a long time editor of that page to help to resolve that.

I suggested only one edit and it was entered to the article by other user. That makes the allegation that I want to edit something without the sources false. Detoner (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Only diff needed

I think all of this talk page sock puppetry is a distraction. Either Detoner is the same person as an editor we blocked for being a single purpose account or not, it does not matter. This is the only diff needed to show the Detoner is a single purpose account: Special:Contributions/Detoner. Their contribution history shows they are only here for a single purpose which is not to write an encyclopedia. This thread is evidence of the disruption they have caused.

While the waters have been muddied by excessive back and forth and this whole thread screams TOO LONG DID NOT READ I hope that this short message clears things up. Chillum 13:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So the tactics would be to engage me in a pointless discussions so I have a lot of posts on a single page so this can be claimed? No I've edited other articles where I don't have so much posts because I haven't came across someone like the reported user. I'm not concentrated on a single page and that is hard to notice because there is a lot of posts to that page since I'm being dragged in the pointless discussion whereas the posts on other pages are not so visible because I make them fewer. Detoner (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me which edit you have ever made that is not somehow related to the topic at hand? You were not dragged into anything, you showed up on your first day and jumped right in. You are playing the victim but from the first day of editing here you went on the offensive by accusing and attacking others who disagree with you. It is disingenuous and unconvincing. Chillum 14:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

All is shown in my contributions page. I just note that the lengthy discussions produced more posts while I made contributions to other pages and there is just one edit to that, so other editors don't buy your allegation. I'm not being concentrated on one place, but on all articles that cover Croatian history. Detoner (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at them all, they are all related to the topic area the ban is covering. Not one is outside of this area. Chillum 14:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Detoner topic banned from Balkans articles

There is sufficient evidence that Detoner has engaged in edit warring, tendentious editing, filibustering, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour in their brief time here (which coincidentally started 10 days after Asdisis was blocked). I propose that Detoner be indefinitely topic banned from all article, talk page, and project page editing (including discussions) related to the Balkans, broadly construed. This would include, but not be limited to, articles and discussions concerning the geography, history, people, military, politics, organizations, ethnology, and sociology of the region. This will allow Detoner to contribute to any to the millions of other articles not related to this region.

• Support as proposer, with no prejudice against an outright en.wiki ban.- MrX 14:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support The evidence provided, specifically this users contribution history shows they are a single purpose account. The filibustering in particular about an issue long settled by consensus has been particularly disruptive. A topic ban from the are they are POV pushing in will force them to either work on the encyclopedia or just move on. Chillum 14:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Would also support full WP ban. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You continued the personal accusations that the reported user had started without making the case. Admins, please protect me from this group of people and read the linked discussions yourself: Military_Frontier , [137], [138], [139], [140], [141]. There is too much POV pushing even in this very own report so please, rather read the discussions yourself. There's probably less text there than here. Apart from this 3 users (and ip puppet) summoned by the reported user, there isn't anyone who purposes the one sided ban. I wouldn't even object if he had invited the over their talk pages, and not so secretly. They haven't been involved in Military Frontier article and there is no way they could have known about this report. Their unilateral support in this complex matter says everything. Detoner (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

When we have a big RFC on something and there is a clear consensus, it is not POV pushing to enforce that result. Don't characterize this as a content dispute, the content dispute is long settled. This is about you refusing to accept consensus in a disruptive fashion. Chillum 14:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Indefinitely block. Since Detoner has already declared he will be evading the ban as an IP when it comes to that, I don't see much point in letting them edit at all.--Atlan (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I'm not expecting a ban. I will return to edit via IP if the reported user is allowed in disruptive behavior. Even if I'm banned that for sure wouldn't be indefinitely since this would be my first sanction.Detoner (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That is still sock puppetry, and still makes clear your intent to act in bad faith. The fact that you openly admit that you will use an IP to edit an area your user is already involved in a content dispute tells me that sock puppetry is not a new idea to you. Chillum 14:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, then I won't be doing it. I'm glad we got that clear. I thought I'm allowed to close my account since I saw other people had done that. Well I haven't got an account so I'm not exactly familiar with how it goes with accounts. The fact that I mentioned it openly proves exactly the opposite, that sock puppetry is something completely unfamiliar to me. I apologize for my remark and I take it back. Detoner (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Given this users insistence that they will sock puppet if they don't get their way then I cannot assume any good faith any longer, nor can I think the ban will be effective. It also makes me think this is not the first time this user has come back after a block/ban. I support an indefinite block. Chillum 14:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block per Atlan, WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:EW, etc. no sources, unable to accept consensus and disengage... FkpCascais (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block/ban - Obviously NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.- MrX 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to note that if I have been involved into edit warring, tendentious editing, filibustering, and WP:BATTLEGROUND , then the reported user had also been doing exactly the same+ personal attacks. I think that the unilateral support of this 3 users that were summoned here is not valid since they haven't touched on the behavior of FkpCascais. They were summoned here and from the start the have continued to repeat FkpCascais's personal attacks here and they haven't even touched on the behavior of FkpCascais, who had been stating personal attack towards me for the edit of another user. Please protect me from that and don't take their opinion as more valid because there are more of them. I do not have any friends to call to help me push my stand. Detoner (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You have just escalated from general implications about how the editors involved in this discussion came to be here to a very specific charge that they were "summoned" here, which would be a violation of WP:CANVASS. Please provide the specific evidence you have to back up the charge that the participants here were "summoned".

Also, the behavior of all participants is examined in an AN/I discussion, including the editor who filed the report. It is also not true that the three editors you refer to "haven't touched on the behavior of FkpCascais." Anyone reading through this report will see clear criticism of FC's behavior. BMK (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

May I just say that:

• a) I brought over 20 English-language reliable surces/he has brought 2 Croatian sources in all this time;
• b) All my edits are supported by those RS and I defend what has been established by consensus at discussions/he defends the opposite, exactly what has been proven wrong;
• c) yes, it ma seem notorious by now that I lost patience and AGF towards them, but other editors remember hw much I was attacked post after post in the early discussions;
• d) I am not defending any particular POV but the one pointed out in the majority of RS/he is defending a POV he is unable to provide a single English-language source for; For instance, in all this period I haven't brought any other but English-language sources.
• e) I don't intent to make any major changes/they announce further "interesting researches" basically more of the same tendentious controversial editing coming up;
• f) I am not being opposed by any established editor/he is only supported by Michael Cambridge and pretty much opposed by all other editors, which end up accused of being my gang because the oppose him.

Also a question: what about Michael Cambridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ? He has provided no reliable sources and has been pushing even harder the POV at discussions at talk-pages. Just look at their contributions. FkpCascais (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

But still, you made personal accusations on the talk page against me for the edit of another user. We discussed all sources and the edit was done by a long time editor of that article. And you are repeating this as if there is something else I wanted to introduce in the article. No, my suggestion was accepted by a long time editor of that article and he had made the edit. There is no other suggestion I would like to introduce in the article. The report is about your personal accusation for that edit Not done by me. I have no idea who supports you. The only editor who participates in the discussion accepted by suggestion and made the edit to the article and he agreed with me that your manipulation with the quote from one source introduced a vague term. Michael Cambridge had not been participating in Military Frontier article.Detoner (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Here. I mean, after all my allegations that they were summoned here, they could have answered and admitted and posted this here. I found it only when I went to see their contributions to see the connection between them. Well here is the connection. The users that were summoned call for unilateral indefinite ban. POV pushing are hard cases, and the admins would really need to go to discussions and get familiarized with the topic to determine who is POV pushing. The only user that is familiarized with the discussions is [User:Tzowu|Tzowu] and he gave his opinion. That is way I haven't made a case of POV pushing but a case of personal attack. To unfamiliarized editors it is hard to determine who is POV pushing and who is following the sources. Both me and the reported user claim we are following the sources. Well I think there is one advantage to my case since my edit was accepted and entered the article. The reported user had been claiming that the source doesn't say what I'm alleging but something else. I did not accuse him of lying but I confronted with with a request to provide a quote. He had refused at least 5 times, and later the other editor had found the primary source and made the edit. After all that he had made the personal accusation that I'm POV pushing. After the edit has already been done. After the other editor spend time to find a primary source because of his constant lies that the source says something and the refusal to provide the quote to sustain that. This is the case and the POV pushing is hard to crack. The only involved user in that article already stated his opinion on that. Detoner (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block for Detoner. This editor, with their endless filibustering and wikilawyering and their SPA-focus is clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build a neutral POV encyclopedia. Per nom, except that I think an indef block is more appropriate than a topic ban. However, if consensus supports a topic ban, I can support that as well. BMK (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef block for Detoner. As per FkpCascais, Atlan, MrX, BMK , Chetvorno--72.66.12.17 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Detoner, Whether rightly or wrongly, consensus can go against an editor and it can be rigid and unchangeable. This can happen anywhere on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you use your judgement to recognize when such a situation occurs and not continue advocating a particular edit or position. I think that would satisfy the other editors here and would be a more productive behavior for improving Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Which consensus Bob K31416? Detoner (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This one: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity/Archive 3. FkpCascais (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been contesting that consensus. I've been participated in some discussions and I left from there on 28 June. This report is regarding completely different article, Military_Froniter, and event from few days ago. I haven't introduced or suggested any edit that goes over any consensus. Of course if you feel otherwise, you can provide diffs. Detoner (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who takes even a superficial look at your editing at Military Frontier will see that you are just continuing the same POV on another less watched page. Chillum 20:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure out, how it is normal for you people to state such things without a single diff? Detoner (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, Could you explain in more detail what you mean? (And please, no one else, just Chillum respond to my question.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I was wrong about the "superficial look" part. It would take a fairly in depth understanding now that I think about it. The stem of the dispute(and please others correct me if I am wrong) is if the Military Frontier was part of Croatia at the time of Tesla's Birth or if it was in fact part of The Austrian Empire. The clear consensus of a near month long rfc[142] was that "Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July (O.S. 28 June) 1856 to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)." The edits to the Military Frontier article by Detoner are attempting to remove mention of Austria being in control of that region. Chillum 21:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, Could you give an example of an edit by Detoner that attempted to remove mention of Austria being in control of that region at the time of Tesla's birth? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Same date? I never suggested that the POV of Detoner was so narrow. Same country, same territorial dispute, different time. Same behavioural problem. Chillum 22:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, Could you review your above message of 21:47, 18 July 2015? It looks like you are suggesting that. After all, you essentially seem to have said that Detoner's edits at Military Frontier are for the purpose of showing that Tesla was born in Croatia, not Austria. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I said the edits to the Military Frontier article by Detoner are attempting to remove mention of Austria being in control of that region. I said Detoner was just continuing the same POV on another less watched page.[143] I did not say the his POV was limited to Tesla's birth place, rather I suspect it is far more nationalistic in nature. I think you have read too much between the lines. Chillum 22:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, OK. So you're not saying that Detoner's Military Frontier edits are for the purpose of showing that Tesla was born in Croatia. Could you give an example of one of Detoner's Military Frontier edits that is problematic and explain why? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I should not have to explain to an experienced editor such as yourself how single purpose accounts are damaging to our goal of a neutral encyclopedia. It is not about single edits, it is about a bias that just won't quit. Chillum 23:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bob K31416, now I can defend myself from the obviously false accusations. Here are some of my comments: "My source already states that Military Frontier is not under the "control" of Croatian authorities but that it has disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation. " , "Although in the formal aspect Military Frontier was a part of Croatia , the administration was not under Croatian "control"." , "Military zone in administrative sense did not belong to Croatia neither Hungary, nor Austria, but was regarded as a separate entity which was under the direct control of the emperor and military command in Vienna". No, I'm not suggesting Military Frontier was under Croatian control, but just the otherwise, that it wasn't. This editor haven't participated in the discussions and he was summoned here with only one goal, clearly stated by themselves in the plotting discussion.Detoner (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
(Detoner, Could you save that comment for later? I'd like to continue some more with Chillum before discussing with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC))

OK, I'm ready to discuss. Re "No, I'm not suggesting Military Frontier was under Croatian control, but just the otherwise, that it wasn't." – Could you give me the diffs for your work in that regard? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block This is a drastic punishment for a user that had 0 blocks before, even if he is asdisis who was also drastically punished. Since most here support a ban he'll probably be getting one, but then block him for a week or two and then see how things will go on. Tzowu (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• (ec)I have seen mentioned a couple of times by Detoner that an edit was made by another user for him from a request. I can't figure out what that has to do with the concerns about his behaviour. Based on this message from Detoner to you on your talk page[144] I am guessing you are said editor. Could you perhaps elaborate what Detoner means? Chillum 21:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"an edit was made by another user for him from a request" I don't understand this, my involvement here is that I made an edit on the Military Frontier page as a sort of consensus between his and FkpCascais's disputes regarding one particular period of it. Tzowu (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess I am trying to figure out what "Hello. I'm being accused of POV pushing for the edit that you entered in the article (Horvat). Could you please share your opinion here. Thank you."[145] means. I can't figure what what the message has to do with this discussion which is linked. I don't get why he thinks we are accusing him of POV pushing based on an edit you made. Chillum 22:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess because he added some more content to it shortly after, then FkpCascais reverted him and Detoner reverted FkpCascais, another round of talks started on the talk page, but then the dispute shifted to the lead section. I suppose both agree now on keeping the "Horvat" edit in its current state. Tzowu (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is a drastic measure purposed by the group of editors that have been plotting (see down there). You were the only one participating in those discussions and I think you are the only one familiar with the topic. I doubt those summoned editors have read it all, and I can just hope the admins will be careful with this discussion where 4 long time editors (some admins) are participating in the plotting to have some means to ban people. I'm sure they are much more familiar into how to push their opinion and how to "win" these kind of reports. God knows how many people those 4 editors know, and who else is summoned. For instance BMK had asked me to provide evidence for my allegation of summoning with the attitude to accuse me of making such allegation and when I provided it he had not commented at it, but instead went with a support to indefinite ban. I think that it is pretty amazing that I've discovered the plotting of those 4 editors but even I can't discover everything. I think the admins who will review this report should be very careful with this report. I will always be against senior users imposing their opinion and participating in plotting to ban other people instead to participate in the discussions in good faith, by providing sources and arguments. Admins, please don't count the editors, but arguments. Detoner (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Tzowu: An apparent WP:CANVASS type of Wikipedia rules violation for Tzowu's comment is solicited by Detoner. Now even if he is asdisis who was also drastically punished means what? The block violation to be allowed? The same behavior tolerated?--72.66.12.17 (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Plotting

I can't believe what I'm seeing here. This is outrages. I will just post this quote from the discussion (by FkpCascais) : "As MrX pointed out, we should indeed have a quick and efficient mechanism for dealing with these kind of situations.", said to Chillum and Chetvorno. I urge the admins to give a full look to that discussion. And after that all 4 editors are calling for an indefinite ban of me? They all should be sanctioned for plotting and ganging up to have a "quick and efficient mechanism for dealing with these kind of situations.". Please protect me from that. I have no more strength to deal with this. Well the user Asdisis went of claiming the same users had blocked him. I found the corresponding ANI and was amazed that I see the same 4 editors (+ the ip person) there as well, now we have a statement that they all should "have a quick and efficient mechanism for dealing with these kind of situations. I'm amazed that was said publicly (although buried deep in an unrelated discussion). Detoner (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is really incredible that there isn't any mechanism on Wikipedia not to allow you to drive endless challenging of consensus without any sources and allow you to make us loose time for months. This is a very important issue for Wikipedia as a community, and a clear exemple of what needs to be improved. All this time you loose it would better be spent for you if you searched for RS. FkpCascais (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Again the example of false accusations. I suggested the edit on Military Frontier article and the edit was accepted and done by other long term editor. I guess that much proves I provided RS. This user on the other hand continued with personal accusations that I'm POV pushing even after my suggestion was accepted and introduced in the article by other long time editor on that article. Not even by me. Why is he accusing me of POV pushing? Detoner (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We are plotting to write a neutral encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say. Chillum 20:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

We can see the result of that plotting in this report. Encyclopedia is written with sources and arguments, and not indefinite bans. You and the other 2 editors weren't involved in Military Frontier article at all, and you could have "plotted" to come over there and share your sources and contribute. And the case is that the reported user is stating personal attacks against me for the edit of another user. He is stating that I'm pushing an edit, that wasn't even done by me. The case is pretty much clear. Detoner (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have seen how you respond to sources. FkpCascais nearly drowned you in reliable sources contradicting your point of view, you responded with filibustering. Nothing more than an attempt to win by exhaustion. Please do not pretend that nobody has done their due diligence in regards to your point of view. Chillum 22:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of engaging me in a pointless repeating that I haven't done the edit I'm being accused I'm pushing. The only intent is for me to answer to appear pushy. He had not provided any diffs. Detoner (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Engaging an user so he appears pushy

In the plotting discussion editors discussed how to "win" in the reports. User Chetvorno gave advice to the reported user :"I agree with Chillum. You are an experienced editor. The important thing is not to get sucked into disruptive editing yourself, which will destroy your credibility, and eventually result in sanctions". They further discussed how the reported user should restrain himself from posting too much comments so he does not appear pushy, while they will give him support: "State your case, but don't get drawn in. Chillum, I, and others defended you on the ANI, but I couldn't say you were innocent yourself because of statements like this: [33]. Y If you would refrain from violating WP rules yourself, flagrant POVpushing by other editors will be obvious. Have you ever heard the saying, Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves". I'm having a feeling that they are doing the exact same thing to me. I'm being drawn into discussions with such pointless and false accusations made by those editors, with a goal I answer them as much as possible, so I appear pushy by answering every comment and "hang myself". Please protect me from that kind of behavior by experienced editors who know exactly what they are doing. Detoner (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this was said in the open on the Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity page, was not "plotting" and did not refer to how to "win in the reports" but how to deal with your disruptive editing on the Talk page. In Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#They just cant drop it FkpCascais asked other editors for advice on how to deal with your WP:POVPUSHing and WP:disruptive editing. Chillum and I advised him not to get sucked into disruptive editing himself. I would have given the same advice to you, had you asked. But it is pretty clear that, unlike FkpCascais who has a history of constructive editing in other areas, your only purpose on Wikipedia is to push your political POV. You are WP:NOT HERE to build an encyclopedia. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI update

I've indefinitely blocked Detoner as a sock. Michael Cambridge is  Unrelated. The precise results may be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asdisis, which is now closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Block evading IP

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

---

Earlier this week, Materialscientist an editor from the 85.211.x.x range for repeated insertion of unsourced future air dates into ongoing anime episode lists and articles. I had previously |brought this user to AN's attention before, (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Sourcing, WP:CRYSTALBALLs, WP:IDHT and a British IP) (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#Uncooperative IP adding unsourced future air dates to anime articles and lists) but no action was taken at the time. Currently, this user is serving out a block under the IP 85.211.136.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but they are not at 85.211.205.28 (talk) and continue to insert unsourced future air dates despite being under a block. I've already alerted Materialscientist to this new IP, but he may be away at the time. This IP editor has had a long history of switching IPs and inserting unsourced information into anime articles for several months. Some articles had to be semi-protected for the duration of their seasons. However, despite all the complains about this user's activities, the user has never responded, and in fact double down on their problematic edits. —Farix (t | c) 19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Now operating under the ip 85.211.142.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Farix (t | c) 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• New IP is 85.211.128.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Perhaps semi-protecting the affected pages until their season runs are over as this editor is very persistent? —Farix (t | c) 18:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a note to TheFarix: Your opnening sentence is missing the word "blocked". It doesn't make sense. Would you mind fixing it? If you did so, people would be more likely to respond to this thread. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• 85.211.142.203 and 85.211.128.39 temorariy blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

A "relative" owning an article

• Spiro Koleka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Burridheut (talk · contribs) persistently removes referenced material regarding Spiro Koleka belonging to the Greek community of Albania. Here are some of his comments (diffs): "Do not use inaccurate information on purpose, not on this page.", "Removed text about Greek origin. There is no historic/official evidence that this Spiro Koleka has any greek ancestry. On the contrary, he could not have been a politburo member if that was the case.", "You are editing my article", etc. He claims that "I know better his origin as he was my family member! I will report you for spreading separatist propaganda with your Wikipedia edits.". I have presented WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:OR to him. Compare this diff.--Zoupan 20:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, this is Burridheut. Zoupan is forcing greek separatist propaganda on a family member of mine, the proof is on the edit history. He on purpose has added in it information about another subject person with the same name, so we have an identity mismatch. I have informed him about this repeatedly and have challenged his sources as they are not based on official records and have lots of errors. Zoupan blindly insists that Spiro Koleka (the subject of the article) first was Spiro Gogo Koleka, than he claimed it is the son of Spiro Jorgo Koleka. In fact, I that am the creator of the article, can tell you who I created the article about, and that these people mentioned here are not part of the same family as the subject of the article. Spiro Koleka's father was Thoma Koleka. As a final evidence for this, I have uploaded a picture from the graveyard of the Vuno village where you can see the grave stone of Spiro Koleka (see here at http://i.imgur.com/pAJ5FLt.jpg), in which he is named as Spiro Thoma Koleka (Thoma thus is the father, not anyone else). So I have proved my claim with the man's own grave stone! Zoupan has found an erroneous/inaccurate source online that is not based on official records. From the same source he has taken the supposed claim that Spiro Koleka was born in a greek family. This is not true/fact, there are no records to support this, and the author of the text has mixed the fathers lineage of Spiro Koleka, meaning also his ethnic background is inaccurate as well. So how can this source be trusted??? You will excuse my ineptitude to resolve this matter here on wikipedia "following the book" but I am a beginner here and do not know all the rules, I am learning some of them the hard way though. The only article I have ever created and edited is this one!

I do know my family, village and region much better then an internet anonymous that is happy to change people's fathers so he can baptize them as greeks, serbs or whatever minority is convenient for him. Please help in resolving this issue impartially based on real world evidence (see picture at http://i.imgur.com/pAJ5FLt.jpg). There is also a facebook group called Vunoi (birth village of both Spiro Thoma Koleka and Spiro Jorgo Koleka) where you can address any questions to corroborate my claims or Zoupan's. I kindly request you to ban/restrict Zoupan from editing articles about Spiro Koleka in the future as he is doing the same as he has done in other articles in the past, where other people have complained of his propaganda and biased edits. Thanks for your time! --Burridheut — Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The main problem is not the claim of "mismatched identity" (which is made only to confuse uninvolved editors) but that Spiro Koleka belonged to the Greek community: ... the supposed claim that Spiro Koleka was born in a greek family. This is not true/fact, there are no records to support this, and the author of the text has mixed the fathers lineage of Spiro Koleka, meaning also his ethnic background is inaccurate as well. If Spiro Jorgo Koleka was not the father, it still doesn't refute that Spiro Koleka belonged to the Greek community (which is directly referenced: James Pettifer; Hugh Poulton (1994). The Southern Balkans. Minority Rights Group. ISBN 978-1-897693-75-9. "some Greeks rose to high positions under the one party state, with an ethnic Greek, Spiro Koleka, from the minority southern village of Himarë; The Southeastern European Yearbook. ELIAMEP. 1994. But there has always been a Greek presence in Albania, despite this general trend. ... integrated into the communist system in Albania, with one member of the minority, Spiro Koleka, a native of Himara, being a close associate of Enver Hoxha ...). Both being from the same village in Himara, a predominantly Greek town (The South Slav Journal. Dositey Obradovich Circle. 2001. Politburo member Spiro Koleka, who came from the predominantly ethnic Greek town of Himara.), with the same names, they were without a doubt part of the same family (Robert Elsie (24 December 2012). A Biographical Dictionary of Albanian History. I.B.Tauris. p. 243. ISBN 978-1-78076-431-3. Spiro J. Koleka ... He is not to be confused with his son of the same name, Spiro Koleka [2] of the communist period). Please see the article talk page.--Zoupan 00:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, future disruptive editing is awaited by possible sock Endribinaj (talk · contribs) I'm gonna edit that page once more, if I see you persist in your futile efforts, I'll report you for the sole reason that you're spreading false information maliciously. So long.--Zoupan 00:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy/paste content after move

Christian75 (talk · contribs) first moved a template, then copy/pasted code into the old page. This is bad.

Original page: Template:Recent changes in Chemistry

Moved to Template:Recent changes in Chemicals (note the diff is -mistry vs. -icals)

Then c/p code [146].

One hour earlier I already noted that that the name change was not a good idea: [147].

I have tagged the new page (created by the move) for Speedy T3, duplicate code. Surprisingly/stunningly, Christiaan75 removed the speedy tag [148].

What is needed now is to restore the page history (attributions, mostly mine). Also, given that the editor is making disruptive edits afterwards, some measurement may be needed to stop that. -DePiep (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: See the talk page of the template. And your edit summary says "[...] I won't have to do with WP Chemicals anyway". But its not your user page. The WP Chemical projects have all the chemical articles (which use the {{chembox}}). I moved the template because it was named chemistry, but didnt contain articles which are related to WP Chemistry, but only articles related to WP Chemicals. Therefore, I created a new template which have recent changes for all articles in Category:WikiProject Chemistry articles but you insist to undo it. Why? Please explain.

I removed the speedy deletion request because I didnt think it should be deleted. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says: "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." I am not the creator, and I hope you will undo you recent edit Christian75 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. You did not discuss a single edit. The move was disputed, and you knew it beforehand. The copy/paste is not allowed at all. The code was copied, so it's deletable. -DePiep (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've functionally reverted to the pre-war edition. Christian75, please observe the following statement in the license. "If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties...". You didn't attribute the source of the template code, so you committed a copyright infringement. Don't repeat. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend and DePiep: The talk page got a {{copied}} (but after I made the template, but the talk page is now deleted when Nyttend moved the template back) (The edit summary said something like "from chemicals" which I realized wasnt very helpfull but should have been more clearly. Btw, the template was created by DePiep with the edit summary "from RC in Anatomy" - IS THAT OK? and DePiep please comment my comments and not just say "Wikilayering". Christian75 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

On attribution, you're right; I'm sorry. But on general issues, still please don't copy/paste content from one place to another, if for no other reason than that it's confusing. It's easy to see that the older template was created from Template:Recent changes in Anatomy, since the previous edit involved moving that template to a different title. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "chemicals" changed. I thought that they are what they are.

Anyway, the name change seems like a really terrible idea. BMK (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: - have you seen the template? Its a help box, which have a link to recent changes in the chemical articles at en-wiki - and yes they change. Theese articles are all tagged with WikiProject Chemicals, not WP Chemistry (the "drugbox articles" are covered by WP:PHARMA). None of the of the articles are covered by WikiProject Chemistry. Therefore, I moved the template:recent changes in Chemistry to Chemicals, so I could make one for WP Chemistry too. (The template should be named "Related changes to" like the label in the tool box[149]). But its allowed because DePiep doesnt like the WP Chemical project[150]. He has proposed to merge the Chemical project but no consensus[151]. DiPiep have long wised me blocked, see [152] Christian75 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Continuing the battle attitude, without acknowledging their copy/paste error, Christaan75 now forked the code into a misleadingly named {{Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry}}. So far, non of the edits were based on talk activity. -DePiep (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Its not battle attitude. I didnt change your templates at all. I made a template for "recent changes for the WikiProject Chemistry" which I find very useful. Please comment my comments which I posted two days ago, and this one too. Explain why it isnt useful. Christian75 (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Yoshi123Yoshi

• Yoshi123Yoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This editor appears to be an single purpose account pushing a fringe point of view about Standard penetration tests in that article and in Boring (earth). He seems to be here to right great wrongs and is not here to help write a neutral point of view encyclopedia. A number of editors have reverted his edits and posted on his talk page, but he continues as if he he didn't hear what they said. If he doesn't start to contribute in a more productive and less biased way, I believe he should be blocked from editing indefinitely. BMK (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This definitely looks like someone attempting to take us away from a neutral point of view: the SPT page presents a single perspective, someone brings in a source that offers a different perspective, and others do their best to get it suppressed. Unless you have a very solid reason for what you're doing, your edit-warring will produce a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I think you had best get your facts straight, since I, Beyond My Ken, who filed this report, have made a only single edit to Standard penetration test and none at all to Boring (earth). I have not been involved in any edit warring, and can't imagine why I would be eligible for a boomerang. I suggest you read Yoshi123yoshi's talk page, and his statement just below, and check his contribution list. The article's talk pages would be useful as well - but the content dispute is obviously not relevant here, just the behavior of the editors, which was the basis for my report. BMK (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear, about boring(earth) and SPT

I believe I was very willing to talk about technical matter on SPT. I wrote in talk section, mailed User:Argyriou prvoded him enough links written in English.

I did not want people to misunderstand that I am only babbling with my fantasy so what I did was to privide the source from PWRI and NARO ,both the National Research and Development Agency of Japan. My writing is only a brief explanation/summarization about the source articles. Even though I mentioned Argyriou about PWRI and its legitimacy, he kept deleting so I had to mention about PWRI on SPT log/history. He stopped deleting a couple of weeks. And then he deletes again and this time he referenced the PWRI link for his writing. This can be confirmed from SPT history.

Anyone who has actually read the PWRI article would know Argyriou has never read it. His overly generalized explanation about the defects of SPT is not what the PWRI article says at all. It is not something one can summarize in one sentence.

If one demands the neutral point of view, it has to be the neutral point of view and fairness in technology.

Although User:Beyond My Ken says great many reverted my writing, it was only Argyriou. Now User:Beyond My Ken reverts my NARO part so it adds up to two i believe. Of course BMK has the right to criticize me, but at least could BMK provide enough reason why he deleted the NARO part in SPT before trying to shut me out? NARO is like IEEE in the US. NARO gave an endorsement to some machine that has overcome SPT problems.

To me it is far more strange why Argyriou kept deleting my explaining and made the source reference I found as his and again deleting my summarization. I have no intention to start another edit-war, but I want BMK to un-revert what he deleted in SPT.

Thank you.

Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Although Argyriou was the only other editor besides myself to revert your edit on Standard penetration test, Jim.henderson also reverted your edit on Boring (earth), so the situation is not as straightforward you vs. him as you present it, and my statement that "A number of editors have reverted [your] edits" is correct. BMK (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Argyriou and Jim.henderson have been mentioned by name, I have informed them both of this discussion. BMK (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Q to BMK: Is there a way to get experts or people knowledgeable in the field to comment at this ANI (e.g., post notes on the article Talk page and on the talk page of the relevant WikiProjects)? I tried looking at this when the ANI was posted but found it slightly too obscure for me to want to try to fathom. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have posted neutral pointers to this discussion on the talk pages of WikiProject Civil Engineering and WikiProject Geology. Let's see if that accomplishes anything. BMK (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against Mr. User:jim.henderson's editing in Boring(earth); all he did was deleting Boring comment I did but left the title and redirected to SPT. I actually mailed him thank you note a couple of days ago. You can ask him that. So that leaves just Argyriou and BMK. You, BMK, started jumping in just a couple days ago deleting NARO part in SPT. I really want you to stop using "great many," and provoke others to shut me out and at the same time secretly deleting NARO part in SPT. To my point of view, it is really BMK, you, the one who has not been true to others. Has anyone actually tried to read the PWRI article although it is in Japanese???? If you have, you will know what I mean. PWRI and NARO are the National Research and Development Agency of Japan like I said, not some civil-engineer-wannbes-lunatics!! All I did was summarization. Like I said, I want BMK to un-revert what he deleted in SPT. I've worked in this industry, worked with some notable professors. I know pros and cons. Yoshi123Yoshi (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop exaggerating, please. I didn't "jump in and start deleting", I reverted the article to its stable version with a single edit. I never said "a great many editors", I said "a number of editors," which is accurate. You're not going to get anywhere by levellling charges that are easily disproved by any editor interested in taking a look, and you're not going to bully me into reverting by invoking authority I have no way of checking on.

If you want your information to be accepted into the article, you need to reach a WP:consensus with the other editors on the article's talk page, not continue to try to force the edit into the article for months at a time. (See Yoshi123Yoish's article contributions, which indicates that this campaign began back in mid-April.) If you cannot reach a consensus, there are methods of WP:dispute resolution which you can pursue, but trying to bulldoze the article is not one of them. BMK (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Genaro García Luna

There appears to be a slow revert war going on in this article, with User:DenialTon and User:Random mesh removing a section about his involvement with organized crime and other users (including unregistered ones) re-adding it. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely something weird going on here at Genaro García Luna with DenialTon (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Random mesh (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (who in at least one place seem to be editing towards a common goal). This most recent edit by User:DenialTon is definietly concerning (removal of sourced content), but it looks like both DenialTon and Random mesh have been trying to remove this sourced content for a while (note this edit summary for Random mesh). It would probably be a good idea if an Admin looked at this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(Mis)using Wikipedia to promote a candidate in the Canadian election.

Canada goes to the polls in the autumn, one of the candidates is Amarjeet Sohi. In the last few days, Sohi's page has been "improved". Improved from the candidate's point of view. Sourced and neutral information about the candidate having been arrested was modified to say "falsely arrested" [153], and information about controversies was heavily reduced to give way for promotional material [154]. These changes are made by WP:SPAs (possibly socks of the same user [155], [156]) and all attempts by established users to restore the article [157], [158], [159] are swiftly reverted. I've encouraged the SPA to use the talk page, but to no avail. I first reported the page for semi-protection but was encouraged to take it to ANI instead. I think it's problematic that Wikipedia is being used not only to promote a candidate but to censor information from highly respected media Globe and Mail just because it's not favourable to a political candidate.Jeppiz (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a protection request on that article was declined? That's weird. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Constant deleting without reaching a consensus or using talk

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

---

2605:a000:ffc0:44:6c8e:eda2:be46:e2c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has constantly been deleting edits without going to talk first. One such edit was reaching consensus via talk and but (s)he deleted it nonetheless. I've reached on through the article's talk page, the user's talk page, and the edit summary but have yet to receive comment. Also, the user consistently belittles my edits as "fanboy" material in the edit summary, something I feel is unfair and unnecessary. Doing this publicly, undermines my ability to contribute meaning material as it causes my motivation to be called into question. Lastly, I believe this user has at least one other profile as his/her history only reflects reverts of my edits (with the exception of one). Because I am making good faith edits and/or reaching out to editors through the talk feature for help or consensus, I believe at least an interaction block would be helpful. I don't mind being edited or corrected as I am a newcomer still getting the grasp of things. However, I'm sure that the way this user is going about conflict does not entirely fit within the principles of Wikipedia.TJC-tennis-geek 13:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put pending changes on Serena Williams for a week. As not too many IPs are editing the article right now, that seems the best option that will force them to discuss things, while allowing other editors' unrelated changes to filter through. In the future, WP:RFPP is thataway.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ritche333 that sounds like a positive swing in the right direction. Thank you. Just for my clarification, are my complaints invalid? As I stated earlier, I'm new so I just want to understand. Thanks again.--TJC-tennis-geek 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

In terms of the content I have to assume good faith they believed they were improving the article by removing what they thought was extraneous detail in a biography of living person. In terms of the attitude, they should have gone to talk as soon as somebody disagreed and discussed it there. I don't think an interaction ban is necessary, there's no real evidence this editor is going specifically after you and is simply angry (albeit unnecessarily so) over the content. While we're here, don't forget to sign your posts using four tilda (~) characters or the pencil button in the toolbar above the edit window. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks @Ritche333. Btw, I'm consistently using the pencil to sign but I'm obviously missing something. I'll check the help section to see what I'm doing wrong.--TJC-tennis-geek 14:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC) TJC-tennis-geek 14:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thad caldwell (talk • contribs)

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

Harrassment by user

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

---

User talk:Joseph2302 has continually harassed my talk page page breaking numerous member rules [160] and not allowing me to make any changes too wikipedia by using threats user has other allegations of harassment on their talk page for editing pages without user talk pages and not following wiki procedures Bretthuk72 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bretthuk72 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not harassing them, they keep trying to use Wikipedia to promote their company. Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies clearly says "Be sure the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria", which Acorn Mobility doesn't, since it was deleted at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acorn Mobility- I and other users remove promotion and non-notability from this page frequently. At the AfD, it was also suggested that this user used multiple accounts and IP addresses- note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bretthuk72/Archive wasn't even started by me. They then added incorrect cleanup tags at Acorn Mobility (now deleted), even after I explained why they were wrong at Talk:Acorn Mobility.

I see no evidence of any harassment by me, only applications of Wikipedia policy, and a conflicted editor suspected of using multiple accounts/IPs who doesn't like that the article about their company was deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, in case it wasn't clear, their conflict of interest was obvious, as they were originally User:Acorn Publications, who was blocked for spamming and username, but then got unblocked, despite the SPI above. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User is following me and reverting for no reason

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

---

Winkelvi (talk · contribs) is the offender. Please make him stop. Zoey Homes (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user is likely sock of banned User:DC. Have been getting numerous harassing emails from DC today as well at talk page harassment from an IP that geolocates to Bronx, NY - this is one of two places the same IP vandal/harasser geolocates to. The other location is Boston, MA. Zoey Homes has been vandalizing articles today that I have recently edited. Vandal report filed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing? I started a merge discussion and removed an errant comma. Zoey Homes (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoey Homes, Winkelvi. Please provide WP:DIFFS so that others are in a better position to assist and review what may have occurred. —Sladen (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Along with the possible harassment the OP is not following up the placement of the merge tags with any conversation on the talk pages (in spite of what they have just posted here) of the Golden Gate Bridge articles. Add to that the fact that the two articles are too big for a merger to be of benefit and this makes the edits look like violations of WP:POINT as well. MarnetteD|Talk 20:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to my post. This discussion was started while I was posting here. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of any other circumstances, Winkelvi has been edit-warring with Zoey Holmes at this article to undo her removal of an incorrect comma. WP:BANREVERT says this is allowed, but how pointy is it? Supposing Zoey is a banned user, to WP:DENY it would be more effective to ignore such an edit. BethNaught (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: Winklevi reverted my own removal of the offending comma. This is getting ridiculous. BethNaught (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is your inability to understand the reason for WP:DENY. I'll give you a clue: it has to do with encouraging socks and other disruptive users by allowing their reverts and changes to articles to stand. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Here you reverted to the stable version to undo the supposed banned user. Here you removed the comma yourself. You yourslelf have gone against what you just said. By your hand or not, the edit stands. This is a very twisted interpretation of denying banned users and really just makes you look silly. BethNaught (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a shit what you think about me or how you think it all makes me look. Maybe if you had been harassed as much as I have for months by this same vandal and sock master, you would feel the same. Not just in Wikipedia, but by email, as well. Try looking beyond what you think is right and try to look at it from my perspective. Hopefully, you will have a better grasp on what's really going on here and understand why WP:DENY is the right response. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I must agree with User:BethNaught, and encourage User:Winkelvi to drop the stick immediately. I would also encourage Winkelvi to mind their language and act in a civil manner. This does not look good. Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about your opinion of me, either. If you want to be helpful, how about doing something to get the vandal-only/harassment-only account that filed this bogus report blocked? Everything else just encourages the pointy disruption to continue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)×3 [161][162][163][164][165][166][167]. Seven(!) revisions of the same comma removal against multiple editors in under 30 minutes?! Winkelvi, I'm minded to suggest some voluntary WP:WIKIBREAK/heavily enforced cooling off time for WP:3RR/WP:CIVIL et al. Unless this can be demonstrated unequivocally to be a banned user (if so, please take to sockpuppet investigations). It is—at this point in time—an editor using the Winkelvi username that appears to be the disruptive one. —Sladen (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please, get a clue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing the account has done appears vandalistic or explicitly harassing. The appropriate course of action, if you believe it to be a sock, is surely for you to file an SPI. BethNaught (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Wow. The inability to see what's actually happening here is staggering. Really. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) this seems to be a pretty good case of WP:NOTHERE. —Sladen (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi, you've been here long enough to know how to handle sockpuppets. You report them at SPI so users with the technical ability can actually verify your claims one way or the other. Reverting them over and over again is not helpful if you're not going to take it to the proper channels. You're suggesting that DC is actively editing and harassing you and you have not reported this anywhere? Why?? And furthermore, your accusations of sockpuppetry are questionable at best because your accusations of vandalism are utterly baseless. Quit acting like there's some obvious misconduct going on because you have not provided any evidence against the user in question. Not sure what you're doing but I'm going to block you for the edit warring—you're relying on 3RR exemptions based on claims that are unsubstantiated. Iff we verify a connection between this user and the indef blocked user, we will unblock you. I will file an SPI on your behalf as a courtesy. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Three out of the first four edits the new editor makes just happen to be to random articles Winkelvi has just edited and his accusations are questionable? Come on. I agree that Winkelvi should have opened an SPI but realize that something fishy is going on here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah...I filed an SPI myself and unblocked him immediately upon actual evidence coming out. However that doesn't change the facts available to me acting as an uninvolved administrator in response to a false vandalism report at the time. There was a 3RR vio with no obvious exemption existing, and the editor explicitly and in writing refused to provide evidence. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Block

I just blocked User:Zoey Homes for 24 hours for a bright-line 3RR violation (without having seen this thread) and was about to block User:Winkelvi for the same when I noticed the claims of Zoey being a sockpuppet. I'm not sure what the best course of action is from here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Jackmcbarn: I considered blocking but opted to give that user a warning for 3RR rather than a block as they're brand new, had never received a warning and were being reverted disruptively and based on unsubstantiated accusations. Regardless, that's a legitimate judgment call on your part. I have blocked WV but will file the SPI on their behalf and hopefully we'll settle this situation. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

My suspicions were proven to be completely correct. Obviously, since I'm able to write this here, I have also been unblocked. One more note: the account User:New England (an interesting as well as revealing user name) has also been blocked as a sock of the same accounts previously blocked for socking. At this point, looking at all of them, it's hard to say which one came first and who the actual sockmaster is. In any case, this has been resolved and my suspicions validated. My thanks to NeilN, Bbb23, and Writ Keeper for their wisdom and ability to see past the b.s. and get to the heart of what was really going on. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether your accusations were correct, you really need to remain calm and watch your language, even when you feel you are being harassed or attacked. To do otherwise distracts people from the message you're trying to convey (as you saw in this thread) and makes them focus on your behavior instead. —Darkwind (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia rule #1: Being polite is more important than being right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As WV has cleared his talk page after this ordeal, I'll leave my closing thoughts in the ANI archives for posterity. A) I'm sorry WV feels that this was some sort of arbitrary, personal punishment. I hope he will at some point be able to look at this objectively and realize that administrators happen to work according to a specific process, and no editor can expect to be exempted from our normal processes. B) 3RR is a brightline rule, and, to directly quote policy, "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption." Beyond a reference to WP:DENY, no credible explanation to speak of was given until after WV himself was reported for disruptive reverting in this discussion. The sockpuppetry accusation was not confirmed until after WP:WV was blocked for multiple 3RR violations, and a sockpuppet investigation was filed by myself, the blocking administrator. C) WV's conduct throughout this ordeal was improper in various ways. He violated 3RR multiple times. He reverted a multitude of times without providing any explanation.[168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180] He reported the sockpuppet as a vandal, despite the fact that the sock had committed no vandalism.[181] WV did not file an SPI. When reported for stalking the editor in question, WV provided no evidence that the user they were reverting was a sock, despite making the accusation.[182] WV continued to improperly edit war with an established editor who was acting in good faith.[183][184] WV was blatantly uncivil throughout the above discussion. When uninvolved editors questioned WV's account of the situation, he responded by cursing and demanded they do something about the unsubstantiated "problem,"[185][186] and with condescending accusations of cluelessness or ignorance,[187][188] Still, no presentation of evidence or attempt so substantiate their accusation had even been attempted. It was only after this point that WV was blocked, by myself, for the 3RR violations. I explained the reasoning to them.[189] WV responded by saying that the editor appeared after they had received harassing emails. However, their response included the following statements: "If none of you can see this, I can't help you see it. I won't provide diffs." ... "I don't need to provide diffs." Only then did they attempt to summon administrative assistance to look into the problem, despite providing no evidence still. Their response also included an accusation of bad faith on my part: "Obviously, Swarm isn't interested in taking the time to do the right thing or looking into what's going on, just handing out blocks first."[190] I filed an SPI which resulted in WV's accusations being confirmed by a checkuser, and I unblocked them. WV only modified the the "What. The. Fuck???" section header to "WTF" after the involved checkuser suggested making it less aggressive.[191] When I attempted to explain the block's legitimacy to WV,[192] they selectively and singularly deleted my comment from the thread without explanation.[193] After two other uninvolved editors pointed out substandard conduct on the part of WV,[194][195] they cleared their talk page. In conclusion, WV exhibited extensively substandard behavior throughout this ordeal and has clearly dismissed any editor who attempted to bring this to their attention in good faith. While I remained true to my word that I would unblock WV if their accusations checked out, WV should not presume to be fully vindicated, as the disruptiveness in their actions all-around, in my opinion, outweighed the disruption caused to the project by the sockpuppet itself. WV is warned again that due to their behavior the block was still reasonable and they were given a break by being unblocked. I will again remind them that this incident may weigh into future behavioral issues on their part that require administrator intervention and they might not recieve such a generous unblock so easily next time. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(EC) The thing is, regardless of the socking, WP:BANREVERT is clear that people are allowed to make edits, which are the same as edits a banned edit made if "they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". There was surely an independent reason for making this edit namely that from what I can tell, no one disagrees that at least one comma was clearly misplaced. (Not sure if there are some style guidelines which justify the John, Jr, but I'm fairly sure there are none which justify the one between the two names and as far as I can tell even you agree.)

I'm normally fairly supportive of reverting edits of banned editors. However even if you feel that the edit had to be reverted despite being clearly necessary, once another editor in good standing had taken responsibility for the edit which every agrees was necessary, there was no justification to revert it. And the editor who tried to take responsibility for this edit made this clear.

BTW, I'm not sure your reverting even the initial edit was really justified under BANREVERT. "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." But if you just bulk reverted all edits without checking, I'm somewhat willing to accept that at least initially. (If they started edit warring with you over this edit, and only this edit it would IMO be ideal to check that the edit is truly unnecessary or even harmful.)

I don't think anyone let alone me denies any harassment suffered by you is completely unacceptable. And can understand why it might make you respond in a less than ideal fashion. And I personally don't think the lack of an SPI by you is quite such a big deal since it's sometimes not necessary when the socking is clearcut and there's no likelihood of sleepers.

The problem is once you started reverting an editor reinstating an edit everyone agrees was necessary, by your own actions you helped push the problematic socking to the sideline.

Note that you yourself eventually reinstated the edit albeit after reverting the sock. This seems excessively WP:POINTy to me, and there's a very good chance behaviour like this will encourage rather than discourage more socking. But if you'd done that at the beginning I think me and others would have just let it slide or made a minor comment on it. Heck even if you'd done this with BethNaught it wouldn't be so bad since at least the edit warring would have hopefully stopped and we'd have the good version.

But instead we ended up with a pointless edit war between editors in good standing acting in good faith who both agreed on what the article should have looked like but one was trying to revert to a bad version because a sock originally made the edits. It's completely expected that the legitimate complain you had about socking was lost in the unnecessary distraction started by your attempt to preserve a bad version of the article and the fault isn't with other editors. So sadly by your own actions you've probably given the sock was they see as a victory.

TL;DR: Again let my repeat I have great sympathy for your plight being targetted by harassing socks. Unfortunately since we only have limited ability to control the socking barring major chances to wikipedia policy, we have to deal with the socking as best we can, which includes not damaging wikipedia even in a minor way (which preserving a comma which everyone agrees is misplaced is) just to try and teach the sock a lesson (particularly since there's a fair chance they'll be happy if we intentionally damage wikipedia to do so). From your POV and the primary reason I wrote this message, it's important you understand why this went so wrong for you. It isn't primarily because editors are missing the point as your comment seem to imply. Instead it's mostly because by your own actions you changed this from a case of simple socking which should have been dealt with, in to a case of edit warring to try and preserve a bad version.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a persistent and potentially fatal flaw of Wikipedia, that being polite is considered to be more important than being right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Removing a good edit made in good faith by an editor in good standing simply because it was originally made by a sock, when you agree it's a good edit, is neither polite nor right. Being a harassing sock is neither right nor polite even if certain of your edits are. BethNaught was resonably polite, and also right in that the comma edit should have been at least partially preserved. I don't really see any editor who was very polite but wrong, nor any editor who was right but very rude. So while being more polite may have helped WV a bit, it ultimately wasn't IMO a significant factor. No matter how polite they were, once they started reinstating a comma which everyone including them agreed didn't belong, there was always a good chance any legitimate socking concern they had would get loss in the controversy generated by their poor editing. Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I should mention I made some clarifications to my initial reply after you replied. I don't think these are a big deal since I didn't mention politeness in my initial reply even before I modified it, but I apologise if you feel my changes affected what you were replying to. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem there. Answer me this: Was WV right about the socks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's important to note here that Winkelvi was not the reporting editor in this case. The complaint was opened by the sockpuppet who was, in fact, following WV around. Coming here was clearly just another step in the harassment - and that needs to be taken into consideration. BMK (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi while I currently know of no reason to either deny or support your "Maybe if you had been harassed as much as I have for months ..." comment, I still see no justification for your, I think, hostile comments here: "I don't give a shit what you think about me ..." and "I don't give a shit about your opinion of me, either. ...". I appreciate that their may be a bigger picture which, if it exists, may need to be exposed and, while no judgement is made regarding a potential validity of your claims, some action at some level should be taken in regard to your incivility. You edit most days and I would support perhaps a two day ban so as to facilitate a time to cool and reflect on civility issues. Editors in locations such as AN/I and SPI work together with a view to finding constructive solutions to issues and I do not see a reason to belittle the views of other editors in the offensive way that you have done. At the very least it is a distraction from any actual issues which may still need to be considered. GregKaye 07:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Although WV and I have clashed in the past over an editor who edit warred, was pretty disruptive and ultimately blocked but who I felt deserved a modicum of AGF, I disagree with a cool down block. Cool down blocks, particularly against editors who have a known history with temperament is likely to cause a shift to worse rather than to the better. Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

DE from Andrew.tisler

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

---

Andrew.tisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently added unsourced additions despite warnings on talk page. Edits such as [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202] and so on. Their contributions list is full of unsourced edits, ultimately resulting to disruptive editing. Thank you, Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 04:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Up to Level 4 warnings in just 2 weeks. [sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely needs a block for disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Anonymous user has been attempting self promo using disambiguation page

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

---

This user has been repeatedly attempting self promotion using a disambiguation page, ignoring guidelines and ignoring all talk page messages and multiple people (and bots) reverting their changes, to the point of it becoming annoying.

All the diffs look like this one (and there have been several): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agata&diff=669729028&oldid=669702557

Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agata&diff=614854332&oldid=614852537

Most recent IP address:

107.184.81.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Some of the previous IP addresses used for similar edits:

75.84.221.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

75.84.209.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

172.248.34.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The page edited: Agata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here's the edits from the current IP address:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.184.81.157

Here's more edits from previous IP addresses, the same change has been attempted over and over and over:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agata&action=history

It's been going on for over a year now. Is it possible at all to block an IP address from contributing?

Agaace (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It is possible, but IP blocks are rarely indefinitely blocked, except for open proxies. In those rare cases, long IP blocks are sometimes for schools where IP vandalism is particularly rife or libraries where banned users are known to edit from. The reason is that IPs are often rotated among an ISP's users, so while they may be on the same range the specific address for any given user will change upon disconnect / reconnect of the modem. Given the spread in IP's being used for this promotional spam a range block is not likely to be levied because of the collateral damage involved. A specially targeted edit filter may be the better option. Blackmane (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Agata for one year since it would be impractical to block a lot of IPs. If you see other articles being targeted, consider reporting at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Multiple accounts, multiple articles

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

---

• Jack J. Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aimee Cheng-Bradshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jack.J.Yang (talk · contribs)
• WikipedianOrlando (talk · contribs)
• NathanOrlando (talk · contribs)

Persistent addition of unsourced and promotional content, removal of maintenance templates. WP:COI and WP:OWNERSHIP issues. 2601:188:0:ABE6:3CF7:E4A2:6CC5:354F (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: A SPI was filed related to this. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 09:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping Paul Morphy fan

An IP-hopping editor from Chennai, India has repeatedly introduced biased edits into the article of the 19th century American chess champion Paul Morphy. He has also disparaged the achievements of Indian chess grandmaster Viswanathan Anand. He has demonstrated a lack of understanding of wikipedia policies and has repeatedly introduced biased edits into these articles and others. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• The IP is actually quite right that the phrase "one of the greatest players of all time" should be removed. It's unsourced, opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and the facts in the rest of the paragraph explain quite adequately Anand's status in the game. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Theories of Muhammad in the Bible

Hi, an anonymous editor keeps creating Theories of Muhammad in the Bible as a direct copy of http://anticross.vomu.org/muhammad-and-messianic-prophecy. First as Special:Contributions/5.107.135.248 now as Special:Contributions/86.99.251.225 (both from United Arab Emirates so suspected MP or SP. Article has been deleted once by DES and I have warned on there talk page. However they have just recreated yet again appearing to not understand the copyright issue at all. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have re-deleted and salted to prevent a further recreation. DES ^(talk) 16:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks again. KylieTastic (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

What I am facing here is a "persistent vandalism" by a "cabal of editors and admins" who practiced an act of "obvious vandalism" on the article Muhammad in the Bible, since they disruptively replaced a well-sourced, well-written and well-organized version of the article, which is consistent with the sourcebooks in the bibliography of the article, with a poorly written and poorly organized version. Then, they launched a series of false accusations against me in order to block me from reverting them.

There is no copyright violation at all, since the author of the article on the website of the "Anti Cross" states here on the website that all the content is free & not-copyright protected.--86.99.251.225 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Why does that page have © 2015 Anti Cross at the bottom of it? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The website is not a reliable source, anyways. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, we're the famous "cabal of editors and admins" for having reverted a copyright violation. And as NeilN just, "anti cross" isn't a reliable source by any stretch of imagination. I will hand it to the IP that the other article we currently link to is beyond bad, though.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5, It doesn't matter. The clear note here from the author of the article "Anti Cross" is the one that matters.--86.99.251.225 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to doubt that is a sufficient release. But had I seen it, I wouldn't have deleted it as a copy vio, but I would have blanked it as completely unsourced. And even if that was a proper release, you can't copy large chunks of text without proper attribution, doing so is plagiarism. For your information, I don't think i have interacted with KylieTastic before, i responded to a request for help on the Teahouse in this edit. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A page with a copyright notice on it will be presumed to be protected by copyright, even if there is a release on a different page of the same site, at least until someone draws attention to the release. DES ^(talk) 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The members of the cabal are now showing up.. Of course! "Speak of the Devil and he shall appear" ;)

That version of the article is actually is consistent with the sourcebooks in the bibliography. It is doubtlessly a well-sourced version. Every paragraph in it is well-sourced. Even the lead of it is well-sourced. Those who are saying that the version is not sourced are obviously not telling the truth (i.e. lying).. See the version yourself here and judge yourself.--86.99.251.225 (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@86.99.251.225 Maybe if you had addressed the issue and conversed with us instead of just ignoring all reasons given then you may not feel everyone is against you. Instead of making up secret cabals in your head, you could have just mentioned that release at any time. You just chose to ignore myself, and the other editors completely claiming vandalism and now cabals. I have not read the other article and you could be 100% correct that it is in error and needs fixing, but you made no effort to fix or discuss that. There is no cabal or any form or organisation against you here, and as DES said I don't think we have crossed paths before - nor do I know any of the other editor(s) that reverted you. The actions were taken because of Wikipedias policies that you choose to ignore. As such you have two options, try to help improve any errors and add any missing information while working within the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines or you can go 'publish' on oter websites. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Quoting or using reliable sources does not make a random page on the web a reliable source itself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Um, NOTHERE?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. I'm a member of the cabal

For the record, I am a card carrying member (there is no handshake, but there is a tune you need to hum) of the secret cabal of editors and admins that you ascribe malice. With that out of the way; there is no way this text you attempt to put here on Wikipedia would ever be allowed, even if we had iron-clad proof that it was released under a free license. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of someone else's writings/thoughts on a subject matter. Your overt attempts to force this content here is unacceptable. You are wasting your time attempting to get it here on this project. If you object to something in the Muhammad in the Bible article, then bring discussion to Talk:Muhammad in the Bible. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I glanced at this matter earlier today, and that disclaimer of copyright was not in the 12 April 2015 welcome post on the Anti Cross site at that time. Perhaps the IP here is the author of the Anti Cross site, but User:KylieTastic's copyvio concerns were certainly valid, given the information available; and overwriting a redirect with a completely unsourced article on a contentious topic is certainly not to be recommended. Deor (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Stating that other editors are acting as a cabal and that respected editors are engaging in vandalism is not a useful way to get changes that you want made to Wikipedia made. Persistently making such claims can be viewed as personal attacks, which can be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

198.86.235.123

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

---

This IP user's contributions speak for themselves. Bluebird207 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

They're also from two and a half years ago. What do you want us to do about it now? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Shoot, sorry. In the heat of the moment, I ended up reporting the wrong user.

I meant to report this IP user: 188.31.7.154. And I see that he/she has now been blocked for his/her actions.

Once again, apologies. Bluebird207 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User: JIK1975

• JIK1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For several months now the user in question has been going around "fixing" redirects. His talk page shows that he's been told repeatedly to stop it with a number of users pointing him towards WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE, but he doesn't answer any of these posts. He edits a lot, but 95% of his edits are redirect fixes.

Here are some of the times he's been told to stop doing what he's doing:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=667574680&oldid=666445935
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=668033922&oldid=668024105
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=669048538&oldid=669033215
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=669430565&oldid=669048689
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JIK1975&diff=670136903&oldid=669895466

リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 18:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• What Administrator intervention are you requesting here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Deep down, I believe his intentions are good, but he also should know by now that what he's doing is not helpful, in fact quite the opposite. For a start, a short-term block from editing could really wake him up. If he resumes this activity upon his return, I could bring the issue back up in terms of a longer block. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 19:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Splashyelephant2003

User:Splashyelephant2003 is a new contributor, who's sole edits [203] have been to repeatedly edit the infobox for an article on Liberland - an entirely unpopulated plot of land on the disputed Croatia/Serbia border which has been declared as a 'micronation' by a Czech libertarian politician. Needless to say, the 'micronation' has received no recognition whatsoever. Despite having no recognition, and a population of zero, the individual behind this is apparently issuing 'citizenships', and Splashyelephant2003 has chosen to add these as either 'population' or 'members' to the infobox - sourced solely to a 'Liberland' website. [204] I have repeatedly asked Splashyelephant2003 to stop doing this, as it is a clear violation of NPOV to imply that such numbers have any legal meaning, and that we would require third-party sourcing (though of course 'members' is an inappropriate field to use anyway - it is intended for another purpose entirely - e.g. as used in our Hanseatic League article). Splashyelephant2003 however refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion - though s/he did decide to ask whether I was 'croation' in an edit summary, suggesting that this was evidence of bias [205]. Since it seems apparent that Splashyelephant2003 will continue adding this promotional nonsense to the article indefinitely unless obliged not to do so, I request that s/he be blocked from editing until he agrees to discuss the matter properly, to comply with Wikipedia NPOV policies, and not to engage in further promotion based on nothing but the imaginary nation's own website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing to RfC statement.

Talk page: Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager#RfC: Is a list of contents in an article about a book unnecessary?

User:STSC and User: Binksternet repeatedly modified my RfC statement, because I just added a description to the statement which virtually invalidates their comments. I request an admin to warn them not to do again.

• 1st STSC strike out my comment
• 2nd STSC moved my RfC statement under the discussion section
• 3rd Binksternet moved my RfC statement under the discussion section

Warning issued: yes

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC statements are supposed to be brief and neutral. [206] Yours is neither. As to whether this legitimises edit-warring over it, I'll not comment - but it certainly doesn't improve your case. I suspect that the only appropriate course here may be for an admin to close the RfC as invalid, and start another. Possibly along with warnings and/or trouts all round. AndyTheGrump (talk)

(edit conflict) In addition, Phoenix, you warned STSC about modifying the RfC, but didn't you do that first? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor refusing to accept consensus

Several months ago, I was involved in an editing dispute with Synthwave.94 on Happy (Pharrell Williams song) regarding how to list US charts. It is standard practice in song articles to list the main US chart, the Billboard Hot 100, before any secondary charts. Synthwave.94 holds a different viewpoint that all charts should be listed in alphabetical order, which means that charts such as Adult Top 40, Adult Contemporary, and Alternative Songs would be listed before the Hot 100. The two of us, and other editors, discussed this at the article talk page before reviving an older discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Chart order, where nearly all editors besides Synthwave agreed that the primary chart should come first, with secondary charts listed in alphabetical order after that.

Despite the overwhelming preference to list the primary chart before any secondary ones, Synthwave has continued to war over this. At the "Happy" article, he has reverted my changes to reflect this consensus on multiple occasions over the past few months. Initially he reverted me on the basis that the discussion was still ongoing. Recently, with the discussion untouched for over a month and editors' preference quite clear, I reinstated the change only to be reverted again. Additionally, Synthwave has been changing examples on Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts to reflect his/her preferred ordering, against consensus.

I warned Synthwave on his/her talk page recently that I would bring the matter here if their tendentious, disruptive editing continued. They refused to acknowledge the problem and tried shifting the blame on me. Not too long after, I corrected the chart ordering on Rehab (Amy Winehouse song) to reflect consensus, and Synthwave reverted with a blatantly misleading edit summary that did not state all of his/her changes.

Synthwave is an editor with quite a history of edit warring, disruption, and IDHT behavior over the past two years. I'm not sure what sort of action needs to take place, but this is obviously a recurring problem with the arrangement of record charts only being a small part of it. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging editors who also discussed the matter with me and Synthwave, in case they'd like to comment or better articulate anything I might not have explained well enough: IndianBio, Tomica, Azealia911, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, SNUGGUMS, Iknow23, and Btljs (who partially agreed with Synthwave). Chase (talk | contributions) 01:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You ought to strike the comment about Synthwave.94 being disruptive, etc. The user has not been blocked for seven months. I find Synthwave.94 to be an invaluable fighter of vandalism. I would like to see that this disagreement is evaluated on its own merit (or demerits) rather than bringing in a truckload of old laundry. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)