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

Telstra, Australia IP vandalism

The last month or so, there has been a long list of IPs, all belonging to Telstra, Australia, vandalising the Israel/Palestine articles. Look at User talk:McSly, Modi'in-Maccabim-Re'ut, Talk:Judea, Talk:State of Palestine, Talk:German Colony, Jerusalem, Palestinian territories. He reminded me of my old friend, due to edits like this, but, AFAIK, "my old friend" is still in the US.

However, I wonder, is it possible to block a range of Telstra-Ips? Or would that catch too many innocents? (Btw, he is active as I type) Huldra (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Block the entire ISP. If they have a problem, it should remain their problem, not ours. Any decent editor can register an account. Likewise Vodafone DE. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another death-threat against me here from the same; please rev-del and protect. Iow: please do full JarlaxleArtemis-routine when dealing with this guy, Huldra (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, you *really* have to refuse them the possibility to edit their own talk-page; to avoid death and rape-threaths, Huldra (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gilliam, for that. (Perhaps rev-del the threats?) Also, the same IP was discussed here a couple of days ago: see here. --Huldra (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:NeilN. I have made a list of (some) of the Telstra socks, used in July/ August this year (not a full list):

• 58.168.146.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.230.123.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.230.34.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@
• 60.230.39.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 101.160.19.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.160.129.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.160.137.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 101.160.148.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 110.149.115.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@

• 120.144.30.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.144.129.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.144.134.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 121.214.15.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@
• 121.214.48.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.214.137.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.214.145.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.219.62.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.219.134.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.220.110.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@
• 121.220.10.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.220.80.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) @@

• 124.176.153.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@
• 124.180.155.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.180.215.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) @@
• 124.180.198.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.181.101.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)@@

• 137.147.7.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.147.7.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) @@ (discussed here)
• 137.147.152.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.147.164.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 137.147.169.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IPs with @@ after them have issued Grawp-like threats, mostly rev-delled. Feel free to add more IPs, as you find them, Huldra (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like any rangeblock has a lot of collateral, apart from 2-5, which are caught by 60.230.0.0/17. Page protection is the only real solution here from that point of view. Mdann52 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In a case like this that's too easy: we'd have to protect every page in the project where they might show up or where they might follow someone. I don't know what the limit is, what too much collateral damage is, but not rangeblocking also has a lot of collateral damage, and I prefer our own editors not fall in that category. Rangeblock away, I say. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you would also advocate rangeblocking large sections of Comcast in the US or BT in the UK, this is a really stupid idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We've had to do it before to stem death threats. Not to mention that this is pretty much the only way to slow him to any appreciable degree. Even then, his abuse of open proxies is quite legendary (which is why he's showing up on BT and Telstra). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an alternative. Contact Telstra abuse and tell them that we are considering a range block because of the actions of one Telstra user. They may very well block the user on their end to protect their other users from collateral damage if we do it on our end. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's an open proxy (and considering who we're discussing it almost certainly is), then it's not exactly on Telstra, but rather on who owns the TOR node/anonymising service/compromised server. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is my old friend, (who, for sure, knows how to make use of TOR), then why does he *only* appear on Telstra IPs? I´m making some enquiries (off-line), in the mean time, I´ll ask all admins to be very vigilant when it comes to Telstra IPs: remember to block their user-page access too. And could some admin please rev-del 124.181.101.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) death threats? Thanks in advance, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oddy enough I have done this before when I was a Sysadmin, unless Telstra's policies have changed they will file such a request in the nearest bin. It took a court order for me to get them to prevent one of their script-kiddie customers attempting to DDOS one of my domains. The main problem with rangeblocking large sections of Telstra however is that in many parts of Australia it really is the only provider. There is no alternative. Unlike the example above which affected Houston - a city with many other options. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So logged in editors can still edit, and IP editors get a notice that they can either log in or complain to Telstra for allowing one of their users to abuse Wikipedia, forcing Wikipedia to block IP edits from Telstra. Not ideal, but not a disaster for the Australian users either. One could also contact a few news outlets in Australia and let them know what is happening. If they choose to run a story or two on this, Telstra is likely to become a lot more cooperative. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that some of these are proxies, not all are in Australia by the looks of things. While blocking Australia may seem a good solution, I don't think this will be productive - partly as there are ways to easily get round this. Now, I can tell you millions of people will be caught up in any rangeblock with this - and it is incredibly hard to tell who is and isn't vandals when it comes to people like ACC dealing with requests like this. Rangeblock is the easy solution, just not the best one here. Depending on what is being inserted, a note to the ISP or police (I haven't seen the edits, but the police are likely to be interested if they are death threats) is likely to be the only solution, unless we want large swaiths of Australia waking up and wondering why they can't fix one typo or suchlike, leading to the problem building up elsewhere. Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

All the above IPs with @@ at the end have rev-delled rape or death threats, mostly death threats. I have no idea as to how Australian police react to this (I am not in Australia), Huldra (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I note here that if Telstra is not one of the biggest ISPs in Australia, it would have to be up there. Rangeblocking the entire ISP will result in a whole load of collateral damage. A complaint should probably be made to Telstra first, although I'm not at all confident it'll be actioned. If it's not, perhaps a message in the rangeblock stating that Telstra failed to respond to death threats originating from their network? Nothing like a bit of media coverage to encourage an episode of corporate responsibility. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Range blocking Telstra would definitely attract media coverage in Australia, and probably overseas given how large an ISP it is (it's by far the largest telecommunications company in Australia). Telstra has an online form to report abuse here, though it may not be applicable to this case. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As these IPs are making threats of harm, the Wikimedia Foundation should also be informed, and will hopefully be able to help with a response - the procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

These IPs seem to be from Victoria, and one appears to be from the town of Warrugal. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. Also, I believe there is an Australian Wikimedia chapter? I would assume they were closer to dealing with Telstra than WMF? (Yeah, I know: this is a "hot potato", and everyone´s reaction is to pass it on the the next person. Sigh...) Huldra (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Chapters don't handle issues like this (they're essentially clubs of like-minded people) - the WMF is a better point of contact, and seems to take issues like this seriously. I'd suggest that you contact them if you haven't already done so. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I contacted Philippe B, by email last week, as he had been dealing with "my old friend" earlier. However, that was obviously not good timing, so I forwarded it through the "standard channels" earlier today. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I did a bit of poking about and came across |this site. While it deals with some nasty business with regards to anti- vs pro-vaccination groups not relevant here, but what was relevant was the inclusion of part of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Quick summary of this is that it is an offence in Australia to use a "carriage service", such as phone, mail, but also including electronic services, to make threats to kill or threats to cause serious harm. You could turn such evidence as you have to police in that particular state. Cybercrime reporting is somewhat in its infancy in Australia but police do respond to it. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Extra comment The IP's largely originate from around Melbourne, Victoria with one geolocating to a town 50km north of Melbourne. This would put it in the jurisdiction of the Victorian State Police, although depending on how they respond to the threats it may escalate to the Australian Federal Police (our version of the FBI) if it is viewed as a Commonwealth crime. Blackmane (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Extra extra comment Range blocking Telstra basically means you block pretty much the whole country. Telstra is the largest telecommunications company here but it used to be government owned till its privatisation. As such, most of the other ISP's here piggy back off their hardware. Far better to report to the abuse team on irt -at- team.telstra.com. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, User:Blackmane. I will email irt -at- team.telstra.com. I contacted WMF, they could confirm that this was, most likely, *not" my old friend, but some copy-cat. Besides that, they were basically doing nothing; just telling me that I should contact local police. I´m on the other side of the world, I doubt police here would do anything about a threat "down under". Also: if I went to the police, my RL name would get known, and could possibly be leaked. (Yes, I´m a bit paranoid after 5 years with constant death and rape-threaths, I´ll admit!) Lets hope the telstra-team does something; if not, I will be back in a short while asking for you to range-block the whole area: *that* would wake them up, I´m sure! Huldra (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please keep us informed User:Huldra; while I'm not in Victoria, I'm still interested in seeing that this situation is dealt with, preferably without my own access being blocked! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

User:Lankiveil : I emailed them a couple of days ago; and I have still not received an answer. It is week-end, though, so I think we should give them a few more days. However, if they totally ignore any request, I seriously would suggest blocking Telstra IPs. And no, that would *not* be of any concern to registered editors, (like Lankiveil), it would just stop any Telstra IPs from editing, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you imply that you would seek to have the administrators here begin blocking, if not range blocking Telstra IPs with the attendant consumer complaints that would inevitably arise? Telstra has a bit of a reputation for somewhat poor customer service. I suggest drawing some hard lines in the sand to give them a prod. I'm not in Melbourne so I am at no risk of being blocked. I suggest waiting no more than till Wednesday, Australian time, that's UTC+9 at this time of year. Blackmane (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Still not even an answer.. Huldra (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In That case, the admins should move to start blocking these IPs/IP ranges. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprising result, Telstra are always useless to deal with. If any admin things they can make some reasonable range blocks that don't hit too much collateral I say go for it, but as noted above rangeblocking the entire ISP would be massive overkill – it's the biggest ISP in Australia and there are plenty of areas where it is the only ISP available. Jenks24 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Just checked my email, again, and no response yet from Telstra. Range-block away, I would say, (it would not affect any of you registered users, in any case). If there is a public reaction to this, then we should throw that straight back to Telstra´s court, so to speak. Huldra (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose some in this thread should be happy I don't know how to do a rangeblock, since I wouldn't give a damn if I block half the continent. I've seen the comments from that racist, and if that's the price to pay to wake someone up over there, that's fine with me, just fine. Philippe, please tell me that it's not up to one single harassed editor to get in contact with the police and ISPs half a world away; please tell me that you and Jimbo Wales and everyone else there take this kind of stuff seriously. Jimbo, you're an admin: put on your admin goggles, if they still fit, and see what I and others have had to revdelete. It's nice that we want to keep women editors and stop people from saying "cunt"--well, here you have an opportunity to stop one person from saying shit that's infinitely worse than that. Pick up the phone, Philippe and Jimbo, and call someone. You two have weight that Huldra and I don't have. Or wait for the call you'll get, when I accidentally block a million people for three months for racist abuse. Actually, Huldra, that's starting to sound like fun. I wonder if Malik would approve. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• If we don't get any sort of additional requested response soon, go for it. From what little I dealt with Malik, I think what you are proposing is something that someone with the guts he displayed while actively editing here would need. I am not an admin, but, if I was, I would myself in an few hours, even if I knew it would be the last thing I would ever be likely to do as an admin. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies: I believe Philippe has "left the building", so to speak, (see this), my understanding is that he is replaced by User:Mdennis_(WMF). It was, however, User:Jalexander-WMF who basically told me to contact my local police. Besides the fact that I live in a country where English is not any of our official languages (we have two), I am not an admin, and all threats are rev-delled. So, I could go to the police, and tell them that this is a rape threat against me and here they want to kill me, ...both comes from an IP at the other side of the world, writing in a foreign language (for my local police), ...and both edits are now over-sighted, so I´m sorry, they cannot see it! Yeah, sure. I would say I have a larger change of winning jackpot in a lottery, than getting the police to act on such a report. So I´ll say range-block away, and then leave it to Telstra and/or WMF to take the response.... Huldra (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, Jalexander-WMF, Jimbo Wales, Sj, Phoebe, Raystorm, LilaTretikov, Mdennis_WMF, isn't this an odd situation? (I'd ping everyone but I don't know where to find our upper structure's Rolodex.) We have nothing but volunteers and a couple of computers, while you have money and phones and lawyers and translators and clout and connections with the media and suits and fax machines and endowments and grants and corner offices--and you all let "us" deal with something that should affect you also? Can some of you at least acknowledge that you were pinged here, that you read some of the comments, that you read some of the revdeleted comments, and that you will do something about this? Sorry, but is that not somebody's job? Isn't that part of the surplus value of our (free) labor? Drmies (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, I strongly recommend you contact the Legal team. I am not an admin here and cannot see what was revdeleted, but protecting an editor is my main concern. The rangeblock could be a useful temporary solution (I understand your reluctance to go to the Australian police especially if you cannot show them the threats. I wonder if you could be given the admin flag temporarily for that here. Or maybe someone from the Australian chapter with the flag could provide support?). Legal has an emergency email for these kind of threats in the link above. Contact them, and let me know if I can be of further assistance. Fyi Drmies: Phoebe, Sj and I are no longer affiliated to the wmf. --Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the deleted material, so can someone explain what is so important about preventing the abusive user from editing? I get the impression from the above that he wants to threaten one editor, who he has already threatened, so what difference does it really make if he threatens some more? Why block a big chunk of Australia over it? (@Only in death: I don't see what difference it makes if Telstra has a monopoly, either - do you really expect the average user is going to change his ISP to avoid a rangeblock laid against somebody else?) I also think Wikipedians would be very short-sighted indeed to make any effort to get Australia's overzealous censorship infrastructure focused on our site - it would be a classic case of releasing the rattlesnake to catch a rat in your basement) Wnt (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Raystorm, I did exactly that, I contacted emergency@wikimedia.org; they told me to contact Jalexander-WMF, who told me to contact my local police. (Who is located on the other side of the world.)

Wnt, AFAIK, it is not only me, anyone who revert him, too. Try McSly. And *if* I knew he would stop, that would be fine with me. But from my long experience with vandals (I think I have had death or rape threats every single month for the last 5 years), I know that these guys don´t stop before there is some intervention. Sadly, it is as simple as that. Telstra could very easily stop this; (Together with some (un)-deleted diffs from this place ): instead, they do nothing. Let *them* take the heat. Huldra (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo has commented on his user talk page about this matter here, suggesting a call to Telestra first, threatening to go to the press, and then, if that doesn't work, go to the press. Then, presumably, if that don't work, block the whole damn company if we have to. He's also suggesting a clear and straightforward process to deal with such rare but potentially very damaging cases.

FWIW, I don't think Telestra is necessarily going to need to have the evidence in hand before taking action in the short term, although, not being from that country, I don't really know. But I do think that the threat of very negative media if they don't do anything will probably be enough. And, with most companies, if the threat isn't, the reality of very negative media probably would be. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies Yes, it is someone's job; it's my job and the job of my team as Trust & Safety and the broader job of CA and the WMF. There is no doubt that there are major issues with online threats like this and that shutting them down (no matter how many resources you have) can be incredibly difficult, given the frustrating realities of challenges to block (bouncing frequently around IPs/proxies), world wide abuse, and legal law mish mash (where exactly what is possible and what evidence is needed changes depending on where the victim and the perpetrator are). That said, the safety and well being of our users is incredibly important, and we'll continue to try and help users being attacked like this (and to shut down the perpetrators) for as long as it takes. Because of everything, sometimes law enforcement can do that quickly and sometimes it can take years, but that certainly doesn't mean we'll give up on it. In the end when people are making threats to kill or rape someone, these are threats of harm and abuse. Like all threats of this nature they should be reported through our Threats of Harm process as soon as they are found so that the on-call staff (and we're on-call 24-7) can help deal with it quickly, evaluating threats in the moment and getting them to law enforcement as soon as possible in accordance with their protocols. In addition, it's really important that users who are feeling threatened also go to their local police. I know that not everyone likes to do that, but it's an important step that can help provide immediate protection where necessary and also contribute to long-term solutions. In this particular case I'll be reviewing all of the data now in order to report it to the proper authorities, but if more threats come in they should definitely be reported to us so that they can also be actioned. In general, the more evidence and information we have (and the faster we get it) the better, because even if people are trying to cover their tracks by using proxies, difficult-to-track ISPs or countries, they usually make mistakes, and the more information we can get our own contacts the better they can put together reports and investigations that get things done. While it isn't always possible (and I’ll be the first one to admit that from experience as an admin doing this before I was staff), it's also useful to report early so that threads like can close down. When the perpetrator’s main goal is disruption and anger, a long back and forth on ANI can give him a lot of what he's looking for. Jalexander--WMF 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Figuring out new approaches to harassment is a priority at the Foundation, and we're working together with concerned community members on how we might change things for the better. But as James notes, cases like these are a different beast - they are exceptionally difficult to action. Problem users such as this have no regard for policy or community norms. That said, we will certainly welcome ideas for solutions to this kind of thing as well. We’re putting together some research on harassment issues (you can see some of that here) now and hoping to hold a broad, cross-community consultation gathering ideas a little later this year. I’ll certainly let folks know as that progresses and would love for you to share in that work. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• James, can you telephone or email Telstra, with the dates, times and IP addresses? They might very well help if asked to. Sarah ^(talk) 19:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin The ISP is definitely one of the angles we look at in addition to law enforcement (and like LEAs sometimes they help and sometimes they don't) but in general I won't publicly comment on exactly what we do in a specific case. Jalexander--WMF 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• James Thanks for the reply. I don't understand why you couldn't say whether you've contacted the ISP. That would seem to be step one. Admins do it regularly – it's what the abuse teams at the ISPs are there for. Asking the targeted editor in another country to contact their police force means the editor will have to out themselves to the police, and the police are unlikely to act anyway. What editors usually want in these situations is for the abuse to stop, and ISPs are in a position to make that happen. Sarah ^(talk) 20:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sarah; thank you for asking that question. It is definitely one I would like to ask Jalexander-WMF myself. Who shall make that call to Telstra and when? I realise it is week-end now, but by Monday (Californian time) I would really be expecting some *specific* answers*, not just general platitudes. Huldra (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

James, @Huldra: is asking on Jimbo's talk page who should contact the company. I'm guessing you would probably know best what she should do at this point? John Carter (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Responded there. Jalexander--WMF 19:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Huldra, James has made clear on Jimbo's page that he has not yet contacted Telstra. I don't know whether anyone else has. But the problem now is that the abusive edits appear to have been oversighted. That makes them harder to report. The best thing is to leave them in place, contact Telstra, and show them the IP address, date and time. If it's bad enough or protracted enough, they are likely to act. They may not tell you what they have done, but they are still likely to do something.

  Ideally they need to be able to see the edits for themselves. Failing that, they will need someone from the Foundation to confirm the dates and times. Sarah ^(talk) 21:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• First off, no, I did not make clear on Jimmy's page that we had not contacted Telstra yet. I made clear that contacting ISPs is an option we always take into account and that we do not reveal what we have done or not done for any individual abuse case (including this one which is on going, including me being in the office as we speak on Saturday afternoon dealing with it). Second, it is never a good idea to leave abusive comments undeleted or unsuppressed. The assistance in reporting is minimal and the continued feeding of perpetrators and damage against the victims significant. The privacy policy allows both the WMF and the Oversighters (or admins when it's just deleted) to release that info for investigative or anti-abuse purposes and that is the appropriate way to do it. After working with an awful lot of law enforcement agencies from around the world they end up wanting screen shots and copies of the data anyway, links to Wikipedia tend to end up with them more confused and less likely to act. Jalexander--WMF 21:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jalexander-WMF, you wrote: "As I said in a response on ANI contacting the ISP is definitely something that we are looking into as one of the options." That sentence implies that you hadn't contacted them at that point.

I contacted several ISPs as an admin years ago when there was protracted abuse or vandalism. What they found most helpful was (a) links to the edits showing IP, dates and times, and (b) screenshots of the end result. With only one exception I can think of, they were very helpful. But that involves them being able to see the material for themselves. The more it's hidden (admin-deleted, oversighted), the smaller the number of people who can deal with it. Also, it's a separate issue, but I've found just leaving things in place tends to end them faster. Sarah ^(talk) 23:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, that does imply that it hadn't been done yet. I apologize for that. I had already sent emails to a couple groups at the time and (now from the office) am continuing to look at a couple other options. Re: Leaving things in place, while I understand where you're coming from and I can certainly understand the desire to do such as a way of forcing the issue I have found that the consequences of leaving it have a strong tendency to outweigh the consequences of removing it (though certainly not always) and so will never advocate for leaving it. Jalexander--WMF 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So should someone want to report an incident to the police, who should they suggest the police contact to view the edit(s) in question? Ravensfire (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ravensfire Law enforcement should generally contact legal@wikimedia.org or, in cases of immediate threat, emergency@. Others (such as oversighters) can also give the edits in question (or screen shots of them etc) before the report is made so that they can be view them from the start and just have to contact for confirmation if they need it. Jalexander--WMF 22:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what I was expecting. For something like this, I would suggest just recommending that the police contact either legal or emergency mailboxes. It's probably unlikely that someone at the police would be familiar with Wikipedia and being able to give them an e-mail address and what information they need to request (edit from user ABC or IP 456 pm this date/time) would make it more likely something would happen. Ravensfire (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that someone with a "wikimedia.org" email address should be the one to contact Telstra. They're the very definition of a faceless mega-company and it'll probably take a fair bit to penetrate their bureaucracy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC).

Nah. All you need is a press release. Bad publicity from an entity having the public visibility and regard of WP will launch it straight over the bureaucracy to the People That Matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa

Gob Lofa and myself were recently blocked for a 24 hours, with the blocking administrator Callanecc making the following statements at our talk pages [1] and [2], making it clear that they would be looking into a IBAN between us and a TBAN for either one or both of us. Nothing as of yet has come of this and I would like to request that action indeed be taken. I would ask Callanecc directly however I noticed on their talk page that they won't be as active as normal until 14 September, but I will notify them of this AN/I.

This editors problems have not been altered by their recent block and warnings of further action being taken, and it seems to me that they are intent on going back over previous "flashpoints" and trying to elicit a reaction from me, and whilst I have performed a few reverts I have kept them to the most contentious edits and have done my best to remain civil, however I am coming here hoping to get this nipped in the bud before it escalates further with either an IBAN, and a TBAN on Gob Lofa or both of us or whatever action is deemed merited. It needs to stop.

Callanecc makes it clear that such a decision will be based on mine and Gob Lofa's actions, for example about civility and usage of sources [3]. Callanecc also requested in his block notice to me (linked above) that I remain civil and leave Gob Lofa's talk page alone, and for my part I feel that I have done that except to place an AN/I notice on their page to notify them of this. Unfortunately Gob Lofa seems to have reverted back to the issues I had originally raised here before deciding to close it and go to ArbCom Enforcement instead, and seems to be intent on carrying on before as well as trying to provoke some form of response from me by revisiting previous debates/flashpoints, starting here (23rd August) and most recently today here (30th August) and here.

I deem a TBAN on Gob Lofa in regards to Troubles related articles is more than justified going by their actions I raised previously and the following recent edits:

• Despite previously being informed [4] of the problems with their attempt to add a "Terrorism" category to the article, they decided [5] to put it into the start of the second sentence of the lede in a clear violation of WP:UNDUE (talk page discussion makes it clear why). I reverted [6], asking Gob Lofa to go to talk about it, to which they did and this was the result. Note the incivility from Gob Lofa towards Snowded [7].
• They are also still at the inaccurate edit summaries. Here they state "NPOV, link, reword etc", however what they actually did was reword a more NPOV sourced statement and changed the entire context of it and made it more POV. They also reworded another sourced statement (at the end of the edit) that was inaccurate as my reversion edit summary makes clear. They made the same edit and misleading summary at this article as well.
• This is another contentious edit. The government was not involved in the violence, and it is highly contentious and inaccurate to state such.
• This talk page however clearly reveals the real level of bias with their arguments for their edit, an argument that is clearly at odds with the facts, which I make clear with responses of block quotations from several verifiable and reliable sources by respected academics. Most notably Gob Lofa explicitly stated on 15th July: "the BA put it up to republicans first, starting with forcing through Orange marches with violence in March 1970" [8] however this direct quote from one of those sources I provided on 25th August [9] states "On Easter Tuesday, 31 March 1970, the Junior Orangemen had permission to march in Belfast. On their way out they marched along the Springfield Road without incident, but on their return that evening Catholic youths began to throw bottles at the bands and when about seventy soldiers of the Royal Scots Regiment arrived they were attacked with stones and petrol bombs.". There is some difference between Gob Lofa's version of events and what actually happened, and from an editor who frequently states that they are making things more NPOV.

They also now seem to be trying to provoke/hound me:

• [10]. An IP was trying to enforce a word change, and after a few reverts I had asked an admin to semi-protect the page, however a completely new IP appears to change it again. Upon reverting, Gob Lofa appears out of the blue, stating I "Take it to talk", even though there is no basis for such a statement or revert considering I was reverting an IPs edit to the stable version. This new IP and Gob Lofa also both edited this article on the 28th August leading me to wonder are they linked.
• The following (ab)use [11] of their rollback privilege yesterday (not the first time) to make another inaccurate edit summary and what is clear incivility directed at me with "Undo convoluted POV replacement for Britain". That is in regards to me reverting an edit of theirs back on the 1st May [12]. How that edit summary was merited is beyond me. Notified that it is actually misuse of undo and twinkle, not the rollback feature itself Mabuska ^(talk) 00:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska ^(talk) 13:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Also in regards to the Dromore, County Down article, a clear attempt at provocation by highly dubious admonishment [13], though my response to it shows the holes in it. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Having failed to elicit some form of uncivil response from me at Talk:Dromore,_County_Down they decide to do it instead [14]. They have also decided to follow me to the Ulaid article in an attempt to find something to argue with me over to see if they can get a reaction out of me, in this case removing a WikiProject tag I added [15], though my response discounts their reasoning in their edit summary for it [16]. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to revisit past "flashpoints" to push either their viewpoint or attempt to antagonise by restoring challenged edits:

• 5 September pushing an edit that was challenged back on 8 July, and continuing with misleading edit summaries, cites the talk page as if there is a consensus for their edit when none exists.
• 5 September, undoing a revert I made back on 6 July. Once again they restored their inaccurate and unsourced opinion whilst at the same time removing sourced information. Another editor has since reverting them [17].

Examples will keep being posted until something is done and as Gob Lofa is willing to keep providing them then this issue won't go away. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of times action just doesn't occur at ANI for various reasons. I'm sure in this case, people either feel they don't want to step on Callanecc's purview or it's difficult to dig into the long-term history of the dispute. I think you're going to need to wait for Callanecc on this one as they are going to be the best person for deciding what to do.

That being said, the one thing I checked quick was the interaction tool for these two.[18] Gob Lufa's only post to Ulaid was 35 minutes after Mabuska. Unless there's more to the story, it can be relatively reasonable to assume Gob Lufa was following Mabuska around in this one instance. The rest really needs someone who's followed the issues (or has a lot of time to catch up). Unless someone has more to add, I think it might be best to close this and let it be sorted out when Callanecc gets back. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. So your suggesting I let this archive and when Callanecc returns post him a direct link to here? That I can do. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• The discussion at Talk:McGurk's Bar bombing#BA violence presents a good example of reasoned debate that seems to go well beyond the call of duty in terms of substantiation. In this light, if Gob Lufa continues with abrasively confrontational behaviour ... then some level of block should be applied. IBANs patently don't work in situations in which editors are working on the same content. GregKaye 05:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Greg, a closer look at that talk page will show I congratulated Mabuska on his research on 25 August, and allowed his edit to stand. Why would agreeing with another editor and their edit entail "some level of block"? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa, it looks as though this ANI is going to be closed with no action, but just to comment briefly. Congratulating someone once, isn't a very persuasive defence for the PoV editing on other occasions of which you are accused. Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature

This article is mainly edited by a few editors who only edit this article and two related ones (Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos). Although I have tried to explain clearly what problems I see with the article as it currently stands, I continue to be accused of editing with a political bias by John sargis (as well as an IP editor, 165.120.27.172, but I assume that is the same person who forgot to log in). I consider this a personal attack and have notified the editor of this. This was again answered with a personal attack. The editor's user page and talk page show that this person has a history of such attacks. The editor also has a COI with this article, having published himself in this journal several times (e.g., [19] and [20]). In view of these repeated attacks and persistent failure to AGF, perhaps some editor here can have a look. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• You assume wrong what you think is my IP address. It is not me. You should be sure about your "facts" before making veiled presumptions against me. After I repeatedly showed you the irregularities about the way wiki rules are applied in terms of what you see as "problems" with the article, you blame me for attacking you. I am pointing out the foolish consistencies in the way the rules are applied in that there are many other articles that suffer from the same "rule", but it seems they only apply to D&N, even after it has been pointed out to you those other articles. If there are wiki rules that are “double standards” and an administrator enforces them, then logic dictates that the administrator is biased. This is not a personal attack. Furthermore, I do question your motives since if you think I did attack you personally, you threatened to take me to the WP:ANI board to get me banned. I question your motives, because before you post a grievance against a user with the board, you must FIRST try to resolve the issue on my talk page. Which you did not do. Thus you are harassing me. And I am asking now that an administrator can have a look for proof at my talk page. Thanks. John sargis (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• The issue was discussed at Talk:Democracy & Nature, so there was no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page. And apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules... --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but again as I have repeated, I want the rules to be evenly applied, which you did not do. The rule says that you go to my talk page to iron out the personal issue(s) and not at the article page which is inappropriate. You bypassed and undercut the rule so that you could preemptively get me banned by going immediately to the administrators. This is harassment. So again a foolish consistency underscores how you use or not use wiki rules for your convenience. John sargis (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Your insinuation, Randykitty, is I am hypocritical when you say, “apparently there are situations where you do want those darned Wikipedia rules.” implying I am biased is a personal attack. I replied, above, I want the rules applied evenly, but yet you are insisting not to use them evenly as evidenced not only in your discussions here and especially at your post at 19:36 (UTC) above, but also at D&N page where last year you tried the same editorial tactics with no success of deletion—and now you are at it again. It is difficult for it not come to mind that you have a political bias, but I do not know. John sargis (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh man... Could somebody not involved please have a look at this? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• And ongoing PA by another editor, Panlis, who exclusively edits topics related to the ones mentioned above. Given the vehemence and the accusations, I feel almost like I am dealing with a sect here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• User Randykitty, as demonstrated in Talk:Democracy & Nature, has consistently tried to impose his way of editing the article, by adding repeatedly tags and requests for citations, that were effectively shown to him that are at least irrelevant to the article and constituted the -to my mind as well- justifiable assumption that he indeed maintains a bias toward the entry. His recurrent editing "spree" has been accompanied by his unwillingness to answer to documented and logical questions brought to his attention in the Talk Page. So the assumption of his maintaining a bias towards the article does not constitute a Personal Attack, as so easily and conveniently Randykitty accuses me and other editors of, and this is because all criticizing was aimed at his activity in the entry, accompanied by documented and -to a decent degree- laborious argumentation on his recurrent and lately almost totally exorbitant actions showcased in the Talk Page. And this is particularly so, when in the meanwhile and while he accused the other editors, I tried to contribute to the article by particularly addressing his demands for citations, from the moment they seemed somehow sensible. At the same time, the only thing Randykitty did was mainly deleting, and adding tags!..

Then, Randykitty didn't take the time to activate the Dispute Resolution procedure, before bringing the matter to the Administrators' board. On the contrary he accuses the other editors involved in the discussion, with a striking nerve, of being a "sect"! But this is to say easily when an editor is short of answers to the points raised by me or anybody else who out of necessity does not spend his life in checking wiki entries and he resorts to the facile ‘accusation’ that "I exclusively edit topics related to the ones mentioned above”. But why specialist knowledge on a topic is something wrong when editing an article in an encyclopedia and in Wikipedia, when of course it's not a field for advocacy? Yes, I do have specialist knowledge on the topic and this is why I take party on discussions related to it rather than on brain cancer surgery. Unless of course, according to Wikipedia rules, people with no obvious knowledge on a topic or on the meaning or the function of a theoretical journal should have more say on any topic, as long as they have memorized some wiki rules. Of course rules are needed but the issue is how (as every rule) are interpreted. Panlis (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need to give any more rope to this group maintaining a walled garden, per WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA. --Randykitty (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Randykitty increasingly acts in -to say the very least- bad faith and total unwillingness to follow any gradual protocol required by Wikipedia before dropping in the row and without any documented reply his "allegations" in this board. Now he demonstrates once again his blatant unwillingness to take part in the discussion in the Democracy & Nature Talk Page and to reply to the concrete arguments posed against his theses, when at the same time, he continues adding tags that have been demonstrated to him to be at best irrelevant and at worst, totally biased as [I (and other editors) have tried to prove here, without any at all, further participation to the dialogue by this obviously Disruptive Editor. It's also becoming now more than clear that the same user uses his "credentials" of thousands of edits in articles and of being an administrator, so as not only to impose his unacceptable editing methods to the D&N entry, despite my and other editors' best attempts to concretely and in detail show his inconsistency (and, ultimately), bias in this case, but to also throw mud against all other editors with whom he simply does not agree with: By putting at the venture labels on them of the sort of "WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA" etc..

And all this when

(a) positive response to some of his sensible demands was accurately applied to the entry,

(b) his blatant inconsistencies were meticulously shown with specific examples and passages in the Talk Page, without him caring to give any concrete reply to my and others' argumentation in the Talk Page,

(c) he jumped without any constraint to blame me and other editors of WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:NPA etc., without any effort on his part to follow a normal procedure of the many available in WP:DR and elsewhere before resorting to these accusations and before bringing me and others to the WP:ANI, and finally,

(d) he continues even at this moment his disruptive editing and undocumented reverses without giving any explanation at all in the talk page for this, while at the same time he has the "nerve" of accusing me (with the non-argument) of "not addressing the underlying problems" (!), something that I tried to do in -I think- a decently laborious and well-documented attempt! Hence Randykitty's action that suits to his case could also be showcased vividly in the following clear passages from WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

"A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: (...)

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." (...)
2. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." (...)

Panlis (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• This thread had been archived. I have restored it in hope of solliciting some input about this case of SPA editors owning some articles. --Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Having completely lost the argument, Randykitty now returns (as was fully expected of him!) with yet another wp rule: owning. However, once again, he simply distorts another wp rule. He has no evidence whatsoever to support his new allegation apart from the fact that the editors who tried to make sense of his multiple tagging (like John Sargis and Panlis) were involved before in exchanges related to D&N and related entries. However, the owning rule itself stresses that “It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert” and Panlis himself admitted his special knowledge on the topic. Randykitty has to show convincingly that “this watchfulness has become possessiveness” and he NEVER MANAGED TO DO SO, particularly as the editors involved (as well as myself) tried repeatedly to improve the entry following those of Randykitty’s suggestions which were specific enough and looked reasonable,e.g. providing the citations and the links to references he asked for. I also supposed that as long as he does not just put tags all around, without usually giving concrete advice on what has to be done, the editors already involved –and hopefully others as well—would continue helping to improve the entry. Unless of course his real aim is not to improve the entry but simply to have it deleted, after his failed attempt for deletion last year.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Still no comments from uninvolved editors. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• According to Randykitty’s “interpretation” of wp rules, all comments from ‘involved’ editors can easily be dismissed or ignored, irrespective of the quality of the arguments concerned, just because these editors are interested in a particular topic on which they happen to have some knowledge. On the other hand, his own heavy involvement in this particular entry in the past when he tried (and failed) to have it deleted, does not matter simply because he has managed to make 62,000 edits in the short period of 2 years and 10 months - obviously working on a full-time basis - i.e. over 60 edits per day, apart from starting over 60 new entries!165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• After the personal attacks, we now progress to taunting. Directly ON Ani... --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• I am not personally attacking or taunting anybody and that was obviously not my intention. I simply stated some OBVIOUS FACTS and Randykitty, instead of trying to dispute them, resorts to his familiar tactics of playing the victim.165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I really need not to "dispute" anything you and the other editors above have been writing. It is there for everybody to see and what is true of it is equally simple to see. Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here. --Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Randykitty, please avoid this "self-defeating" rhetoric. The way you set the demand, i.e. for some non-involved users to intervene in order to clarify if it's that "we" ("the sect" according to your -at least, humiliating-, accusation about me and other editors of the Democracy & Nature entry) "are correct", something meaning that you will have to be "swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here" (!) is at least disorienting for any user that happens to see this debate. No one asked or suggested such a "response", which shows that you probably have personalized the whole debate. In fact no one asked anything from you, apart from the logical need to show where you believe the editors are mistaken in the first place as regards the editing of the aforementioned entries, particularly when they explicitly claimed that their intention was not Personal Attacking and that they tried to a more or less degree to address your sensible "demands" for citations etc.. On the other hand, you brought two editors before this Board, with a (at least slanderous against me) row of accusations, when, as I tried to show above and in the Democracy & Nature entry's Talk Page, it' s your mistake that you haven't tried to reply to any of the significant arguments raised against your activity, (by abstaining from any dialogue in the entry's Talk Page despite my and others' effort for precise argumentation) and secondly you continued to bypass the fact that significant effort has been in the making to collectively improve the article, even by newer editors like Niceguyedc and Fusedmilk. You didn't even TRY to follow a Dispute Resolution procedure but you jumped directly into here when you saw that not all your demands would be "fulfilled"...Panlis (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Personal attacks don't go to dispute resolution, they go to ANI. Simple. --Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• You are wrong. This is from the WP:NPA.

"Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through dispute resolution and third opinions. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required." (my emphasis). And the bold is what you don't try to do but you bring editors in this board - avoiding an attempt to reply to specific arguments as regards the entry's content in the entry's Talk Page and above.Panlis (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor I see an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards. Miniapolis 22:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Could I read a reasoning for the conclusion that you see "an assumption of bad faith towards Randykitty by John sargis, Panlis and the IP (with sock/meatpuppetry always a possibility) which is unusual even by WP standards." ?Panlis (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• It is very easy (and convenient too!) for somebody to declare himself ‘uninvolved editor’ and then to go on slandering other editors like me as sockpuppets etc mainly because I am an IP address editor. However, I thought that according to WP rules “the treatment of IP address editors as second-class editors is unacceptable”. If this rule is not valid anymore please let me know and I will stop immediately taking part in the discussion. I think that good or bad faith should be assessed on the basis of the arguments offered not on the basis of suspicions and offering no arguments at all does not help anybody in drawing conclusions about the good faith of other editors. Quite the opposite.165.120.27.172 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Randykitty accused me and an editor using an IP address (read first two posts of this thread), of claiming political bias against him in which which he assumes the IP editor is me and thus he reported me to “the editor”. I told him he is assuming wrong. It is not my IP address. Thus by notifying the editor he harassed me for no real reason, because he does not show evidence that it is my IP address and he never first tried to resolve the issue on my talk page, but bypassed that wiki rule to file a grievance against me. I do not see how you can claim bad faith on my part, when it was Randykitty who harassed and threatened me. He replies that there is “no need to start yet another discussion on your talk page” (where personal issues are resolved). And “apparently there are situations where you do want to use those darned Wikipedia rules.” Thus there is proof that he uses the wiki rules when it is convenient for him, and yet he accuses me that I want wiki rules to be used only for some situations. But if you look at my replies, I said that I want the wiki rules “evenly applied”, which is obvious by reading the thread above. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias. This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide. Sargis, as a former contributor to this journal, obviously has a conflict of interest here, but that doesn't hold them back spouting a stream of accusations in my direction. And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sargis is more than a former contributor, he's the assistant editor. It wouldn't be surprising if this group of editors is an evolution of the group of IPs who used to edit the talk pages of these articles identifying themselves as Takis, members of the journal's editorial board/committee or the webmaster of the journal [21][22][23][24]. --78.149.243.116 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. Everybody and everything you don't like has to be banned. This is direct democracy in action. Particularly so if some people are 'more equal' than others in imposing their own view of what a neutral encyclopedia should all be about and are able to dictate who is allowed to speak and who is not. Personally I refuse to take part anymore in any further 'discussions' of this kind.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• You say

"I think the editing/behavior pattern of this group of editors is quite clear. They are not here to create a neutral encyclopedia, but to push an agenda. Anybody interfering with that gets hit with a barrage of accusations and wikilawyering. Trying to improve one of "their" articles is hit by demands that other articles that have similar deficits get cleaned up first because if you don't do that, you have a political bias."

a)You still throw accusations and mud against me and others without even getting into trouble to support your case the way you should do according to WP:AOBF,-as I tried to do-, but you assumed bad faith from the beginning, and this was not accidental as you had attempted to delete the entry as non-notable in the recent past, something that was unanimously rejected with the active participation of other editors as well. And pardon me but..who talks about wikilawyering when you drop rows over rows of Wiki rules which some of them contain significant passages as I tried to show above in my replies that serve the opposite case to what you want to demonstrate! (see the passages from the WP:ANI above, WP:AOBF etc.)

b)As usually you bypass the argument. What you did and this is why you were criticized in the first place was mostly that you added citation demands repeatedly and in a row despite the clear no-need for them in a significant dialogue to which you decided not to take part and reply, while at the same time I and others tried consistently to address your own demands so as to improve the entry, something that demonstrates a reasonably bona fide approach and clearly undermines your accusations for WP:NPA and doesn't explain at all the initiative for beginning this debate in here!.

"This all started with an effort by me to make the article on the (borderline notable) journal Democracy & Nature compliant with our journal article writing guide."

c)Yes, and the editors replied with documented argumentation, passages, examples etc. to your edits in the page's Talk Page; To their answers you did not get into trouble to answer but you brought me and the rest in here when you saw that not all your demands would be fulfilled.

d)Calling a journal borderline notable needs proof which should be given in the entry's Talk Page and not through aphorisms here. A clear decision that the journal is notable was formed just a year ago after extensive discussion and documentation with the participation of other editors too, when you first raised the non-notability factor. Your insistence to show how not notable the journal is, is just another indication of your obvious bias against it and that you just like to pull at straws in this case.

"And as demonstrated above, anybody who dares say that this is not the way things are done here, clearly must be biased against them, too. I think that, at the least, some topic bans are in order here. "

e)This is simply not to say when clear effort to improve the entry was made as a reply to your own dictations. On the other hand your bias is a pattern shown repeatedly, beginning from your attempt to delete the entry a year ago (based on the supposed non-notability of it), which was rejected, by your call still for non-notability of the journal despite the decision last year, by the fact that you proceeded in a spree of cite-tagging that you didn't like to address in the major medium to do it: In the entry's Talk Page.

g)From the above, the case to my mind is simply pulling at straws and should be archived. Moreover no reasoning at all was given by the non-involved editor who appeared yesterday. Panlis (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I think you misread things. The previous AfD was not unanimous at all (despite a host of SPA editors creeping out of the woodwork), which is probably why you didn't link to it directly. (The fact that it was taken to AfD no less than 4 times shows that its notability is not as clear as you try to make it seem). And from the moment that I dared voice some critical remarks of the article on this journal, my motivations have been put into doubt, so it's a bit rich that you now call upon AGF, something you have never done yourself. The references "for which there is no clear need" that I requested are clearly needed. The journal article writing guide, based on a wide consensus in the WikiProject Academic Journals, explicitly states that lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." The appropriate sources should be provided or the list should be removed. Now lest somebody thinks that this is a simple content dispute that does not belong at ANI, please have a look at the talk page of the article and the blatant personal attacks there (continued for all to see in the postings above). --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• You are right, it was not unanimous, you were the only one who didn't agree as far as I recall among a variety of editors. But the documents and dialogue back then demonstrated for good the notability of the article, with dozens of 3rd party references that I digged out, if you remember, which further showed its significance. Secondly, this is not a forum for solving the possible issues of an article but this should be done in its Talk Page to which you decided not to answer. Particularly when the issues raised above were replied in that Talk Page by using relevant examples from many important Journal entries to which for peculiar reasons this rule for Journals you mention doesn't abide, and for which entries you did not make any further fuss e.g. raising respective complaints for their having a simple and direct listing of contributors. And this is mainly because of your bias against the Democracy and Nature entry that has been more than evident from all dialogue in that Talk Page and here, that you disguise as WP:NPA. This is then to my mind clearly a pulling at straws case you continue raising in this Board as it is not intended of course for Dispute Resolution over the content of an article and you very well know it. As per your "critical remarks", you insist on bypassing the fact that the editors of the entry replied to all of them concretely and with evidence in the appropriate page to do this, something that you just did not like and chose arbitrarily to bring the issue of WP:NPA in here instead. But this is also a case of turning a blind eye to the edits of the entry because as I repeatedly demonstrated (but you prefer to ignore), all your sensible demands according to the editors of the entry -older and newer as well-, were met.- Panlis (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Read again. There were several delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate, just as you're doing here. You obviously have read WP:TLDR and are trying to use it to your advantage here. The arguments that you brought forward on the talk page to counter my legitimate concerns were 1/ WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and 2/ "you're biased". That kind of arguments always crop up when a cabal of POV/COI editors are faced with somebody insisting on getting things done in a neutral and encyclopedic way. --Randykitty (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Can you please use concrete evidence as passages, diffs etc., like I have been persistently doing inhere, so as to justify your "conclusions"? I just read the dialogue in the Democracy and Nature entry's Talk Page and I don't see any other user who had taken part in that discussion (Cwobeel, WallabieJoey, KosMal, Arran Gare and a couple of IP editors) who was in favour of deleting the entry back then except for you.! Isn't that correct? If I am mistaken please correct me by bringing here specific links, diffs etc. and not with aphorisms. My final take on this irrelevant and disorientating debate is that this is not the arena to solve the possible issues of an entry, and the other issues (Personal Attacking etc.) that you raised were addressed in painstaking detail above. I hope this has become clear and I plead you to stop raising repeatedly humiliating and aggressive cases against me by calling me part of a sect etc. and by pulling at straws inhere, as it could be taken for Harassment. You may have plenty of time to do tens of thousands of edits and to jump to conclusions in dialogues and debates, without getting into trouble to offer specific evidence as per WP:AOBF, but unfortunately I have not when it is not justified, as clearly happens in this pulling-at-straws case. And in addition to the fact that I try to be very precise and documented in my interventions these are the two main reasons for which I cannot contribute in the frequency and to the extent I would like to the Wikipedia project. Thank you! Panlis (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nice try, but as my previous comment should have made clear, we're not here to discuss what happened in an AfD a year ago (even though that debate was marred by the same lack of good faith and personal attacks, and, yes, there were other editors !voting "delete", too), nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute. We are here because of the refusal to AGF and the personal attacks at Talk:Democracy & Nature (at the misnamed section Randy Kitty's recurring deletion attempt). The "discussion" there clearly shows that my efforts to explain why something needs to be done were met with scorn, personal attacks (throwing doubt on my integrity), and bullshit arguments that other articles should be cleaned up first. Diffs are not necessary here, a 5 min perusal of the section I just linked do will do the job just fine. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why are you using foul and abusive language such as "bullshit"? Is not that a wiki "no no"? We are proving your bias, since there is a history to your attempt to delete D&N. So how can that not be evidence, because it happened in the past? Randykitty you dis other editors in the previous AfD of D&N as “creeping out of the woodwork” and as "your friends". If that is not an assault or name calling or personal attack or breaking of some wiki rule, or suggesting that bona fide editors are our "friends"let me know what is. Actually, if I were vengeful, I could say the same about the “univolved” editor as "your friend" “creeping out of the woodwork” at this late stage, but I will not because I have no proof. Four times D&N withstood deletion. Is this perpetual attempt to delete not part of something about journal writing? Notable is notable whether weak or strong is it not? Why are you beating a dead horse? Yes, maybe eventually, Randykitty, you will be able to put D&N under your belt, because at sometime you will be able to garner enough support, which speaks volumes of wiki objectivity (notable is notable whether weak or strong). Also you state “lists of authors should not be included in an article unless "there are independent reliable sources discussing their involvement with the journal in more than an in-passing way." We had this discussion about Chomsky who has published in many journals at Wikipedia, but with no reliable sources discussing his involvement with those journals in more than an in-passing way. That is why I demanded evenly applied wiki rules. You came with a ferocity of edits at (as you have tried in the past) the D&N article, and as well as placing tags immediately at Inclusive Democracy & Takis Fotopopulos. As an editor who wants to improve articles, your approach has the opposite effect and can be assumed to be not neutral. You say concerning delete votes on the last attempt to delete D&N, "delete !votes, although they indeed are somewhat drowned in the walls of text that you and your friends were dropping on that debate." A debate is a debate where there is discussion. The "delete" votes and "keep" votes were counted and there were more votes to “keep” as in the other attempts to delete D&N. Why are you accusing editors who help D&N as our "friends"? What proof do you have? Just because they help improve the article you think they are our friends? It is absurd. Furthermore, if you were bona fide and your problem is the quality of the article and not to get rid of the editors because you do not care for their replies, you could have proceeded to a Dispute Resolution procedure and why not open a new thread in the Administrators' Noticeboard with a relevant title. But what you did was to bring me and others to this board by calling us a "sect" and with accusations of WP:COI, WP:NPA etc. etc.. When you found out that your accusations do not have good basis, you came back to the purported problem of the content of the entry, which should be solved with the presence of informed editors about the content of the entry, and not within the context of an accusations thread, as you have just tried to cover over-"nor is this the place to deal with a content dispute" John sargis (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And hop! Yet another wall of text. The issue here is not the previous AfD, nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted. And the fact that I took this article to AfD and has been kept does not mean that I am now barred from improving the article where necessary, because I would somehow be biased. Hardly anybody who participated in the AfD has ever tried to improve the article as you claimed. Please stay to the point, which is your aspersions on my integrity. Could an admin please look at the above evidence and, if found to be correct, block me for disruptive editing so that we can put an end to this nonsense? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone summarise what the dispute is about in a few lines? The above is rather overwhelming, but I see lots of "other stuff exists" type arguments about why certain style conventions shouldn't apply to this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• The dispute started when I removed a list of contributors and a listing of the journal's editorial board from the article, per the reasoning given in WP:JWG, which is based on a broad consensus in the WikiProject Acadmeic Journals: contributors or editorial board members should only be listed if reliable sources exist that discuss in depth the importance of their contributions for the journal. The reason why we are here is that the above group of editors argued that there exist articles on other journals or magazines that also have such lists and that the fact that I wanted to remove these lists in this particular article showed that I am biased and whatnot. It's the latter personal attacks that brought us here. Somewhere in the above walls of text more such attacks and failures to assume good faith are hidden. Of the group of editors involved, at least one (John sargis) has a COI. The other editors involved almost exclusively edit this article and two related ones (Takis Fotopoulos and Inclusive Democracy). I think this basically sums up the walls of text above (and on Talk:Democracy & Nature). --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You tried the exact same tactic last year and failed to delete D&N, so again this year you attempt it. Does this not obviously show some type of bias by expanding your effort to all three related articles (D&N, Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos) rapidly adding tags without any genuine discussion? One wonders what the motivation is of your edits, since you now say, “nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted”, which still implies your plan for deletion. No one can restrict you (or anyone else) from making suggestions about improving any entry you like. But the issue of motives is very different and this is what we examine here, particularly as you immediately questioned my own motives and personally attacked me and other editors as a “sect”, etc. Prove to me this simultaneous attack on all related articles’ timeline is a coincidence, not unrelated nor politically motivated.

D&N article: 22 Aug. 13:40 Randykittyk begins editing--3 edits 23 Aug. 11:14 Johnsargis does 3 edits “ “ 11:38 Randykitty does 1 edit “ “ 16:51 Johnsargis does 1 edit 24 Aug. 17:08 Randykitty does 11 edits, @ 17:22 RK adds “Cleanup Tag” 24 Aug. 5:08 Panlis does 4 edits “ “ 9:14 Randykitty does 2 edits “ “ 10:57 Panlis does 2 edits 24 Aug. 11:09 Randykitty does an edit “Take It To Talk” and does 3 more edits

ID article:

23 Aug. 17:42 Randykitty begins editing with

tag plus 4 more edits

29 Aug. 16:08 IP editor helpful edit. Takis article

23 Aug. 17:53 RandyKitty begins edits with

tag plus 5 more edits

24 Aug. 4:41 Panlis does 1 edit 1 Sept. 6:18 Marcocapelle does helpful edit John sargis (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• You want proof? How about the fact that in the timespan you mention here I edited dozens of other articles, deleted dozens more, took one or two to AfD, etc etc. Where's your proof that I am concentrating on "your" articles? Where's any proof of political bias in any of my edits anywhere? Simple: anything any body does to "your" articles that doesn't go in the direction that you want is, per definition, politically biased. Perhaps it's time for some self-reflection here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• I never said you only concentrated on the articles. I am showing a timeline where on 23 August your first edits at Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos were tags at 17:42 and 17:53 respectively, and on 24 August at 17:08 you add the tag to D&N. If there is not some bias, then prove it. Why did you add those tags in such rapid succession at the articles. It could be construed that you are going after those articles.John sargis (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Some people here have wider interests than just a single subject. I edited the article on the journal, then looked at the article on its former EIC, then clicked on the Inclusive Democracy link. I tagged the articles for the problems that they have. Then I went on to other subjects. It is not me who has to prove my innocence. Here, people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. You have constantly failed to assume good faith and as soon as you disagreed with me and I didn't cave in immediately, started calling my integrity in doubt. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• • The fact that other articles don't follow those guidelines should probably be disregarded, unless lack of compliance is so widespread that it calls into question whether the guidelines are indeed widely accepted. It seems to be perfectly reasonable to me to request that sources are provided. Personally, I wouldn't be so insistent that those sources need to demonstrate the importance of the contributors to the journal - it seems a valid matter of interest that notable people have contributed - but if the guidelines reflect consensus, then they should be respected. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow at the intensity of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN here. RandyKitty's edits were perfectly in line with WP:JWG, and the, let's call them 'anti-Randykitty advocates', consist of WP:SPA accounts with close ties to 'D&N' itself, and sat on the Editorial board of the journal, of often published in the niche journal. I've brought the article mostly inline with our guidelines at WP:JWG. WP:JWG is not a 'hard law', so deviations from it can be warranted from time to time, but I've yet to see a justification for doing so here. I'm not convinced the journal is notable, but if it is to exist, it should comply with our guidelines on the subject. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Everybody who has ever read a theoretical journal of political nature is well aware of the fact that a basic element of its notability is who used to contribute to it, either as a writer or an editor. If you strip the D&N entry (or any similar journal entry), from the names of its contributors, then it could be easily classified by those who never liked it to be listed in Wikipedia FOR POLITICAL REASONS (disguised under some bureaucratic rules) as not notable enough, and then be deleted accordingly. I challenge Randykitty and his friend Headbomb to provide us with a list of similar significant theoretical journals of political nature in wikipedia which do implement the rule they invoke. IF THEY CANNOT PROVIDE SUCH A LIST THEN THEIR GAME SHOULD BE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY! 165.120.27.172 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• All I can say after this diatribe is QED... --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many examples can be found in Category:Political science journals. Take for example Acta Politica or Cato Journal. Many counterexamples also exist, but those pretty much fall under WP:OTHERCRAP, and are in need of copy-editing. Although, I have to say from the tone and general behaviour, I wouldn't be surprised if the lot of you didn't get banned under WP:SPA/WP:MEATPUPPET. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• I hope whomever tries to ban us under wiki puppetry rule did their homework, because if it is proved we are not puppetry puppets of any sort for which there is a wiki rule, then I suppose any editor who attempts to ban us under that rule, is open for harassment. And it would give further credence to our other arguments in this dispute.John sargis (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Of course, the examples mentioned betray only utter ignorance of the subject. D&N was not a political science journal, as a presumably ignoramus w/p editor classified it. D&N belongs to the same kind of theoretical journals of political nature as The Nation, Monthly Review, New Statesman and many other similar journals where lists of contributors and editors are abundant-as they should be!165.120.27.172 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

These three are categorized as magazines; if that's the case for D&N, then it should follow instead WP:WikiProject Magazines/Writing guide; if it's peer reviewed, then it needs to abide by WP:JWG. Also, involved editors are welcome to fix any other non-abiding article. Finally, any potential COI must be disclosed, or else that's an easy ban to apply. fgnievinski (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: John sargis and Panlis topic banned from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy

Given the extensive evidence presented above by John sargis and Panlis of their continued failures to assume good faith, their POV editing with a conflict of interest, and their clear WP:NOTHERE attitude, I propose that they be topic banned from editing any article related to Inclusive Democracy. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Given that these are the only articles that they edit, an indefinite block could also be appropriate. Not sure what should be done about the ranting IP. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• REJECT. Banning other editors, simply because their views on how the form of presentation of an entry should be is different from that of an administrator, despite the fact, (as they have shown here and in the past), they may have a vastly superior knowledge on a topic they are interested in than an administrator who has a view on almost everything under the sun in tens of thousands of edits, is not just ‘keeping up with the rules’ . It is a pure form of authoritarianism , if not fascism. In a democratic form of organization, particularly one dealing with knowledge, you fight what you do not like with words, not bans! Every authoritarian regime in the past had always some bureaucratic rules at hand to justify its actions. No originality here. I thought however that Wikipedia was genuinely trying to create an alternative democratic way of presenting knowledge. If bona fide editors do not intervene to stop these purely fascist practices, this could well be the end of Wikipedia as an alternative form of encyclopaedia. In fact, many people would prefer in such a case an orthodox encyclopaedia, which at least is controlled and written by people who do know what they talk about and do not just hide behind bureaucratic rules masquerading as democratic, which could easily be used the way I described. Needless to add that in such a Wikipedia I don’t wish to have any further involvement and therefore I don’t give a damn if the Randykittys of this world ban my ‘ranting’, as he 'politely' called it!165.120.27.172 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Reject Randykitty your sophistry is unparalleled. In your reason for banning/blocking you say: "Given that these are the only articles that they edit…". Let me remind you of what you said at D&N talk 24 Aug. @ 8:47: “You are under no obligation to clean up any article”. So, you want to get us banned on the one hand because we edit only “inclusive democracy” related articles, but on the other hand you claim we are under no obligation to edit any other article. So how does one hold two opposing viewpoints and not be in contradiction, bad faith, or bias? I do not know. Please instruct. You also assumed an IP editor and I are the same person. Your assumption is proven wrong as the two (or one as you would have it) of us have not been banned by wiki puppet rules. Another editor (headbomb) corroborated your wrong assumption and included Panlis in that he thought that we three would get banned as sockmeat puppets. That did not work, because someone, a sensible editor I assume, probably did a check and found out we are all different IPs. Thus headbomb's assumption is wrong. As far as assuming good faith, at the administrator page 24 August@ 21:43 I said I had no proof you have a political bias. In light of these wrong assumptions others must reject your proposal also. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Reject. This is a hideous twist of the events! Bad faith was a thing demonstrated, -to say the very least disproportionally- by the user Randykitty in the debate both in the Talk Page and inhere, and I will try to show why in a somehow concise but I feel plausible way:

a) the user began an activity of repeatedly putting tags and asking for citation demands over, first, the need for such a list and, secondly, the notability of the contributors of the journal themselves, despite the obvious non-agreement in the entry's Talk Page. This naturally led to edit warring and relatively heated debate in an entry which he had attempted to delete last year, something that had been solemnly rejected by all other users who participated in the dialogue back then --and these users were not only John Sargis and I- but uninvolved users as well apart from the ones who are being accused of WP:COI here.

b) While the editors and I tried to address his, considered as sensible, issues in the journal's Talk Page by focusing primarily on his activity but at the same time without disconnecting his proven bias towards the entry (another indication of which is that he still virtually claims the journal is not notable despite last year's clear decision which had followed abundant documentation about its notability-to which of course turned a blind eye-, and when now implicitly shows his recurrent intentions when he writes "nor am I at this point asking for the article to be deleted”) as Randykitty would very much like them to, he jumped to accusing us in this forum, of WP:COI, WP:POV etc.

c) This happened without him trying in the first place to use a Dispute Resolution route or post a related to the problematic content subject in here according to the same procedure, and ask for third opinions about the very issues debated in the Talk Page. His primary action in this board was to "tag" and accuse us of WP:COI, WP:PA etc. with the aim to get rid of all dissidents by blocking us. Getting rid of editors involved with the entry and having some experience with it (something that of course does not constitute WP:COI etc.) would be a definite way serving his claimed favor of potentially deleting it in the near future- as is more than evident now from the above.

d) He showed once more his bias against the entry and his aim just to punish the older editors of the entry for not comforming to all of his demands, when he neglected the important effort to improve the entry that was taking place during the debate and indeed attempted to address mainly his own demands for citations, clean up etc.; just indicatively, sorry for the dropping

To the naked eye this simply cannot be called "bad faith", by any interpretation, against the user Randykitty as he blatantly accuses me and the rest, and and it is at least disorientating if not a clear mark of authoritarianism to use such a characterization as an "argument" in order to block us from editing an entry based on argumentation and the WP rules.

e) Even worse, Randykitty was led to the point of essentially "blackmailing" all uninvolved users who happen to read the debate here in case we don't get "assorted" (i.e. blocked from editing the entry and even better for him as he declared, get blocked ad infinitum) when he blatantly stated that "Eventually, some uninvolved editors will get around to this and wade through the wall of accusations that has been thrown up above and, if they'll find that you are correct, I'll be swiftly desyssopped and indefinitely blocked from editing here." -a statement which is a blatant act of self-victimization and emotional "blackmailing" to his favor. And this based on the fact that he has indeed the fluency to do thousands of edits, while I and other editors, as I mentioned in the debate, have not the same time and objective ability to help more with the Wikipedia project as I would like to and this is I believe a legitimate reason of maintaining a "sole-purpose" activity, particularly when I and the rest of editors demonstrate good faith as I clearly showed above, in contrast to Randykitty's direct aim to shut off anyone who doesn't comform to all his demands, that is now more than evident (his initiative says it all). Since as I tried to demonstrate above, no WP:PA was intended (something explicitly clarified by all other parts in the debate) --and calling someone that s/he maintains a bias towards an entry when it is based on his very deeds is not a "personal attack"--, this user, based on his experience, is constantly disorienting in order to pass his agenda: to eventually delete the entry - An aim explicitly demonstrated by his related history and revealed by his own very recent sayings, which I feel I plausibly exposed above.Panlis (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

References
References

• Comment I think that the involved parties have summed up their views very well above and request appropriate measures and closure of this thread. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support this on the grounds of a conflict of interest that the editors concerned appear unwilling to step away from. Also, when an editor states "I hope whomever tries to ban us under wiki puppetry rule did their homework, because if it is proved we are not puppetry puppets of any sort for which there is a wiki rule, then I suppose any editor who attempts to ban us under that rule, is open for harassment", I start to think that action further than a topic ban is justified. No one should be subject to harassment for raising concerns about sockpuppetry, whether they prove to be accurate or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If you read the thread you will read that we were harassed and taunted as being sockpuppets several times over several days--just don't talk the talk. Yes, right or wrong wiki is always right. Wiki hides behind waves and waves of rules, some of which we pointed out are contradictory and asked why they were not evenly applied, we have to muck through, and we became the problem--sect, sockpuppets, etc.--while Randykitty portrayed himself as victim while all the time he carries all the weapons, sorry I mean rules. Thank you. John sargis (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment John, I don't think I accused anybody here of socking. At the start of this thread, I only remarked that I thought you had once forgotten to sign in. You said you didn't and I left it at that, that's what we here in this rules-infested harassing and taunting wiki call "assuming good faith", but a you have amply demonstrated, you're incapable of that. Socking is not the topic of this thread at all, that's your lack of AGF, personal attacks, and COI editing. Funny that you keep coming back all the time to this non-existent socking accusation, one would almost be tempted to think that you feel guilty... --Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support, the editors and IP in question have shown repeated and unrepentant uncivil behaviour, including various personal attacks, and have shown they cannot edit neutrally and level-headedly in light of their conflict of interest. WP:SPA certainly apply. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reject. I have no the intention or the time to spend on this nonsense but I’m gonna tell my opinion and gonna cast a vote just because user Panlis made a reference to my name. I took a short look and I have to say that although the users Panlis and John sargis maybe have a conflict of interest it’s also clear that the user Randykitty is totally biased against the entry of Democracy and Nature (not accidentally last year he tried to delete the entry). Although references have been made to him for other similar entries (political radical left journals) who are suffering from similar problems Randykitty was repeatedly ignoring them saying he has not the time, but, still, it seems has the time to apply these rules only to this specific entry and make such a fuss for it. At the moment that there are articles in the international press regarding the decline of the numbers of editors at the Wikipedia some users still spend hours and days trying to ban other users who in fact never tried to disturb the Wikipedia functions but just to keep a well known radical left political journal in the Wikipedia pages, although this may mean argumentative dialogues etc. which probably are simply boresome and bothersome for the former. If the users Panlis and John sargis gonna be banned then also the user Randykitty should be banned. Reject. KosMal (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)--Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note that according to their talk page, this user edits from the same IP address as the indeffed Nikosgreencookie. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• KosMal is obviously a sock of Nikosgreencookie [25]. They share an IP address and an interest in articles related to Democracy & Nature/Inclusive Democracy as well as the Green Cookie Records article [26][27]. It's not too hard to discover that this person has also been a long-term member of the editorial committee of the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. --78.149.243.116 (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reject. Panlis and John sargis may have not contributed to other pages not related to Inclusive Democracy, but this does not necessarily mean they are acting on bad faith. I cannot find an issue with their COI, as I have seen (see the links in their comments above) their strong will to positively contribute and cooperate in order for their edits to conform with the (admittedly, quite complex) Wikipedia writing rules. As I can see it, this disagreement was brought to this board by Randykitty too quickly, instead of following the Wikipedia rules for dispute resolution, which shows to me that Randykitty had assumed bad faith too soon. Since then, this has grossly escalated way out of proportion. Notwithstanding the rather heated tone coming from some of the editors' reactions to this issue (a tone which, while it can be understood, I do hope is reconsidered by the editors) I see it as extremely harsh to ban them. Fusedmilk (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Fusedmilk: I'm impressed to see that an editor with just 4 edits found their way here. Dispute resolution is for resolving conflicts about content. Personal attacks and failure to assume good faith, which is the issue here, go to ANI. --Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Randykitty: I came here and started following this issue when my user name was mentioned above (because I had recently made a small edit in the Democracy & Nature page). I am not saying I am a Wikipedia expert (I still have a tiny editing history anyway), but I would say I have been familiarising myself with the regulations to the degree of being able to positively contribute here. As I said above, my opinion is that the issue escalated needlessly, as bad faith was assumed (and hence brought to ANI) too quickly from you. Fusedmilk (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Randykitty, I am also very impressed by your ‘impartial’ zeal to have any possible reject vote of your proposal dismissed. Shall we assume on the basis of your comment on Fusedmilk’s reject vote that only full-time Wikipedia editors, (who could not possibly have the time to do any other job when they make over 60,000 edits in over two years), do qualify to make comments in Wikipedia? Very interesting thought but I want to hear also the views of other administrators on this, not just yours and the couple of your editor friends.165.120.27.172 (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with "part-time" editors commenting here, but it is slightly unusual for an editor's fourth ever edit to be to a noticeboard such as this and to demonstrate knowledge of the dispute resolution process. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • • And let's not forget that this editor came back after a 4+ year break, to edit Democracy and Nature with their 2nd edit during the dispute. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • And there's nothing wrong about not being "impartial" towards editors that engage in tendentious COI editing and personal attacks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Excellent. Taking for granted what we have to prove is a very convenient way to dispense 'justice'.165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Not at all. I have been steadfastedly NPOV in my edits to articles. Nothwithstanding my clear POV against disruptive editors like you. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, but don’t pretend to be an impartial observer, a kind of a fair judge because you obviously are not, unless we talk about a complete travesty of justice. You are obviously very much involved in this and you simply cannot decide whose view should be taken into account and whose not. I HOPE OTHER TRULY NON-INVOLVED ADMINISTRATORS WILL EXPRESS THEIR VIEW ON THE MATTER WHICH, DUE TO RANDYKITTY’S VENDETTA, HAS ALREADY TAKEN THE FORM OF A W/P SCANDAL165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more! --Randykitty (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per above the editors and IP in question have shown repeated and unrepentant uncivil behaviour, including various personal attacks, and have shown they cannot edit neutrally and level-headedly in light of their conflict of interest. WP:SPA certainly apply. Even on this ANI, half the content is an uncivil tirade. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think we should be cautious when we characterize the others as having a Conflict of Interest. Particularly so since as I tried to demonstrate above I feel the accused editors acted bona fide and while the debate was taking place tried to address the -considered as sensible- issues raised in the entry by the "punisher". As about the behavior, the history of his deletion attempt and the recurrent rush by our accuser to ask for debatable dictations "accidentally" only to that entry, I think are enough to show who acted on bad faith and who not.Panlis (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• John sargis's user name suggests that he is the assistant editor of the current version of the journal. That's a pretty big potential conflict of interest. When he then adds unsourced material on big-name contributors to the journal to the article, we have a COI problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support The behaviour of Panlis, John Sargis and the IP in this thread alone makes me put aside my usual oppose on principle against sanctions proposed by an involved party. Blackmane (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Dolovis and page creation problems

Apologies for the length of this report. The tl;dr version is that I believe Dolovis (talk · contribs)' page creation habits routinely ignore policy, guidelines and past consensus, and represent a drain on community time that far outweighs what little value they provide. I recommend this be stopped. Resolute 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Dolovis is an editor with whom myself and a few other editors have had a long and contentious history with regarding article creation. He first came to ANI back in 2011 in which he was creating and/or moving pages and gaming the system as part of a diacritics war that was brewing at the time. He was briefly banned from moving pages, and later re-banned from moving any pages related to diacritics after immediately breaching a promise to reform his behaviour in that area. To the best of my knowledge, that ban remains active. (He is also under a BASC imposed one-way interaction ban with Djsasso, whom Dolovis has targeted more than once, and most recently with scrutiny-evading sockpuppet - that condition placed as part of an unblock request that a clearly divided ArbCom reluctantly granted.)

I have long been an extreme critic of Dolovis' habits of creating one or two sentence sub-stubs of marginally notable or completely non-notable hockey players, often relying on the bare minimum allowed by the WP:NHOCKEY SNG (recent example: Simon Suoranta; literally a couple thousand more examples available) - inevitably using just a stats sheet or player profile page from a league site as the sole source. His other big habit is to create redirects for non-notable players to any random article that might kind of fit, pretty much just on speculation that said player might become notable someday. I have long felt that these creations are ego-driven efforts to simply grab the first edit for as many new pages as he can, and not done out of a true desire to improve the project. Or, as Ravenswing recently put it: "This isn't any attempt to improve the encyclopedia; this is a manic rush to Game High Score for article 'creation.'" Dolovis' only real goal with Wikipedia is to create as many new pages as he can, and he has shown complete and utter contempt for virtually every policy or guideline that stands in his way. The result is that editors who also monitor in this space have to spend an inordinate amount of time curating and reviewing these articles, while his contempt for policies has caused a great deal of wasted time for editors and admins at WP:AFD, WP:REFUND, WP:RFD - By my count, Dolovis has had over 100 articles deleted at AFD alone; Ravenswing targeted about 75 articles of his for AFD in January 2014. Only ONE ended up as a keep. Four others were no consensus closes, the rest deleted. This represented a massive waste of time for those of us who had to do the research after creation because Dolovis clearly and obviously did not do any research before creation.

The problems with his creations go far deeper than just a disregard for notability criteria. He has created two speculative articles on NHL teams that don't exist - Quebec NHL team and Las Vegas NHL team - that, aside from being failures of WP:CRYSTAL, I have realized are unattributed copy-paste jobs from Potential National Hockey League expansion. In short, Dolovis is creating copyright violations because it is easier to rip off someone else's work to try and grab that first edit for any future NHL team. Another of his recent creation, 2014 KHL Junior Draft, is likewise an unattributed copy of someone else's article (in this case, 2013 KHL Junior Draft). He has also previously tried to speculate on future NHL teams as well - in this case, ironically, one of the few examples of his putting real work into something (assuming it wasn't likewise just ripped off from someone else's work).

Dolovis has deliberately created articles on non-notable players and failed to defend them when PRODded (most recent example: Pavel Karnaukhov), because he knows he can just run to WP:REFUND and request a history undeletion to get that first edit back if the player later becomes notable and someone else recreates the article. This is something that has been picked up on by others. This only wastes the time of three separate editors: whomever reviews the article, who deletes it at PROD, and who restores the article later. This is blatant gaming the system. In that thread, Ravenswing also shows numerous links of Dolovis misrepresenting sources to try and claim a player meets an easier criteria of NHOCKEY or misrepresenting NHOCKEY itself to try and justify these creations.

Dolovis is even worse when it comes to redirect creation. When he knows there is no chance of an article surviving more than a few hours, he just redirects pages to random, somewhat related targets with no regard for the fact that his actions actively hinder the search function. In fact, despite having these redirects deleted at least five times in the past two years, I STILL had to take two more to RFD this week, which are again heading to a delete. As of right now, he has 17 redirects listed at RFD, and every single one is leaning delete. And I am preparing to RFD dozens more for the exact same reason.

His non-hockey creations are no better, This article was clearly created as a synthesis of Van Gogh self-portrait (1889) - Dolovis obviously does not have those sources and never read them. He simply copied them from the latter article and reworded a couple passages to "create" his version. And then there is this. That might be the laziest article creation in Wikipedia history. He only expanded it (likely a cleaned up version of Google Translate) after someone else reviewed and prodded it.

All of this is just a long winded way of saying that Dolovis' page creations are of such a low value, that his continual disregard for policy and guidelines - including policies on copyright violations - and that the time wasted in cleaning up, PRODding, AFDing and RFDing is so high, that allowing Dolovis to continue creating pages like this represents such a drain on the community that I believe it needs to be stopped. This has been going on for years. As such, I would like to propose that Dolovis be indefinitely banned from creating any new pages in Wikipedia main space. Given he brags that he has started over 5800 pages, I would suggest that he could direct his future time into expanding those 5800 two sentence sub stubs. Resolute 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ah yes, Dolovis. Indef-blocked after a drawer full of socks and unblocked with a minor edit restriction--see this note by Thryduulf. That seems to have come about quite easily. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• I completely endorse all Resolute has said and support an indef ban on new article creation by Dolovis. Dolovis is not only a disruptive presence, who's created an appalling amount of work for those who've had to clean up his messes, but he's been extremely tendentious over the years, filibustering at great length to keep his edit count high ... often at times in complete contradiction to arguments he made the week before. As you can see yourself from his edit history, he's far less interested in improving the encyclopedia as in racking up his new creation count, and has found the creation of implausible, desperately obscure redirects an easy way to do it.

  Honestly, I would really appreciate hearing from those in the BASC process who felt that Dolovis' well-merited indef block ought to be reversed. Leaving aside the minor edit restriction to which he agreed (and which he just last week sought to overturn), what led them to believe that he had changed his ways, what assurances did they receive that he would do so, and what monitoring did they undertake to ensure that he did? Ravenswing 06:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone give some background here? The block log only says that it was a block evasion block (which seems odd to create new accounts since they wouldn't inflate your edit count) since the 2012 block and thus the standard offer that was the main basis for the unblock was for sock evasion and this doesn't seem to be the problem here. Is there a discussion about a redirect or article-creation ban (I think there's at least one other user with an ARBCOM ban with that kind of wording)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

From the sockpuppet investigation, you can see that another account was being used to request deletion of articles created by Ravenswing and Djsasso, using the same rationale used in requests for deletion of articles created by Dolovis. isaacl (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so still nothing related to this specific problem (ignoring that the only response seemed to be "look at my edit count, I couldn't have done this"). Again, I'm not seeing a history of the new article abuse problem so examples of recent antics (there isn't a huge deleted edit history so there actually aren't a lot of editing articles that became deleted) would be helpful and then we're back to potential solutions: a proposal that Dolovis be banned from six months from creating a new article or redirect without the approval of an admin? (I'd suggest AFC but requiring admins would be a higher standard and one I've seen here before). Is so, suggest that and see if there's a consensus supporting that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to go too far into his SPI stuff since it is tangental to his article creation problem, and this was long enough as it is. But that was a hypocritical example of Dolovis using a sock in bad hand fashion to revenge target some of DJSasso and Ravenswing's oldest articles created using the exact same rationale as Ravenswing presented in nominating seven dozen of Dolovis' pages for deletion. Part of the reason why his deleted contributions list is deceptive is the fact that he knowningly creates articles that won't pass a PROD or AFD, but wants the first edit in history so he can request a history restore at WP:REFUND when someone else re-creates an article after the subject does become notable. But in short, he's had over 100 articles deleted at AFD, he's got about 100 redirects at RFD right now - he continues to create redirects of the type that have been consistently deleted at RFD for a few years now even though he is well aware of the consensus against them - and god only knows how many have been deleted through PROD, only to be restored later at REFUND. The long and the short of it is that we are at several hundred pages deleted or about to go, and what does stick, sticks only because they meet NHOCKEY or other SNGs by the skin of their teeth. Even then, those sub stubs themselves offer no value. Given his history of misrepresenting sources, it would honestly take more time than what any of us has to investigate and verify all of those pages as well. Ravenswing spent close to a month last year reviewing and AFDing less than 20% of his creations, at that time. And Dolovis is now getting into creating copyvios, which was the final impetus for this report. He's damned lucky I only picked up on those after his ill-advised request to have one edit restriction removed was archived, otherwise I would have presented this to arbcom in that process. As it is, it wastes our time to have to review this junk, it wastes an admin's time to deal with PROD requests on articles he knows won't stick, it wastes an admin's time at REFUND and it waste's everyone's time at AFD and RFD. Resolute 13:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Break

• At the moment, there are 103 such redirects up for "discussion" (read: deletion) at RfD:
  • Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#Pier-Olivier Pelletier (2 pages)
  • Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 31#NHL Draft redirects (13 pages)
  • Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1#NHL team draft pick redirects (88 pages, not all Dolovis)

as well as

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 23#Victor Rask (1 page, deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Eamon McAdam (1 page, deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Yan-Pavel Laplante (1 page, deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 6#Anton Karlsson (ice hockey, born 1996) (2 pages, both deleted)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 22#Tommy Vannelli (3 pages, all deleted)

Anton Karlsson is archetypal of the page creation problem. Dolovis created this as an empty redirect to a page with no information about the player on 20 February 2014. It was prodded; Dolovis removed the prod; it was listed and then deleted at Rfd. Another editor created a page about this player some time later, when they became notable. Subsequently, Dolovis requested the history of their redirect be merged with this page, and is now credited as the creator of this content, even though they contributed exactly nothing to it. This is an WP:EDITCOUNTITIS problem, but a problem nonetheless.

The bigger problem, of course, is that of the 111 pages listed above, none have survived a deletion discussion (counting the 103 currently listed which are very likely to be deleted shortly, their discussions are really formalities at this point) and this wastes the community's time (it takes, by my count, 312 edits to list the 103 currently listed, not counting the actual discussion, plus subsequently taking up admins' time closing those discussions and deleting the redirects, plus time wasted when Dolovis requests history merges when someone else creates an article). Banning Dolovis from creating pages will not harm the encyclopedia at all, and will give other editors the opportunity to be given appropriate credit when they create pages about notable hockey players, which will further encourage the creation of those articles, which greatly benefits the project.

Thus (tl;dr) I support banning Dolovis from creating pages in any space, because I'm sure they'll just find a way to game a more limited ban. I have no comment on the socking issue as it seems unrelated to the page creation issue, and doesn't seem to be a current issue anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support I am going to keep this pretty brief because Resolute has done a very good job of summing up the issue. Dolovis continually creates articles he know will be almost instantly deleted. And when he can't even remotely argue an article is valid he creates a redirect to some random remotely related page that often has no information on the subject. He has been an extremely disruptive editor in all manner of ways from his ban on diacritics editing to the sockpuppeting to the creation of clearly non-notable pages that are a waste to the communities time. I actually support a full site ban. But I am happy to accept a page creation ban as a first step to see if that helps the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support a six-month topic ban against Dolovis creating articles or redirects without having it approved by an administrator. Proposing a dozens redirects will just annoy someone but if there's a new article, there's a chance to get it approved. I'm going to give a bit of leeway to see if Dolovis can propose articles of any worth to be created which would give us support to remove the ban in the future. Otherwise, there's no way to tell if the problems have been resolved or not. If there's no examples or new articles of the right quality to base this on, we can evaluate extending this in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable response; certainly Dolovis should be allowed to create articles if they are worth creating, and not just redirects or stubs on players which they admit are non-notable. However, I propose that this restriction be placed for 14 months. Why 14? Because this will actually prevent Dolovis from creating the mass of redirects from players drafted in the next year's draft. Otherwise, it's not really a sanction, they will pretty much automatically wait it out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

In six months, Dolovis can either show that this restriction is no longer needed (by pointing to actual articles created after approval by an admin) or we'll see that Dolovis has done nothing in that way because Dolovis only wants to create stubs and redirects. If there are literally zero edits because this topic ban is essentially a de facto ban for that person (for a lot of editors, a minor topic ban causes a complete meltdown, but we'll see here), then we'll all better off I guess. The personality type that sockpuppets that much and argues that much just after agreeing to restrictions tells me it won't take six months for another problem to surface that this restriction won't matter much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it, this sounds reasonable. My worry, however, is that at no stage in his Wikipedia career has Dolovis embraced the premise of "You're right. I'm wrong. I recognize that I broke the rules, I'm sorry and I won't do it again." Over and over again, he argues for delay -- that some other appeals process be brought into play, that he'll agree to an entirely voluntary, short-term (and unenforceable) moratorium on objectionable behavior, that deadlines be extended for further comment. What would a six-month restriction solve that his nine-month block didn't?

Beyond that, who's the poor bastard admin who's going to get saddled with doing all the notability research on dozens of new articles, an area in which Dolovis is notoriously indifferent? Ravenswing 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Mentorship, is the route to take. We can't just destroy an editor, merely because he/she may annoys us. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• No one's advocating "destroying" anyone. Nor is any editor prevented from being a productive contributor to the encyclopedia by being enjoined from new article creation. Not counting redirects, I've created fewer than a half-dozen articles a year, and I've only created two in the last three years. Over 40,000 edits in, I figure I've found other ways to contribute. Ravenswing 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for butting into such an important discussion — I followed user:Resolute here. So this is where all the editors on Wikipedia are spending their time? Wow!

Anyway, I won’t stay around long (don’t want to get in trouble), but the opening statement by Resolute got me worried, because I also create a fair number of wp:stubs that end up in the wiki-garbage-can, but did not realize that this could put me on the wrong side of the wiki-law. I hope I am taking things out of context, but sorry, I don't have the time to investigate. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Response by Dolovis

• Response by Dolovis: When I joined Wikipedia in 2010, I came across thousands one line stub articles about professional ice hockey articles. I found these articles helpful as they encouraged me to become active as an editor to work to improve such articles. One editor in particular, User:Patken4, had created thousands of stub articles about hockey players, (see Roy Mitchell (ice hockey), Randy Murray (ice hockey), and Darrell May (ice hockey) for just three of such examples) and I could see that much more such work was needed in this area. Following the example of Patken4, I volunteered myself into the IceHockey Project to create and improve articles about notable hockey players pursuant to WP:NHOCKEY. Working diligently as a GOOD FAITH editor, I created starter articles for not only NHL players, but also for other major and “Top level” leagues as defined by WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA, including Swedish Hockey League, the Finnish Liiga, Kontinental Hockey League, Czech Extraliga. I dedicated myself to creating articles for all 808 major league players who played in the now defunct World Hockey Association, completing this task on June 4, 2014 (see talk page “thanks” for my efforts). Along the way I have also made many thousands of edits to improve other existing articles.

I believe in and have remained loyal to the Wikipedia Project, despite what I have perceived as bullying from some editors, including Resolute and DJSasso, who I feel have been harassing me since first joining the IceHockey Project. I have certainly made mistakes. I used to be involved in discussions, and often found myself disagreeing with Resolute and DJSasso – but following such discussions, I always tried to follow the consensus - whether I agreed with it or not. I now try to avoid such discussions.

I firmly believe that creating stub articles encourages others to add, build, improve, and work collaboratively on on this never ending project called Wikipedia, and yes, I am proud that I have contributed over 5,800 new articles to Wikipedia. I am not concerned if some have been since deleted, because I do not own them and I welcome the efforts of others to contribute to Wikipedia. The harsh welcome felt by most new editors discourages the creation of new articles, but I believe that new articles are the life-blood of Wikipedia. If one takes a look at my edit history, you will find no disruptive editing (yes, I have made mistakes, but I have never tried to disrupt Wikipedia). Despite Resolute's numerous and loud claims that I am a bad faith editor, I am not. Following Resolute's criticism that I was making one line “stub-stub” articles, I tried to take his criticism constructively to improve my stubs to be better. A look at my recent creations will show a pattern of making stub articles for notable subject pursuant to WP:IDEALSTUB, as a starting point for other editors to build upon. Resolute is trying to make the claim that I am disruptive because I am creating too many articles, so therefore I am creating work for the other editors. Following Resolute's thinking, if there were nothing there, there would be nothing to complain about. Look at his uncivil comment following my creating an article for CalgaryNEXT where he writes “As usual, someone else is left to clean up a lazy mess created only as an ego trip” [28]. This was not created as an "ego-trip". It was created because it is a notable subject pursuant to WP:GNG and deserves to have an article. That is but one example of the incivility that I have been forced to accept from Resolute for many years.

Concerning the redirects I have created: The redirects under discussion here were created over the past 5 years by a number of different editors including myself, User:Alaney2k, User:Canuckian89, User:One95, User:Shootmaster 44, User:Uncleben85, and User:USA1168. What was once considered an acceptable and even helpful edit pursuant to WP:RPURPOSE as a ”sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article”, are now vilified as “bad faith” edits. I don't believe any of these redirects were created in bad faith. If there is a new consensus and guideline stating that it is wrong for players to be redirected to a list of players drafted by NHL teams, then I would happily follow it. Dolovis (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, stating that you have created 5800 new articles doesn't do much to tamp down on the concerns that you are game-playing everyone by creating nonsense stubs that get deleted and trying to jump back in when someone else eventually does create the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just addressing the issue of “5800 articles” as raised above by Resolute above. These are not “nonsense stubs”. These are deserving articles created pursuant to WP:Stub. Resolute claims that I have had “over 100 articles deleted at AFD alone”, but what he doesn't say is most of those were AfD'd only after the IceHockey Project lowered its WP:NHOCKEY bar and then targeted such articles for deletion (only articles created by me, not the hundreds created by others). He also doesn't say that these articles were brought directly to AfD where they were summarily deleted pursuant to the new standards for inclusion (when a PROD likely would have been more efficient and less time consuming). I do not create article knowing they will be deleted. I create articles so others can build upon them. Dolovis (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

They were AfD'd because they lacked any substantive coverage so as to pass GNG. We raised the bar on that one section of NHOCKEY because you were abusing the hell out of it and trying to use it as a shield to justify creation of articles on non-notable subjects. If you actually looked for sources to ensure a GNG pass before creation - rather than make the rest of us do it for you - the number of games a minor league player had in his career would never have entered the equation. Resolute 23:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Dolovis, not buying it for a second. It is hilarious for you to claim there is no bad faith editing in your history given you have two active edit restrictions already, one for bad faith editing in the realm of diacritics, and the other for bad faith use of sockpuppets.

You claiming now that you will suddenly follow any "new consensus" about not redirecting to draft articles now is curious given I hauled you to RFD FIVE TIMES in the last 18 months or so with such redirects deleted every single time, only to have you come back with yet another run of such creations afterward. This promise today is only being made because you are staring down a page creation ban, not because you respect a consensus that has existed for a long time.

You have failed to address your cut and paste copyvios. You have failed to address your history of misrepresenting sources. You have failed to address the problem of you creating articles on subjects you know are not notable so you can have history restored later via REFUND. You have failed to address the fact that you will always do the absolute minimum per NHOCKEY - and in most cases, how you never even make the barest effort to look for sources beyond a website that is nothing but a stats page. I haven't mentioned it yet in this complaint, but in the cases where more stringent criteria has forced you to put bare effort in, I would also like you to address your habit of using blogs and other unreliable sources, WP:ROUTINE sources and sources with obviously trivial mentions while making little to no effort to find substantive coverage. This goes well beyond your habit of creating one or two sentence sub-stubs that are of no value, virtually never even bothering to look for sources that cover players in non-trivial, substantive fashion that WP:GNG requires. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you started here and offered to work with you. And even though you were creating conflicts with others right out of the gate, I still tried to offer constructive advice - the very same advice you are being given four and a half years later and still ignoring four and a half years later. If my attitude towards you is negative today, it is because I have five years of bad faith actions to judge you by. In the end, the ultimate question is still to ask why the community should be forced to spend so much time cleaning up after you. Don't you think five years of having to fix the messes you create is more than enough? Resolute 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolute's argument is false deductive reasoning. He argues that because he has taken my edits to RfD, therefore I have made disruptive edits. Again, what Resolute fails to mention is that out of the hundreds of existing redirect edits, he targeted only my edits for deletion - even going so far as to apologize to another editor[29] who he inadvertently RfD'd with my edits. If there are any copyvios, they would inadvertent and minor, and should properly be be addressed through copy editing or appropriate attribution. Clearly, his RfD campaign is a personal vendetta against me and not against my editing, which falls within the standards of what other editors are doing. Dolovis (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I apologized for Alaney for failing to notify him that one of his redirects was taken to RFD. My error there was simply assuming that they were all yours. As to the rest, you're just lashing out in desperation - much like you did the last time you were hauled to SPI and tried to accuse me of using a sockpuppet that voted against myself in deletion discussions to try and distract the discussion. I will once again note that you have failed to address any of the points I raised above, and you failed to answer the questions at the end. So I once again ask: how long should we be expected to fix the messes you leave behind? Resolute 01:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dolovis, can we resolve the current issue here now? Would you be willing to agree to even a temporary ban on creating articles and redirects? Resolute's argument is that he has taken your edits to RFD which has deleted the redirects in the hundreds, you have an incorrect version of policy. The point is that the redirects and articles you created before (even years before) have been brought to RFD and a number have been deleted. My proposal is simply that you get an admin to approve of it which isn't a terrible chore if you've completed a decent drafts. If the issues with hockey redirects have resolved with your acknowledgment of the current policies, then I see zero issues at all here with my proposal. Else, you currently came back from an block for sockpuppetry, with an edit restriction, which I see that you're currently arguing to remove already and for which the few ARBCOM members who allowed you to return have said you either need to follow or you can retract the agreement and go back to the ban. So if you want people to think that you've seriously reformed, it would be a good idea for you to pre-emptively agree to resolving the problems that got you in trouble before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a rather gross oversimplification of my argument, actually. His redirects are only one part of the overall problem which, in short, is to do as little work as possible while trying to gain a "high score" for article creation, and leaving behind a morass of sloppy work that achieves so little value that it cannot hope to make up for the time spent cleaning up after him in multiple venues. Resolute 01:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The only person who appears to be concerned with my edit count is Resolute, and I will be happy to remove the “Userboxes” from my user page if they are annoying to Resolute or any other editors. Until now, my understanding was that editors should be aware of WP:REDDEAL when creating redirects, and that RDs to draft lists were otherwise acceptable for nn players. But if this is no longer the consensus, then I will refrain from redirects to NHL draft lists, and even help to start tagging other such redirects for deletion.

As for article creation, I have long since demonstrated the ability to create sourced articles on notable topics (which is the benchmark for article creation). Viewing my edit history will confirm this. If there are exceptions, then please PROD them or otherwise bring them to my attention so the shortcomings can be addressed. Expecting me, or any editor, to create WP:Good articles on the first draft is not reasonable. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. As discussed at WP:Article development, creating sourced Stub articles is an encouraged activity. If the notability of a subject is disputed, then it should be properly PRODed, or otherwise dealt with pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Requiring Admins to move my drafts to main space will just create extra work for everyone. Dolovis (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That is all pure BS. You know damn well that his argument isn't about the edit count on your page. It is the actions you are taking to boost it that are the issue. Creating articles that you know don't meet the notability requirement. That you have been told time and again don't meet the notability requirement. That are sourced to stat pages and blogs, which don't meet WP:GNG. All of this has been pointed out to you by a number of editors, your standard response to most people when they point it out is "Its not my job, its up to other people to come along and do it later". Except that it is your job, if you are creating an article you are expected to source it with reliable sources and to make sure they meet the WP:GNG. You have not demonstrated the ability to create sourced stub articles, a quick look through your created pages show that the vast majority are sourced to non-reliable sources. Then when the articles are inevitably deleted for non-notability you wait until you can ask at refund to restore your edit history once the person meets notability. I have even seen cases where you copy and pasted the content of deleted at afd articles (created by other people) where you then pasted the exact copy a month or two later as a "new creation". -DJSasso (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Resolute, I agree that it's a simplification of the concerns but given that ARBCOM very recently unblocked Dolovis and the little evidence that the actions are ongoing now, you'll be unlikely to find any admin will to block on that basis so I'm focusing on a resolution as to what can be shown now. Otherwise, Dolovis doesn't believe it's a problem at all. Just want everyone to be clear. We'll see from others but I still support the proposal as it provides the least amount of disruption to the project overall in exchange for resolving the largest number of concerns at the moment. And Dolovis, are you actually checking these sources in your hurry to create these articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Very easy to see it going on right now. Here is one he created within the last month. Only added to it (weeks later) when notified of a prod. [30]. Resolute also showed current examples of his lack of attribution on copy pastes which are current copyvio issues. You can't just focus on the here and now, because that is what the problem has been, here and now we issue a new minor restriction of some sort and he goes on and finds a way to circumvent it or some other policy to flaunt. Perhaps its at the point where it needs to go to Arbcom for a full case. -DJSasso (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree but it's not totally objectionable for people to create basic stubs and to pull the information from cross-wiki. ARBCOM is really the place for that kind of thing not ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• No pulling cross-wiki is fine. But his creation of the article consisted solely of "Marek Sikora is a Polish astronomer." with the only reference being his staff profile. Fine if that is the first edit in a series of edits. But he didn't go back to it until weeks later and it was about to be deleted. Either way I was just using that particular one as an example of its on-going nature. -DJSasso (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Marek Sikora (astronomer) was a listed as a hat note on the Marek Sikora article. Given that he appeared to be notable per WP:NACADEMICS, and had a Polish Wiki article, I chose to create the article rather than just wash the hat note (as I first thought to do). I agree it was a very weak start, and I have since expanded the article with text translated from the corresponding article in Polish. It is currently facing a PROD, and will be deleted unless another editor takes an interest in keeping it. Dolovis (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah so that's basically you guessing that there's enough notability, copying the Polish wiki text (without you independently verifying if it's true at all) and then leaving the really hard work for others, which is why I support the temporary six month topic ban from creating new articles at the moment. Do something else rather than create new stubs as it does sound disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly, and that therein is the problem. Guessing at notability without going to the effort of actually providing the sources necessary to prove it. Wasting other editors time who have to prod it, then admins who have to do their own research to see if it is notable and then them deleting it. Even worse if it ends up at Afd where then multiple editors have to do that. If you can't source it to reliable sources then you shouldn't be creating it, if you don't know its notable then you definitely shouldn't be creating it. -DJSasso (talk)

• @Ricky81682:. I'm not asking for a block - though I believe Ravenswing did. I am asking for an end to the time wasting caused by his mass creation of negative value pages. Due to his history, we already have to routinely check for both the existence of sources to meet a GNG pass, and to check that he isn't misrepresenting the paltry sources he does use. And now, given his cavalier response to the copyvio issue, we will have to check for that as well. And this rabbit hole still goes deeper than I have presented here. He routinely creates WP:CRYSTAL articles on potential draft picks a month or two before each year's NHL Entry Draft even though most of those players are not yet notable. For me, that is one instance where I just don't bother because I hate wasting the time of admins and editors at PROD and AFD when some of those articles would just be re-created a month later when notability IS achieved, but it is just another example of Dolovis looking for page creation high scores. In my view, the solution here is an indef ban from creating pages, to be lifted only when he demonstrates - via expanding a good number of his past creations - his willingness to (1) look for and accurately use sources that meet GNG before creation - meaning no more one-reference substubs relying exclusively on a stat sheet or blog ans (2) stop gaming the system via deliberate creation of bad redirects and of topics he knows aren't notable. Ravenswing, DJSasso and myself have been trying for years to hammer home the fact that GNG means non-trivial, substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources. Perhaps once he demonstrates that he will no longer ignore that via expansion and referencing of his past articles, and perhaps once he commits to follow that process going forward, such a ban could be lifted. Resolute 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support a six-month topic ban of Dolovis creating articles or redirects (uninvolved non admin) This is insane. It creates tons of work for others. Its inconsiderate and is simply gaming the system. I would also Support an indef ban on history merge requests of deleted pages more than a month old to stop the disruption in the future. AlbinoFerret 03:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Pursuant to WP:Notability a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the GNG or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (i.e WP:NHOCKEY or WP:ACADEMIC). Once created, an article may still face deletion pursuant to the deletion policy. This is how Wikipedia works. The Marek Sikora article is the exception to the majority of the work I do on Wikipedia. That article was well-intentioned, and I did verify the sources used in the Polish article, and I still believe he is notable. I fully intended to go back to build the article, which I have done. I believe that my good work far outweighs the weak, and in the interest of resolving this issue I will make a proposition; I will take a voluntary one month break from creating articles, with the hope that Resolute and DJSasso will stop their uncivil comments and harassment towards me. I am a good faith editor who is doing my best to build and improve Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You need more than a month off for those games. Your denail of a problem and trying to lessen the ban time is just IDHT. I think anyone who reads this section will support the bans. You are making work for editors and disrupting the project. AlbinoFerret 04:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So, Dolovis -- you are admitting to doing nothing wrong, and you make no stipulations that you won't start the same behavior all over again 32 days from now ... nor does anything enjoin you from doing so 32 hours from now. What leads you to believe this would be an attractive offer? Ravenswing 06:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Per AlbinoFerret, I likewise support an indef ban from the WP:REFUND process. For anyone following this discussion seeking evidence concerning Dolovis' motives, he doesn't have merely several dozen requests at WP:REFUND, he's featured in several dozen archives. [31] I am very hard put to find an unselfish reason for such Wikilawyering, nor one justifying the time and energy spent by those active in that area to go through his requests. Ravenswing 06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that a possible contribution history problem? I mean, that's assuming there is actually is a connected history, a refund request would have to required. Isn't the issue that WP:REFUND policy be so liberal (just any request) rather than asking if the request is actually related on a separate editor from the current history which is a different problem? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If it was a article that had some long term editing that was recreated maybe. But whats being merged is redirects and tiny subs. It takes away the incentive to create them in the first place. To make sure that he is creating articles likely to survive an afd. If it looks like a problem the exception can be added that he ask an admin and point to this section as the reason for asking and an admin can decide if its a real article or just more "Im first" games before asking for a merge. AlbinoFerret 07:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support temporary article creation ban, also endorse indef REFUND ban. It looks like Dolovis has a long history of creating articles that have some serious issues with notability, so I think that a temporary ban from creating any new articles in any space (draft, mainspace, redirects, etc) is reasonable. Dolovis, I see you trying to justify your article creation but at no point do I actually see you really owning up to the fact that you've made several articles that had a lot of major issues with them. I feel that giving you a temporary ban will give you the incentive to go over policy and learn how to properly source articles for notability giving purposes. I'll be extremely blunt with this: this has been a long running problem and if things don't change after the temporary ban, you'll likely be facing a permanent ban from creating new articles - if not from editing altogether. I also endorse a permanent ban from requesting article history from REFUND, as I do think that the others make a good case showing that you're really only requesting the article history so you can have the article creation credit - not so you can improve the article. The thing is, numbers mean absolutely squat on Wikipedia. You can make a lot of pages but that doesn't necessarily make you a good editor or even really an asset to Wikipedia if the article quality is poor and others have to run behind you in a struggle to prove notability or delete the articles. Case in point: I remember a user named User:MoonMetropolis that created multiple pages that had serious notability issues. While they were ultimately blocked for sockpuppetry, their poor article creation history definitely gave people another reason to indef them. This is not your first time at ANI, as you've been reported multiple times in the past - and you've already been banned from moving pages. Heck in in 2013 you tried to ask for a topic ban to be removed but everyone successfully argued against giving you these permissions back. You really need to shape up because right now all you're doing is giving yourself enough WP:ROPE to justify someone arguing for you to be indefinitely blocked from editing. To be honest, I'm actually mildly surprised that they aren't asking for an indefinite ban, considering that you've repeatedly been reported at ANI and other boards since you signed up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd actually endorse a longer article creation ban than six months. I'd actually endorse a year, followed by a year's probation where he's only able to create articles via AfC. Considering that this has been an ongoing problem for years now, I'd actually also support an indef ban on mainspace creation and then after a year, he can create articles via AfC. As far as REFUND goes, that's still an indef since it looks like he's only doing this to grandstand, not to actually improve the article - a process that I think could really, really be disheartening to the people who took the time to create a newer version of the article that did pass notability guidelines. If someone other than him requests restoration then that's fine, but I don't think that Dolovis should be allowed to request article restorations any longer. But yeah... the more I think about this the more I support an indef on mainspace creation until he can prove via AfC that he can make a quality article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well a new indefinite ban is unlikely since ARBCOM just unblocked Dolovis back in June. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• It looks like he was unblocked from an indefinite block, but I don't think that this would prevent us from giving him an indefinite block from creating articles in the mainspace. From just what I've seen here, it looks like there's plenty reason to justify restricting Dolovis to AfC for the time being (after the year's block is up), until he proves that he can responsibly create articles. The way he's going, if he keeps getting reported at ANI like this then I'd like to think that ARBCOM would likely approve a new block. (BTW, do they need to approve any future blocks on this user? I always got the impression that if the user kept causing trouble and refused to play nice, they could always be re-blocked.) But seriously though, we've restricted other editors to AfC for far less than this and I think that an AfC restriction and a block from REFUND is a reasonable outcome here. He's abused the system and now we need to make sure that he can edit responsibly before giving him the keys to the car/mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Tokyogirl79 Keeping in mind that a previous editor we referred over to AfC for remedial page creation scrutiny eventually gave up the topic space that they were precieved to be disruptive in and give up new article creation entirely because AfC didn't review the submissions fast enough for their taste. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm aware that this might be a problem, but I'm not sure what else will really be beneficial overall. I think that they need to have their work scrutinized before it goes into the mainspace and a temporary ban from mainspace article creation might not solve the issue. I think that turning him to AfC is probably one of the best case scenarios here. On a side note, if he wanted to ask for people to review his submissions (and anyone would be willing to volunteer for that), I have no problem with him asking qualified editors to review his work after he completes an AfC article. The way he's going, I think that a little one on one will likely be quite helpful. I'm willing to volunteer to shoulder part of this load, if he's limited to AfC only for the time being. I'm just worried that if he's allowed back into the mainspace he might do this without actually having learned anything, given that he doesn't seem to really understand why people find his editing habits problematic and even in violation of part of the spirit of Wikipedia. (IE, the landgrab nature that you referred to below, since Dolovis seems to feel that there's a contest for who gets the most entries created.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note to Delovis: Basically while I know that you're trying to say that you're operating in good faith, if a large amount of people believe that you're doing this for your own personal glory, then that should be a sign that you should stop, pause, and look to check to see if maybe you're doing something wrong. You've been on ANI a lot for various things, all of which tend to center around the same things: creating poor articles and potentially unnecessary redirects and the general consensus seems to be shifting to the idea that you're creating these because you want your article creation numbers to shoot up, not because you're here to edit in a beneficial manner. At some point you really just need to take a look at your editing pattern and ask yourself "maybe it's not them - maybe it's actually me?" Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support your version willingly, Tokyogirl79. And as Ricky81682 suggests, the art of the possible is what's in play. Ravenswing 10:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Support If we're going to be shunting this editor over to AfC, we probably should make sure they're aware of the influx they're about to get. Also I'd like to see some way of allowing editors reviewing this to have a pre-approved "This submission is not qualified for inclusion" deletion process to deal with these in a more rapid timeframe than CSD:G13 (6 months unedited) or many WP:MFD nominations. If we're going to put pressure on the editor to change their behavior with respect to these creations, we need to not allow the editor to keep the crystal ball collection and then make the land grab of "created the article" once someone else did the work of properly creating the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

AFC allows pretty much any autoconfirmed user to move articles and numerous articles have been accepted with very questionable results. As such, I propose that Dolovis be restricted to six months unless an admin approves of any drafts in the user's draftspace. It's a higher restriction and a greater burden but it then creates a single point of accountability after the fact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• It is unfair and punitive to ban me from using WP:REFUND when I was only following the lead of Admin Djsasso who demonstrated to me that such was the encouraged practice when he undeleted the histories of several recreated articles including Anthony Nigro (he now argues such practice is gaming the system). I have never been warned against using WP:REFUND to restore edit histories, and in fact I was under the impression that it should be done for proper attribution. Dolovis (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Restoring an edit history, and creating articles you know will be deleted only to just so you can have the history undeleted to claim the first edit are two very different things. If nothing on the page is from the old version of the page then there is no attribution necessary as I am sure you know. If you are not copying anything why would you need to attribute to authors who didn't contribute to that version of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Beyond that, Dolovis, I'll bite: why would you care? What is the benefit, to the encyclopedia, for one name over another to be cited as creator of an article? Our interest should be in complete articles, not in the original one- or two-sentence sub-stub that might have been there in the beginning, right? We're not in this for the glory, after all. Just out of curiosity, how many times have you sought to restore an article history that wouldn't wind up having your name listed as the first edit?

  That being said, "unfair?" It is not "unfair" for us to check your abuse of a process. No one gets gets a free pass to abuse a process just because someone else suggested it to us, in good faith, and expecting us to employ it in good faith. Ravenswing 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• It matters because there's a userbox on Dolovis' page to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count (and as a "tool"). Currently at 111 although the userbox claims to be 43rd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban on creation of new articles, based on my random look at five creations: 1. Stig-Göran Johansson is a Swedish hockey player in the national hall of fame [32]. Nice find. 2. Sergei Yemelin is a young fully professional Russian hockey player. That's an auto-keep at AfD, no problems. Single sourced but there are two links that could have been made into sources as easily. 3. Dallas W. Anderson is a medical devices entrepreneur. The piece has a bit of the gross paid editing smell and would be less than 50-50 at AfD, in my estimation. 4. Mikael Saha is a fully professional Finnish hockey player. Another auto-keep at AfD. 5. Lukáš Jašek is a fully professional Czech hockey player. It was created without diacritical marks, and I suppose therein lies the rub with some people.. Still, this looks like a legitimate content person who is helping Wikipedia and I see no issues either with the creations or the sourcing, at a glance. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• His mass creation of two sentence sub-stubs of European elite players is annoying, but ultimately not at the root of my complaint. Also, given he has created thousands of these two sentence sub stubs, the odds of you finding many of them at random are high. To give you a good idea of my complaints, and perhaps the scope of what you need to look for should your offer to mentor come to be, I would point you to his most recent creations:

1. Santeri Vuoti - Source does not explicitly support the statement it references. Probably would be WP:ROUTINE anyway. (Player is barely presumed notable for having played 15 Liiga games last year, however. No indication a search was done for substantive coverage in reliable third party sources though).
2. Vladimir Eminger - Source is basically the hockey team's main page. In short, source does not support the statement it references.
3. Quebec NHL team - Plagiarism, internal copyvio, crystal balling. Blatant attempt to score first edit on a proposed hockey team that does not exist.
4. Las Vegas NHL team - Plagiarism, internal copyvio, crystal balling. Blatant attempt to score first edit on a proposed hockey team that does not exist.
5. Chris Durand (ice hockey) - WP:XY-violating redirect of a non-notable player, created to get a first edit, and despite having links of this exact type deleted multiple times at RFD. This is routine.
6. Pier-Olivier Pelletier - Same as above; 100 more at RFD now, and I'll be nominating 33 more later today (Mostly, but not entirely, created by Dolovis)
7. NHL coach of the year and NHL Coach of the Year - not a great concern as they are marginally plausible search terms. He may not be aware that the search engine ignores capitalization, so didn't realize he didn't need to create both.
8. 2017 Stanley Cup playoffs - Unnecessary redirect created massively prematurely and only to score a first edit. This is routine.
9. Self-portrait without beard - WP:SYNTH as he clearly has not read or used the sources, and only copied from another article while rewording statements from that one.
10. Flower Beds in Holland - Standard redirect to an alternative title. No issues there.

• Going a little farther back, we have the one-sentence, CSD A1 eligible creation of the astronomer that he was shamed into expanding via a PROD tag. Without people there to PROD him into putting bare effort into things, he does things like this, where he simply throws an {{Update}} tag on one of his own articles because he can hardly be bothered to update his thousands of creations himself. And given he creates articles on not-yet-notable players (like Pavel Karnaukhov) and then fails to defend them at PROD because he knows he can just abuse WP:REFUND later, I would say that bans from various processes, including and especially REFUND and redirect creation, are strictly necessary. But as demonstrated above, even when he creates articles on players that strictly pass SNGs, he misrepresents sources and makes no effort to find substantive coverage. That is something I would like to see him demonstrate he is capable of without being watched before I would back down from requesting a page creation ban entirely. Resolute 16:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Not wanting to spend my whole day on this, #2 above (a clear SNG Keep) could have the fact of first season documented from one of the external links showing just as easily. #3 above (and presumably #4) could be de-crystal-balled with a retitling to 2015 Quebec City NHL bid, which would be a GNG pass. Agreed that the "2017 Stanley Cup playoffs" is massively premature, but all this all smacks of gross exaggeration of the actual problem presented by what seems to be a good-faith editor... Carrite (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Passing a SNG does not automatically mean a keep. If they fail to prove the notability when challenged (and a player that close to the bare minimum likely would be) they still can end up getting deleted. It specifically lays this out in the SNG. Not to mention the external links to stats pages are not reliable sources to proove notability. But as Resolute points out he creates thousands of articles so its not surprise you would find some two sentence ones, no one is claiming every single article is bad, just that a significant percentage to the point of being disruptive are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd be entertained if you could show me a couple times when a bio of a hockey player in a fully professional league has ended in deletion at AfD. It simply does not happen. If he was doing stubs of professional croquet players, those might be close. But hockey? Uh, no. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure I will look some up. Dolovis, himself has had a number deleted. Non-North American professionals are very frequently deleted due to the varying coverage of fully professional players in different countries. -DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I respect that you wish to AGF, Carrite, but I've been seeing these for years. These mistakes are not new, and they are not going away because Dolovis does not care. He is not here to improve the project, he is here to get his high scores and leave the clean-up to others. And that has been his MO for the entire time he's been a Wikipedian. And for the entire time he's been a Wikipedian, the only times his behaviour has been altered is through either community imposed restrictions, or a block for sockpuppetry. Six separate RFDs were not enough to cause Dolovis to stop creating bad redirects. It was only after this report and the risk of shutting his game down entirely became apparent to him that he suddenly decided that he would honour "a new consensus" - which is actually a year and a half old, at least. Ravenswing, DJSasso and I have been dealing with the mess he makes for years, and we'll all tell you the same thing: He will abuse any process he can as far as he can abuse it. And I think Arbcom recognizes this as well, given his attempt to have one of his restrictions lifted ended with a blunt "you can be restricted, or you can be blocked" response. To respond to your comments above: #1 and #2 above could be fixed by finding non-trivial sources that properly cite his claims and then properly inserting those sources, but he won't do that. #3 and #4, could have just waited until teams were actually announced - but that risks his not getting the first edit (and the expansion bid stuff is already covered at Potential National Hockey League expansion). They are also plagiarism. And his massively premature examples are ongoing and annual. It's all about getting first edits. Always has been. Resolute 19:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Carrite, you're missing the forest in favor of picking out a handful of stumps. Quite aside from that notability is a dynamic process -- someone who hasn't achieved notability might well do so years down the road -- of course Dolovis has created some articles that pass notability muster. It would be astonishing if, with the several thousand articles and redirects he's made, he hadn't scored the occasional hit. And I know this as well as anyone; when I filed those 75 AfDs on sub-stubs he'd created a year or so back, there were several stubs I didn't file on, because I judged they passed notability muster.

  That's not the point. You've been around the block, and you know that any number of banned or indeffed editors made some productive edits along the line. Some have had many thousands of productive edits -- people like Betacommand and Mick McNee come to mind. They were sanctioned because the disruption their antics caused not only outweighed the productive edits they made, but caused good editors to quit the project out of frustration.

  Never mind the effect they have on editors who don't quit. Take a look at my contribution history from January of 2014 [33]. I made over 500 edits that month, and easily two-thirds of them involved AfDing non-notable sub-stubs Dolovis created. That time spent didn't count, of course, research I did to ensure the ones I AfDed weren't notable. That time spent constituted time I didn't spend building the encyclopedia; it was time spent cleaning up after messes. Frankly, I don't consider the occasional sound contribution Dolovis makes worth that much time. I don't consider it worth your time as a "mentor," or worth the time it's going to take you to review a subject's notability, not when it takes away from article creation you could be doing. I don't consider it worth the time it sucks from the likes of JohnCD at REFUND. I don't consider it worth the time we've had to spend tightening the NHOCKEY guidelines you cited because despite overwhelming and frequent consensus in a number of discussions, Dolovis routinely ignores consensus where there isn't an explicit black-letter rule.

  I'm unhappy enough at a six-month ban, because just like every other time, we're going to have this all to do over again seven months from now. I think he's had too many chances as it is, over too many years. Ravenswing 05:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support ban on article creation, unless pre-vetted for notability as Carrite has helpfully offered below. From working at WP:REFUND, I am aware of much time wasted on the following often-repeated cycle: (1) Dolovis creates an article about a hockey-player, (2) it is discussed at AfD and deleted as non-notable, (3) months or years later the player becomes notable and an article is created, (4) Dolovis comes to REFUND to ask for his deleted edits to be restored to the history beneath the new article. Steps 1,2 and 4 of this cycle are pure waste motion and do nothing for the encyclopedia. Examples here (3 instances) and here (another 4) on just one archive page. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been through the ropes at AfD and if it is judged that Dolovis needs a pre-check on notability of new creations from a mentor before being able to launch them, I hereby offer to serve that role for a six month period. I will report back at the end of that period with the results. Ping me if you wish to go this route. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Quick reference to the Special Notability Guideline for hockey might be of use for this debate:

Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they
[1] Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;
[2] Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant;
[3] Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues;
[4] Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);
[5] Were a first-round draft pick in the NHL Entry Draft;
[6] Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship); or

[7] Are an honored member of a national or multinational hockey Hall of Fame.

A large percentage of the recent work by this editor has involved the creation of stub bios of young professional players and prospects. There seems to me to be good faith, given how low the SNG bar is set (just one game played in a fully pro league is a Speedy Keep at AfD). Carrite (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how SNGs work. They do not cause a "Speedy Keep". It lays out right at the top of them that meeting these does not mean an article must be kept. Not to mention these particular ones don't mention "fully pro" as a number of fully pro leagues do not meet them as explained in the note below the list which you didn't copy over. Some fully pro leagues require 200 games, other fully pro leagues require a first-all star award win etc. -DJSasso (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's not reality. SNGs are special "low bars" to inclusion (or "high bars" in the case of politicians) to be considered in conjunction with GNG. And trust me when I say that a nomination which clearly passes a SNG criterion is almost invariably shut down at once with a Speedy Keep. One NHL game played and the debate is shut down, regardless of what it says at the top of the page. This is also true for baseball, soccer, American football, and basketball — one game in a top professional league and we're done... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I'm unsure as to the relevance of the point. We're not talking about sub-stubs that Dolovis has created for players who've played in top-level professional leagues -- although I grit my teeth that he seldom, if ever, bothers with anything more than the two sentences of fact and the bare reference or two that's the irreducible minimum required to clear WP:BLP. We're talking about articles he creates of players who do NOT qualify, over which there's been many a tussle over the years, followed by the inevitable PROD, followed by Dolovis' inevitable removal of the PROD with a bald "Is notable" (if he bothers with an edit summary at all), followed by the inevitable AfD, followed by Dolovis going straight to DRV or REFUND should the subject achieve notability down the road.

And here's the effect on our workload: in the last two years, judging solely from the edit summaries on his talk page history, he's received notification of seven CSDs, seven copyvios, nine prods, 81 RFDs, 131 AfDs ... and despite his suggestion that the fuss is due to a vendetta a couple editors have against him, these have been filed by over two dozen different editors. After five years, over 50K edits, six blocks, multiple topic bans and edit restrictions, and several hundred articles going through deletion processes, at what point do we admit that this isn't a case of him not knowing any better as opposed to a massive IDHT? Ravenswing 15:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been pointed out on my talk page that I inadvertently omitted the word "top." We are speaking of TOP fully professional leagues: NHL, not AHL, for example. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think that there is general agreement that there is a problem. I do think that a process of "pre-approval" of new starts for notability which does not tax the bogged down Articles for Creation queue should be sufficient rather than destroying the editor's usefulness to the project, which is making sure that our hockey coverage is as complete as it can be. There is a pretty clear consensus that his redirects of drafted players with no biographies needs to stop. The inclusion rules are fairly definite for specific hockey biographies and AfD outcome can be projected with great accuracy. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggested he get an admin's approval so it's not just one person and it's not just a giant slog at AFC (which lets some problematic things though anyways). I can't recall where but that's been done before. It's mostly been redirects being created anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support six-month article creation and REFUND ban, mentorship notwithstanding. This has some unpleasant similarities to the events leading up to this Arbitration case: wildly prolific creator of stubs refusing to work in a more cooperative fashion, long-running, apparently trivial dispute, and well-meaning but ineffective attempts at outsider intervention, which ended in disaster. This goes well beyond the question of "are most of his articles notable or not?" It's about the strain being placed on community processes like REFUND, PROD, on the hockey project due to litigation over guidelines, and so on. In the big picture of hockey coverage, it's more important to keep the project healthy and editors in general happy and active than it is to write a lot of poor-quality stubs, because they're much less likely to get expanded if the people who could improve them have reduced their activity or quit in disgust. Dolovis says he became "active as an editor to work to improve such articles". Great. Let him do that for six months and let's see where we stand. Carrite, I know your desire to help is sincere, but I suspect that as a mentor, you're going to wind up being drawn into the role of champion for Dolovis, ("But, see, that turned out to be barely notable when I dug up a bunch of sources. Don't pick on my mentee! He needs help!"), which is only going to increase the emotional temperature here. (This isn't a reflection on your personality, but on the difficulty of mentoring in these situations.) Having Dolovis stand down on the stubs for a while won't prevent the articles from being created, and it looks like it will save a whole lot of process wrangling and/or administrator time. Choess (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support ban in either AlbinoFerret or Tokyogirl's version. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Closure?

Discussion seems to have reached an end point. Is there perhaps an uninvolved admin that might close this one way or another? Resolute 12:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dolovis has accepted mentorship, so hopefully an administrator will close this report on that note. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think consensus has clearly gone to some sort of restriction. But yes, an uninvolved admin will make the call. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That an admin another editor has offered to mentor Dolovis, and that he has accepted the offer, is very well and good. For my part, I'm not mollified. An offer of mentorship from a non-admin -- especially in reference to overseeing an admin-dependent new article approval process -- is scarcely grounds to say "Well, that's alright then" and forget about the whole thing. I stand on my support of an unconditional six month (or, if possible, indef) ban on new article creation and a permanent ban on using the REFUND process, which I believe remains the consensus opinion. Ravenswing 06:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That, and he's only jumping at mentorship to try and skate by any sanctions. Resolute 18:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If Dolovis were to ignore or go against his mentor's advice? a ban on article creation can always be imposed. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Or the ban on article creation can happen now, and he can work with his mentor to improve his editing overall. Personally, I think his interest in having a mentor would rapidly diminish if his games were ended against his will. Resolute 03:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Darn, beat me to it, Resolute. Honestly, GoodDay, if this was just a matter of him needing to be trout-slapped in order to edit in an unselfish and productive manner, this would be an entirely different proceeding. But Dolovis is a smart guy who's been around for years. I'm firmly convinced, through years of seeing his interactions and how these conflicts spin out, that it's not a matter of him not knowing any better; I give him more credit than that. It's that he doesn't care, when consensus, guidelines or the spirit of the law conflict with his goals. Do you really think he's going to be any better six months from now, when he's still up to the same gamesmanship just a couple months after coming off of an indef block? When he's already operating under two topic bans, an interaction ban and an edit restriction? Ravenswing 05:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The mentorship is fine but I still believe Dolovis should still be banned from creating any articles without the approval of any administrator. Since his mentor is an admin, good that's works out but I don't want to hear in six months that the mentor took a break or didn't say "NO" and there was nothing else Dolovis could do as an excuse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If the reference is to me, I will point out that I'm not an administrator and have no intention of becoming one. Carrite (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually ... this might work to our advantage. While I'm of a mind with Resolute that Dolovis' interest in a mentorship will vanish quickly if it doesn't come with a softening of sanctions, this is his chance to prove us wrong and demonstrate good faith going forward. Putting the work in on his end for six months, without any direct tangible benefit, would go some way to convincing people that there's been a genuine change. Ravenswing 05:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone close this, discussion has been pretty much dead for awhile now. -DJSasso (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Dolovis hasn't been around for over a week, now. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admins around to formally close this thing? Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 04:46, September 14, 2015 (UTC)

I have asked for a close on WP:ANRFC here is a link[34]] AlbinoFerret 06:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring history of deleted articles

This discussion has made me think about our practice of restoring the history of deleted articles on request when they are re-created. That is clearly necessary when the new article is based on the old one, but different author(s) of the old one need to be attributed; but where the new article is not based on the old one, or where its author is the same as the only author of the old one, it seems pointless.

I suggest that we should restore histories only when necessary for attribution. That would remove the incentive for the practice described above, of writing premature articles about non-notable players in the hope of getting "first-author" credit if the subject eventually becomes notable. Unless there is strong disagreement, I shall propose this at WT:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the challenges there is that Dolovis was abusing a combination of PROD and REFUND. Without changing the policies around the former, I'm not sure how you mitigate issues such as this with the latter. This is one of the reasons why he whined earlier in this thread about Ravenswing's AFDs and said they could have been PRODs instead - PRODs are easier for him to have restored. Resolute 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring PRODs at REFUND is not a problem - they must be restored on request (unless they are speediable as copyvio or attack), but they can be taken to AfD. If one knows the article author is likely to dePROD, the answer is to save time by going direct to AfD. The issue I am raising is about requests to restore the history of deleted premature articles about non-notable persons who later become notable. A discussion has been started at WT:REFUND#Denying refund requests to avoid gamesmanship. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced ideologies and controversial info for radical parties

Manolvd1999 (talk · contribs), and 3 "new" IP accounts ([35]) with a sudden interest in the topic, keep adding unsourced "Ideology" labels and other unsourced controversial content in articles of radical Eastern European parties (see Bulgarian National Alliance, Shiv Sena and other similar articles). They have received several warnings and information on the named account's talk page, several users reverted their unsourced edits in those articles. As I am close to 3RR (and a minor edit war is also happening at Shiv Sena), it would be great if someone uninvolved could look into this. GermanJoe (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have notified the named account and one of the IPs with an active talk page. GermanJoe (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This pattern of editing is remarkably similar to that of the prolific serial puppeteer Greekboy12345er6. It's probably worth comparing this with identified socks, and opening an SPI. RolandR (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what 'Anti-Ziganism' actually is??? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I wish there were some sort of online encyclopedia where one could easily look up things like that... —Wasell^(T) 14:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that would be an innovation wouldn't it!!! Cheers _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really sure about a possible connection, the focus on political labels is the same, but the edit pattern and style seems slightly different. There are likely more than 1 people obsessed about politics and simplifying labels out there. Not filing a SPI for now, but thanks for the suggestion. GermanJoe (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And again just now here with another IP. Could an admin please look into this - maybe just semi Bulgarian National Alliance and Shiv Sena for a while? Doesn't make much sense to send additional messages to 4 changing IPs. GermanJoe (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing additions - I have requested page protection for both pages at WP:RfPP. GermanJoe (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose block

Propose block of Manolvd1999 (talk · contribs) - as WP:NOTHERE (new unsourced edits). Not because the user is against radical parties or is trying to write about them, a commendable goal, but Wikipedia is no place for unsourced soapboxing and crusades. It looks like all of their edits are entirely unsourced, and the user ignored multiple warnings. GermanJoe (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Could someone look into this please? ([36]). Or close it, if the insertion of unsourced POV-pushing since 4 months is not considered a problem. GermanJoe (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Robert Martinson problems

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has long been banned from article creation for his massive disregard for copyright. He has a great number of subpages on his user page, all intended as potential articles for others to move into main article space. Recently a new editor copypasted one of these subpages, creating the article Robert Martinson. The first thing I noticed about the page (unaware of its provenance) was the obvious copyvios, numerous quotations in the references. I deleted the copyvios, thinking they were rookie mistakes, and then I added information and sources. In the meantime, Richard had asked a third party to fix the article's history by moving his original subpage over the page, leading the third party to restore the copyvios and erase my changes.

Now it's a very minor mess, and I'm not sure what the proper way forward is. Plan A is to just revert and move on. Plan B is asking here, and I've opted for Plan B. I'll mention the new editor created some other pages that may have the same copypaste/copyvio issues, I just briefly looked. Richard's other subpages may also be problems, I have not looked.

I have not named the two other editors, both seem to have acted GF, and if either needs to be told something constructive, presumably their Talk pages suffice. While Richard also seems GF here, this looks like he still does not seem to get copyvio. (And I have no idea of the fine points of his ban.) Choor monster (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• If you think using the quote parameter in the citation templates is "obvious copyvios" and you "deleted the copyvios" you really need to study the fair use policy at Wikipedia fair use policy page. The policy currently reads: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." The only violation of Wikipedia copyright policy and plagiarism policy was by the user who copy and pasted my work and attributed it to themselves. They contacted me when they realized they had made an error, and I contacted Sandstein to correct it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I was the admin whom Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) asked to fix the copypaste article creation by another editor by moving the article history from his user space into mainspace. I was then not aware of his article creation ban, but another admin pointed me to this request and linked to WP:ARBRAN. I am now deleting the article Robert Martinson as an arbitration enforcement action: The ban was apparently made because Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has previously violated copyright, and therefore the prohibition extends to all articles based wholly on his work, whether or not it was he who moved them into mainspace. This should settle the matter as far as I'm concerned, unless anybody wants to consider sanctions for any involved editor via WP:AE.  Sandstein  18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleting it was improper, if you had doubts, you should have migrated it back to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Robert Martinson and not delete it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, so if an admin finds sufficient copyvios in a mainspace article to delete it, sending it back or restoring it to userspace would be irresponsible. BMK (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Using the quote feature built into the citation templates is not a violation of copyright, it is the definition of the Wikipedia sanctioned fair-use policy. You are welcome to argue about how much material constitutes fair-use at the Wikipedia fair use policy page. The policy currently reads: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." If you think that the definition of Wikipedia fair-use is wrong, then you should lobby to have the quotation feature contained in over 100,000 citations removed from all of Wikipedia. Removing them adhoc from one article is not the way to do it. While I am blocked from moving articles into mainspace there is no restriction from others moving them into mainspace at my request or by me giving permission for someone asking to move it. However, it is a violation of copyright and a violation of rules against plagiarism to copy and paste my work into a new article under the name of another author. If you think that me quoting the New York Times and properly attributing it is a copyright violation, then you also have to believe that me quoting Wikipedia policy above is a copyright violation, weird world isn't it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Except that you don't actually need the extended quotations in the footnotes at all. Footnote quotes should only really be used where the source is large and/or difficult to navigate (i.e. no page numbers) so that the reader may struggle to find the source for the citation, or the source contains differing viewpoints so that it is necessary to pinpoint the actual sentence you are using as a source. In this case, neither applies. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That is your personal interpretation of the policy and you should should state that it is your personal interpretation. You are presenting it as fact. The exact wording of facts from the original source prevents semantic drift, we have no idea if the source material will be available in 10 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years. The original article may read that someone was "from a farm near Fooville", the next editor may rewrite to read that he was "born on a farm near Fooville" and the next editor may change it to "born in Fooville" and the next "born in Fooville, New Jersey. Each small change causes the information to drift slightly and that drift may or may-not be correct, every editor does this when they change wording. The reader has no idea that drift is taking place, unless presented with the original source material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• What you're saying is that including the copyvio quote simply saves editors from looking up the RS. That's not an acceptable reason. Choor monster (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is exactly what I wrote, re-read it. Once again you are using the inflammatory "copyvio" for fair-use as defined by Wikipedia policy. If you cannot discuss it in neutral terms you are purposefully being inflammatory. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• (Response to RAN/ec) In the article in question, you had more full sentence quotation from five NYT articles than you had written in the body of the article. That in itself is ridiculous. Worse, your quotations met none of FUR. Nothing except laziness or incompetence prevented you from summarizing the contents of the NYT articles and leaving out the actual quotations. We're not here for pull-quote journalism.
• The quote parameter is for responsible usage.
• I recently created an article Kelayres massacre, over 20K, with fifty footnotes, and I incorporated a grand total of one quotation, from an editorial, since the exact tone seemed to be just as essential to the whole story as the factual content of the editorial (which may, in fact, have been very little). (And there were two FUR pictures, and one PD picture which I asked about on WP:MCQ, just to play it safe.) You? You're not even trying. Choor monster (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well you are awesome that is why your articles do not use the quote feature. However, using words like "obvious copyvios" and "incompetence" makes you less awesome. You are inserting your opinion and personal style as as Wikipedia law. If you do not like using the quote parameter, do not use it. If you think it should never be used, lobby to have it removed globally at the talk page for fair-use policy. Also, Wikipedia:FUR policy is for images. Also, we are not journalists, so I am not using "pull-quote journalism", we are writing a reference-work. Journalists use primary sources, reference-work writers rely primarily on secondary and tertiary sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion seems to be the consensus opinion. I think it should be used. As I said: responsibly. I'll point out I use it frequently over on Wiktionary, since presenting exact quotations over there serves an accepted educational purpose. Choor monster (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• If it was Wikipedia policy you would have already quoted me the chapter and verse where it is specifically stated as I have already done above. We all have high opinions of our own opinions, but that doesn't make them Wikipedia policy, it is just magical thinking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• RAN: Given that there's still a lot of work left to do at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108, and WP:ARBRAN specifically states "in order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions" (referring to the ban on article creation), why are you not doing that before you create articles? —SpacemanSpiff 19:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) So now RAN is creating draft articles with the same kind of copyright problems he will not acknowledge to even exist. Copyright infringement in the Draft space is the same as copyright infringement in the mainspace. It's certainly a violation in spirit, if not the letter, of ARBRAN. Is it time for an amendment to that case? KrakatoaKatie 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your outrage, but again "copyright infringement" is incorrect, you clearly have a limited understanding of fair-use as defined by the United States Supreme Court or by Wikipedia policy of fair-use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What SCOTUS permits is irrelevant to us. Citing it is a red-herring, and a serious sign that you don't get WP and WP:COPYVIO. We hold by our own stricter policies. What newspapers and journals and the like do under Fair Use is not something we're supposed to imitate. Choor monster (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, please stop saying it is in the Bible, just read the Bible. If you are quoting exact Wikipedia policy quote me the exact chapter and verse. This is not the first time I have asked you to quote policy, and not express your opinion as if it were policy. Note that I quoted you the exact text of the Wikipedia policy on fair-use and put it in quotations above, which under your opinion, is a copyright violation. I directly quoted a copyrighted source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm not outraged. Nothing on this website gives me an emotion that remotely approaches outrage. Second, when you've spent the hundreds of hours I have cleaning up copyright problems, we'll talk about who understands copyright and who does not. The NFCC policy clearly states that Wikipedia uses a more stringent standard than does US copyright law. Either you get that or you don't. If you get it, you'll stop what you're doing now. If you don't, you'll be forced to stop what you're doing later. Up to you. KrakatoaKatie 21:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up a pile of poop off the bathroom floor does not mean you have the equivalent of an M.D. in proctology or have a Ph.D. in scatology. If you think the "more stringent standard" applies, then work to define it. You can lobby that quotes can be no more than three sentences, or two sentences, or one sentence, or three words. You can lobby that the title of books, and the title of news articles, be restricted to the first three words or the first three letters. You can lobby to have the quote parameter removed from all the citation templates. Until then you are just expressing your personal opinion of how you interpret the Wikipedia fair-use, which is fine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Of course Wikimedia policy is based on United States case law, to deny it is just silly. Every image loaded to Wikimedia commons that is in the public domain in the source country must also be in the public domain under United States law because our servers are based here in the United States. We decided that images from the National Portrait Gallery loaded to Wikipedia followed United States law despite being served with takedown notice in the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A non-sequitur. WP:CIR for articles and Talk discussions. Choor monster (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Now you are quoting essays, at least that is a step up from saying that your personal opinion is Wikipedia policy, but you are still telling people to read the Bible, again cite the chapter and verse or quote what you are referring to. "Go read the Bible, the answer is there" is never useful. If you found something relevant in the essay WP:CIR, then quote it to me, don't tell me to read it and guess which sentence you found relevant. Thank you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, you haven't answered the question posed by SpacemanSpiff above. There is still a huge amount outstanding at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108. Why are you not cleaning those issues up before creating new articles? After all, that's exactly what the sanction stated. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not found any, that is why. Spending the next ten years certifying that the previous ten years of edits do not contain any copyright violations, is a waste of time. If there are any more clear examples, a bot can find them, and I will fix them. Copyright isn't subjective, if a bot cannot find them, how can I be expected to? When we have people who think they understand copyright and fair-use, that do not ... as per the comments above, there really is no way of satisfying their manufactured outrage. During the ANI someone said that my quoting a 1905 New York Times article was a copyright violation. And, by the way, my new articles in my user space are awesome. The people I write about deserve no less. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While CorenSearchBot flags any new articles that contain copyright violations, there is no bot that checks existing Wikipedia articles for copyright violations. That task has to be done by hand, one diff at a time. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It just needs to be modified to run against the current state of an article and not the first edit of an article. And of course it needs to be run against all of Wikipedia and rank articles on a scale from 1 to 10. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not possible. First, we pay for CSB to do its searches, and the burden of doing this against all articles is astronomically higher than the burden of doing this against new articles. Also, new articles are considerably less likely to find Wikipedia mirrors (legitimate or otherwise) and, when they do, that often highlights another problem - unattributed splitting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest the nuclear option. Since the only possible reason for RAN to create new articles in his user space (there are scores of them) is so someone will move them into mainspace, thereby circumventing his article-creation ban, I would think, following Sandstein's point, that they should all be deleted. If RAN is interested in editing Wikipedia, there's plenty of work to be done on existing articles, or, as SpacemanSpiff and Black Kite suggest, he could stop bitching that it will take "10 years" to fix all his copyright violations, and just get to work fixing them. It's not as if he started to do so and then gave up, he's never helped to fix his copyright problems, ever. If he had spent all the time between the institution of the ban and now helping to fix his copyright violations -- instead of creating new articles in his user space with more copyright violations -- he might not be finished, but he'd have a damn good case for having his ban lifted due to his services in cleaning up the mess he had made. Instead, RAN continues to refuse to concede that there are any copyright violations, despite the very clear community and ArbCom consensus that there are, and a major form of them was his extensive misuse of the quote parameter. BMK (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Struck statement per Sphilbrick's comment in the section below. BMK (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the manufactured outrage and please do not libel me with "he's never helped to fix his copyright problems, ever." Anyone can see all the work I have done simply by looking at the first 100 articles I created in 2005-2006 and then seeing the post ANI changes I made to them. I removed the hidden text of the source documents that I was using to write the biographies. I trimmed long quotations and reworded Air Force *.mil biographies which may/may-not be government public domain. User:Beyond My Ken and I have been antagonistic for years, and he uses every opportunity to try and get me banned permanently. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No outrage -- is that going to be your standard attack on your critics? -- just a possible solution to the problem you have made, which is to delete all your user space articles as straight-forward violations of your topic ban to not create articles. I recognize that there are other possible solutions, such as your being indef-blocked, or some combination of the various choices. BMK (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• If there is some doubt whether the articles in his user space are typical RAN creations -- which is to say. abusive of the quote parameter to an extent that they are copyvios, I would suggest that Moonriddengirl or some other admin well-versed in copyright matter take a look at a random sampling of his user-space articles, and use the result of that examination to determine if the nuclear option is a viable choice or not. Alternately, they can all be tagged with G12 speedy deletion templates, and individual admins can decide on a case-by-case basis. Either way, I have never understood why RAN has been allowed to take the path he has, which is to clearly thumb his nose at his topic ban - one that was first put in place by the community, and then endorsed and taken over by ArbCom. BMK (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesome that you can read minds too: "clearly thumb his nose at his topic ban". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to read your mind, it's easy enough for everyone to read your actions, and your words speak for themselves. BMK (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging @Moonriddengirl:, which I forgot to do above. BMK (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• The quotation parameter is a fine parameter when used in moderation (and completely unproblematic when used with public domain or compatibly licensed material), but the idea that it should be used to archive the content in case the source becomes unavailable in the future is not supported by WP:NFC, which tries in simple language to explain the transformative use of quotations. Capturing the content for fear that it won't be available later is not on that list - if anything, that's far more likely to be seen as competitive with the original publication, as we eliminate the need for our readers to access the original. In terms of reviewing the drafts, I think it would be better if somebody with less history dealing with RAN's copyright issues undertake this, BMK. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's understandable. BMK (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• RAN: Please explain how this is in line with our fair use policy. This is now becoming a case of having to update the original CCI and waste yet more time of other editors and as KrakatoaKatie suggests above, it's time for an amendment to the case to stop any more addition of content, period. Given that this is a two day old violation and that our fair use policy is more strictly implemented in user space, any admin is welcome to take an AE action here (I just don't have the time or inclination to looking at the history right now to do so myself). —SpacemanSpiff 03:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• You need to explain how it violates fair-use policy, since you are making the accusation. "Our fair use policy is more strictly implemented in user space." Where is that rule coming from? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• WP:Non-free content criteria#Policy

  9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (emphasis added)

  BMK (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That is image policy, it states that the file has to be deleted. No fair-use images on user pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, once again you show your ignorance. WP:NFCC isn't just about images, it's about any non-free content, visual or textual. Someday you ought to read the policy so that you can actually follow it.

Policy

There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the quotation style guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

#9 I quoted above comes directly after this in the same section. It applies to all non-free content. BMK (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• What's strange is that the quote is totally unnecessary. It does not provide any pertinent information that's not in the article, except for the name of the Governor, which is in the title of the article cited. BMK (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ARBRAN has this to say: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is strongly admonished for creating multiple copyright violations throughout Wikipedia and failing to adhere to the project's expected standards and policies with regards to non-free content. He is warned that continued violations of this nature are likely to result in an indefinite block from editing. I don't see anything restricting that remedy to article space; perhaps it's time for an indef block? Whether through AE or ARCA I'm not sure. GoldenRing (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Lest we forget, although it doesn't come into play in this discussion, RAN is actually subject to twin topic bans. The one we've been referring to here disallows him from creating new articles, and its twin disallows him from uploading images to en.wiki. The reason for this was also copyright-related, as part of the restriction is that if he uploads a copyright-violating image to Commons and uses it on en.wiki, it will be treated as a copyright violation to en.wiki. Clearly, when ArbCom made these restrictions -- which can be found at WP:Editing restrictions -- they had absolutely no faith that RAN understood what is and isn't a copyright violation, which is a powerful reason for ignoring his commentary here regarding copy-vios: he simply doesn't know what he's talking about. BMK (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

By your definition we cannot use the title of news articles, remember they are also copyrighted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you see, once again you've shown that you don't know what you're talking about, since titles are specifically not copyrightable. BMK (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Short phrase headlines are not copyrightable, however headlines such as: "Gen. E. A. M'Alpin Dies At Ossining. Former Adjutant General of New York Stricken at His Country Home in His 69th Year. Long in National Guard. Tobacco Merchant and Republican Leader Owned Land on Which Hotel McAlpin Stands." It would not constitute a "short phrase" because it contains original expression. "General McAlpin Dies" would not be copyrightable as a headline since it states non-copyrightable facts under the "short phrase" rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, SpacemanSpiff quotes from WP:ARBRAN above, where ArbCom endorses and take up the community ban. It refers to this AN/I thread, in which it was decided to make permanent the initial temporary ban. That initial ban can be found here, where it is phrased as: "[H]e is banned specifically from creating new articles and from page moves". (Note that there's no specification of where the new articles are created.) So, given this clear ban, why, when I look at RAN's talk page, do I see that he is submitting his user space articles to WP:Articles for Creation? Does he somehow think that the fact that someone else pushes the button to make his article appear in mainspace absolves him of his restriction from creating new articles, and that asking other people to make page moves for him doesn't mean that the page move is essentially his? What he is doing is clearly Wikilawyering around his sanctions and pushing hard against the boundaries of his bans by enlisting other editors and AfC as his proxies. That he has gotten away with this behavior for so long is pretty amazing, actually. BMK (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• My summary: A properly attributed quote is not a copyright violation either under United States copyright law or Wikipedia !law. If you want to restrict all quotations to a single sentence or a single word, then lobby to make that so. The only clear copyright violation was by the user that cut-and-pasted my nascent user-space article and put it in mainspace and attributed it to themselves. It was corrected, when the cut-and-paster contacted me, by Sandstein and there was with no ill will toward the cut-and-paster by me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your understanding of US copyright law, the fair-use doctrine, and Wikipedia's NFCC policy (which is deliberately more restrictive) is fundamentally flawed, as shown by your past history, your current actions, and your commentary in this thread. You appear to be making it up as you go along, without truly understanding the real issues, or why your actions contravene your sanctions. You have, in a variety of ways, violated your topic bans, apparently very deliberately so -- just as you violated your community-placed ban before the case went to ArbCom, where you were not slapped on the wrist, but given a last chance instead of being indef blocked. You did not take that last chance, which required you to help clean up your existing copyright violations, choosing instead to continue to create new violating articles in your user space. There really is no excuse for any of these actions on your part. BMK (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the use of AFC to verify the contents of drafts, the topic ban is pretty clear that he is banned from article creation / creating new articles. This doesn't specify in what manor, so he's bypassing the direct approach by creating articles through AFC (or by having other editors moving his drafts), which is still in violation of the topic ban. (striken in relation to Choor monster's note relating to this. However, in addition to that, the topic ban included a ban on page moves, yet his page move log is pretty full. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Without actually seeing the article in question, it is rather hard to tell if there were copyvios there. I will note simply that there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources. Indeed, it is rather common in historical areas. The other example given from RA Norton's space (I assume that refers to footnote 2) has a quote consisting of one and a half sentences, which is rather hard to judge as copyvio and not fair use. Whether a quote of such a length is necessary or not, it is rather a stretch to call it a copyvio. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That example is from 1912, so it is PD. Assuming a later date as in many RAN articles, note that there was no need to refer to the article by every last subheading—the first heading suffices—the quotation is longer than the article in question! Note too, it's not US Fair Use which is relevant, but WP:FAIRUSE. Note also RAN's defense of his quotations: he seems to very strongly believe in close paraphrasing and nothing but close paraphrasing, and the point of including the quotation is to seemingly discourage anyone from rewriting one of his close paraphrases. It certainly serves no other purpose here on WP. Choor monster (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Kingsindian: Please keep in mind that we don't actually follow the normal "fair-use doctrine", we have our own rules, WP:NFCC which are deliberately more restrictive than fair-use. One can make the argument that we should just follow fair-use doctrine, but the fact is that we don't. Because of that, any use of a quotation, of whatever length, needs to be necessary for the article, and should not simply repeat information that has been written into the article in a non-quoted, non-plagiarized manner, which is the preferred way to deal with sourced information. There have been any number of times when I determined that any re-writing of a source's statement was going to water down, misrepresent or too closely follow the quote from the source, and I chose to directly quote the source to get the correct flavor and attitude it conveyed, but the quote didn't repeat something I wrote, it replaced it as being the best representation of the cite. RAN's use of the "quote" parameter in his citations is, instead, repetitive and, generally, totally unnecessary.

Our policy says quite specifically "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia", but RAN operates on the opposite basis, that he can use quotes whenever he wants to, even when they are repetitive and unnecessary. Such usage would mostly survive scrutiny under the fair-use doctrine, but it is not in line with out NFCC policy. That RAN cannot or will not recognize this (or indeed the intent of his topics bans) is why we are here discussing this. BMK (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever standard of "fair-use" one uses, one and a half sentences surely qualifies. I would barely be able to write any content if such a restrictive standard is used. For instance, I quoted two whole sentences here (at the very end). I hope I am not going to get banned. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume an official government committee's statement is PD. Even if it were a private committee making an official statement about some investigation, its exact wording would typically meet NFCC. In contrast, the exact wording of a newspaper summarizing for us what some committee said, or even any PD document, would typically not meet NFCC. Why is this so difficult to understand? Choor monster (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Please also keep in mind RAN's history. He's on an official short leash because of his past infractions, you're not. BMK (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Kingsindian, with respect only to the note "there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources", I just wanted to clarify that there are indeed such rules in both Wikipedia ("Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." WP:NFC) and the US copyright law that governs us.  :) As our article on fair use notes, amount and substantiality of copied content is a determinative factor. (cf. http://copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html) Prudent use of quotations is not only permitted but good practice, but extensive quotations of any text that is copyrighted and not compatibly licensed is forbidden on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, "extensive" cannot be identified here any more than it is in law, since what qualifies as extensive is defined by a number of factors, including the centrality of the content and its original length, as well as a review of the other factors of fair use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• When the source is not an official actor regarding some content being written up (if it were, the exact wording is inherently significant), I personally apply the "everybody quotes it" test. Strong editorials and reviews and so on are often the most interesting reactions to something, and tend to get quoted by later writers trying to capture the flavor of initial reactions. In contrast, routine journalism rarely gets quoted by later writers, and is normally never part of the story, then or later, so we should avoid quoting it too. Choor monster (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl and Choor monster: The two sentences which I quote are not from a government statement, but from a book (actually the book is cited by a journal article, and I quote the journal article). I am of course aware that very long quotations are not a good idea, but as "extensive" is not defined exactly, I apply common sense here. One and half sentences (in the case of RAN) and two sentences (in my case), are surely within the bounds of "brief" and not "extended". Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be quoting one Mohammed Hyder, just not directly from his own recently published memoir October Coup. So far as I can tell, Hyder was a government official, or a high-up NGO functionary, or the like. He wasn't working for the Indian government but for the Hyerabad state, and as someone on the losing side, he could not get official standing for his version. I see absolutely no comparison between your inclusion there and RAN's quotations elsewhere. You are doing things the right way, he is not. Choor monster (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Choor monster: Hyder's memoir, October Coup is as much subject to copyright as the New York Times is. As is the academic journal which quoted his book, which I quoted myself. If quoting one and a half sentences from the New York Times is copyvio, so is quoting two sentences from his book. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. Hyder himself was a participant of some importance in the events described in the article. That elevates his words from random journalism to likely NFCC acceptable. Quoting the NYT verbatim regarding the US scandal Watergate or the UK scandal Hackergate would lean to being not allowed here. However, quoting Woodward and Bernstein, the two journalists most associated with Watergate, or any of the Murdoch News journalists, both guilty parties and shocked coworkers, would probably be fair game. Same thing here, not the same thing regarding RAN's use of NYT quotations. I'll mention that in the original Robert Martinson article that sparked this discussion, there was simply a stub of three sentences or so, five footnotes, and all five quoted a full sentence from the NYT, one a bit long. In the new version, not one single quotation appears. There may be some forthcoming, from Martinson or a colleague. But random journalism? No benefit whatsoever. Choor monster (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Kingsindian, my comment to you here has nothing to do with what source you're using or how many sentences you're quoting. :) It is purely confirmed to responding to your comment that "there is no rule against quoting, even extended quoting of newspaper or book sources" - I want to be sure that you and others realize that there is such a rule. Better to be clear on that than to inadvertently run afoul of it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not to defend or deride RAN but either I'm misreading our Fair use policy or several people here are. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the quotation style guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, blockquote or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. Brief Quotes don't need to meet the 10 criteria. They just need to be cited, they don't even need to be necessary or justified. By the letter of the rule. SPACKlick (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

While unfortunately the link to the MOS (added a few months ago) seems to have introduced some confusion, the guideline has explicit information on the use of text - including the necessity of them. The policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights says "Wikipedia articles may also include quotations, images, or other media under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine in accordance with our guidelines for non-free content." That guideline, incorporated by reference in the copyright policy, has an entire section on text. By the letter of the rule, quotations must accord. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Delete all articles in RAN's userspace and block indefinitely with the block only to be removed for the sole purpose of clearing up his existing copyvio issues and for no other reason.

Support as nom. Too much time and energy has been spent on RAN already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a multi-million dollar installation. You can't make that kind of decision. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support After reading through all of the above and taking a peak at some of RAN's work I see an editor that is unwilling to work within community norms even after having them repeatedly and over time explained to him. That he is unwilling to take on board criticism of his methods and conform to community norms regarding copyright indicates to me he is not competent to judge copyright issues or add material to the project.

  Since the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to document knowledge without infringing on copyright we take an extremely cautious line on the use of non-free materials so as not to put the project's reputation at risk or open it to legal action. Based on RAN's unwillingness to address the community's concern with his work and his obstinate refusal to even recognize there is a problem I support not only the deletion of his articles, which were created at the very least in violation of the spirit of his ban if not in fact, I also support an indef ban block from Wikipedia until such time as he is willing to recognize and fix the community's concern with his work. Jbh^Talk 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Although I am the editor who brought up the "nuclear option" in the first place, I would actually much prefer that RAN acknowledge his errors and pledge himself to help undo them before we go there. As I said below, I think that his skills make him potentially a net positive, and I'd like to see him make some effort to make that happen, perhaps working with a mentor, before we go nuclear. So I look forward to seeing some indication from RAN as this discussion continues that he understands what went wrong and will help ameliorate the problem. So... I'm going to continue to monitor his comments, and will decide about this proposal based on that. BMK (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Note that RAN's user subpages were permitted under the creation ban (see the Talk page) in order to demonstrate that he can create content without violating WP's terms. So talk that these articles' very existence violates the spirit of his ban is out of place, but I'll notice that so long as they stayed in his user space, nobody seems to have paid them any attention regarding copyright issues. Whether the request to move the one article to "fix" someone else's copy/paste to main space was a violation is another question. Choor monster (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's a long talk page! Is there a particular place where it's specifically stated that creation of articles in his userspace is permitted, or are you going on the fact that almost all the participants in the various discussions assumed that was the case? Because what's interesting is that the topic ban seen on ARBRAN doesn't go into details, it simply says that the community ban is endorsed and taken over by ArbCo,, and the wording of the community ban is as I posted it above, that RAN was prohibited from "creating articles" and "moving pages", without any specification of where that article creation was prohibited. It may be that having been accepted by so many people for so long, it's too late to retroactively enforce the actual wording of the topic ban, and not people's understanding of it, but unless you can point to something on the user page that I missed (which is quite possible, I couldn't read the entire thing), I don't think there's anything there that proactively says it's OK for him to do that, it's just assumed by all and sundry.
  In any event, RAN himself says in one of those discussions that the creation of those articles was designed to show that he could create non-copyvio articles, but here we are again with the same kind of NFCC-violating quotes he got in trouble with before.
  The other interesting thing about the talk page is that, fairly recently, ArbCom rejected RAN's bid to have his restrictions amended, based on an examination of his work to that point, a sign that -- at least in their opinion -- RAN is still not editing up to NFCC standards. BMK (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support sadly. Whether creating articles in user space is permitted or not seems at least plausibly a grey area; whether those articles are permitted to contain copyright violations is most definitely not. I've got a lot of sympathy for giving an editor another go and giving him a chance to demonstrate that he's understood the problems and is ready to remedy them; that chance has been offered, at great length, and the demonstration has categorically not been made. My only amendment would be that the standard offer should still be open; if he can convince someone that he's actually understood the problems and is ready to change, then he should be given another chance. Until that time, the editing privilege should be forfeit. "But there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing," in the face of overwhelming consensus that there is something wrong with it, is not a viable attitude for editing. GoldenRing (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support too many ban-evading and copyvio concerns Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  I'm still waiting to hear from RAN, who was all over this discussion earlier, accusing critics of manufacturing outrage and making cracks about poop and proctology, but who seems to have disappeared now, when it comes time to provide some kind of pledge of cleaning up his act. BMK (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  Why? He hasnt actually contributed to cleaning up his past problems in any significant manner. He has repeatedly over YEARS and multiple venues shown that he has no regard for others, wikipedia policy, community consensus or the restrictions placed on him by arbcom (who erred in not making him work solely on his own mess in the first place). I am not suggesting we nuke his userspace out of any punishment for him, I am suggesting we do it because no other editor should have to put up with his crap and vet it all to check its ok. Are you going to do it? Should we ask a specialist like Moon to have a look? Why would we wish that on someone else. There are likely loads of copyvios there *now* that will not have been looked at, because RAN thinks what he is doing is ok. Look at his responses to you above, he is a fanatic, he doesnt care about any other opinion or interpretation than his own. You want him to make some sort of commitment to being a better editor, but time and experience has shown whatever he says, whatever restrictions he is under, he will do what he wants regardless. Why are we wasting everyone's time? Given that he *will* continue the same pattern, any action we fail to take now is only making more problems in the future for other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  .....Nor should he. His problematic editing took place in the period 2005-2008, for the most part, when Wikipedia's standards for footnoting and snitching stuff from websites were looser. It's ridiculous to expect him to "clean up" ten year old editing, much of which has long since been changed and changed and changed again in the editing process. Yet that is the expectation of some people. It's absurd. Carrite (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - BMK (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Articles such as Robert Martinson and eccentric dance are perfectly fine and deleting such notable topics would be disruptive – cutting off our nose to spite our face. Quotations are standard practice in our articles and it seems quite bizarre to suggest otherwise – the current FA contains numerous quotations, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• The only reason Eccentric dance is an adequate article is because of the work you put into it (and my copyedits didn't hurt either). The version from RAN's user space was terrible. Robert Martinson was recreated from scratch, you are not looking at RAN's version, which was deleted and can therefore be seen only by admins. You're perfectly within your rights to oppose the proposed sanction, but your rationale really isn't accurate. BMK (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block, neutral on deletion I have not thoroughly examined the articles in his userspace, but they should be individually assessed. Hopefully some of them can be salvaged with revdel to excise the copyvios (and I use copyvio here in reference to the NFCC policy). As to the indef block, RAN has been warned over and over and he simply refuses to comply with the community standards. It is one thing to place a brief quote in the body of an article and properly reference it. It is another to fill the reference section with unnecessary copied material and call it 'fair use' in every instance. I believe RAN has exhausted the community's patience here. KrakatoaKatie 03:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support the whole kit and kaboodle, indef included: We've been around the block with RAN before. A lot. His block log reads like the rap sheet of a lifer, he's got a hundred hits on the ANI archives [37], and I bet there are longstanding productive editors with fewer edits than are totaled in those archives. He not only has proven he's more trouble than his contributions are worth, he proved it years ago. Ravenswing 15:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: See my comments in the previous section. I can see some of the points being raised by people, but bringing out the pitchforks is a huge overreaction. I already dealt with one example in my comments above, another example (this one in RAN's userspace) has a long quote from a jazz historian/critic. I can't really see why Beyond My Ken considers that version a copyvio, but not the current version, since this also includes the same quote. It is a wholly proper and relevant quote, as far as I am concerned. It perhaps could be made shorter, but I don't see it as ban-worthy. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose is the only option here: Considering that RAN's user space exists with ArbCom's knowledge, I don't see how there is any scope for discussion here beyond the Robert Martinson article. His request to User:Sandstein was apparently improper, but Sandstein's deletion as an Enforcement Action (not logged, btw) presumably ended that particular issue. Since ArbCom decided to leave the fixing of his articles on a case-by-case basis, our options seem to be limited to that. Dig in or bring the issue back to ArbCom. Nuking and/or banning are almost certainly off the table at the moment. Choor monster (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree. RAN was strongly admonished in ARBRAN to stop what he was doing before he faced an indef block (the quote is up above); that block can certainly come from consensus. And RAN is still at it - yesterday he added the same reference with the same long 'quote' from a New York Times opinion piece to five different articles. It's as if he goes through the NYT every morning looking for opportunities to add its material anywhere he can. This is beyond an article creation problem. If consensus fails here, we can certainly go back to ArbCom, but they like to see us try to fix it ourselves first. I think that applies here. KrakatoaKatie 13:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• And it's all happening in his User space, and has been ongoing with almost no concern anyway. And suddently now there's a fire? I don't buy it. I see instead that this current thread came from a comedy of good-faith errors, including one actionable request on RAN's part that received AE, while the bigger long-range problem is exactly what it was a week ago. In other words, I don't believe it's proper to make up for the community's negligent avoidance of short-term efforts with one easy cumulative better-late-than-never response. That's just dirty pool. Choor monster (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• No - it's not all happening in his user space. These edits were made to existing articles in the space of seven minutes:
  • first addition of reference to Hit to lead
  • second addition to Lead compound
  • third addition to Pre-clinical development
  • fourth addition to Approved drug
  • fifth addition to Clinical trial

This is the issue about which RAN was strongly admonished. It's not dirty pool. We've been around and around with him over this for years and he will. not. stop. KrakatoaKatie 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's also being overlooked that RAN's ban includes not making page moves. Check WP:ARBRAN or WP:Editing restrictions, and you'll see that ArbCom did not fashion a new topic ban, they simply endorsed the community's topic ban and took it over as their own. The community's ban, which can be found here says that the topic ban is "from creating new articles and from performing page moves" (underlining added). This is quite clear, and since ArbCom simply accepted, endorsed and adopted it, RAN's ban definitely includes page moves, and yet RAN's page move log is, as pointed out above, crammed with page moves. We can argue over whether the article creation ban was meant for everywhere, or just in articlespace, but the page move ban is clear, which means that each and every one of the page moves in his log is a violation of his topic ban. BMK (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and have struck my oppose. But I still don't like it all blowing up at once. The alternate proposal below is a step in the right direction. Choor monster (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose blocking Richard Norton. Oppose messing with Richard Norton's user page or any subpage of Richard Norton's User page. Look, he is not circumventing ANYTHING by listing new starts on his page. That is how he is SUPPOSED to be starting new articles on WP: launching them there, to be taken into mainspace by others UNDER THEIR OWN AUTHORITY AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR COPYRIGHT CLEANLINESS. It's an idiotic system, he should be free to create new articles like anyone else, but we've been around the mulberry bush three times and it is what it is. I've told him five times, minimum, to STOP USING THE FUCKING QUOTE FUNCTION OF THE CITATION TEMPLATE and he fucking won't listen and if that's what's getting him in trouble here, I have very little sympathy. But, for the record (and you can check on this if you doubt me) it is NOT a violation of any topic ban, in spirit or de jure, for him to be launching new articles in user space for others to take to mainspace. Anyone who has voted for action against him on that basis needs to educate themselves on the matter. Carrite (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • While his user pages are sitting there *not being checked* they probably (a good bet given his history) still include violations, while you are correct it is the responsibility of anyone who then puts it into mainspace, a user-draft is still a copyvio even if its not in mainspace. The problem is no one is going to go through them all (unless you are volunteering?) so they could have been sitting there for months and months with no oversight apart from RAN's. Which he is not competant to judge. If someone is willing to stand up and say 'I will check all of his user drafts for violations' then fine, I am happy to remove that part of the proposal above. But you freely admit he wont listen to instruction on the quote function despite repeatedly being told he is wrong by numerous people over an extended period, by the community, by Arbcom, by yourself. Everyone has tried escalating deterrants, there is no where left to go apart from an addition to his (already lengthy) sanctions stating he may not make any edits other than basic prose. No quotes, citation templates, nothing. If you think that will work feel free to post it as a counter? (-edit- I see you did) However at this point perhaps his entire userspace needs to go to MFD Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  I don't think the "solution" of having other people mule his starts to mainspace under their own authority works. That's a matter for Arbitration Enforcement or ArbCom, ultimately. I ported one or two over long ago but have pretty much decided not to do any more owing to RAN's use of the "quote =" parameter, which I object to on the basis of aesthetics and general uselessness. All that shit should be stripped out of the footnotes by RAN himself and he should be allowed to make new starts, bearing in mind that any copyright violations are gonna result in a very lengthy block. That's how to fix the problem (while improving the encyclopedia), for the record. The current system is not working, on that we can agree. Carrite (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  Given that my original proposal was 'blocked until and only he clears up his own mess' I dont see that you actually disagree with my proposal :D Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Another proposal

Richard A. Norton is hereby expressly prohibited from using the "quote =" parameter of the citation template in any edit that he makes after Sept. 15, 2015. While it generally falls within the definition of Fair Use under American copyright law to use this parameter, we have a right to demand the very highest standard of copyright cleanliness in his work. There is too much controversy with some, too much grey area, for him to continue to use this parameter. He has been asked nicely to stop, told emphatically to stop, he needs now to be formally stopped from using the quote parameter. Carrite (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Carrite (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support I've been half following this for a few days (since it was pretty much the first Arbcom case I dealt with as an Arb). I don't want to see Richard removed, but I couldn't think of a decent solution. That there's such a simple solution available that I missed makes me feel quite foolish. I'm glad Carrite mentioned it! Worm^TT(talk) 10:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'd also be willing to go further and stop Richard from using quotes of any form anywhere in any article, but I do think the above solution is sufficient. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support However I still favour the above. This just puts us into a situation where someone will have to monitor him regularly. He was banned from page moves above and that didnt stop him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Note that there is still the problem that Richard likes very close paraphrases. Choor monster (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support I too would be willing to ban him from using any quote of any kind in any article, but this will do for now. KrakatoaKatie 13:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support 2nd choice I too would support a ban from using any quote. I think such a narrow restriction as not using "quote=" is open to finding ways around and we will be right back here with no other option but a site ban. RAN has shown an obstinate case of IDHT when told his quoting strategy is not acceptable and has shown that he is lax at best about following community sanctions cf. the page move part of his ban mentioned above. Jbh^Talk 13:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Even though this does not entirely address the behavioral problems. BMK (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support we'll have less to worry about this way, blocked or not Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per explanations above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. NE Ent 00:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I don't recall the ArbCom case, in which I was involved, discussing RAN creating articles in draftspace, so we didn't explicitly ban it. There was a later clarification on the matter, in which the outcome was that use of draftspace wasn't banned, but that anyone who moved one of RAN's article's into mainspace would assume full responsibility for it. I would be uncomfortable if RAN were asking people to move his articles into mainspace without making them aware of the consequences, so in addition to the prohibition from using the "quote =" parameter, I feel we should add a requirement that all RAN's draftspace articles carry a clear notice at the top that he is under a topic ban for copyright violations, and that anyone who moves the article into mainspace needs to check the article thoroughly first, and takes full responsibility for any copyright violations they introduce into mainspace, which may result in sanctions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• That is an excellent idea. BMK (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Supplementary proposal to add a move notice to RAN's draft articles

So users are aware of the situation, the following notice should be added to all RAN's draftspace articles:

RAN is to ensure that any article he creates or has created in draftspace should have the notice attached at the top. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Excellent suggestion. KrakatoaKatie 18:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Great idea. BMK (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Other problems

The articles Stuyvesant Polyclinic and Eccentric dance began in RAN's User space. Choor monster (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. The people who imported them to mainspace are PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE that they be copyright clear. Carrite (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But see the above section, which would help insure that people know what it is a they're importing. BMK (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I wish I had seen this thread earlier although I see it is not all that old. I see some black-and-white statements to describe a situation which in some cases is not that clear-cut. I am very sympathetic to BMKs frustration, but I wish they had not made the strong statement that RAN has never helped clean up some of the copyright issues. I may be one of the few editors who can say I have worked with RAN to resolve some articles. That said, my involvement ended because we could not reach a resolution of the use of the quote feature in references. It is not quite fair to suggest that RAN is deliberately disregarding copyright rules. I think he accepts that we cannot violate copyright but he believes his use of the quote feature is in compliance with the rules. I fully get that we have tried multiple times to explain that we do not agree with his position, but there is a distinction between a difference of opinion about the application of a role, and a blatant disregard for rules.

I tried, very hard, to resolve the quote in reference issue. I don't have the links handy but I can find them if someone thinks they are relevant.

I think it would be an unrealistic expectation that he do know content related work until all copyvio issues are resolved. However it might be reasonable to propose some compromise, for example, some percentage of edits over some period of time have to be devoted to resolving open copyright issues.

I will volunteer to spend some time working with RAN to resolve some of the open issues. We will have to identify items other than the quote within reference articles, but I'm sure there are many such examples. I think we will still have to resolve the quote within reference issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My prior attempts to solve the quote in reference issue are here:

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 32#Use of quote parameter in footnote - a proposal to provide better guidance--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If I am incorrect that RAN has never helped to clean up his copyright violations, then I withdraw the statement and apologize for it, but it cannot be denied that his involvement has been minimal at best, and that he now consistently rejects suggestions that he continue that work with the "10 years" canard. As for "content work", the AN/I discussions specifically shied away from saying the RAN couldn't do content work, so he is free to add content to existing articles, even to expand sub-stubs to full-blown articles, what he is not allowed to do is to create articles which has been his primary focus for quite a while, albeit in his userspace and not in mainspace. BMK (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have the impression that RAN simply does not understand this Internet thingie. Many of the examples I've seen probably pass US Fair Use, and he believes that ends the discussion, when of course, the only rules that matter are WMF policies/guidelines, which are much more stringent. That, and his employment of an endless succession of time-wasting Wookie defenses (look, over there, somewhere there's a issue in which WMF took an expansive view of public domain!) is simply a complete failure of competence. Choor monster (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the RAN is an excellent researcher, that he comes up with information that many other editors would never find. His skills as a writer aren't quite as good, but still much more than acceptable, and his ability to nose out subjects that haven't been covered by the encyclopedia is very good indeed. Where he fails is, I think, in judgment, as exemplified by his sticking like glue to his misinterpretation or misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies, and by the choice of which of those subjects he finds to write about. With some frequency the notability of the subject is fairly borderline, but, just as with the use of the quote parameter, once RAN has decided to do something, he digs in and resists all attempts to change his course. That is unfortunate, as such a modus vivendi for a person in his delicate position (3 topic bans and a strong admonishment from ArbCom) needs to be more flexible and to understand the rules he is supposed to live by, because failure to do so would seem to inevitably lead to an indef block or even a site ban. That would, I think, be a shame, because he has the potential to be a net positive if he would only be more reasonable, give up the idea that his judgment on these matters is infallible, and listen to what other editors are telling him. Despite his statement above, I don't want to see him kicked off the site, I just want him to be able to improve the encyclopedia and at the same time follow policy and his restrictions. BMK (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. He doesn't have the potential at all to be a net positive; what he has are the skills to be a net positive. We've had years' worth of observation, many blocks, a blizzard of ANI complaints and multiple bans to demonstrate that he just doesn't have the temperament for it. He isn't going to be more reasonable, isn't going to listen to other editors when their words conflict with his worldview, and isn't going to accept that someone else might be right if it means that he's wrong. People like that just don't slap their foreheads one day and cry out "My God! I've been so horribly blind! I shall change my ways and become a civil, non-tendentious editor," and we should abandon the fantasy that this ever happens. Ravenswing 02:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Robert Martinson article recreated

I have recreated the article that sparked this thread from scratch. I had planned to give it some more content first, but hit the wrong button. Choor monster (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification filed

I have filed a request for clarification from ArbCom as to the meaning and scope of RAN's topic ban. This discussion should not be closed down because of it, but the discussion will, I hope, be better informed by the clarification. The request can be found here. BMK (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:ThorLives and the Heathenry (new religious movement) page

In the almost ten years that I've been active here at Wikipedia I've never suggested that any editor be banned or blocked, but unfortunately I’ve come to the conclusion that it may be necessary in the case of User:ThorLives in order to prevent continuing disruption to the Heathenry (new religious movement) page. A self-described "Odinist" – and thus a practitioner of the religion that this article is about, a possible Conflict of Interest of sorts – it is clear from ThorLives' contribution list that this is one of very few articles that they actually edit, and that they have been active on it since opening their account in October 2011 (and thus they've had four years with which to familiarise themselves with policy). Thus, I do believe that their intentions are good, even if their behaviour of late has repeatedly and seriously violated a number of Wikipedia policies, including those on disruptive editing, edit warring, no personal attacks, and "outing", with no sign that they intend to stop.

The article in question was formerly titled "Germanic neopaganism", but in August 2015 a Requested Move resulted in the group decision that the page would be renamed "Heathenry (new religious movement)". Several hours after User:Sovereign Sentinel had orchestrated the move on 2 September 2015, ThorLives (clearly unhappy with this decision) created a fork redirect back to "Germanic neopaganism". Within the hour I had realised what they had done and undid their edit, thus restoring the page to "Heathenry (new religious movement)", pointing them to the recent Requested Move discussion in my edit summary. Unfortunately, they ignored that and simply restored their fork redirect. Only after being warned about their actions by both User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh and User:Sovereign Sentinel on the article Talk Page did they then undo their edit. This reflects not only an initial refusal to accept group decisions and a willingness to unilaterally act against them, but also shows that they are prepared to wilfully engage in edit warring.

The very next day, on 3 September 2015, they then proceeded to engage in a range of edits that removed much academically-referenced material and introduced content that was in part poorly sourced – consisting of self-published and other non-reliable sources – and in part not sourced at all. This was always going to be controversial. On 4 September I undid these edits, seeking to bring about the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle. However, ThorLives then engaged in edit warring by restoring their edits. Also acknowledging the problematic nature of ThorLives’ content, User:Bloodofox then restored things to how they were, but ThorLives simply undid that too. On 6 September I once again restored the article to the established revision, but fearing that the edit warring would continue and that I myself might be accused of violating the three-revert rule, I successfully requested a three day full protection for the article, which was kindly administered by User:NeilN.

During this edit war, on the talk page I repeatedly requested that ThorLives engage in dialogue so that their proposed changes, which were both sweeping and controversial, could be discussed with other editors first. They ignored my requests, and in their response instead broke Civility policy by attempting to expose my identity, which is an attempt at "outing" and thus in very clear violation of our Harassment policy, which states very plainly that "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block". Since then, they have posted some rather odd comments on my talk page trying to "out" me further by linking me to a different user (and wrongly, as it happens) and making pretty uncomfortable accusations regarding my gender, and then most recently they've done it again on the talk page, this time making a personal attack by libelously accusing me of sock puppetry.

All in all, ThorLives has exhibited a pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring, and outing with no sign that they admit their errors and intend to cease. Attempts have been made to engage in constructive dialogue with them on the article talk page, all of which have proved fruitless. This has all been highly detrimental to the quality and stability of the article in question, and frankly has been unpleasant for me, and it has led me to the unfortunate conclusion (which I most certainly do not take lightly) that a block and/or ban (temporary or otherwise) on this user's ability to edit is necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved with this other than carrying out the requested move, and therefore I am abstaining from this discussion. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: As soon as the three-day full protection on the article ended on 9 September, ThorLives proceeded to make a number of additions to the article, including of non-reliably referenced material, which had to be removed by others. On 14 September, ThorLives again engaged in edit warring to restore information on pre-Christian religious movements, despite a Talk Page agreement from myself, User:Bloodofox, and User:Ogress that this information should not be included within the article. On the Talk Page they have also begun making accusations of "bullying" against myself, and accusing me of being unfamiliar with the subject matter (in clear violation of our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy). This is getting to be a real disruption for the article and the editors working to improve it, so it would be appreciated if administrators could take action. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives' response

From ThorLives — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I suspected a "sock puppet." Midnightblueowl and Bhlegkorbh made the same edits and same arguments and disrupted the page in the same ways. If you check my edits, I was not deleting material: I was restoring material he deleted.

Both editors insisted that "heathenry" is the ONLY term for Germanic neopaganism. Folkish types do not like "pagan" because it has Latin and French roots.

Both editors deleted academic references dealing with medieval Norse Paganism. For example, who could object to the following, but both constant;y deleted it:

Our most complete sources for reconstruction are from Iceland. On the alleged existence of a collective Germanic paganism in medieval times, Professor Lois Bragg makes this observation: “But we have no persuasive evidence of any common cult, belief system, or even pantheon that might ever have been recognized among speakers of various Germanic languages across geographical, cultural, political, and dialect boundaries. While there are obvious commonalities, for example in the names of some deities (Odin, Woden, Wotan), these point to common origins rather than common praxis or belief. Compare present-dy Jews, Lutherans, and Mormons who share common myths (the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the Moses cycle, the Patriarch cycle ) and who similarly name their children after the heroes of these myths (Adam, Aaron, Judith, Rebecca), but maintain distinctive cult practices and identities and even disparage and attempt to convert one another.” Lois Bragg. Oedipus Borealis: The Aberrant Body in Old Icelandic Myth and Saga Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 2004. ISBN 0838640281

Both editors deleted saga, Prose Edda, and Poetic Edda references.n

Both editors deleted links and references to mainline pagan groups. This is the lede before the two removed it:

Heathenry or Germanic neopaganism,[1] also known as Ásatrú, Odinism, Forn Siðr, Wotanism, Theodism, and other names, is the contemporary revival of historical polytheistic Germanic paganism.[2] Dedicated to the ancient gods and goddesses of the North, the focus of Germanic neopagans varies considerably, from strictly historical polytheistic reconstructionism to syncretist (eclectic), Jungian, occult or mysticist approaches. Germanic neopagan organizations cover a wide spectrum of belief and ideals.

Much of Germanic Neopaganism's origins are in 19th century romanticism, as the aboriginal cultures of Northern Europe came to be glorified. In the early 20th century, organised groups emerged in Germany and Austria. In the 1970s, new Germanic Neopagan organisations grew up in Europe and North America, although a broad division in the movement emerged between the folkish movement, who saw it as the indigenous religion of the Nordic peoples, and the universalist movement, who opposed strictly racialist interpretations. As present, established Germanic Pagan communities exist in Europe, North America, South America, and Australasia. A few adherents can even be found in South Africa.

References to the Odinist Fellowship, Odinic Rite, Ásatrú Alliance, Asatru Folk Assembly, and so forth were constantly deleted by both editors.

Both editors constantly deleted references to Valhalla, a curious "conceit" on a page about Germanic paganism. (It makes sense, however, in a certain context. One small American group, who always uses the name Heathen exclusively, denies that Valhalla exists, and they argue that the dead continue to live in the grave mound)

Both editors deleted all references to modern Norse pagan leaders and their books, people such as Stephen McNallen, John Yeowell, and so forth.

I could continue, but you understand the point.

I should add that, in my opinion, an article on Germanic Neopaganism should be comprehensive, and should not promote a single agenda. It also should contain numerous links and discussions to help readers find related articles. --ThorLives (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLives (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss content dispute, which seems to represent almost the entire gist of ThorLives' response here; they have neither acknowledged nor apologised for their repeated gross violations of various Wikipedia policies. All I can say in response to their above post is that I (and others) had good reason to delete the non-reliably referenced, in some some cases not referenced at all, often sectarian, sometimes irrelevant, and at times factually incorrect statements that ThorLives had insisted on repeatedly adding to the article (at the expense of concise, academically-sourced information on this new religious movement which they repeatedly deleted). Wikipedia has clear guidelines surrounding Reliable Sources which ThorLives disregarded time and time again.

As to the claim that I am sock puppeting and that myself and Bhlegkorbh are one and the same individual, I completely and utterly deny the libelous accusations 100%. I am not, and never have, edited Wikipedia using the "Bhlegkorbh" account (Bhlegkorbh appears to have thrown in the towel and left Wikipedia in July 2014 anyway). ThorLives' claim rests in its entirety on the basis that, at different times, myself and "Bhlegkorbh" have expressed similar arguments and opinions about how the article can be improved (primarily by adding in material from academic studies of Heathenry and deleting un-referenced and poorly-referenced text). However, similar opinions (which would, IMO, be held by anyone familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style), have also at times been backed by the likes of User:Bloodofox - so by ThorLives' reasoning I guess that that must be simply be another of my accounts too! Frankly, I suspect that the accusations of sock puppetry launched against me by ThorLives are in part an attempt simply to distract attention from their own behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

ThorLives, why would anyone want a long quote about medieval or ancient beliefs (or in this instance lack of consistent beliefs) in the lead of an article about a modern revival? That kind of material MIGHT belong in later sections comparing modern/ancient or on the articles about the 'old'. I fear you are arguing from a different 'base' from WP guidelines. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

This looks like a content war with some edit warring and mild incivility. Outing maybe, possibly but its not clear. I don't see any 3rr warnings on ThorLives talk page and you should exhaust process there before coming to ANI for a ban ----Snowded ^TALK 13:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would have waited until the edit warring got worse before bringing up the possibility of blocking/banning or anything like that, however when ThorLives started engaging in outing, which according to Wikipedia:Harassment is "grounds for an immediate block", I came to the opinion that the situation had become more serious and accordingly required a more serious response. (Also, in the spirit of disclosure for all readers, it probably is fair to say that myself and Snowded have had recent disagreements over content at Talk:UK Independence Party, which at points has become a little heated. That certainly doesn't invalidate their comment, but perhaps it is a factor that should be made clear - to use a colloquialism, we have history, as it were). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It just means I notice if your name comes up an ANI Midnight, its the way wikipedia works. Given that you seem well intentioned on the UK Independence issues I looked at this one to see if you needed any help, hence the comment ----Snowded ^TALK 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading the talk, I get the impression that 'Thor' doesn't fully understand how WP works, in the event of nothing happening here, might I suggest this is a candidate for dispute resolution. Pincrete (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Forms of dispute resolution, such as RFCs, have already been employed. ThorLives simply continued with many of their actions regardless, hence why there was the need to turn to the Administrators' Noticeboard. I agree with the statement that ThorLives doesn't appear to understand how Wikipedia works, however they have been repeatedly pointed to policies such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources over at the Talk Page, so I do not believe that they can legitimately defend themselves through claiming an ignorance of policy. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Slanderous accusations by user Lute88

On 29 August 2015, I read the sentence "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin” in the ‘Murder, investigation and trial’ section of the article Anna Politkovskaya. I felt that the implied connection between the murder of Politkovskaya and Putin’s birthday was an innuendo bordering on libel and thus had no place in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I deleted it. It was immediately reinstated by user Lute88. I deleted it again with an explanation, but it was again reinstated by Lute88 without explanation. After this went on for some time, I brought the matter to the talk page of the article in the section ‘Putin's Birthday & the lead’. There, I found the support of an admin,Drmies. There ensued a heated discussion with another editor,My very best wishes, later joined by Lute88. Drmies explained why the mention of Putin’s birthday was inappropriate and said she was going to delete it. She did so and was immediately reverted by Lute88. After that, Lute88 made a post where he asked why he "was smelling something" and provided a link to a CNN article about Russian trolls paid by Putin. Drmies remarked that this was not funny and I asked her to convince him to stop because I would hate to take the matter further. He replied with this new post: "No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant…"

I asked him to take his words back, but he made no response. That decided me to bring the matter here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Although I agree that, absent some strong evidence of a connection, the death should not be linked to Putin's birthday, this is essentially a content dispute and should be dealt with on the article's talk page. BMK (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK I may be wrong but I believe that Againstdisinformation is here to for Lute88 to "take back" the comment 'No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant' - it seems the content dispute has been sorted. Flat Out (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but Antidisinformation threw around words like "libel" and "slander" in the discussion from the very beginning, which is now getting pretty darn close to violating WP:NLT, so he's not really in a position to demand anything from anybody. BMK (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Againstdisinformation there is no possibility of slander when no-one knows who you are. Both you and Lute88 have been edit warring and this is no way to solve a simple content dispute. The best way to resolve these kinds of disputes is to walk away and work on another article. As BMK notes above, you should read WP:NLT and I would add WP:3RR Flat Out (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Certanly no edit-warring on my part. Antidisinformation however is an SPA that has been edit-warring with a lot of people on Russia-related articles, with total disregard for consensus, RS, 3RR, with legal threats, and now - this. Simply preposterous.--Lute88 (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the article that piqued my vigilance - http://news.yahoo.com/wikipedia-blocks-accounts-linked-paid-edits-200646137.html;_ylt=AwrC0wwVZ.9VMkQAeCPQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg-- .Lute88 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "vigilance". You just threw that at me as an insult out of frustration when you realised that sensible editors were on my side and you were prevented by an admin to reinstate your preposterous innuendo connecting Putin's birthday and Politkovskaya's murder. Your Russophobic passion has blinded you to the point of believing that anyone who doesn't share it is necessarily paid by the Kremlin. I sincerely hope you come back to your senses. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• And this is precisely what I warned you about in my previous comment here: groundless personal accusations. What "Russophobic passion"? Why? Any reasons for blaming Lute88 of this? It is an ethnically-motivated slander by you, much worse than expressing suggestion that someone might be a COI contributor. And you came here to complain about slander... My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK, Flat Out is right, the dispute has already been sorted by the felicitous intervention of Drmies. However, I cannot agree that User:Lute88 can throw any kind of insults at me, just because he does not know my identity. I cannot agree either that I violated WP:NLT because I called a spade a spade. Yes, his accusation is slanderous and I am certain of what your reaction would be if it were thrown at you. Now, you say that I "threw around words like "libel" and "slander" in the discussion from the very beginning". I am afraid that your reading has been cursory. I didn't say at the very beginning that I had been libelled, I just tried to make my opponent aware that, the innuendo he made about Putin would without any doubt be considered libel in a court of law, unless he had incontrovertible evidence. Therefore, I think this has no place in an encyclopedia, which must remain neutral. He can always write this in The Daily Mirror, if he so wishes. Besides, I am not asking for a sanction, I would just like him to take back his words, which, I am sorry to say, I take as an insult. In any case, it's a great comfort for me to see that you agree with me on substance. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Againstdisinformation are you saying you have been libeled? Flat Out (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Flat Out Yes, I consider that accusing me in no uncertain terms of being paid by the Kremlin for editing WP is slanderous. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Againstdisinformation - they aren't withdrawing the comment, which is why you came here, so might be best to move on. Flat Out (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The more that is said here, the more confused I become. It's becoming impossible to tell who is supposedly being libeled, slandered or whatever. Since the dispute apparently has been sorted it would be best to drop the matter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'm fairly confused as well. Saying that person A murdered person X on person 3's birthday is clearly not libel for the person 3 unless it's also implied that person 3 supported or sanctioned the murder. While I can't recall any examples offhand, there have definitely been cases when nutty person A have done something (whether murder or whatever) out of their "love" for person 3, where person 3 is horrified by the actions. It may be libel for person A who did the murder to give them incorrect motiviations, but while we should get these things right, I'm not sure libel is ever our biggest concern for murderers even if it's theoretically there. (Of course calling them murderers when they are not would raise more serious libel concerns.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Nil Einne, I undersand why there may be confusion, there are two cases. The object of the dispute between User:Lute88 and me is the sentence: "Politkovskaya was found dead in the lift, in her block of flats in central Moscow on 7 October 2006, the birthday of Vladimir Putin”. I mentioned to User:Lute88 that, in a court of law, this would without any doubt be considered libel, and I added that, moreover, it was preposterous. This was my argument why it should be removed from the article. A number of editors have agreed with me and this matter is now settled. Note that, at that point, i did not accuse him of slandering me, of course, I am not Mr. Putin. However, he was unhappy with the decision taken by admin Drmies and lashed out at me on the talk page of the article, a first time asking why he "was smelling something" and providing a link to a CNN article about Russian trolls paid by Putin. That was already very offensive but, after he was admonished by User:Drmies, who told him it was not funny, he added "No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant…". This is this direct accusation that I am paid by the Kremlin for editing WP which, in my strongly felt opinion, is slanderous. I asked him to take his words back, but he wouldn't. This is why I took the matter here. As I have already said, I am not seeking a sanction against him, I just would very much like that he be told to take back his words. If he did, that would be the end of the matter for me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• What say we save ourselves a lot of time and angst and ban Againstdisinformation as being a painfully obvious Warrior For Truth? Guy (Help!) 13:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Good idea. However, it would also be important to zap the part about Putin's birthday from the article in question, unless there's a reliable source demonstrating that it's a notable fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There's actually more than a dozen of such sources. It is a notable fact given the circumstances and that's how sources treat it. Volunteer Marek  20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy If you want to ban me for "being a painfully obvious Warrior For Truth" as you elegantly put it, you should leave the innuendo about Putin and give a medal to Lute88 for slandering me, at least that would be consistent. 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Againstdisinformation (talk)

• Ah yes. I did in fact support the removal of that one clause, and I gave my reasons on the talk page, though it may be difficult to find between all the mud-slinging. I don't see libel or slander, just a couple of editors with their own POV bitching at each other. This is NPA territory, as far as I'm concerned, and I urged the two editors to tone it down, clearly to no avail. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• User Againstdisinformation is clearly engaged in WP:BATTLE and WP:SOAP by starting irrelevant and contentions discussions like here, demanding an apology like here and by edit-warring on multiple pages. I think this is a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE, a "disruption only" account. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, but! if it weren't for them that silly "coincidence" would still be in the article. Gadflies are irritating but sometimes necessary--if only this one wasn't so loquacious. (First time I wrote that word! Woohoo!) Drmies (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As should be clear from sources already provided on the talk page by VM and others, this is not a silly coincidence, but something considered significant in multiple RS. Yes, this must be better described and better sourced - I agree. But here is the question: even if you consider his removal on this page a positive contribution, did it worth wasting other people time by starting this ANI thread, other soap-like discussions (link above) and edit wars on a number of pages? However, this is probably a question only WP:AE can answer. If he/she will not be blocked now, I would expect a prolonged drama and waste of time on numerous page. This is already a pattern. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

My very best wishes, now you agree that there was a problem with the page but, never mind that I pointed it out (like a number of others) and got insulted by Lute88 for it, he is making us lose time. Let's just ban him and these pesky issues of inaccuracies will disappear. Why then did you, volunteer Marek and Lute88 consistently refuse to discuss the issue with me on the article's talk page, if your only concern was to save the community's time? On this waste of time, I beg to differ. There should be a whole team of editors dedicated to tracking inaccuracies (disinformation) if instead of using WP to further an agenda, we want to preserve it as a repository of knowledge anyone can trust.

Lute88, My very best wishes, Volunteer Marek and Ymblanter are all defending the same POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil. This is their right. However, my goal is to help (as much as my capacities allow) to rid Wikipedia of inaccuracies or, worse, disinformation. I knew this would not attract much sympathy but I did not expect a witch hunt. Now, there is a whole group who share a strongly felt common point of view on everything that concerns Russia and they are hellbent on having me out, because I am an irritant to them. It's very funny that I am accused of WP:BATTLE wwhen Lute88 has erased, without trying to discuss with me, any single edit I made in the last ten days. Now, My very best wishes promised him to help him on the ANI and, of course, here he is trying to put me in as bad a light as he can. This is very sad. I would have preferred, as I have asked many times, a reasoned discussion on the substance of the issues I raised, but I have been consistently dismissed by them.I think this is a loss of time. Why could he not just acknowledge that he went a bit too far when he accused me of being paid by Putin? I would just have said ok, that's alright and all this would not even have started. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"Volunteer Marek and Ymblanter are all defending the same POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil" - Didn't you just show up here to whine about how you're bring "slandered"? Volunteer Marek  20:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Making factually incorrect statements and accusing others without evidence on the ANI is a very bad idea. In particular, (a) no one refused to discuss anything with you (there are very long discussions on article talk pages by numerous users), (b) none of the users you mentioned have "evil" POV you stated, (c) at least three users (including me) on the article talk page did not agree with your removal of this info (this is something debatable), (d) I did not promise Lute88 to "help" on the ANI, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is making factually incorrect statements. Let me quote you: "I know these subjects and might be willing to help with sourcing, but discussing anything with such guys again is something I would rather not do". This is taken from the 'A comment' section of Lute88' talk page, which is entirely devoted to me. It's absolutely your right to come to his defense, but this shows also that you were, let's say, reluctant to discuss the issue with me. And where did I ever state that any user had an "evil" POV? Everyone of us has a POV and it would be ludicrous to describe any POV as "evil". It is precisely through the confrontation of POVs that we can hope to achieve impartiality or, at least, consensus. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to continue this discussion here. As others have said, there's no point demanding someone apologise, and ANI isn't the place for that any way. The rest is a content dispute which can be resolved either on the article talk page, or via some other method of WP:dispute resolution. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I think you are right. This has gone on for too long now and we might as well leave it at that. However, I am not asking an apology from Lute88, I am just asking him to take back his claim that I am paid by the Kremlin. He does not have to apologise, he can just say that he didn't really mean what he said and all would be forgotten. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Still not something for ANI, at most a single request on the editor's talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the short amount of time Againstdisinformation has been actively 'editing' here, there's been an awful lot of community time sunk into "I've been hard done by" agitation, and "I'm here to right great wrongs" (i.e., WP:NOTHERE). It grew very WP:TEDIOUS some time ago (see this and this ANI). Jangled nerves, hurt feelings, and complaints every time there's a personality clash do not make for useful gadflies but, rather, a needy entity who confuses experienced editors over what the real issue at stake is. There's been no lack of patience been shown the user by other editors, yet the ICANTHEARYOU attitude persists. I truly believe that Againstdisinformation needs to gain more experience in editing articles s/he doesn't feel emotionally invested in before jumping into contentious areas of Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy I agree with you on one point. ANI was not the proper venue for the dispute between Lute88 and me. I have come to realize this. It is unhelpful and a great loss of time, especially for me. I am reluctant by nature to report anyone as I have already told Lute88. This is the first and last time I do it. However, Lute88 has been erasing almost every edit I made in the last ten days, without any explanation. I did not complain. He only entered the discussion on the talk page of the article Anna Politkovskaya after an admin agreed with me and deleted the contentious phrase. He also reverted her but she told him she would have none of it. Probably not happy with this, he suggested I was paid by the Kremlin. The admin told him that this was not funny and I asked him to take back his words. His response was: 'No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant.’ Is this civil behaviour ? Now, I don’t see why you provide links to two ANI, which are supposed to shed a bad light on my behavior. The first one was brought against me by Reaganomics88 about misplaced quotation marks. An edit already long since corrected and for which I had apologized (talking of wasting the community’s time). The second ANI was brought against Reaganomics by a third editor and I have nothing to do with it. It's true that, in trying to improve what I perceive as biased articles, I have attracted a lot of animosity, but I challenge you to find a single instance of rudeness, threats or complaints on my part. I have always tried (without much success) to discuss the content and I have never made any ad hominem attack. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Againstdisinformation: You're working on the premise that being uncivil is easily identified by personal attacks. No, it is not that cut and dry. Read WP:IUC on Other uncivil behaviours. Introducing this to the talk page of the "2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine" was not determined by your wanting to 'improve Wikipedia', but to behave in an intentionally disruptive and provocative manner (aside from canvassing/advertising for fellow 'righteous' brother and sisters in arms to join you in your battle for the truth). After this was removed from the talk page, you reinstated it twice after two editors had already removed it. There's no small irony in the fact that you've painted yourself as being the victim of Groupthink, yet you're trying to enlist like-minded editors to create your own Groupthink battalion... and all after you have had numerous editors patiently (escalating to impatiently) trying to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and your responding with what have become obviously ingenuous apologies for the error of your ways, and that you now know better and won't repeat them. Is stuffing beans up your nose just a compulsion you can't shake, or is this evidence that you're WP:NOTHERE in any shape or form, and have no intention of trying to be HERE? 'But I've never made any personal attacks' does not make you a civil editor: it just means that you want to WP:GAME the system by hook or by crook. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Indef block Againstdisinformation until such time that they can understand the difference between a snippy remark and a full on personal attack, until such time that they understand that badgering the opposition (through repeated and loquacious postings) does not make for a collaborative editing environment, until such time that they have familiarized themselves with wikipedia rules/policy/practices/guidelines including WP:RGW. Reading this complaint provides nothing more than a single editor doubling down on doubling down on a content problem. We've already expended enough time/energy on this editor without extracting certain guarantees of improved behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block for Againstdisinformation. The reason: she/he continue making factually incorrect accusations against other users right on this noticeboard, even after being warned about it. In particular, Againstdisinformation complained about being followed by Lute88 who allegedly refused to discuss. But in fact just the opposite occurred on this page. As clear from the editing history, it was Againstdisinformation who came to revert edit by Lute88, not the other way around (unless another red-linked account was an alternative account of Againstdisinformation). And it was Lute88 who started discussion on this article talk page [38], but received no response from Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think that it is OK to frivolously accuse an editor to be "paid by the Kremlin" and that not understanding that it is just a "snippy remark" deserves being indefinitely blocked then, please, do it. I am used to polite academic debate, not to trading insults. This is the last post I make to explain my perception of what happened, I am growing tired of an almost palpable aggressivity on the part of some editors. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was OK. This is not OK. Once again, you accuses someone of something he never did or said. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• My very best wishes is mistaken in saying that Againstdisinformation is "a 'disruption only' account"; he/she contributed usefully at Talk:Yulia Tymoshenko#Allegations of torture. As for whether he/she is paid to edit, I can only suggest the WP:Duck test.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I can see only one minor edit by Againstdiscrimination on this page. Is it all one can tell in favor of this user? I am not even sure this edit was an improvement because it has been reverted later by FPS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: your link is to the article page; look at the talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, here is my reading of this. Timoshenko was put in prison by Yanukovich government for political reasons. That is what sources tell. Againstdisinformation is trying to minimize significance of this by referring to a remotely relevant primary source. I can't blame FPS who reverted this in the article (diff above). This is not a positive contribution by Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, I do not think that Againstdisinformation is a disruption only account but they have shown a long term pattern of disruptive editing that appears to push a pro-Russian agenda. They have a tendency to twist the truth for their convenience and portray themselves as a victim of aggression whenever they do not get their own way (I personally found myself accused of being part of some kind of shady conspiracy that had been formed to act against them). I think some kind of admin intervention is needed as the rules have been explained to them countless times yet they show no signs of improving their behaviour. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I note that ADI is talk page harassing people who are opposing them on their talk pages Hasteur (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, slander and libel, that's not really what is happening here. If Againstdisinformation is indefinitely blocked, it's probably because they talk too much. The posts on the talk pages of Hasteur and Reaganomics are a bit silly, and unwise, but it doesn't rise to the level of harassment. Lute88's comments aren't really sanctionable, but they're very uncollegial, and thus also unwise. Now, that I happen to agree with Againstdisinformation on that birthday thing in that one article doesn't mean I don't consider their edits to exhibit a pro-Russian slant. So I'm torn a bit, not in the least because the stubborn resistance to the birthday thing revealed a similar contrasting POV from the other side; I can't help but wonder what would have happened if I hadn't come along and played the admin. I'm pretty sure that Againstdisinformation wouldn't have been able to solve that problem by themselves, since their comments are simply too wordy and their tone too sarcastic, besides having that POV. So yeah, I'll break a lance for them, just a little bit, but that's also because I am a bit disappointed with the opponents. (Not Volunteer Marek, of course, who I despise for football-related reasons.) Drmies (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I talked with him, but did not see anything encouraging. For example, the way he mentioned you here is troubling. My very best wishes (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not troubling that he/she wrote that "it didn't convince Drmies either". Nor is it troubling that he/she asked you sarcastically "do you believe that she [Drmies] too is on the Kremlin's payroll?"-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, he/she made this edit. I asked what they know about the subject from secondary RS [39]. They did not respond to the question, but said that sources are not important because he/she knows everything already ("Even if I was an alien and I didn't know anything about Russia, the story would still sound preposterous to me" [40]) and implicitly accuses me of supporting claim by Lute88 that I do not support at all [41]. His/her problem is not being "too wordy", but inability (or lack o desire) to contribute constructively to the project. Hence indeff. My very best wishes (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I dislike indeffing a new editor who's made productive edits, but after a decade-plus on Wikipedia, I don't think I can recall as many as a half-dozen cases where an attitude problem like this calms down to be a productive, civil editor. (I can recall quite a few of the MickMacNees of the world, where a large enough edit count somehow allows them to make hundreds of uncivil edits with impunity.) Better nip this one in the bud. Ravenswing 11:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• I will not comment on the indefblock, but the claim that I defend[ing the same] POV, roughly stated: Russia is evil is laughable. Last time I was dragged on ANI it was a troublesome Ukrainian user claiming I am a strong pro-Russian POV pusher.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • So either you're an equal-opportunity offender or just a pro-Slav activist. Or you can't make up your mind and should read Dante's Inferno, Canto 3, as a warning. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

    If I sum up all accusations in power-pushing in my 8 years here pro-Slav sounds too narrow: I am also pro-Armenian, pro-Azeri, pro-German and I think it was smth else. Inferno, Canto 3 I definitely read several times (in translation; now I should try the original). Sounds the closest to my situation.Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Support an indef block for Againstdisinformation. They show no signs of improving and the key issues have been dragging on for months now.

They appear to be on Wikipedia chiefly to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (or at least perceived wrongs).

They have responded in a combative manner to multiple editors and behaved in a manner that violates WP:WQ. This in particular has caused me a great deal of grief personally, just recently I was asked "can you behave like this and still look at yourself in the mirror?" I have lost count of the number of attacks this user has made on myself and other users. If these were isolated incidents then I would believe that just a warning would suffice. However it is clearly a greater trend and is causing damage to the community. This user has to be stopped. Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, indef him!!! Good idea! And then we give a medal to Lute88! Sorry, just joking. In my view Lute88 is trying to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view, which btw, is strictly forbidden according to the behavioral guideline of gaming the system. Keep in mind that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. However, Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid I agree with Ravenswing , we ought to nip this one in the bud. This is not just about the issue with Lute88, this about a greater civility and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS issue. This user has been warned countless times yet continued to persist with their behaviour. Reaganomics88 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think admins might be willing to give Againstdisinformation a little more "rope", however, without having any promises that he will stop making irrelevant political rants (like here [42], [43]) or ridiculously confrontational comments (like here), I am afraid this is going to continue. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I also think that's what happening. Note that I am not swinging my admin tool (yet) here since I am interested in more opinions; clearly too many admins are already bored by the topic and aren't weighing in. That's a shame. As for those three diffs, I think I read AD the riot act about that forum post, and the personal accusation ("go see your shrink"), if I had seen that I might have blocked for it on the spot. More of that, since it does add up, will no doubt lead to a block and they better beware. I mean, Putin is paying me some serious cash (actually, he's paying me in confiscated Dutch cheeses), but there are limits to my loyalty. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I my opinion Lute88, should be blocked for disruptive editing. He is clearly trying to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. Ref.

• Revision as of 21:57, 7 September 2015
• Revision as of 23:31, 1 September 2015
• Revision as of 01:44, 1 September 2015
• Revision as of 00:25, 31 August 2015

Volunteer Marek and Skere789 should be warned too. Ref:

• Revision as of 20:25, 13 September 2015 Updated 13 September 2015
• Revision as of 19:25, 13 September 2015 Updated 13 September 2015
• Revision as of 06:51, 7 September 2015
• Revision as of 19:17, 7 September 2014

Erlbaeko (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the difference between Lute88 and Againstdisinformation. In the diff you provided [44] Lute88 restores a fair summary of something that a reliable source tells. It is enough to make translation of the title from Russian: "Politkovskaya and Putin. Day of death and day of birth." (Политковская и Путин. День смерти и день рождения.). The source does make such connection, and for a number of good reasons. Author of the publication is a well known and a highly respected journalist. A lot of other RS tells exactly the same, as has been already noted on the talk page [45]. On the other hand, "Againstdisinformation" is a perfect "warrior for the truth" who removes this info only because it seems "preposterous" to him [46] and without providing any sources on the subject he does not know and does not want to know (the diff is response to my question on what they read about this). Yes, I agree that Lute88 was wrong. She had to remain civil and rise concerns, if any, on an appropriate noticeboard, such as WP:COINB in this case. Does it warrant this long ANI discussion? No, I do not think so. This long discussion had happened only because of the highly problematic behavior by user Againstdisinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There is also another difference. Againstdisinformation use the talk page. Lute88 does not. That is true until an admin intervene. First post on that talk page by Lute88 is this: Revision as of 22:00, 7 September 2015, three minutes after the users fourth revert.

And no, a translation of the title is not enouth. Maybe you can translate this part? "Был ли это подарок ему, или, напротив, кто-то хотел напакостить? Или это мистическое совпадение? Мы не будем гадать сегодня.". This is nothing but speculations and it does violate WP:NPOV to include it. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

After reading the entire publication it is abundantly clear that it does make such connection: someone killed her on Putin's birthday because she criticized Putin personally. Same claim appears in a large number of English language RS (diff above). As, about "contributions" by Againsdisinformation on this article talk page, here they are (in chronological order): 1st comment, 2nd comment, 3d comment, and so on. It would be much better if he did not take part in this discussion with such comments. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to translate it, maybe you can verify the Google translation of the article? Does the part I quoted translate to; "Was it a gift to him, or, on the contrary, someone wanted to play a prank? Or is it a mystical coincidence? We will not speculate today." or is Google wrong? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss translations and sources. Please see discussion on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you brought it up here. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Againstdisinformation just received a topic ban, however his problem is not a bias in a narrowly defined subject area, but telling something that is simply not true about other users (and he does it even during standing ANI request [47],[48]), and irrelevant political rants [49]. BTW, he did receive previously an official WP:AE warning [50]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• @My very best wishes: Where did Antidisinformation receive a topic ban? I can't find it. BMK (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Here, at the bottom. He/she removed the notice from their talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realize it was a AC/DS sanction. BMK (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Fyi, Volunteer Marek was also warned. He/she also removed the notice from their talk page. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You've gone completely WP:OFFTOPIC here, Erlbaeko. Stop finger-pointing in order to play out your personal animosities: or are you just shopping? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Boaxy behavior at Sailor Moon

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

---

This whole drama started when Boaxy attempted to add several LGBT categories to Sailor Moon and Sailor Moon (anime). However, several editors, including myself, disagreed with the broad interpretation of the categories and opposed the addition. Boaxy then began to edit war over the categories' inclusion until the articles were protected. An RfC was opened at Talk:Sailor Moon by Sjones23 about whether LGBT was a main theme of the series, which concluded that it was not. Boaxy then immediately opened a second RfC about the categories, during which Boaxy threw fits and began attacking other editors for being anti-gay and insisting that Wikipedia be "politically correct".[51][52][53] AlbinoFerret closed the second RfC as no consensus for including the categories.[54] However instead of excepting the outcome of the RfC, Boaxy throws another tantrum, attacking other editors opposing his position, and add the categories despite the closing of the RfC.[55][56][57][58] The editor is clearly here to push a political viewpoint on this particular set of articles and is unwilling to accept that consensus was not in his favor. —Farix (t | c) 12:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, second time this morning that the word "petulant" comes to mind. This is obviously editing against consensus and needless cussing. If Boaxy has been here this long they should know the difference between a block and a ban--the former is what they'll get if they continue. Boaxy, drop the stick please. This is silly. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not dropping the stick. I am going to permanently infuse it to my hand. I'm sorry for going off, but I'll give a cooling down period before I venture on with this again. This is far from over. I apologize for not controlling my temper, but I still feel those categories should be added to the page. That's like not adding a US Presidents category to Obama's page. It just doesn't make sense. You have a pop culture television series in which four of the eight or so main characters are homosexual, and you don't add LGBT categories? This is some Twilight Zone crap. Boaxy (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Boaxy: Argh. Instead of threatening to edit war indefinitely, why not find a few reliable sources that discuss LGBT themes in Sailor Moon and add them to the article? According to a quick Google search, there is discussion of them. Since you know the show, I'm sure you could find even better results than I found. Don't get yourself blocked over this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • It is what it is at this point. I'm not going to sugar coat my attitude over something I feel strongly about. I apologized for disrupting the talk page and that is that. This is the place where I plead my case and justify my actions, so I need to be sincere. If you challenge a geologist on the Grand Canyon article, he will be defensive about it. You challenge a pop culture enthusiast, (which is myself) on an article related to a television series he grew up watching and is a big supporter of, he will be defensive. To me there is already enough sources and references on the article to back the categories being added. But for the sake of Wikipedia, I will try to contribute more. In the same token, I have to go through this all over again, and again it has to be in consensus to be included which even then they still might not be. Ugh. Do you see the issue now? Boaxy (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Boaxy statements above and complete refusal to accept the outcomes of two previous RfC should be enough to warrant a topic ban on all Sailor Moon-related articles. This editor has clearly crossed over into WP:TENDENTIOUSness. —Farix (t | c) 18:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban: Boaxy is becoming both tendentious and point-y. Dragging people to repeated RfC's that are bound to have the same outcome as the previous. Their own words ("I'm not dropping the stick. I am going to permanently infuse it to my hand.") indicate that he will not stop disrupting the project until they get their own way. A topic ban seems more than appropriate. Azealia911 _talk 19:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• In this message left on Boaxy's user talk in July, someone said that to include the categories would give readers the impression that all Sailor Moon fans are gay. Also, when he attempted to add a WikiProject banner, it was reverted. I don't think it excuses his tendentious behavior, but I can understand some of Boaxy's consternation and frustration over this matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban: enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether you feel strongly about it or not is irrelevant. You are yet to present reliable sources to back your claims and an RFC produced a consensus not to include the categories. Until you can produce sources that will convince the other editors that your have a point, your refusal to drop the stick is only going to get you blocked. Blackmane (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Enough is enough, we spend more time than we should hand holding and babysitting users who refuse to edit in a collaborative manner.--Adam in MO Talk 11:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Threat of Outing / Personal Attacks

Oliv0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Lebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Azurfrog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Schlum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello, 4 users from the French Wikipedia (single purpose accounts on the English Wikipedia to "gain control of the page") are threatening to disclose my identity. This come after an edit war that was closed in my favor and the other side bannished for H24. They can not discuss changes in the articles with edit justification so they have to go through personal attacks. One user warned them about that personal attacks are useless to justify changes, but they continue their threat on that other user. Please note that these users have pushed until 4 times (See here and here!!) of the deletion of the related article of Asselineau and finally changed their position to maintain the article but to influence as a group on the content for the article (by azurfrog who lead the team).

• Oliv0 (talk) threatening "[[User:D0kkaebi]]=[[User:Lawren00]], who is well-known as a high-ranking member and activist of this micro-party" revealing my previous nickname that was changed for privacy issue
• Lebob (talk) threatening "As such this would not disturb me too much if it would also not appear that he has endorsed medium or high level responsibilities in the UPR organization, which he has never disclosed (at least to the best of my knowledge)"
• Azurfrog (talk) threatening "shouldn't we, after all, state who D0kkaebi/Lawren00 really is? Shouldn't we disclose his exact rank [http://www.upr.fr/responsables within the Popular Republican Union organization, since he never did it himself?" and "shouldn't D0kkaebi/Lawren00 have immediately disclosed (on his talk page and in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions) that he is a high ranking member of PRU"]
• Oliv0 (talk) justifying his personal attacks by doing other personal attacks after being warned that his personal attacks dont help solving the edit war
• Azurfrog (talk) continuing on personal attacks against user who warned them
• Schlum (talk) who is the origin if this personal attack something tells me it’s D0kkaebi aka Lawren00, member of UPR team
• Lebob (talk) saying my I get approval from UPR party to participate in Wikipedia

I will wait the result of this request before requesting an oversight. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The behavior of those users is ridiculous (apparently they don't know or care about WP:OWN); however, in none of those diffs did I see anyone threaten to out you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@D0kkaebi: I see on your user talk page that you are asking that others not refer to you by a prior user name. Is that the outing of which you are speaking? If so, providing a diff to when someone referred to you by that name, or whatever other name you consider outing, would be helpful. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Erpert, I don't know where I stand on this one yet, but "shouldn't we, after all, state who D0kkaebi/Lawren00 really is? " is pretty damn clear. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops, guess I missed that part. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How should D0kkaebi's suspected Conflict of Interest be best dealt with?

Erpert, Drmies and John Carter: my remark, "shouldn't we, after all, state who D0kkaebi/Lawren00 really is?" meant nothing more than what Schlum just stated below, with appropriate public links showing that Lawren00/D0kkaebi is indeed a very senior lieutenant of François Asselineau within his organization. At the very least, there is enough readily available information to authorize legitimate misgivings about D0kkaebi's "neutrality".
Reminder: "references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing"..
From which I gather that this entire discussion on these so-called "Threat of Outing / Personal Attacks" is groundless, since they are all based upon "still-existing, self-disclosed information". --Azurfrog (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So did you check the link you are posting? Did you read the first sentence? Let me quote that for you just in case you missed it: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Now can you give us a link where Laurent Pawlowski from UPR is claiming being member of Wikipedia under the nickname D0kkaebi? And vice-versa, do you have a link where user:D0kkaebi is claiming being Laurent Pawlowski from UPR? Unless you give us a link that expressly shows that, those information are not voluntarily posted. You are threatening of outing and this, "whether any such information is accurate or not". D0kkaebi (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You are outing yourself here, nobody mentioned your name, only your well-known affiliation to the party when you are the main contributor to the articles about the party and its leader. Oliv0 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, well, well, D0kkaebi... Thank you for coming out at long last, just as I recommended.
As for myself, I abstained from ever mentioning your personal information, even though you should have.
Now then, you still have to state to which degree you fall within the scope of Wikimedia Foundation: Disclosure of Paid Editing.
And please keep in mind: Many believe that users with a potential conflict of interest should engage in transparent collaboration, requiring honest disclosure of paid contributions. Making contributions to the Wikimedia projects without disclosing payment or employment may also lead to legal ramifications --Azurfrog (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced this kind of "affiliation" (local party leader) is what is meant in WP:DISCLOSEPAY, but in WP:COI certainly, and I now discover (sorry for not being an experienced editor here) that WP:COIN is the right place to go and then allows use of {{Connected contributor}} {{COI}} etc. So since you know best about your conclusion of COI in the French AfD for the party leader Asselineau (and you may remember the results of the simple Google search you mention which then gave more useful results from social networks), maybe you could do it? Oliv0 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:COIN certainly seems an appropriate place to report such a conflict of interest as the one we have to deal with. However, I am not convinced either that it does not fall under WP:DISCLOSEPAY: after all, it is difficult to claim that that a local party leader is not an "affiliate" of his own party, even as defined by WP ("Affiliation refers to other connections that might be relevant"). But you are right, we should probably start by reporting on WP:COIN. --Azurfrog (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Note: I will have no or little Internet access (in the mountains) for 6 days starting this afternoon, so I will not be able to answer here or help on COIN. Oliv0 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done: Oliv0 - Lebob - D0kkaebi - Schlum

I just started a request on WP:COIN here.
So, D0kkaebi, I finally fulfilled what you called my "threat": that is, not "out" personal information about you, but simply disclose your close connection with François Asselineau and his party, as you should have done in the first place.
Now, on WP as well as anywhere else, I do not think that threatening to place a legitimate request disclosing this connection and the resulting conflict of interest - as I just did - can in any way be considered as a "personal attack". --Azurfrog (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

General discussion

All 4 users notified. Userlinks added to top of thread. Blackmane (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I listed all the personal threats above. There are several. If you need additional explanation or links for evidence, let me know. By the way, shall I request for oversight, or shall I wait the result of this incident? I do not feel comfortable seeing my previous nickname and that I am paid by UPR for my contributions on wikipedia D0kkaebi (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks or threats in the 2 diffs by me above (I put a nowiki in the first one since it did not display the diff). Outing would mean personal details not already known, but the French AfD I refer to in the first diff mentions at a prominent place as an important fact that Lawren00 is the Lawren00 that could at that time (much less now) be seen on social networks as an activist from the micro-party Popular Republican Union (2007) and among those shown as local leaders on the party's website. The correspondence between D0kkaebi and Lawren00 is something I saw in "What links here" on User:D0kkaebi after I noticed an edit war in which D0kkaebi, who first started undoing disputable changes by Francis Le français, then used the opportunity to modify even more with a definite POV. So I believe this mention of a "POV by D0kkaebi/Lawren00" in the talk page is useful to editors, so that they can have a better view of his frequent arguments and of the possible edit wars on Popular Republican Union (2007) and François Asselineau. As for Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure mentioned in the talk page, I do not think he is paid anything by the micro-party, his POV is rather out of personal conviction. Oliv0 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Your diff mentions half a sentence and your comments on the talk page about personal attacks is 4 lines + 20 from your crew. You justified your revert on several topics and summarized by " addition of "gaullism", "centrist" and removal of section about Internet activism certainly goes against NPOV, article improved by undoing this". Just to discuss one claim, Centrism has been extensively discussed on the talk page here and the only undoubtedly neutral user participating in the page, Ravenswing , concluded that the proper translation for English native is "centrist". I did not agree neither as I preferred "syncretic" but since Ravenswing is neutral, I apply his proposal as a proper consensus. I do not understand why your opinion should prevail on previous discussions and consensus reached on the talk page. Is it because you are admin on the French wikipedia or related to many of them and used to impose your POV without prior discussions? I hope not, and thus, please discuss on the talk before imposing your opinion. D0kkaebi (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My edit summary you quote just above was clear, and your assertion is false that on the talk page in the link you mention @Ravenswing: would have said that "centrist" is a good English word for what the micro-party calls "neither left nor right / above left and right" (that is, focusing on anti-europeanism and not on left-right divisions).

And you should certainly not be the one demanding that any modification from other users should first get your approval on the talk page, given your known POV as a local leader of this party (btw, I just had a look at WP:DISCLOSEPAY and it is not clear to me if this counts or not as an "affiliation" that has to be disclosed). Oliv0 (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So you say Ravenswing did not say "centrist" is the proper word to describe UPR's political positioning? It does not look like you even checked the link. Rather than interpretation, I'll just quote his words "We need pay no attention to what a Frenchman would call "centrist" -- what matters is what your average English-speaker would think of as "centrist".". This is the best evidence that you just impose your POV without even checking prior discussions and even ignoring others' input. I did not agree with him, but I agree on the logic he brought for the sake of the consensus. So who is not neutral here? D0kkaebi (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Here you are being non neutral, @Ravenswing: only said that the English word is not to be avoided because of the French meaning, which does not say it is the appropriate word in English. In fact, "centrist" and "gaullism" mentioned in my edit summary quoted above and probably even "syncretic" are all a POV attempt at a more positive vocabulary than the sources. Oliv0 (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so let's summary. The sources says "neither right nor left", so I write this in the article but that's a POV. Another user suggests that syncretic would be more understandable for English Native but that's a POV. Then Ravenswing write instead "centrism" in the article, then it is debated on the talk page, but that's also a POV. In brief, everything not inputted by yourself is a POV. Do we understand correctly the logic of Oliv0pedia? D0kkaebi (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Stick to the independent sources, that is not POV. So far you did not mention Ravenswing wrote "centrism" in the article, the talk page is more important and does not conclude "centrism".

Also please stop saying everybody else has a POV, wants to impose the French WP on the English WP and wants to control the article that they think their WP:OWN, since everybody now saw your POV and COI as a local official of the party who wants to control the article that you think your WP:OWN. Oliv0 (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks, and nothing which is not public here ; User:Lawren00 is a redirection to User:D0kkaebi, Lawren00 having public Twitter account with his name ([59]), and this guy telling everything about him and his relations with the UPR on Facebook public page ([60]). Btw, as he is in the board team of the UPR and is quite heavily implicated in the redaction & maintenance of François Asselineau and Popular Republican Union (2007) (with strong Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), doing edit wars with many users on both articles, he should provide the information on his user page by the WMF rules (at least if he receives financial compensations for his activities). Schlum (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC) PS : my contributions list on en WP show that I’m far from being the WP:SPA User:D0kkaebi is on the PRU & F. Asselineau subject… Schlum (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Come on now, D0kkaebi! Is it a "personal attack" or a "personal threat" to suggest that you disclose your relationship with François Asslineau and his Popular Republican Union, as it is central to understanding the reason behind your ongoing claim that most of the other contributors are "not neutral"?
On the other hand, you are now accusing me of being "a single-purpose account on the English WP"... Well, this is definitely not the case, even though I spent an undue amount of time recently on this matter.
Moreover, you are deliberately misquoting me as having said that we were trying to "gain control of the page"(please provide the exact wording), whereas practically all of your own contributions revolve around François Asselineau. Who's an SPA now?
Beyond that, I am a bit tired to see that everytime a thread on a talk page develops into a consensus against your opinion, you resort to administrators: as far as I am concerned, I can assure you that I have plenty of other interests beyond François Asselineau, and would be glad to leave the matter, were it not for the sustained edit-war raging around "his" articles (edit-war in which I have no part, as evidenced by my recent contributions to these articles, which have been extremely limited, or even non existent). --Azurfrog (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

All right, here is another thing. You have no interest for Asselineau topic, and you would like to move on. I guess that is the same motive that pushed you to go on the Lombard Wikipedia, not even respecting the users there since you do not speak "lombard" by requesting in English to suppress the page of Asselineau. Same thing on the Esperanto page or on the old English page. Do I need to list more to show your non-interest for the topic?

Now, when you and your crew have [nominated for the 4th time (!?!) the suppression of the Asselineau article], would you like me to remind the words of undoubtedly neutral English native users?

# Silverseren^C: "oppose French Wikipedia control AGAIN? Are you serious? The previous two AfDs ended in Keep and now people from French Wikipedia are, yet again, trying to control English Wikipedia." or "This is just French Wikipedia editors and administrators' trying to control content on other Wikipedias for subjects that they dislike and these actions are appalling."

# S Marshall T/C: "Keep per my detailed reasoning at the many previous AfDs and DRVs at which French users tried to get this article deleted on various spurious grounds. Also, while I'm doing the thing where you summarise your opinion using words in bold, I need to add surely not this AGAIN and this is not fr.wiki."

# Carrite (talk): "This entire nomination seems to me a POV-driven exercise and is highly disruptive."

In addition, note that that your WP:OWN and POV have discouraged the only undoubtedly neutral English contributors to the article, Ravenswing , quoting his word when invited to share his opinion here " given that this kind of nonsense is going to go on barring a big change, I don't have the mental energy to spare to play permanent watchdog for them."

And the cherry on the cake for the conclusion, here is the evidence that one member of your crew gathered people on the admin noticeboard to rule Wiki:en. Quoting the words of your friend LPLT: "Un courageux pour aller porter le fer sur cette wiki ? / Is there any courageous person to start a war on en:wiki?" I guess, that close the case regarding your neutrality. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Aller porter le fer (lit. "go and carry the iron [sword]") is not "start a war" but "go to fight", here in the interest of neutrality against your well-known POV, a noble task for an admin but which unfortunately needs much "mental energy to spare to play permanent watchdog" indeed. Oliv0 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, aller porter le fer does mean wage a war (and your explanation shows it perfectly clearly, by the way). You are wasting your/everybody's time here. The only issue discussed in this thread is: Did the users in question threaten to out D0kkaebi (on this Wikipedia)? The answer is obvious. It's a blatant yes. (Some of you even had the nerve to do it again in this very thread!).--Wr. Sr. (t) 09:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Wage" (Oxford compact: "Carry on (a war or campaign)"), not "start".

I certainly did not threaten to "out", only warned about a user's WP:COI and "affiliation" (WP:DISCLOSEPAY: "Terms of Use prohibit (...) misrepresentation of affiliation", "Affiliation refers to other connections that might be relevant" which is not very clear, I am not sure it applies to the local leader of a party if he is not paid). Oliv0 (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's amazing to realize that I am now accused of being a single purpose by someone who has devoted a substantial part of his time on WP(en) to contribute to the articles François Asselineau and/or UPR. Just to get facts clear I am on WP(en) since November 2006 where I have 1144 contributions on 484 different pages. I don't think this is a shows the behavior of a single purpose account.

He is now telling that I would have threatened him but is unable to provide any evidence for this allegation. Unfortunately this is a recurring behavior with this contributor. Once he cannot enforce his POV in the articles he tries by any other mean to get his contradictors out of his way. During the last months/weeks he has started

• started a sockpuppet investigation against Francis Le français
• started a request for mediation on Popular_Republican_Union_(2007)
• looked for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aya_Laglare&diff=prev&oldid=678241295 support for other procedures against Francis Le français
• started an [edit warring procedure on the administrators noticeboard about Popular_Republican_Union_(2007)]]
• started an other procedure on the administrators noticeboard against Francis Le français
• and, last but not least, started yesterday this new procedure with unsubstantiated allegations.

I might have forgotten or not noticed other procedures started by this user but for those who got the misfortune to cross him on the French WP it is very obvious that he is using the same kind of tricks he used end of 2011 early 2012 where he was making much noise in order to try to impose his POV about Asselineau (this must be a mere coincidence). I have the feeling that the only purpose of this new procedure is to avoid to answer to the question we have raised, i.e. his blatant conflict of interest on the pages François Asselineau and Popular_Republican_Union_(2007). --Lebob (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to my previous message I also noticed that when writing "Lebob (talk) saying my I get approval from UPR party to participate in Wikipedia", D0kkaebi is misquoting what I have really written, which is also not acceptable. I have in fact written that D0kkaebi has a POV that makes him disagree with any comment about the PRU or Asselineau that would not have been duly approved by the RPU of fall within the official position of the PRU, which means that he fully endorses the view of the party where he has official responsibilities and tries to impose them on the articles relating to the party and his chairman. Again there is no wonder here as he has a strong conflict of interest and should refrain himself from contributing to the articles François Asselineau and PRU. I have however never written, as he wrongly (as I assume good faith here I will not write "falsely") alleges that he got approval from UPR to participate in WP. --Lebob (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Says a freshly created WP:SPA obviously from UPR as well… I guess it is with good reason that UPR activists are well known in France for their entryism strategies. Schlum (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, reading your last comments, looks like your barrel is empty. Lebob, it is true that you did not threat of outing me like the 2 others, you did personal attacks. If you have missed the evidence that I brought, you just need to scroll-up to the beginning of this topic. Then you try to qualify me as a harasser of Francis le Francais. Well, you might have missed those I guess:

1. [edit war on page with some IPs], I invite them to discuss but my request is ignored that leaded to [page protection by admin against IP contributors].
2. [After forcing them to explain their motive on the talk page, except first topic, all discussions are to explain to the other party the reasons the changes are not proper]. Sometimes, their request were justified and I integrated the change in the article.
3. [Discussions went on my talk page from this topic and all following]
4. Due to their persistence, I filled a request for 3rd party opinion. But it was declined.
5. [At the same time, I had a strong doubt on socketpuppet usage], since several IPs and Francis le Francais had same complains, and same style of contribution half in French, half in Frenglish which was concluded with an advice on behavioral monitoring
6. [RFC opened] but the other party refuse the comments brought by experienced user "focusandlearn"
7. [RFM, but refused] due to lack of French understanding of the board
8. [DRN opened but refused] because the proper place to solve the issue should be admin board according to Jaaron95

Then all my warnings to Francis le Francais:

1. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (You need to read accurately the sources and not interpret as you want WP:POV. You need to respect the consensus before changing things as you feel like)
2. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Change upon RFC result, thank you to respect consensus)
3. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (If no consensus then it should return to the state before the claim happens and until decision is taken)
4. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Since there is dispute, until resolution is done, basic principle is to stick to version before the claims. Edit war is useless and time consuming)
5. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (You have been warned by another user, Aya, one more, on your non-collaborative behavior)
6. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 678312643 by Francis Le français (talk) last warning)
7. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Reporting to Edit war page and admin noticeboard)
8. Still he reverted again after Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 679332880 by D0kkaebi (talk) war edit by you)

And then you are again accusing me to get approval of UPR for any changes I provide to the article. Do you have any evidence for that? None, right, that's a personal attack. I have here just some example of revert I made against "suspected UPR militants" who try to update the number of membership:

1. (UPR website can't be a reliable source)
2. (Please use independent sources)
3. (Please provide valid source)
4. (Unknown personae and unsourced information)
5. (Please find a reliable source for this info)
6. {Please find a reliable source for this info)
7. (Removed the facebook source (!?))
8. (Reverted source not independent of subject not allowed) and more ...
   

I guess everything is now on the table, admins can judge the outing threat and personal attacks. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

And still no comment about your blatant conflict of interest, dear? As a matter of fact raising the CoI question is not a personal attack as you wrongly allege. Beside, you are repeating the false accusation that I would be you "to get approval of UPR for any changes I provide to the article", which is not what I have said. The first time I could think this was a reading mistake, this time it is clear that you dishonestly put under my keyboard things I did not write. I have said that what you do on the concerned articles is to make sure that their content matches which the official position of the PRU and that critical comment about the party or its chairman are not quoted in the corresponding articles. Finally I have never written that you were harassing Francis Le français, you came to that conclusion alone. I wonder why... --Lebob (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

D0kkaebi why do not you express yourself on a conflict of interest? Why you write the wrong things (eg ip opened subjects talk page which you do not answer or very late - historic demonstrate that - % 29 # 2970 _-_ 5000 _-_ 7000 opened February 1, 2015 by an IP, you answer that on May 29, four months after !)? Why you mix editorial disagreements with this procedure ? Why not say that some informations (aka your old username or mail of the upr's officials) are public and accessible to all on the internet ?--Francis Le français (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved user:

I've been reading up on this saga; it's quite a tale, years in the making, with some fascinating subplots: an article subject who partially derives Wikipedia notability from making a stink about not being notable enough for Wikipedia; a spamming campaign met with an equally rabid "cross-wiki anti-spam spamming" campaign (a lovely expression I borrowed from the German AFD); frwiki AFD's that include pie charts and trend-line graphs of !votes; small armies of the same cast of canvassed and/or coi editors throwing bombs at each other through Google Translate and various degrees of linguistic ability on a number of wikis; endless charges and counter-charges; 4 AFDs, a DRV, RFC, ANI, COIN and who knows what else in enwiki alone... the only thing missing for me is an AFD in Catalan, that really would have made my day (although it was speedy-deleted twice from cawiki so I'm not too disappointed, gotta show cawiki a little love...). It would take weeks if not months to unravel it all. In the interest of sparing us a massive migraine, I suggest everyone drop the stick and go back to their home wikis where they can safely attack each other in the relative comfort of their native language. (Not that I think there is any realistic chance of that happening, heck it's only been going on for five years, and the article still exists in Occitan, quick send it to AFD!). Vrac (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Rather a good summary of this ridiculous and overlong saga ;-). "Dropping the stick" would be the reasonable way out, starting with closing the current request, which was rather a big stick to raise, unlikely to bring Wikipedian love to the subject. But this wouldn't solve the main practical issue, namely the acute conflict of interest at the basis of the recurring edit wars on the two English articles. --Azurfrog (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Dropping the stick(s) would necessarily require the participation of both parties in order to be successful as both are exporting disruption across the Wikiverse. Threatening to out someone is a big stick as well. I find it unlikely that getting one user blocked or restricted for COI will solve the problem given the number of pawns in this game. I don't see you or your companions acknowledging the dodgy aspects of your own behavior, behavior which strikes me as decidedly unhealthy. Another brilliant term from the German AFD is "Wiki Jagdfieber" (what we might call a WP:WITCHHUNT). My suggestion is that you all find a way to come to an understanding at home, in a place where you can best comprehend each other, rather than trying to make enwiki or some other wiki decide it for you, or continuing the dispute endlessly to the detriment of the Wikiverse. Of course that would require a healthy dose of WP:COOL. Vrac (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My my! "Dodgy and unhealthy", nothing less :-)...
I'll leave it at that, just regretting that en:WP has de facto accepted to be used as some sort of fallback soapbox, in spite of such an obvious case of COI. --Azurfrog (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify that I am not opposed to looking at COI in this case, what I am trying to do is suggest that some attention be paid to the war and its collateral damage instead of just concentrating on this specific battle. Vrac (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vrac (talk), thank you for your comment. I think all the discussions have shown that English native users who had to take a look at this saga are a bit amazed by the level of stupidity this whole had reached so far. My hope would be that someone like Ravenswing or you (or anybody else, not French native) would be the one to edit the article and that French natives (including me and the crew of French Admins and related) would be de-facto banished from editing. We could provide the new sources via the talk page. So that we could contain any conflict of interest. I am not sure if that reflect what you mean by dropping the stick.
By the way, I think someone can judge the case since everything was said, even one of the party accused, seeing that his logic of attack did not help at all for his defense, is admitting "his errance" and even though a very experienced user, he did not know the process of COI (needs violin with this sentence). D0kkaebi (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok that is a good place to start. Yes, that is more or less what I meant by "dropping the stick". It actually has a translation in frwiki: fr:WP:CHEVALMORT which is true to the English version but we also use it as a general euphemism for stopping fighting, like "bury the hatchet" (an expression which has a very close cousin in French). I don't want to sound patronizing, but, to be specific, I mean not making strong accusations (even if you think you are right), not threatening, and not pointing out the mistakes and foibles of others in an aggressive manner, etc.... doing so naturally has a tendency to start the war all over again; basically following WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS and the whole alphabet soup of guidelines. If everyone was limited to the talk page, could you agree to that? Vrac (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I was sleepy and not thinking clearly when I wrote the above. Never mind. Vrac (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, if this proposal has to translate into an indefinitely protected page against modification except for a native admin who will be in charge of completing the article with the sources brought by each party on the talk, I would agree. D0kkaebi (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that if you don't stop your (collective) incessant squabbling, no one is going to want to deal with it. I can see from the history that a number of editors tried but gave up. Who can blame them. Vrac (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So the proposal above is not enough? Let me know any other suggestion. I see that Ravenswing and Aya Laglare gave up participating, but I do not feel like it is due to me. Seeing at the discussion with Ravenswing regarding his change on the political positioning, I gave my point of view explaining why I disagreed, and since he didnt buy my explanation, then I stick to his version of the article, end of story on my side. Note that is the other side who endorsed the changes of Ravenswing to me and then taxed me of POV. I don't know what I could have done better. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestion other than stopping the fight? You (collectively) don't seem to be getting the point of what I have been saying. Some capacity for self-examination would be helpful in this situation. Vrac (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Everett Stern COI editing and supposed "extortion"

Following my first small edits on Everett Stern, on July 28th, I posted the Biography article on the WP:TAFI board, where it was voted down based on WP:GNG. I then nominated it for deletion based on the following input and opposition from several other editors on the grounds of WP:GNG. The article was kept, but I later noticed that several edits on the article and the article itself seemed to read like a political campaign ad rather than a neutral Wikipedia article. Another editor agreed with me and posted this on the WP:COI/N.

An IP editor joined the conversation on the Everett Stern talk page with regards to the evident COI editing with this, along with several attempts to blank the talk page between last night and today.

Everett Stern has now identified himself and continues to accuse me of having a "political agenda," following the earlier edits of the IP address editor (which also identified itself as being the 'Everett Stern' team after a series of comments threatening legal action) as well as continuous statements which claim that I am somehow involved with 'extortion,' and several cases of WP:Outing. _{(A minor note, these OUTING edits have been oversighted. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC))}

These accusations are completely unwarranted, are against Wikipedia policies and standards, and neither Stern nor his colleagues are conducting themselves in appropriate manners. I have contributed to discussions as to the progress of certain Wikipedia pages upon subjects with which Stern has personally involved himself with, and I do not appreciate his continuous comments as I have only brought to some attention the fact that Stern had paid someone to edit his article, which was previously undisclosed and questioned the notability and neutrality of the article, which are indeed appropriate in the context of Wikipedia, and especially so when the person in question is soon to be involved with a political campaign. Ladysif (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I apologize but I have already notified the response team and am drafting another email to them. I will not engage in this conversation in a public forum due to its sensitive nature. Everettstern (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I further apologize but Ladysif making the following statements about the subject is concerning..."his website is a pay-per-use scam" "Honestly, apart from the HSBC scandal, he has not made national news or had any media attention, and his campaign has not been given any mainstream attention. He spends most of his time accusing people of terrorism and his website is a pay-per-use scam, more or less. You can see his attempts to draw his attention to himself here and I have reverted a couple of edits on at least pages where someone had gone in and added his "conclusions" Everettstern (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Indent your comments and do not quote me without the context of my comment. A comment on my talk page in response to another editor's question is not damaging to your article - I was asked why I thought that the article subject did not meet WP:Notability standards and provided an answer. Ladysif (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Everettstern: If you are handling the matter through OTRS then stop making allegations on-wiki... just stop. I have explained to you about outing, not making personal attacks and avoiding even the seeming of making legal threats and explained how this can lead to loss of editing privlages. [61] Ladysif, the editor most effected by your behavior has started that process by opening this thread. Now un-involved administrators and other editors will examine the issue to see what, if any, action should be taken. Wikipedia is a community of volunteer editors and ANI is one of the way we enforce out norms of proper behavior. Whether and how you participate is your choice. Jbh^Talk 20:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@[[User:Jbhunley| I understand. Please understand this is a very frustrating experience. I do not mean any offense to Wikipedia. I just want this situation resolved. I will not be participating in anymore discussions as I am not familiar with the platform. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This issue came up at WP:COIN#Everett Stern a few days ago. There seem to be about 17 SPAs and IP editors involved, not all on the same side. The response at COIN was to trim the article back to verifiable facts (there was a big section on "Political positions", cited to the candidate's website; that's gone), and now it's a bare-facts bio article. Right now, I think we're OK on the content front; edits by experienced editors are now down to fixing stray commas. Semi-protection might be helpful. On the "extortion" issue, it's not clear who, if anyone, is extorting what from whom. Nobody has mentioned libel/slander issues, and there's nothing in the article that's particularly embarrassing. What's the problem with the article, exactly? John Nagle (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Everettstern: I am sorry you are running into such difficulties and I fully understand how confusing and arcane Wikipedia can be. Rest assured there are many eyes on your article now and while I can not say you will always be happy with the content of the article it is very unlikely any actual vandalism or violations of our policy on biographies of living persons will last very long if anyone does such a thing. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}}. I will keep your article and your talk page on my watch list so I can keep an eye on things as well. Jbh^Talk 20:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to explain the entire situation so the community understands where I am coming from. Please understand I am not making any accusations or legal threats. On or about July 20th my office received a phone call from JJJJJJJJ with WWWWW Inc. We were told that the Everett Stern Wikipedia page was going to be wiped out. I refused to pay WWWWW Inc. Immediately, thereafter, a Wikipedia editor proposed the Everett Stern page for deletion for not being notable. I have had tons of press so this was a very blatant and outlandish claim. I sent an email to the Wikipedia response team and KF responded and took immediate action by removing the tags.

On or about September 9th, the same editor again added a Conflict of Interest Tag and stated that I wrote the article. My staff notified me of some concerning comments made on some of the talk pages. I was told that there was a very high chance that the editor was possibly part of the WWWWW Inc. group. I have tried on my own to repair the situation but it has become apparent that I cannot operate within the Wikipedia system when I do not know or understand the guidelines. My explanations on the talk pages are hurting me because I cannot give the full story and situation. I am not saying that the editor extorted me. I am not concerned with the editor. It could be pure coincidence. I am concerned with the company that threatened to wipe out my page. I have tried defending myself only to make the situation worse and for that I sincerely apologize. I have never dealt with a situation like this before and I am handling it personally. I am happy with the Wikipedia article if the Wikipedia community is happy with it. I have no influence over its contents. Please edit away. I am just fighting back because of the chances that this is related to the previous incident. Otherwise, please keep editing! It is just an honor to have a Wikipedia page on me. I do not care if editors want to make changes or propose tags. My concern comes in when it is being done unfairly and with a possible motive. Again, I am not accusing anyone. As of right now the talk page on my Wikipedia page is extremely damaging. I ask that Wikipedia removes the inappropriate comments. If Wikipedia wants to keep the comments then I respect that. I just want to close this chapter. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You've had press on one "notable" scandal. Everything else is self-published and does not meet Wikipedia standards, not to mention the fact that the article as it was was poorly written and biased. I have not been here long and will turn to older editors' opinions over my own. Frankly I'm concerned that the person who evaluated my tag apparently was connected with you as well, considering as that's not quite a fair analysis of the tag to begin with... Anyway, you keep saying that you didn't do X X and X thing, and yet the edit records are here in plain view. Lying doesn't really help anything at all and I hope the outside administrators recognize that this situation is beyond ridiculous. Someone "wiping out" a page would have been caught immediately... that is blatant vandalism and the editor would be warned and/or blocked. Ladysif (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ladysif: Sadly, it's not ridiculous. Please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. Everettstern's situation has many parallels with the LTA case. KrakatoaKatie 22:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Now we have a coherent explanation of the problem. The questionable proposed-deletion edit is [62] by Ladysif (talk · contribs) (not an SPA, first edit March 2015). Previous editing by other editors did show strong signs of a conflict of interest from special purpose accounts. See [63], and especially [64], which has the edit comment "(Updated information about Stern and created a section for Tactical Rabbit as per his request. This job was performed by a freelance writer.)" At WP:COIN, deletion was discussed, but rejected; the article was trimmed of PR content instead. The actions there look routine to me. Anyway, at this point, nobody is going to wipe out the page, and nobody is going to be able to dump campaign material into it. It's now on the watch list of dozens of editors. I think we're done at WP:COIN for now.

I assume that more detail on the extortion issue has been provided to ORTS, which may help. Any other reports of similar events at ORTS? John Nagle (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• People, I advised Mr. Stern to email OTRS after he mentioned the claimed extortion. What he is doing is, as far as I can see, precisely in line with the advice to biography subjects provided by OTRS. I wrote that standard response, though it may have changed since I stopped doing response work. We do not require people to understand our Byzantine rules and guidelines in order to correct a problem on a biography. Anyone who disputes sourcing of content on the article is at liberty to remove it and discuss it on Talk. Remember that WP:BLP applies in all namespaces. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I added a note at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody#Everett Stern, in case this is related to the Orangemoody mess. John Nagle (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Recommend closing

• I recommend closing this thread with no action as it is the result of an unfortunate collision of coincidences: (1) Everett Stern is apparently being extorted regarding his Wikipedia article. This is apparently now being dealt with via the proper OTRS channels. (2) An uninvolved editor (Ladysif), with strong opinions about Stern but clearly uninvolved in the extortion [I've known this editor for quite a while via the Sweet Briar College article; she is a good-faith editor], prodded the article and/or placed a notability tag on it. (3) The article and its major contributors were listed at WP:COIN by me, who had Ladysif's talk page on my watch list. (4) Everett Stern and Ladysif have made negative comments or erroneous accusations about each other, because of all this mix-up. The upshot however is: The article is now neutral and properly sourced and has many eyes on it; the extortion will hopefully be properly handled (if not, Stern should let us know down the line); Ladysif and Stern should please stop commenting about each other at all, and should please just avoid each other if you would, thanks. Case closed, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for admin action now, and we already did content cleanup over at WP:COIN. Thanks, everybody. John Nagle (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate everyones help. May you please delete or archive the talk section of the Wikipedia article? It is not constructive and the accusations back and forth do not accomplish anything. Thank you for your time and help.Everettstern (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and archived the remaining talk page discussions. If WMF or an admin needs to view them they are in the archive. If an admin thinks the last two threads should remain, please un-archive them. To Everett: Talk pages are not visible to article readers (unless for some reason they click it), so there's no great harm in letting discussions remain for a certain period if other editors believe that is advisable. It's common for heated discussions and even erroneous accusations to occur on Talk pages, so this is nothing new on Wikipedia. That said, I recommend that Everettstern take Ladysif's talk page off his watch list and ignore her wiki activity. Likewise, I recommend that Ladysif take both Everett Stern and User:Everettstern off her watch list. There are enough people monitoring this situation on all counts and sides, and this misunderstanding simply needs to dissipate. Thank you. And whenever deemed appropriate, an admin can close this thread. Softlavender (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Ladysif and all relevant talk pages from my watch list. I look forward to this being resolved. Thank you for your time and help.Everettstern (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra opposed to terrorism

Sandra opposed to terrorism has been making a lot of unnecessary and controversial edits on the 2015 Thalys train attack article, which have been reverted by me, Pincrete, Mezigue, and a number of other users. However, she continues putting those edits back into the article, and she has continued to do so despite ongoing discussions about them on the talk page. She also been making overly assertive comments in support of her positions regarding the edits. In addition, she needlessly criticized the quality of the article even though it's obvious she's the only one who has a real problem with what is being accepted as content. This is getting to the point of ridiculousness now and I think this problem needs to be addressed. Versus001 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• [included user name Drmies (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)]

• You're going to have to be more specific. Which edits? I looked at a dozen, and while I can find fault with some of them, maybe, I don't see the problem. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits regarding the inclusion of Chris Norman being born in Uganda and the flags in the reaction sections, to name off the top of my head. Versus001 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. That will be the easiest way to get results. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There were so many incidents, and I've lost track of the history. Sorry. Check the article's talk page; there are a number of discussions relating to these conflicts. Versus001 (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. I can't go fishing for what I think you may think was against policy. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I need to bring attention to what's happening in this article somehow. Sandra's showing no signs of giving up on these useless edits she's been making! IF you talk to Pincrete and Mezigue, they'll agree that she's been a source of trouble as of late. Versus001 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, Sandra is an inexperienced editor, with not very sound judgement, who has nonetheless succeeded in alienating most editors on the article by capricious, rather than vandalistic or PoV editing or behaviour. Individually, the edits (and edit reasons), are largely 'silly'. Sandra appears to get 'a bee in her bonnet' about an issue and invents spurious arguments to re-insert the wanted text. As an example, the majority opinion about a French actor, who happened to be on the train and who cut his hand trying to raise the alarm, but who was in no way in contact with the train attacker, was that he should be in one section of the article, where he is mentioned extensively, because of defending this argument, editors were accused of being 'anti-French', pro-American' etc.. Sandra was not winning the argument (she had none really, apart from caprice), so this message was left on French WP:Mort - Les Américains détestent M. Anglade . Ils ont retiré son nom de la liste des passagers. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, aside from the absurdity that a large number of are not US, but French or 'other' why 'Mort' ?

I could provide many other diffs, but will not do so, as I don't believe any 'ban' is called for at this stage. What would be useful is if someone could remind Sandra that if other editors object to an edit, one should engage on talk until at least the majority are persuaded, not simply leave a message on talk or in the edit reason that justifies the edit to oneself, especially as the messages and edit reasons make no sense to most of us much of the time.Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I echo Pincrete's comments. The problem is that SotT's contributions to discussions don't make much more sense than her edits. I suspect this user might be a child, in which case I am not sure what the appropriate reaction is. (If they are not a child I know even less!) Mezigue (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mezigue, individual comments would suggest to me 'young adult' or older in terms of age. Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Either way, Sandra opposed to terrorism is a WP:SPA. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Not in the 'classic' sense of an editor who came here with a single PoV purpose. Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. :) Versus001 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete's statement in that I don't feel that any ban or action is required at this tine. I couldn't find any edits made by Sandra opposed to terrorism on the article to justify that any action is required. All users involved should be reminded to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. On a side note, Sandra opposed to terrorism - you should not close ANI discussions where you are involved, as you (did earlier) to this discussion. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to suggest a ban. I just wanted the higher-ups to be aware of the problem and give an appropriate response. Versus001 (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring again!. Where on talk is the discussion that justifies this Sandra? Where is the evidence that this info has consensus as being relevant? Because at least 4 seperate editors have expressed the view that it is NOT relevant, and only you think it is (though your reasons remain a mystery to all of us). You really do seem determined to prove to everybody that your editing is simply capricious, and that you are unable or unwilling to learn. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I merely restored then improved on another editor's improvements. SEE Green Cardamom here [65] Your complaint is not an ANI (administrator's incident). Also supported by a third editor from Canada. [66] Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, unless they can verify their reasoning on why the edits should stay, we're going to continue opposing it, because so far, you're the only one actively defending your edits and you're not making a good case for yourself. Versus001 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, the 'editor from Canada', at the time he left his post, had been an editor for less than 4 minutes, he had made no article edits and this was his 3rd, very minor 'talk' edit. Green Cardamom, has expressed no opinion on this subject either way, except that he thinks Daily Mail is RS on this (which isn't really disputed, especially as Gdn etc also say the same thing) - I don't know what GC thinks. Are those really the best justifications you have? Because, if so, I repeat what I said 'You really do seem determined to prove to everybody that your editing is simply capricious', and indifferent to the arguments of other, (mostly more experienced), editors. 'Ugandan' or 'African', is factually wrong, 'Born in Uganda' is mildly interesting, not very relevant, and I have no strong feeling either way about its inclusion. I DO have strong feelings about editors who aren't prepared to co-operate and respect others and argue their case in a rational way, and who instead edit in an 'I'll make a point now' way. It makes you look foolish. On WP, being inexperienced is no sin, neither is knowing less than others or making a few mistakes or … … BUT, not listening, IS a sin. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC) amended slightly, I was previously approximating Hickley80's inexperience, but have been challenged about the inaccuracy. Pincrete (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete is wrongly smearing another editor, saying he has been here for 4 minutes. No, he was here since November 2014 but may have had some contributions deleted due to the article being deleted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Hickley80 I have written to Hickley so he can defend himself. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your link is crap. Could you relink please? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Link works for me. It shows the log showing the creation date of the account. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Hickley80's contributions link is here, IF Sandra has access to proofs that I don't, then this is clearly an error on my part, not a smear. My suspicion is that Sandra is simply wrong (again) and desperately defending an untenable position. Sandra has not simply 'written to Hickley', but made PAs about me to this 'newbie'.

This is precisely the sort of foolish/careless behaviour that has alienated Sandra from almost all the editors Sandra has been dealing with. I, who came here defending Sandra, but hoping an admin would 'have a quiet word', now think that she is determined to prove herself 'beyond hope'. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Re:Nat Gertler, now this makes sense, Hickley80's account was created in November 2014, but the only edits so far were made on 11th September this year. I hardly think that changes my comments about Hickley80's inexperience by one iota. He had registered as an editor 10 months before, but actually edited for the first time 3 minutes before! ... or what??

Now what exactly does Hickley80 have to do with Sandra editing capriciously against consensus? Because it looks like a rather inept attempt at deflection. Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, what're you getting at? I just searched everywhere for the smearing you claim Pincrete gave this guy, and I have found absolutely ZIP. Could you provide the diffs, please? Otherwise, I will have to agree with Pincrete that you're trying to deflect the argument/make your detractors look bad. In addition, if you think Pincrete was indeed smearing this guy, couldn't you have started a completely separate discussion on here, or at the very least urged him to do so? Because this is EXTREMELY off-topic; we're talking about YOU and YOUR EDITS, not what Pincrete said to another user. Versus001 (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Versus001, clarification, I haven't said anything pertinent to Hickley80, I described Hickley80 above as an editor for 3/4 minutes (based on the edit history). In fact Hickley80 has been an editor for 10 months, and either never made any edits till 11 Sept., or all the edits have been deleted from the record. Either way, I don't believe I slandered Hickley80 by pointing to his/her inexperience. Pincrete (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I was merely saying that she needs to provide concrete proof that you were indeed smearing Hickley80, and that if she has it, she needs to begin a completely separate discussion. I do agree with you that this is anything but helpful to the discussion. Versus001 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN has Sandra disregarded the current discussion on the talk page and made a few edits suiting to her own needs. On her first edit, she has also stated "as discussed in talk page, moving chronological events so they are together", but the aforementioned discussion had YET to reach any sort of consensus at the time of those edits. Versus001 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

AND it's not the first time with this edit, but she did send me a cookie, which I guess makes everything OK. Pincrete (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

forum shopping

I brought this to DRN (dispute resolution noticeboard) and some of these complaining editors declined to participate. Them bringing an issue here is, therefore, forum shopping. Editors who forum shop should be blocked.

I explain my edits. I do not edit war but look for better references and give in to some ideas when a convincing reason is given. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware that such a discussion had been opened there at the time. In fact, I am sure I was blocked from editing during that time. Also, if you wish not to edit-war, then I urge you to stop what you are doing and discuss it with everyone else first on the talk page, so we can reach a consensus and THEN the edit can be accepted. Versus001 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra ott, I alone declined to take part in the DRN, not 'some editors', and gave clear reasons, which I and others have explained. Briefly, they were that DRN should not be used till extensive 'talk' had failed to reach a solution. DRN is simply mediated discussion and it is slow. I have not brought this here, but even here you seem indifferent to the fact that 5 or 6 editors have exhausted their patience at times, because many of your edits seem simply capricious, though you are happy to re-insert them even when you know that they go against the broad consensus. You closed this ANI, because YOU decided it was 'forum shopping' (which it isn't). Even while here, you re-inserted 'born in Uganda' in the article (at last you understand the difference with 'Ugandan') giving a spurious reason (Daily Mail is NOT a better source thsn Gdn), the reason other editors don't want it is not because of the quality of the source, but because they think it is irrelevant (I don't care either way, but object to the behaviour). Your 'reason' for including this? Because 'African lives matter', that would be silly if he WERE African, but he isn't. Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Reasons to close this discussion

1. Forum shopping by the original posters of the ANI complaint. It was in DRN and can be reactivated simply by Pincrete giving the OK.

2. It is a content dispute. Luckily it is not acid yet. There is multiple disagreements by multiple authors. GreenCardamom just sided with me as well as several other editors on at least some points. One issue is very basic. When writing a bio of a few sentences, their country of birth is important. One passenger who fought off the terrorists on the train was born in Uganda (Africa). Try deleting President Barack Obama's birth country and you WILL have a huge fight, from good Wikipedia writers, to Kenyan birthers, to occasional Wikipedia students, etc.

3. We can agree in time. The content disputes are minor compared to the issues that other Wikipedia articles face. These include the use of flags, listing the country of birth, short bios, national reactions, etc.

Let's have fun and write for Wikipedia and not create an acid environment. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, good advice is when you are in a hole - the first thing to do is stop digging. Good advice when you at ANI, is to show the slightest understanding of WHY, criticisms are being made.

The DRN cannot be reactivated by me, not simply for procedural reasons, but because the issue has been (fairly) amicably resolved on talk, what would we be disputing? Besides I'm not Versus who started this, if he and I and others agree about some things, that doesn't mean we are 'acting as one'.

You don't seem able to understand what 'forum shopping' is, if Versus didn't get the result he wanted here, and went to another noticeboard arguing much the same thing, THAT would be forum shopping, but Versus didn't initiate the DRN, nor is he using this ANI to solve a content dispute. If you REALLY want to start a new DRN about whether 'born in Uganda' should be included, no one can stop you, but why not wait to see what the arguments on talk are?

As far as I know, Obama was born in the US (unless his detractors have been right all along!), his Kenyan father/ siblings/ aunts/ visits, would NOT be mentioned where they were not relevant … … just as spending part of his childhood in Indonesia wouldn't suddenly make Obama Asian. Pincrete (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Try removing President Obama's birth city from his article and there will be a huge fight against you. In the content dispute, some editors (not just me) have put back that one passenger patriot was born in Uganda. The article mentions where others were born, too, like USA or France. You are picking on me because you have already chased away others who made contributions to the article. Please don't keep doing this. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, Obama's personal article is about Obama. An article about something else Obama was involved with wouldn't mention his place of birth unless relevant to that subject. No one has defended the inclusion on 'talk', not even you except for reasons that make absolutely no sense. I don't care much either way but do/did object to it being represented falsely (Ugandan) and do object to edit-warring based on spurious analogies and foolish arguments. I don't know what the word 'patriot' refers to here. The article mentions where ONE person was born, for good reasons explained many times, which you don't seem able or willing to understand. Pincrete (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, what in the world does OBAMA have to do with the attack article? His scope of relevance doesn't extend beyond him calling those three Americans for a pat on the back. Versus001 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra I also believe you have been a unintentionally disruptive editor. I think you mean well, but are continually making changes that are questionable. For example right after we had a article rename closure, you started a new discussion about renaming the article to something totally different (not previously discussed). I personally reverted every edit you made in a 60 minute period (it was like around 4 or 5) as they were so unnecessary. Many editors have expressed frustration with your editing. I would suggest limit the number of edits you make each day and take time to think about them beforehand. -- GreenC 21:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User "Sanadate" changing character names to bogus names

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

---

In short: Sanadate (talk · contribs) is running around changing character names to what he perceives to be the full name, e.g. Seth to Sethaniel, Paul to Paulthaniel, Adam to Adamowicz, etc.

I first noticed this user at American Psycho (film) a few months ago, changing the name "Paul" to "Paulthaniel", etc. I reverted the user and didn't think much of it. Yesterday he changed it yet again. Looking at the edit history of the user, this seems to be something that they've been doing in different articles for several months now. The Blob (1988 film), House of Wax (2005 film), The Thing (2011 film), Wrong Turn 2: Dead End, List of Jurassic Park characters, etc.

The user is also edit warring the above edits.

Any attempts to communicate with the user is just meant with blanking and "Bleeping trolls. Check out wikia", "Bleeping troll", "Goddamn rules here are outta control" etc.

Nymf (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The user also blanked this thread. It's hard to see how repeatedly changing a character named "Wade" to "Waderick", "Waderich" and "Wadeland" could be considered to be in good faith, especially after several editors have asked them to stop. They've moved on now to articles where I can't tell if the names they're rapidly changing are fake or not, but if they are then it seems pretty obvious this user isn't here to contribute. Refusing to communicate is another red flag. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I will give it a rest. Just please don't block me.

Sanadate (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Why the hell shouldn't we block you? You have clearly been vandalising articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll stop. I'm sorry. I was wrong. Sanadate (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see no reason whatsoever why we should trust you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's edits, I agree with Ivanvector that this isn't innocent mistakes. They have been repeatedly warned about it and yet have continued, even edit warring over it in some cases. This editor's edits should be scrutinized for other errors, whether they are intentional or unintentional. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I was cleaning up his edits when I was struck by a rather idiosyncratic change. In this diff, he changes a fictional character's name from "Kyle" to "Kylerick" in a horror film. Puzzled as to why he would do that, I did a Google search on "Kylerick". That brought up this change in another horror film, made by Wooeyparks (talk · contribs). Looking further, I saw that Wooeyparks was blocked for disruption and a long-term abuse case was opened about him. The evidence that this is a sock of the LTA case seems pretty strong to me. I mean, who else on Wikipedia would go through direct-to-video horror films and change "Kyle" to "Kylerick"? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a likely sock of Wooeyparks; two unrelated editors making the same bizarre hoax edits from the same town and ISP belies belief. I would have blocked the account even without the technical evidence as sneaky vandalism such as this takes up far too much time from helpful editors who are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Unfortunately the account has 1600 edits under their belt that will need review.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it necessary to research every one of his edits to see if it is correct? For instance[67] he adds nicknames or "real" first names to the characters' nicknames in movies and cites it to the movie credits. This would require finding the movie and viewing it to verify the character's name. Also he changed the status of many films, such as "filming" to "post production." How about just rolling back all edits? We would lose some which are correct and some which are plausible but difficult to verify. Edison (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think maybe he was more of a time-sink for good-faith editors than he was a danger to the veracity of the encyclopedia. Some of his edits, such as changing "filming" to "post-production", are so subtle that even if they were vandalism, they probably don't even matter in the grand scheme of things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we just rollback any of their edits that are current? There's a pretty decent chance they are all bogus, and they are all block evasion anyway. I don't know if mass-rollback allows for edits which have already been corrected, and this user has been editing for quite a while. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a prudent thing to do. A quick survey of this user's edits suggest that a majority of them are unconstructive and some are outright falsification/vandalism. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has returned as 2600:1017:B408:EB9C:98B7:448D:C65A:7595 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Gnome de plume (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like BMK took care of it. Should we alert WP:ANIME about this guy? I guess if anyone can tell if he's hoaxing anime articles, they'd probably know. I cleaned up the horror film stuff, but I don't really know anime very well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Now it looks like Twohourslater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest account, restoring the edits of Sanadate that were reverted. Gnome de plume (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is Twohourslater, and I am claiming not to be a sock puppet of Wooeyparks. I don't know who that is. I only put those edits on those voice actors from Hell Girl in because I've watched the anime and it even says their names on the Japanese wikipedia. Twohourslater (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Blocked and reverted. WP:DENY. GiantSnowman 12:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Now, he's back again as 2600:1017:b423:30d5:90f7:d0aa:796c:263d (talk · contribs · WHOIS). All of his edits have been reverted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And also 70.199.77.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Maybe we should just semi-protect these articles. I don't think he's going to stop. I don't have time to examine his edits right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Semiprotection seems prudent, but that's a lot of articles. Anyone up for it? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought this might happen. He just came back as Kyleoconnor (talk · contribs), an old sock of Wooeyparks. I guess we could move this over to SPI, but it's blindingly obvious what's going on. I guess we can be thankful that this guy is not subtle when he creates sock accounts. If I'm not mistaken, Kyle's user page used to redirect to Wooeyparks' before User:Kyleoconnor was deleted and recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC) At the very least, there's some funny business going on with his user talk: diff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it, all recent socks known to me have been blocked. GiantSnowman 11:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Taunting at 3RRN

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

---

Some admin please take a look and stop this. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. AlbinoFerret 02:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by whom? QuackGuru (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That you ask that question says more than anything I could say. AlbinoFerret 03:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I asked you a direct question, yet you are unable to provide a specific response. Can you try to be specific? Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The AN3 request mentioned is quite a mess. First of all, I see no talk page discussion on Fat embolism, nor much of one on Hypocalcaemia (CFCF did post one here). The diffs provided, as well as the history of both articles, don't show a gross violation of 3RR. However, seeing no talk page discussion on either article is concerning. Looking at the evidence, I believe that there was, but I do not believe that any action is required at this time so long as a discussion is started on each talk page before any more reverts are made to either article by either user.

Looking at this AN3 from a taunting/arguing perspective: When Ozzie10aaaa was confronted about the possibility of restoring primary sources against WP:MEDRS, he avoided answering the question when asked to clarify, and even resorted to discrediting QuackGuru by mentioning his block log, when asked repeatedly to review his article reversions. QuackGuru, despite being given the same answer multiple times, continued to keep pressing, asking over and over, when it was clear that Ozzie10aaaa didn't want to interact with him or answer his questions, and instead wanted an uninvolved administrator to review the AN3 discussion. QuackGuru - I think it's time to step away from that discussion and discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. Your consistent poking at Ozzie10aaaa in that discussion is obviously not going to get you the answer you're looking for. Ozzie10aaaa - Instead of resorting to the argument methods that you did, remember that it's best to focus on content. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reading over that "discussion," it sounds like both of them could use a good trout slap. It reads like the bickering of children: "You answer first." "No, you answer first." "Nuh-uh, I asked first." "Well, I'm not gonna answer you." "I want an answer!" Etc. Ravenswing 08:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Now thats funny, and anyone with more than one child can see the similarities.AlbinoFerret 14:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Without touching the merits of anyone's argument, they're both acting uncivilly. Ravenswing 15:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There was also absolutely no reason for TracyMcClark to bring it here, since an admin was going to deal with it sooner or later at ANEW anyway. Not everything needs to come to AN/I. BMK (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:AN would have been a better place. AlbinoFerret 01:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There was a damn good reason for posting - It stopped the taunting, saved some time over there and gave those with too much time here the opportunity to waste the same. Outsourcing inside!--TMCk (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nah, petty bickering like that is silly and childish, but it's not an AN/I matter when it takes place on another admin noticeboard. Somewhere else, maybe, it depends on the amount of disruption. BMK (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Sigmund Freud

Hello, sorry if this isn't the right place to put this, but a sockpuppet of blocked user User:Kingshowman named User:FearlessTruthTeller recently edited Sigmund Freud, providing a rough explanation of the Oedipus complex [68]. Soon after, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator reverted his edits, only on the grounds of sockpuppetry [69]. I reverted their edits, claiming that they were beneficial to the article, only to be reverted by both FreeKnowledgeCreator and User:Jim1138 [70] [71] [72]. My question for you all is, should the edit be allowed? While it may defy WP:DENY and may be from a sockpuppet, the edit isn't vandalism, and thus I believe that the edit should be upheld. Thank you. --Chevvin (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit was part of a pattern of disruptive editing by User:Kingshowman and should be disallowed on those grounds alone. Kingshowman has consistently shown poor judgement about what sort of material is appropriate to the leads of articles. This really isn't ANI-worthy material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is absolutely ANI-worthy. It's obvious that both of us have different views on the edit, and our attempts at working it out through talking have seemed to failed. --Chevvin (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Chevvin - I agree that the edit was not vandalism. But, instead of reverting, why not just edit the page and manually add that article content back yourself :-)? It'll satisfy WP:DENY (since the edit will be from you, not the sock) and the contribution will stay on the article. I really don't think that an ANI is absolutely needed here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If I did manually edit the page, it would be reverted by FreeKnowledgeCreator instantly, and he would have no reason not to. If he can undo my revert, what's stopping them from reverting my edit? --Chevvin (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No Chevvin, this is a routine content disagreement that you should have first discussed at the talk page of Sigmund Freud - as I requested. The only possible reason for raising any of these issues on ANI is to get the latest Kingshowman sockpuppet blocked promptly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator and Jim1138 - What is your basis or proof that this user is a sockpuppet? FreeKnowledgeCreator, your edit summary on this edit only says that you are "very familiar with this user". Jim1138, you also reverted an edit saying that the user is a "blocked sock" - I don't see a WP:SPI filed for this user, and FearlessTruthTeller is definitely not a "blocked sock". ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

His connection with Kingshowman was immediately apparent from the edits he made at Sigmund Freud, and with all respect, Oshwah, he effectively admitted to being a sock at the requests for article protection page, before denying he was a sock here. I provided a link to the de facto admission below. De facto admissions of socking seem to be this user's style, as witness the comments by the sock account Parrhesiast at its talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, FreeKnowledgeCreator. I just now read the discussion below. To address the root of the ANI discussion: Chevvin - just edit the page and add the content manually (so long as the content itself is not disputed). If there's proof of socking, then it should go into a SPI case to be investigated. In normal circumstances, reverting edits made by accounts evading blocks or bans, or edits made in violation of such bans do not count against 3RR. However, there's no WP:SPI; the account has not yet been appropriately determined to be a sock. I think we just need to choose our battles here and evaluate priorities. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oshwah, I understand that you are trying to be even-handed, but the evidence that the account is Kingshowman is overwhelming at this stage. Why do you think a not-yet-blocked account would talk about the reason it got blocked, referring to a past dispute in doing so? Not blocking the user right away is only delaying the inevitable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, FreeKnowledgeCreator - I think my timing got mixed up in edit conflicts earlier, so I'll explain here. You are 100% correct; I didn't see your edit diff below until after my previous response. Self admission is pretty much a slam dunk as far as proof goes. I wanted to make sure that the root of this ANI was discussed, in that manually adding the material back to the Sigmund Freud article would satisfy WP:DENY and avoid an edit war. Since there was proof of socking, the reverts were legitimate. I apologize if I created any confusion. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we get an admin notice going on FreeKnowledgeCreator, for attempting to act as the dictator of the Sigmund Freud, Martin Heidegger, and Friedrich Nietzsche pages? This guy pursues personal grudges above encyclopedic content! The user in question, whom I have no relation to, was only banned for making fun of FreeKnowledgeCreator, playfully. All of his edits were constructive, as you may also have found out purely by researching, as I did. Thanks for reading, friends!FearlessTruthTeller (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

See this edit by the editor above, where he effectively admits to being Kingshowman ("I am not "disruptive" or a vandal- the only reason I even got blocked is because I said you'd never read Heidegger and later you admitted I was right and you hadn't read Being and Time"). The editor's comment above shows that he can't even keep his story straight. Wikipedia needs to stop indulging him and follow the good advice at WP:RBI. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Who can even recall what those users were even blocked for, and this user has only been productive! Let us give the fearless speaking of truth a chance. These edits are plainly constructive, and therefore the true vandals are they who revert them. Sometimes, serving the Truth is difficult. FreeKnowledgeCreator must someday Learn the hardest lesson of all: to put his love for knowledge above his petty personal animuses. I trust you will do the right thing. FearlessTruthTeller (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That user is Kingshowman and needs an immediate block. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

FearlessTruthTeller blocked as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN - Thank you for seeing through the haze of confusion that I probably contributed to above and for taking quick and appropriate action on that account. Now that this matter is taken care of, Chevvin - do you still have any questions or concerns regarding the initial reason that you opened this discussion? Or can we go ahead and close this? ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Not any more. As long as FKC doesn't revert the edit, which we've generally agreed upon to be constructive, I think that we can leave this topic to rest. --Chevvin (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wait up. We're not closing anything until FreeKnowledgeCreator comes clean: did you, FKC, or did you not read Sein und Zeit? And if you didn't, what makes you think you're good enough to even make routine edits to Meghan Traynor articles here? We have standards, you know, and as true Heideggerians Bishonen, Favonian, and I can make your life a living hell. So get to reading--and not in translation, lazybones. Dzjerman only! Drmies (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I assume your comment is meant to be humorous, Drmies. Personally I find it an ill-judged attempt at humor. Kingshowman accused me of being an ignoramus who has not read either Heidegger or Freud. I have no interest in hiding what I do or don't know. I admitted on the Heidegger talk page that the only Heidegger I have read is Introduction to Metaphysics (in contrast, I count myself reasonably familiar with Freud). Other admins can let me know whether there are any serious issues here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The content may be restored by any editor in good standing editing in good faith. Once that happens, 3RR exemptions no longer apply. However if the material itself is under dispute or adds little to the article then the talk page should be used first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The material definitely is under dispute; I don't consider it a good addition. Chevvin needs to discuss the matter on the talk page of the Freud article, as I originally requested. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

NB, Kingshowman is still at it, now editing as User:EminentScholar. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• @FreeKnowledgeCreator: you cannot just claim WP:DENY in an edit war and expect to be immune from WP:EW if you fail to pursue your claims in the proper forum (SPI). That is just not how it works. Even if you feel the evidence is overwhelming, even if you feel you're unequivocally right, you either handle the accusation appropriately or refrain from making it. Not doing this and choosing to "DENY-revert" the edits instead still disrupts the project and creates unnecessary drama for everyone (as evidenced by this very thread). Furthermore, if a different editor re-adds the content, you cannot legitimately remove it per DENY. If DENY is the only reason you're citing for reverting a third editor who has stepped in, the action is tantamount to an unexplained revert since your rationale is inapplicable. Please keep this in mind should the situation arise again. Swarm ♠ 05:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The first edit by brand new editor EminentScholar was to restore an edit made by a Kingshowman sock. Respectfully, how likely do you think it is that the account is not another Kingshowman sock? In the (unlikely) event its not a Kingshowman sock, it would be a meatpuppet. It's quite common to point out obvious socks at ANI, so why the anger? You might also have noticed that this thread was not started by me, but by another editor, so why would you accuse me of creating unnecessary drama? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with whether or not you're right about sockpuppets or meatpuppets. The complaint was that you also reverted editors who *weren't*. And again, if you think there's obviously sock or meat puppetry going on, just start an SPI. Swarm ♠ 06:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's an obvious WP:DUCK case, you can also bring it here or grab an active admin. SPI can become backlogged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I had assumed that Swarm's comment was a response to my posting about EminentScholar; I see now that it wasn't (I misunderstood, but Swarm's comment was very confusing). My reverting Chevvin at Sigmund Freud was an example of the routine disagreements between editors that occur all the time, and I did not invoke WP:DENY as a reason for it. I'm currently trying to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks more or less resolved to me, anyway. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this matter is resolved as well. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Swarm, they were WP:Socks, and I would have repeatedly reverted them as obvious WP:Socks as well. And as for Chevvin, I wouldn't be so quick to state that he is not a WP:Sock. But since you have no evidence that he is one, while I do have such evidence, it's understandable that you would WP:Assume good faith as far as his editing goes, even though he edits like a non-WP:Newbie. He has the "I edited Wikia" excuse on his user page, but that doesn't come close to explaining the seasoned level of his Wikipedia editing. He's not Kingshowman, but he's not a WP:Newbie either. I'll gather more and more evidence, and eventually report that matter. That is, unless Chevvin wants to go ahead and come clean.

Thanks to NeilN for handling this matter, and all WP:Sock matters, well. John Carter handles WP:Sock matters well too. So I also thank him. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you're pinging me about this, but you're hitting on two separate issues. Regarding WP:DENY reverts of 'obvious' socks: if you want to edit war with socks, that's your prerogative and I couldn't care less. It doesn't change the point made in my first four sentences at all. And regarding Chevvin, the second point I made still stands too. You're claiming that Chevvin may be a sock but given the fact that you need to gather more evidence before even starting an investigation tells me that this is not an obvious case of WP:DENY. If you're going to accuse someone of sockpuppetry, put up or shut up. If you're not going to assume good faith, collect evidence and file a report in good faith, but don't sit here blowing hot air at ANI about how you have evidence that one of the users is a sock. It's still a personal attack. Suspected sockpuppetry is not remotely an excuse for the behavioral guidelines to go out the window, which is something that you and FKC obviously still need to learn. Swarm ♠ 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To me it was obvious from the outset which accounts were Kingshowman socks. Reverting them seemed appropriate. What do you suggest I should have done instead, Swarm? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, I WP:Pinged you because you are acting like editors should forgo common sense. Forgoing common sense when it comes to obvious WP:Sockpuppet cases results in matters such as the Jdogno5/Michael Demiurgos disaster. WP:Assuming good faith, when editors should not have been assuming it, in that case came with the price of a year of disruption/damage, as noted by Betty Logan. Reverting WP:Socks is not WP:Edit warring; it is pretty clearly stated as an exemption at the WP:Edit warring policy. Any WP:Administrator who chastises people for accusing editors of being WP:Socks when they know those editors are WP:Socks, or blocks editors for "edit warring" with editors they know to be WP:Socks, does not deserve to be a WP:Administrator. I don't need to learn anything about how to deal with WP:Sockpuppetry cases; my track record for catching them is pretty solid, as many people at this site know. I couldn't care less if you disapprove of my style for catching them. I certainly couldn't care less for you defending them, unless that defense harms Wikipedia. But while we're on subject of people who need to learn things, you could learn a lot from NeilN. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And I always eventually "put up," by the way; it can take days, months or a year, but it happens. It took me months to finally get around to officially reporting Michael Demiurgos, but the job got done nonetheless. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell your problem is but nowhere do I defend socks or suggest they can't or shouldn't be reverted, or suggest that editors can't use common sense, nor have I chastised anyone for doing so. I'm not sure what exactly it is you're projecting onto the points I've raised, but please don't try to twist my meaning or try to discredit me via some bizarre straw man. My points are incredibly straightforward and they're not wrong. Swarm ♠ 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, I similarly don't know what your problem is. From what I've read in this discussion, you were indeed suggesting that editors forgo common sense, and acting like we shouldn't revert WP:Socks on the spot or call them WP:Socks when they are without a WP:Sockpuppet investigation taking place. You stated, "FreeKnowledgeCreator you cannot just claim WP:DENY in an edit war and expect to be immune from WP:EW if you fail to pursue your claims in the proper forum (SPI). That is just not how it works. Even if you feel the evidence is overwhelming, even if you feel you're unequivocally right, you either handle the accusation appropriately or refrain from making it." That, and your stating that FreeKnowledgeCreator was being disruptive, is incorrect on so many levels, and shows that you don't deal with these types of editors (WP:Socks) as much as NeilN and I do. NeilN, for example, will claim WP:DENY and revert a WP:Sock on the spot, more than once if necessary; he did that even before he became a WP:Administrator earlier this year. His experience with such matters gave him the sense to act swiftly and appropriately in this case. That is what we need our WP:Administrators to be doing in WP:Sock cases when the editor is so obviously a WP:Sock. WP:Socks are to be reverted on the spot when an editor familiar with the WP:Sock master knows it's a WP:Sock and feels that the edits are best left off Wikipedia, or wants to enforce the WP:Block evasion violation. The same applies to cases where the person is an obvious WP:Sock to others. The WP:Sockpuppet investigation can come afterward, if it's needed at all. Like FreeKnowledgeCreator, I also came up against an editor who simply didn't understand what should be done in cases of an obvious WP:Sock, and suggested I should be waiting for the WP:Sockpuppet investigations to conclude in such cases instead of reverting; see User talk:Vanjagenije/Archive 9#Something you said..., and what others disagreeing with that editor stated. So I don't agree that what you've stated in this thread is correct (not in its entirety). This is certainly one of those agree to disagree moments for me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression here that there is a disagreement regarding the definition of an "obvious" sock, and how to handle such. I also get the impression that what might be obvious to one person might not be obvious to another. It is also, of course, possible for something which is "obviously" true to, occasionally, be factually wrong. But it seems to me that there is a bit of leeway built into the system on this matter, at least until such time as the phrasing is changed. John Carter (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, John. This discussion and the one I had at Vanjagenije's talk page show that. What is an obvious WP:Sock is also different for me because of my significant experience recognizing them. For example, in the recent BigSportsUnion case, I knew he was a WP:Sock, but I played it cool by pointing to reasons why I know he is not a WP:Newbie, and by making it clear that I would be interested in knowing what his previous account was. I didn't have to wait for long; he was indefinitely blocked soon afterward by Ponyo. I discussed obvious WP:Socks with JamesBWatson, who found my user page section about WP:Socks helpful; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19#A small point, but an interesting one. Also see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56#G5, where JamesBWatson and I have the same or similar takes on dealings with WP:Socks, and where there is also disagreement. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As a regular editor, I practiced what I thought was common sense. Revert the obvious sock and report to the appropriate venue which may be SPI, ANI, AIV, or an admin's talk page. The sock had to be reported anyways to get blocked and the report indicated I was claiming a 3RR exemption for any future reverts. There's been the occasional suggestion here in the past that editors refrain from going over 3RR until the report has been processed. I reject that as persistent socks can cause a good deal of disruption before an admin takes notice and acts. However, you need to have clean hands (i.e., uninvolved editors can see why you thought it was an obvious sock) and be aware when you can no longer claim the exemption (e.g., another editor keeping the sock's edit or blatant BLP issues overriding socking concerns). I don't think anyone (admin or non-admin) would disagree with this practice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @User:Swarm I know exactly what (or who) the hell her problem is. @Flyer22 After we crossed paths yesterday, it seems that you felt the need to lash out. Here then is my response to your "my style for catching them" link that you came here to advertise. You claim that you "put up"; but you are still claiming on your user page, in the link at the start of the linked section, (as is emphasised by the duck picture), after well over a year, that I am a sockpuppet - with no evidence to support that. This proves that you are full of shit. You insinuate, in the very next sentence on your page, that I am a "returning/indefinitely blocked pedophile". This casual assertion, again concealed with absolutely minimal ambiguity that would never pass as such in any forum outside of Wikipedia, reveals that you are a completely vile and worthless human being. Please remove the section immediately (as you were obliged to do over a year ago). zzz (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm kind of wondering whether the over-the-top personal attacks in the above comment might qualify for some sort of action on their own. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Y'know, you'll have to try harder than that. It's clearly not a comment - it's a fair and measured observation followed by a request. Thank you. zzz (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you consider calling someone a"completely vile and worthless human being" a "fair and measured observation," may I say that there are serious questions regarding your possible competence to edit in a collaborative setting. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't read the message (or you have some very strange ideas). zzz (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And you obviously don't know what you are talking about. My commenting in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with you. You stated "After we crossed paths yesterday, it seems that you felt the need to lash out." You make it seem like we had a WP:Edit war the other day, or that I focused on you. I did not. And if I "lashed out" above, so did Swarm. I have not been thinking about you, and nowhere on my current user page do I state or imply that you are a WP:Sockpuppet. I learned to stop interacting with you because of your obsession with me and your WP:Disruptive behavior. Others cited you as clearly obsessed with me and as unhinged, and you have wonderfully displayed that again by trying to start a fight with me in this thread and by making it about you, despite the fact that it's common for me to comment on WP:Sock cases here at WP:ANI and identify WP:Socks here. But good luck with your vendetta against me; you'll need it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you deny it. I invite anyone to look at the section entitled "WP:Sockpuppet watch" and put their mouse over the link "some Wikipedia editors sought to have it changed" with a picture of a WP:DUCK craftily added to it. And then say with a straight face that you're not "stating or implying" that I'm a sockpuppet. That is just more lies. And it was just a stunning coincidence - of course - you suddenly turning up here and advertising the section. You've already been told, at great length, to remove the section, so I don't see what "luck" has to do with anything. zzz (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

And one more thing: Let's be clear that the only reason you keep obsessing about me or others thinking that you are a WP:Sock (yes, I certainly was not the only one to conclude that you are one) is because you feel threatened by it. Actual non-WP:Socks do not feel threatened by people thinking that they are a WP:Sock (not usually anyway); they do not go on a war path to try to prove their innocence; doth protests too much. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Changing your story then, from "I always put up". No one ever called me a sock except you, not to my face anyhow. Your arguments are weak - see Law of Holes. zzz (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect on all accounts. Your skills for interpreting matters are as flawed as they ever were. For example, stating that I insinuate that you are a pedophile in that section? Absurd. I removed the other section, as you very well know; nowhere am I required to remove the current section, and I won't be removing it. You are free to try to get me to do so, as you no doubt will, given your obsession with me and your doth protests too much warpath. But that won't be happening. Do stop talking to me unless absolutely necessary. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive AFD behavior by UDIK12

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

---

UDIK12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for interfering with the AFD process on an article he has created. Now that his block has ended, he has resumed removing the AFD tag from the article. He has recieved three additional warnings since his block has expired, including a final warning. Please see diffs: 1, 2, and 3. Thank you. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 01:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the behavior is happening on other articles such as in this diff. I think it is becoming clear that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 02:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked him for one week. It's hard to unilaterally label him as NOTHERE short of a consensus that his articles are inappropriate for Wikipedia but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Swarm ♠ 04:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Sport Club Corinthians Paulista

Hello. The mentioned page has been a target of vandalism, probably from unregistered Brazilian users who support another club. Corinthians is widely a target of such thing in Brazil due to its importance and let's say some jealousy from other supporters. Anyway, this user seems to think that relating the club to something homosexual is cool and a mockery. He invents a group of supporters and add it to the article clearly mocking. I've reverted it before and he added back. A registered user probably restored them in good faith due to not comprehending what was happening. I told him and he's not supposed to revert those edits. But the unregistered IP returned and once again thought he was doing something awesome. I suggest his block as there was no good faith at all. Here are the links: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gsfelipe94: - IP warned. In future I suggest you please use WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 09:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Violation of NPA, POLEMIC, POVPUSH, CPUSH of by Nishidani

WP:NPA Personal attack – "arguing on behalf of organizations with an ethnic cleansing programme" and after I continuously asked him to delete. [73] [74] [75] [76] His answer was "it is impersonal, and does not name you" which I find more insulting then the original. Who was it directed to then??? It hasn't been deleted yet!

WP:POLEMIC Quotes such as "a convenient political story to allow people from Brooklyn or Moldavia with no historic connections to the area..." or "...the assumption that a non-existent God was a real-estate tycoon dispensing favours to non-historical figures like Moses and Joseph whose fairy6 tales..." might not be personal but I find them very offensive. To say they expose extreme bias would be an understatement.

WP:POVPUSH

• Morally wrong POVPUSH – [77] [78] [79] [80] The assailant is presented as the victim. How about this – Two brothers, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi were shot dead after (allegedly???) killing 11 people at Charlie Hebdo.
• Severe POVPUSH – "Regavim (רגבים) is an Israeli NGO, one that, according to its critics, is described as a 'settler-colonial NGO'.[1"] - I believe it speaks for itself. Completely off of any imaginable line.
• In editorials on Jpost two NGO members falsified Yaakov Havakook book. While the Regavim person was 'demonstrating the unreliability of Regavim', B'tselem person was found to have 'impressions of reading Havakook's book'. I can see no reason but PPOV.

WP:CPUSH

Is there a good way to give evidence for CPUSH beyond asking one to read the talk page?

• Demands other editors to quote policy for removal of material[81][82] but himself support removal removal based on lengthy explanations not based on policy.[83][84][85]
• On Susya#WP:OR again.Settleman for example I asked Nishidani help build consensus ("You are a big boy. Make a constructive suggestion") instead of removing material. Then again started a whole conversation about Regavim which was discussed on the talk page and RSN.
• Havakook's book (Hebrew), quoted by the UN, scientific publications and NGOs on both sides, was questioned again with some allegations of no oversight etc'. (This is from an editor who uses all kind of NGO material published on their site). At the end I had to translate for him an additional part of the book.
• In regards for Havakook (again in Hebrew which he doesn't read), He pushed me again and again on whether the chapter talk about Susya, which I had to answer several times. Then here he just drops in text that doesn't even mention the subject of the question (status quo on Temple Mount) and when asked about it give some lengthy explanations[86][87].
• Oppose 'pro-Settlers' info b/c it is 'generic'/'political statements' and edit-in 'anti-settlers' info b/c it 'has also been mentioned'.

I was debating whether to file this before or not but the double standards Nishidani has are just impossible to work with. He hold other editors to one strict standard, but don't hold himself nearly to the same demands, meanwhile, he just wasted my time. Then comes the NPA which he refused to delete and POLEMIC statements which really do not belong anywhere on wikipedia. Some of POVPUSH he exercise isn't just pushing a point of view but like the example above, presenting attacker as a victim is IMHO immoral.

Note - I prepared this for WP:ARBPIA3 but was told by one of the admins that it doesn't belong there but here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settleman (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 September, 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, if anything, a WP:BOOMERANG is in place. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you ...Settleman, who first start an article about said (hardly notable) "Yaakov Havakook" (Havakook does not have a PhD, and has never worked for any academic institution), then proceeds to push him as an "academic". This, while at the very same time "branding" David Dean Shulman (a professor at Hebrew Uni., ) as a  mere "Ta'ayush activist": here here, here, here, here and here. It is simple, really; if you support Israeli settlers on Palestinian West Bank and the expulsion of Palestinians from their land: then you are instantly hailed as a genius. If not: Booo: you are a "Ta'ayush activist" ..or worse. So predictable. Get over it, Settleman: however offended you are: it is still a fact that many (most?) people consider Israeli settlers on the West Bank as absolutely nothing better than thieves. Yes: thieves. And if people don´t want to be called thieves; that´s simple: don´t steal. (And don´t give me that history part: unless we want, say Romans to come to London, and kick Londoners out of their homes because "London was once ours!". Sorry, it doesn´t work that way.) Huldra (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Huldra, instead of so many words in a forum manner: let's be more simple and read his author page:

• "David Shulman is the Renee Lang Professor of Humanistic Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an activist in Ta’ayush..."

already existing in a "Huldra, Nomoskedasticity & Pluto2012 reverts" topic where you are nebtioned too. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman is WP:NOTHERE. He is on wikipedia only to defend the image of Israeli settlers as proven by his edit war here or his pro-Arutz Sheva pov-pushing (here, here or here). He was warned for this. He also accuses other editors to be hypocrite at the ArbCom despite he was asked to avoid such attacks. There are sevral other exemples of WP:POINT and WP:POV pushing directly linked with this issue of pro-settlers [paid?] editing. At best, he has a deep conflict of interest. I add that I am amazed by the number of policies Settleman knows as well as the arcanes of wikipeida, this just after 6 weeks of editing. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: the answer of Nishidani to this WP:AN/I request (Added by Pluto2012 (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)).

I strongly endorse Huldra's suggestion to consider this a case of WP:BOOMERANG. Zero^talk 00:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: A time-honored tradition here is that people who report someone have their own behavior looked at too. I honestly believe that you would not come out looking good from any dispassionate comparison of your editing with Nishidani's. Zero^talk 09:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Is it your private opinion or as administrator's one? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Under the rules I don't have extra authority as an administrator in areas of the encyclopedia which I actively contribute to. So my comment should be taken as the opinion of an ordinary editor with experience of both people under discussion. Zero^talk 02:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To all who criticizes Settleman: do I understand right that you have no claim to Nisidani (i.e. he did not break any Rules)? --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This user obviously doesn't understand the policies and guidelines he linked to above. I also support a WP:BOOMERANG for Settleman. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: @Pluto2012: @Zero0000: @Sturmgewehr88: - This has nothing to do with Shulman or WP:BOOMERANG. Except for 1 comment on Huldra talk page, he wasn't even part of the discussion (I accepted and remove similar LABELs from Arutz 7). This has everything to do with I wrote wrote above about Nishidani's behavior towards other editors. You comment are nothing but an attempt to derail the discussion from the real issues. Settleman (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: per WP:BOOMERANG, if an editor comes to ANI with unclean hands, they can also have sanctions imposed on them; i.e. It's not "derailing the discussion", it's pointing out "the real issues". ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 10:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: I'm not pro-Arutz 7, I just think it is as reliable as Ma'an which Nishidani uses quite often. You are most defiantly anti-Arutz 7 as you falsified a source to title it Neo-Zionist (even on a good day it wasn't just OR. The source doesn't even mention A7 and neo-zionism in the same paragraph). For anyone who looked for a WP:BOOMERANG, here it is. Settleman (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Huh? The interview is called "An interview with Arutz Sheva´s Yishai Fleisher", where Fleisher is introduced as their "director of programming"...and he defends "neo-Zionism"....and you claim it has nothing to do with Arutz Sheva?? Huldra (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Again, you *really* needs to address this. You accuse Pluto2012 of one of the worst wiki-crimes there is (in my book): falsification of sources. But your diff does not back you up. So please explain, or withdraw your allegation against Pluto and apologise to him. Huldra (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: I stand by my accusation. A question in an interview with one staff member of Arutz 7 about another organization, Kumah, is completely irrelevant to A7 and thus consist of falsification of the source. Do you really argue it isn't? I removed it 3 hours before stating 'Not supported by source' and Pluto's answer 'Is there really a nuance ? That was supported by the source' which is false.

@Settleman: That is not how I read it at all. The way I read this, with that headline, was: here we get the official Arutz Sheva´s view. At most, the mistake was to say "In the media, Arutz Sheva defends the Neo-Zionist ideology by opposition to Post-Zionism," instead of specifying: "In the media, Arutz Sheva´s Yishai Fleisher defends the Neo-Zionist ideology by opposition to Post-Zionism." (Btw: your "ping" did not work: I have no idea why) Huldra (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Your proposal fails OR, SYNTH and probably more policies I don't even know about. Settleman (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: I honestly do not agree. But I would like to hear "outside" opinion on this, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: You opposed titling Shulman as Ta'ayush activist when the book name in Hebrew is "Dark Hope: Journal of a Ta'ayush Activist" but you propose titling a whole organization b/c of the opinion of a staff member? And opposing post-Zionism does not equal neo-Zionism. By all mean, take this to WP:ORN. Settleman (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: If I saw an interview, in say jewishpress.com named "An interview with Ta'ayush's Shulman", I would assume that the opinions voiced were those of Ta'ayush (and presumably also Shulman), yes. But you are telling me that assuming that a jewishpress.com interview called "An interview with Arutz Sheva's Yishai Fleisher" has nothing to do with Arutz Sheva; more than that: you actually accuse Pluto2012 for falsification for making such an assumption. I think people can draw their own conclusions from this. Huldra (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have left Settleman an A-I alert warning; discussion here made the need for that clear. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As for tendentious editing, look carefully at this, from Settleman: he use google books for finding books which have *both* the words “taayush radical”", (see here), and then puts the result into the Ta'ayush -article. Now, that an editor, who searches the net for certain biased info, accuse other editors of being biased; what is the word for that? Ah, yes. ---- Huldra (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Let's not kid ourselves, stating that editors in PIA article has bias is almost like saying they are breathing air and your settlers=thieves comment above is an evidence for your own bias. I don't think this is an issue if you respect the encyclopedia and other editors. Even for Susya where I was very involved, I presented text that supported Palestinians (Albeck+int'l law) and on al-Tuwani (proof of village existance).

This complaint isn't about Nishidani's bias but conduct. So derailing the conversation to our different biases is just that, derailing. If anyone wants to give comments on my own conduct, I will be happy to get the criticism and hopefully, explain. Meanwhile, I didn't hear one comment on Nishidani's behavior. Settleman (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman: you see, that´s the difference between us: I have never, ever searched the net for, say: Israeli+settler+thief ..and then inserted the result into Wikipedia articles. But YOU search the net for taayush+radical and then insert the result into a Wikipedia article. Huldra (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Just one comment. ‘Theft’ is how an expert on international law like (John Strawson) with Middle Eastern area competence describes the practices. That virtually all practices of dispossession in the West Bank contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention is well known. They are not acted on because of a technicality. UN Security decisions regarding the conflict are passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, and hence not binding, as they would be were they passed under Chapter V11, due to a 'political arrangement'. We justly do not use such language in wiki articles, because it does not look neutral and Israel disputes this. But it is not a ‘bias’ to consider the colonial enterprise in these terms: far too much of the technical literature supports that view. The Susya article, where you are so active, is an exemplary case-study of the Kafkian rules: there, the Palestinians have legal title dating back to 1881, title recognized as valid in Israeli law. The justice of that title was acknowledged by the military run 'civil administration' in 1982. It was reconfirmed by another CA expert in 2015. Notwithstanding this water-tight case, everything they have has been smashed, cemented over, stolen, with the complicity of the authorities, and they have been uprooted and trucked out and dumped on roadsides, because the settler project wants them to disappear. Law even in Israeli terms is not binding in the 'Far West' Bank, where as that idiom implies, the natives are Injuns: deemed by an aggressive colonial constituency you support to be aliens in their own land. It takes considerable serenity to handle these issues fairly, with justice, even if it really works out to balancing Israeli myths and the Palestinian realities. Wiki demands neutrality even in the description of a clash between a violent party and its victim. That does not mean that everything relevant to the conflict, if injurious to the aggressor's self-esteem, must be underplayed. The sources you are habitually pressing to have recognized as RS, Arutz Sheva and Regavim (NGO) don't recognize international law or human rights. And now, I am off to Ireland. My absence should not hinder administrators from making any judgement they feel due, against my behavior or otherwise. Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman who writes: "Let's not kid ourselves, stating that editors in PIA article has bias is almost like saying they are breathing air (...)."

Once more, you prove you don't understand what is wikipedia.

We all have opinions outside wikipedia, and of course these opinions has consequences on the way we edit wikipedia.

But having a 'bias' is more than this. It means that our personal involvment in the topic is so strong that we cannot comply any more with NPoV.

Having opinions IRL doesn't prevent somebody to put WP:PILLARS above his own opinions because he is there to develop a project of free encyclopaedia first.

But when you edit areas in which you can be involved IRL, it is nearly impossible to put your interest above wikipedia principles.

You have been given several chances but you proved you are in the bad category:

• when you introduce material in an article in order to blame some Muslim women about their (fanatic) actions on the Temple Mount whereas you "forget" what is done on the other side (suggesting to bomb al-Aqsa)
• when you insist deeply to make A7 WP:RS despite its background
• when you add sentences defending the image of a group to which you seem to be affiliated (settlers).

It would be my decision, I would ask you to make 100 edits in introducing pro-Palestian and anti-settler material (only). But what is asked you is on any topic, to sort everything by yourself and add everything alone.

@Settleman who writes: "Meanwhile, I didn't hear one comment on Nishidani's behavior."

Nishidani is a excellent contributor who has been the target of many biased editors and as anybody who can lose temper but I don't see where he would have done it in the current case.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: I believe my edits are NPoV and I welcome changes as long as they aren't just removals in order to hound me. What you describe is irrelevant content dispute that nobody prevented you from fixing. I added some later.

@Nishidani: The title for the land is far from proofing the existence of the village but this is a different discussion. I didn't removed any well sourced info that supported Palestinians and actually added some that supports Palestinian's position. But this complaint isn't about some content dispute but mostly the way you interact on the talk pages in addition to a few NPoV violations that go far beyond the definition of POVPUSH. Settleman (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Could we please have an admin issue a BOOMERANG for Settleman ASAP? WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc., etc., etc. What a fiasco! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I have no problem with being checked myself. I believe I will come out in pretty good shape though obviously not perfect. Everyone does mistakes.

• I can present the many times I took issues to the talk page when other editors disagreed with me and tried to build consensus. I have agreed to other editors suggestions even when I wasn't completely happy with them. Compromised.
• I initiated complete and well deserved overhaul to Susya from the state it was for some years.
• I went to the library to look at a book at Huldra's request.
• I presented photos of offline books and translated parts from Hebrew.
• I made a phone call to an NGO to ask for their source which then I used in the article.
• I started a new section at Temple Mount about status quo at Pluto's request, edited in 6k which by now grew to ~9k by other editors.
• I actively participate on WP:ARBPIA3 as though I am a relatively new editor, I believe there are many changes due.
• I have added meaningful pro-Palestinian information and on long text, I tried as much as I could to adhere to NPoV. For small facts like Ta'ayush being considered radical left (by Ta'ayush activist Neve Gordon and well know fact in Israel), my edit comply with WP:DUE.

I will probably not be online for the next 12 hours. Shana Tova. Settleman (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Huldra, sorry, but I deprodded the Havakook article--there's plenty of citations that prove the guy is notable. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Drmies, no need to say sorry, (I never edited the article): I just object to "promoting" a person with a MA to "academic"....while at the very same time "demoting" a professor to "activist". (I just don´t count just a MA as an "academic". Though this might be different in different countries: I recall as a mere Master-student, ordering some articles from Germany, and getting them, addressed to "Professor Doctor" me. Now, the Germans take titles seriously!) Huldra (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Academic or not, Havakook book is RS. Settleman (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I also have found myself repeatedly at odds with Huldra, Nishidani, Zero0000 and Pluto2012, as well as IRISZOOM, who is so far absent in this discussion, usually with more than one of them at the same time. Would there be anything uniting these editors? Fairness forces me to admit, that I have been both right and wrong, although I always try to make the right edit and think I usually succeed in that goal, and I still feel that in some instances I was forced into a situation where I had to agree to a less than optimal version. I would dislike the idea of a group of editors teaming up and dominating certain articles or a specific issue simply by numbers. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Would there be anything uniting these editors? Yes, probably: They're not here to promote a maximalist ethno-nationalist political ideology.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But are they here to demote it? Settleman (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop playing at "there's a cabal". It's the last bastion of editors with a childish attitude. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEFIELD threats and constant edit-warring at Turkey

• Heimdallr of Æsir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Heimdallr of Æsir has been consistently edit-warring at Turkey with very offending and threatening edit-summaries. Even after I opened a discussion at the talk page, and told him to participate in it, the user kept on edit-warring. The edit-summaries are also entirely non-constructive and aim to demean those users he comes across. For example:

Is it Turkish Kurdistan or Western Armenia? Both of them have the same map. You guys should better make up your mind, or you will start fighting each other over your conflicting irredentist dreams, which will never become true.

In another edit-summary:

Don't worry, we'll come for "all" of you, including Greece

Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Three reverts in the space of minutes. He's clearly not going to stop. Athenean (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

24-hour block. He seems to have a good point, that we should hesitate to use "Kurdistan" in this context because other countries have official jurisdictions named "Kurdistan" and Turkey doesn't, but of course that's not a reason to keep edit-warring after someone else tries to start a discussion and asks him to participate. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend The user is now socking with the use of an IP address. Please see the talk page of Turkey. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:IAR time here. The block was placed because he refused to talk; if he's using an IP address to talk, why should I block him? It's a matter of breaking the basic rules in order to fulfill a bigger purpose that we already wanted him to do in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend Then what's the point of blocking him if he's just going to sock his way out of it? Might I add that the IP is continuing his insults (i.e. "proves how DELUDED you are on this subject." or "Would you like to have some Turkish coffee for waking up?"), the same ones that got him in trouble in the first place. Besides, per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Blocking:

If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If someone is saying that the user who is edit warring is a sock puppet of some sort, the best thing to do is to contact someone who has CheckUser privileges and they can investigate the case. For example, User:Bbb23 is one of the CheckUsers who is able to investigate the case. Sorry for mentioning it out loud, but I'm sure he can get the job done. BigSportsUnion (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Then what's the point of blocking him...?" The point was to get him to stop edit-warring, and if 88.251.whatever is discussing but not edit-warring, I don't care. No problem with [88] or [89], and [90] doesn't by itself warrant an NPA block. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Heimdallr of Æsir has a name from Norse mythology. (To see the connection to Lord of the Rings, Google for 'Heimdallr Tolkien'). Based on his choice of user name and his interest in Turkey, this editor is most likely the same person as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to use admin tools based on your accusation, because it's not blatantly obvious, but I will request checkuser. Thanks for picking up on this! Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Broter misrepresenting citations and pushing an Islamophobic POV

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

All of the user's edits relating to Islam have had the singular purpose of making the religion look like a religion of terrorism, particularly in trying to portray Muhammad as a bloodthirsty warlord, usually using WP:PRIMARY-based WP:OR instead of mainstream academic sources. This included starting off with an edit war at Depictions of Muhammad ([91], [92], [93]).

As can be seen on his userpage, he does plenty of work relating to Mormonism and some to Christianity, and is generally able to ignore sectarian differences there. When it comes to Islam? His only book is titled "Islamic terrorism." Do I deny that that's a thing? Obviously not. But I am no more under the delusion that it represents Islam any more than polygamy represents Mormonism.

Recently, in the article Muhammad in Islam, Broter has taken to trying to add a cherry-picked quote to present Muhammad as forcing the conversion of Abu Sufyan, next to a bunch of sourced text describing Muhammad as sparing Abu Sufyan's life. He initially tried using a primary source, at which point I explained that we require non-primary modern academic sources. He then tried citing a obviously unacceptably sectarian work. When I explained that sectarianism of any form is not allowed here, he tried citing a Muslim source, as if that was the issue.

Here's the kicker: the secondary source cited, The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography, does not contain the quote it's being cited for. Search for "apostle of God" (in quotes), and none of the entries that come up begin to match the quote. It's not that the section isn't available to view. Page 227 (the cited page) is available, but doesn't even contain the words "apostle of God." The phrase "before your neck is cut off by the sword" appears no where in the book. Even the individual words 'neck' and 'sword' do not appear together in the book. I don't know whether this is because Broter is only getting his info from sectarian sources that would lie about their sources, or if it's because he's just decided to use any means necessary to present WP:THETRUTH about "the enemy," or if he doesn't understand that the quote actually has to be somewhere in the book for the citation to be valid, but the quote in question is not in that book at all. He has also added this false quotation to other articles. I'd've gone through the usual WP:DR if it wasn't for the witting or unwitting misrepresentation of sources.

Now, if someone who doesn't have a history of an Islamophobic bias wants to add modern, mainstream academic sources that discuss warfare and forced conversions carried out by Muhammad, fine by me. If Broter wants to keep working on LDS related articles, cool. But sectarianism of any sort has no place here. Broter has undeniable POV issues when it comes to Islam and/or Muhammad, and needs to back off from articles relating to either. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. The same quote is on our Abu Sufyan ibn Harb page, and appears to come from [ http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/ ]. That site is used a lot on Wikipedia.[94] I suggest for someone with more knowledge about Islam and the Quran than I have to bring this to WP:RSNB. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The quote is on page 277 of The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography, according to the sources, which I provided. You Ian.thomson, do not quote my sources correctly. I can not view the page 277 of this book on google books.--Broter (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The page you wrongly quoted Page 227 (not the cited page) is also not availabe on google books. So much for your search. Anyway the quote is on page 277 of this book.--Broter (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here's page 277, which is quite visible in that link. Where's the quote? Oh, not there, either. Probably because you got it from a sectarian source. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The quote is in the book [95], there they quote the work by Dr. Buti. I changed my source only because you ,Ian.thomson, wanted a modern muslim source. A modern non-muslim source is equally valuable! If the quote is not in the muslim source in the english translation, the non-muslim source is as valuable. The first modern source called Behind the Veil: Unmasking Islam was written by a nativ arab speaker. He translated from the original arab version of The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography. Probably you know the Middle East Media Research Institute, they report about speeches in the arab world which are not shown on western TV.--Broter (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said "cite a Muslim source," I repeatedly told you to cite a modern academic source. That you can only think in terms of "Muslim vs non-Muslim," don't seem to understand that Behind the Veil is a sectarian source, and don't seem to understand that it is sectarianism that is the problem (no matter how many times it is explained to you) are signs that you should not be editing articles relating to Islam. As I have asked you before, do you want us to start basing our articles on Mormonism on the opinions of imams? Do you want us to write the article on Joseph Smith from the perspective that he was an advocate of occultism, pedophilia, and polygamy? If not, then quit acting out the same behavior in articles on Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I admit that my only source was [96] and hope that I will not be punished. The said quote is anyway removed everywhere.--Broter (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

My work on Islam was generally well received with the exception of this instance. So please do not punish me for this mistake.--Broter (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Overlooked" =/= "well received." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think this editor, Broter, is clearly using Wikipedia to advance extremist views in violation of WP:POVPUSH and WP:NPOV. The misuse of sources and the denial of such misuse is astounding. The inclusion of hate speech from non-reliable sources is worrying. AusLondonder (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I will grant that his work on Mormonism seems to be in line with policy. A topic ban (even if just an informal voluntary one) from articles concerning Islam or Muhammad seems more in order than a WP:NOTHERE block. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution - Premature Arbitration Committee Filing

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

---

I am an uninterested party that was reviewing the GMO case on ArbCom when I came across a request. User:Whiteboyrobot has made a premature arbitration committee request after a short edit war on Talk:Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016 with User:JesseRafe. The request on ArbCom is incorrectly formatted and I removed it, [97]. I am opening the discussion here, although I believe that User:Whiteboyrobot needs a cool down period. Inomyabcs (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) The account looks less than a month old by looking at the contribs. Its possible they were not aware that Arbcom is the last step in the dispute resolution process. AlbinoFerret 05:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

...The first step in the dispute resolution process would, of course, be WP:DRR. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This user has gone far and above out of their way to target and harass me, and I think does not know how Talk Pages or histories work as I haven't undone a single of their edits. I was not even in that edit war. I made one neutral note on their Talk Page as they may have been in GF a new editor. Then the user completely unloaded on me, so I left a harassment/uncivil notice in case they targeted others so it would be known they weren't the only one. The stalker then accuses me of stalking? Unless they are actually a puppet master, and then, yes, I may have warned "them" multiple times. To boot, the user makes zero sense and is somehow delusional enough to see where I was interacting with and undoing some troll who was removing Jewish topics and references (and was called a member of the vast "Jewish Media Conspiracy" for my trouble) to then infer that I am myself an anti-Semite. It's truly rich in irony. JesseRafe (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing premature about it, actually. A cool-down period is indeed needed, for the stalker.

I have made it fully clear and gone far and above to express that I want to be left alone by JesseRafe. As you can see, this has not happened. This user is a serial harasser. I can guarantee they have done this to other users, are still doing it now, will continue to do so in the future, and must be stopped. There's no reason why one bad apple should affect the entire Wikipedia experience for all. The user has clearly been banned before, as can be seen from their talk page, and they are well overdue. I saw your talk page, obviously, and I know how a talk page works better than you do.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#User_space_harassment

This user is a classic example of a harasser.

Look at the user's poor excuse for professionalism and how they edit. You don't need an in-house historian to see which user was the very first to resort to personal attacks. The user's only purpose, as demonstrated by their online behavior, is completely FAKING good faith as a poor, transparent excuse to get their little digs in and making their weak little insults. Take a closer look at what the user says and you can see that they can't say a single thing without taking lazy shots at me. That is a fact. So, I am left to ponder, what integrity does this user have left? What possible reasoning could this user pull out of thin air to claim the moral high ground? The user has now gone far and above the unacceptable, into the territory of lawbreaking and slander, by calling me a stalker. How ironic. Let me tell you, ignorant one, what a stalker is. A stalker is a truly low subhuman form of individual who dedicates their entire existence to following someone all over an internet page and attempting to harass and intimidate them, as you have clearly done. Don't dish out what you can't handle.

When desperate and cornered, of course, predictably, the user resorts to one of the last tactics they have left: accusing someone else of that which you are. It’s too late. I called you on it first. You are a harasser and a stalker. Otherwise, you would have left me alone when ordered to do so in the first place. Leaving someone alone and not giving them undesired attention is not optional, it is not a request, and it is not a suggestion, it is an order and a requirement. Otherwise, that's when you cross the line legally into harassment. You have crossed that line. Now you've added slander. Do you have a lawyer?

I will now also be making a report of illegal defamatory behavior. I don't mind the extra work.

I can guarantee that I will be making a harassment/uncivil notice of my own. There is simply not enough that can be done to you. Now the world must know. I consider it a tremendous public service to expose a keyboard warrior acting out of contempt for the other users of Wikipedia, an online community and encyclopedia which belongs to all, not someone with severe problems who’s trying to project them on others, strangely enough, by attempting to eek out a little victory online. Your existence should not depend on me. You will not succeed.

My response has been to not back down to the cyberbully, to stand up for myself, and to not let you get away with it. That's not how bullies learn. You have done NOTHING neutral while mentioning my name, your entire online existence is a poor excuse for your sad little insults. Your contributions to the free encyclopedia don't seem to be many. Despite this serial harasser's many indications to the contrary, their insult of choice is not true, I have been editing Wikipedia for a grand total of eight years. All of a sudden it's a crime to open a new account? I didn't think so. I've been contributing for eight years altogether with no problems until now, when Captain Stalker here decided to try and make my life hell. You have failed. Unlike the individual who has devoted their self to following me all over Wikipedia, all day every day, I have a life outside of here, I make a living, I keep the lights on, so this hobby only takes up a miniscule single-digit amount of hours of my time every week. That does not mean I am a pushover, so watch out. It is ridiculous for someone with no grasp whatsoever of reality to begin throwing around that word "delusional". I do not think you know what that word means.

I am led to believe that YOU ARE INDEED an anti-Semite, based on your actions and your actions alone, bullying, harassing, and slandering a Jewish user, going to extreme lengths to edit and present the Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016 in a negative light. I do not feel the need to disclose personal details because they are not relevant and I do not wish to give thugs like you a reason to further harass me. Your actions and language make it extremely clear to me that you are nothing more than a hatemonger stuck in an old way of thinking. The only thing you have to show for yourself and the only thing you have brought to the table at Wikipedia is your own anger and hate. Otherwise, if you do not understand your own words, maybe English isn't your first language. Do you read your words before you edit? This can't come as a surprise to you... This is actually a little fun for me, putting you in your place, but you have to stop. It wouldn't be necessary in the first place if you weren't harassing me. You've been told to stop multiple times. You have no right to harass and slander someone without being responded to. I feel sad for you. Your creepy, stalker-ish obsession with me must end. I'm not looking for a relationship, or a mommy to watch me online. I'm an adult, I can tell someone when to leave me alone. You must leave me alone. Get a grip. Forget that I exist. Capisce? That is your best option, before you go further overboard and your slander begins to carry legal consequences.Whiteboyrobot (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Georgewilliamherbert, I may have forgotten to mention the legal threats in my note accompanying the templated indef-block notification. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Yeah. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Can I request that this user's edits, or at least the ones with my name in them be deleted like I somehow see some users' edits completely wiped out? Not even a week has gone by without me being insulted as part of the vast global Jewish Media Conspiracy as seen at Talk:Dutch_Schultz#Dutch_Schultz.27s_Judaism and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#Dutch_Schultz_and_Arnold_Rothstein. Being continually called an anti-Semite on top of that is going to confuse all the future trolls and vandals, not to mention also stings a little. Also, in the unlikely event this user forgets my name in the very likely event he creates a new account, it may make a de minimis contribution to preventing his future stalking of me. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't think this qualifies for revdelete. Maybe Georgewilliamherbert and/or Newyorkbrad feel differently... BTW, that IP (this one, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#Dutch_Schultz_and_Arnold_Rothstein) probably deserved a block, but it's a bit late for that now. I suggest that if there is a "next time", don't respond but revert, claiming NPA or something like that in the edit summary and alerting an admin via ANI or whatever. Early blanking is better than considering mopping up afterward. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Drmies. For what it's worth, there's a strong likelihood User:65.189.198.128 is the now-blocked WBR. Not worth my time and the backlash from this user for me to instigate an SPI on it. Just a note for any current or future-ly interested parties. JesseRafe (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Good lord. Most justified indef I've ever seen... and I've seen a lot. I'll keep a look-out. GAB^Hello! 22:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Move-war at Eastern Arabic numerals

An admin assistance is needed to stop move-war. User:Filpro is repeatedly moving Eastern Arabic numerals to Arabic–Indic numerals without a discussion taking place. The stable title (before yesterday, 13 September 2015) for the article before Filpro started move-warring was "Eastern Arabic numerals". In addition he is also vandalizing other pages like Indo-European languages, for which he has been warned on his talk page. Khestwol (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted to the old title and move-protected for a month. Haven't looked in to the other issue. Jenks24 (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:TheAnonymousCoward is not here to create an encyclopedia.

TheAnonymousCoward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not here to build an encyclopedia. The user is most obviously by their contributions a single purpose account, pushing their POV at Talk:Macedon and will not see both sides of the argument. The user is inactive and seems to watch the Macedon article and its talkpage, and when another editor makes a comment or edit that the user disagrees with, TAC removes it like here or argues it (there are many many edits).

Judging by the editor's contributions, the editor is not here to create an encyclopedia and I have warned the editor in the past to expand their focus. They seem to be unwilling to.

The editor has also been racist and launched a personal attack against me by referring to myself and Macedonians as "Skopjan" here (this is a highly racist term and despite saying I am Aussie the editor does not seem to understand) and also refers to Macedonia as "FYROM". The editor "dislikes" calling "state of FYROM" as "the Republic of Macedonia", [98]and this obviously shows the editor does not conform to a WP:NPOV and is inherently biased.

The editor is unwilling to compromise and simply says that "the academic community agree" even though I have provided sources to the contrary.

The editor should be blocked as they are not here to create an encyclopedia and as evidenced by their short contributions prefer to engage in a war and has made no edits outside of talkpages relating to Macedon.

Luxure Σ 07:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG here. Luxure has been goading TAC, insulting him as a SPA at every turn [99] [100] [101]. Here is is removing or editing TAC's talkpage comments [102] [103]. Here he is taunting Greek editors by calling Greece a banana republic [104]. If anyone is guilty of racism, it is him. After I warned him of discretionary sanctions, here he is calling me a "fuckwit" [105]. Here he is saying "you people make me laugh" at Greek editors [106]. Here he is calling Greek editors "insensitive wankers" [107]. This user has unclean hands, and an unhealthy obsession with this topic. I have already warned him of ARBMAC discretionary sanctions, don't know what else to do. Athenean (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This user called Luxure should be banned instead in my opinion, as Athenean said he's been attacking the entirety of the Greek people by calling their country a "banana republic", I've personally seen him characterizing people he disagrees with as fuckwits as Athenean said or any other insult commonly used by children when they are just frustrated and reply with insults instead of arguments, and he's done this over and over and over in this single talk page I'm active on. Can't help but wonder if he's the same rude, aggressive and POV pushing person on any other page he edits or he's an entirely different person altogether outside of this particular one. As for my characterization of the people of FYROM as Slavs or Skopjans, some countries have accepted the term "Macedonia" which in my opinion and indeed in the academic community's opinion it belongs to the northern province of Greece as does its history, and some countries have NOT accepted the term to describe this country and instead use the temporary term "FYROM". So this user accusing me of racism when I'm simply using an already used and accepted term by many nations and the NATO itself and on the other hand he's the one calling Greece a banana republic. His ridiculousness and racism is extraordinary and therefore he cannot be allowed to continue editing by accusing editors of racism simply when he has a problem with facts. As a POV pusher he regards this fact as an insult and demands that anyone who uses this term is banned from a site that aims at building an encyclopedia so he and his like minded despicable excuses of "editors" can edit it as they please. As an editor who does not edit wikipedia frequently I am not aware if I can ask for his ban here or if I have to create a similar page so I would appreciate some help on the matter. If it's possible to proceed from here I'd like to formally ask for this users ban for the reasons I listed here.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Banana republic as the term used by former Aussie Treasurer Paul Keating. "Insensitive wankers" delivered in Australian vernacular, not the other meaning (see here). I have warned TAC in the past about being an SPA (and other users)but seems to not have taken this on board. I have tried to make amends [108] (....I have taken on board your comments about my "aggressiveness" and I will try to be more civil. We are all human at the end of the day... Lets try to solve this asap. ). I have tried to maintain a sensible composure and yes, I have failed, in frustration with editors who will argue the point. For this I am sorry and I have promised to make amends and drop it [109] and unlike TAC I actually contribute to this encyclopedia and as for the "fuckwit" comment for that I am sorry. Luxure Σ 12:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The comments were refactored per WP:MOSMAC, however on reflection they should not have been due to it not being the main article but a talkpage. Comment was removed because TAC referred to Macedonians as "Skopjans", racist term. Both Athenean and TAC accuse me of having a "hidden agenda" despite numerous times of me telling them I am Aussie. The adding of the SPA template was warranted per WP:SPA. Luxure Σ 12:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Banana republic as the term used by former Aussie Treasurer Paul Keating. - So a racist term used by this person is ok to be used by you as well when you aim to insult a nation. Thanks for clarifying that you think Paul Keating whom I don't know, is the arbitrator of what is and what is not meant to be used as a racist slur, therefore absolving you of your misdeeds. As for you being an Aussie, I didn't know that the diaspora of that state that "should not be mentioned" by me by any other name than the name that doesn't belong to them, is not partly located in Australia. It's well known there are many people living there of that ethnicity as well, and I am sure that you're either one of them or you're otherwise affiliated with one of them. Otherwise your repeated disregard of what the academic community has to say on the matter in favor of using their own quotes out of context from websites such as "macedonia(dot)org" which you deny but you can't fool anybody, and your obsession with taking out of the specific article ANY phrase that could lead someone to think ancient Macedonia had much to do with Greece, cannot be explained. There's no direct way to prove that you're an extremely biased, one sided, POV agenda pushing and unethical editor but the clues which lead us to that conclusion are just too many. And now you've taken things to the next level by demanding users who "dare" to speak otherwise in talk pages should be banned. For those reasons listed above I ask that Luxure is prevented from editing any further, because all he's succeeded in doing is harass lots of people simply because they voice another opinion, arbitrate what is and is not racism and ask for the silencing of every different opinion. This is certainly not how you build an encyclopedia.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As you can see the user continues their battleground mentality. Banana republic, as used by PK, is not racist. Luxure Σ 13:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I wasn't even aware of your existence before YOU attacked me and others for having the "audacity" of voicing our opinions in the talk page. Proceeding into calling for my ban is not what I call peace offering, so I'll defend myself against this obvious harassment. And again, a racist term apparently previously used by Paul Keating, as far as I know is STILL racist. If you seek to absolve yourself this way you're mistaken.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Also see here Luxure Σ 13:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how does one harass so many, yet when he's dealt with the same tone starts crying "harassment". The epitome of hypocrisy right here.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite Block: As the reporter said, the user who doing all this trash-talk and personal attacks is clearly not here to contribute to Wikipedia. This site is not for any social media or any warring here. We want to keep this site as clean as we can, but it's not always been that way. I think it's time for TheAnonymousCoward to think over what it did wrong and maybe settle down for a while before contributing to this site again. Does that sound fair? BigSportsUnion (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering the "fuckwit" remark and other insults, I'd extend that block to Luxure. Both Luxure and TAC need to be blocked - TAC for being not here to contribute, Luxure for repeatedly breaking civility and making racist remarks towards the entirety of Greece. Both are in the wrong. Both should be blocked. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't think Luxure did anything wrong. Only TheAnonymousCoward should be. Luxure was telling exactly the truth about what went wrong and I think it's time for The AnonymousCoward should step down now. BigSportsUnion (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

BigSportsUnion the fact that you brush off every insult and racist remark he's made means you're not objective at all, so whatever. DN-boards1 I am not here to contribute only if you believe what Luxure has arbitrarily decided that my purpose here is. As far as I know the rules state that a user focusing on a specific article is not considered as a single purpose account. Here's what the "Single purpose account" article says about it: Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus. By contrast, 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, is more likely to suggest the user has the kinds of concerns described in the introduction. As everyone can see about the Macedonian kingdom article, I've never once made an edit until very recently, after a user asked about the meaning of a specific phrase, I explained, he edited the article and then I made a minor change to his edit and said in the talk page that If anyone thinks it should be said differently I'm open to discussion. Then the user Luxure came, started attacking everyone there because we had different opinions on the issue, and then he deleted the conversation I had with the user who edited the article. Therefore since I have only made a single change to that article along with that specific user whose name I cannot recall, and the rest of my activity on wikipedia is limited to the articles talk page, I see no reason why I should be banned. As for what you said about Luxure, I agree. As you can see he's been insulting, attacking editors personally continuously over the course of months on this articles talk page, and I imagine he's not a saint in the rest of them he edits, and he has used racist terms continuously whilst trying to tell us it's not racist because someone else said it first, or that it's not racist because he didn't mean it as an insult to an entire nation. As for what he tried to do here is simply to silence a different opinion, particularly mine this time because I wasn't giving up on the fact that I am backed up by historians, archaeologists and professors yet I am wrong for simply daring to make a minor edit to another users edit, AFTER I discussed it with him on the talk page. For all the above facts I as well believe he should be banned.TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As you can see this editor is obviously not here to edit the wikipedia judging by their comments above. False claims: "and then he deleted the conversation I had with the user who edited the article" So a talkpage bot archiving talk sections counts as deleting the convo? You can see why my frustration has got the better of me at that talkpage. Also " ... have only made a single change to that article ... the rest of my activity on wikipedia is limited to the articles talk page, I see no reason why I should be banned." Incriminating evidence? Luxure Σ 12:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As you can see this editor continues being provocative so he can get reactions out of people he doesn't like here. He talks about false claims and "bots", I admit I am lost there, don't know what he means by that. And of course he's unaware of what constitutes a single purpose account and a preferred focus account, calling incriminating evidence worthy of punishment the fact that someone he doesn't agree with has made a single edit to the article itself after having a discussion with another editor who edited the article too. As far as rules are concerned, editing an article is not "incriminating evidence" by itself. And with that statement I end my activity on this particular post created by this user, because he's either delusional at best, or deliberately provocative at worst. Either case indicates to me he's not worthy of my time and that's why he can continue this nonsense he started by himself. Please do consider banning him in order to save other users from wrongful accusations such as this. TheAnonymousCoward (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Problem can add

I ask help on the item First Italo-Ethiopian War,

I tried to have an agreement but we have not understood.

Now I added a photo of Wikimedia Commons relevant to the item [[:File:Two Italian soldiers survivors.jpg|thumb|Two Italians soldiers captured and prisoner after the Battle of Adwa.]]

and I have added not troop to specify the not involvement of a Russian army in this war.

Talk:First Italo–Ethiopian War

only these two things.

Mr. Bgwhite continues to delete my added. --Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This could be a WP:Boomerang. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mulugheta alula roma. This board is not the place to solve content disputes. Please have a look at the options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think this was sent on too quickly; the user needs to argue their point on the article talk page first. The problem lies in the "with not troops" phrase. First of all it's not proper English, but second, the comment is not supported by the footnoted source that follows. Thanks to Google Books I can complete this poor reference: pages 27-30 make it clear that throughout that period Russia did indeed supply military aid to Ethiopia. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• There actually is some discussion, but it is severely hampered by Mulugheta alula roma's poor English. And that Russian stuff, the sources are pretty clear, so I don't see what there is to dispute. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe http://ru.wikipedia.org is a better place for him/her? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Reporting user:Springee for Hounding and Tendentious editing

user:Springee has been disruptively editing and wikihounding individuals over the past few weeks. Springee has wikihounded user:HughD by following him to multiple articles and reverting his edits in part or in whole, as well as disruptively tagging his edits. [[110]][[111]][[112]][[113]][[114]][[115]][[116]][[117]]. In all of these articles, you can extend the list to 500 edits and see that Springee only became involved immediately after an edit by HughD and Springee's involvement was either to revert HughD's edit, or tag them under the guise of "undue" or "notability". You can do a simple Ctrl+F search for "springee" to see exactly where the user became involved in the article and see what their first few edits were. Springee had no previous involvement on these articles and it's clear he only became involved to disrupt the edits of another user.

Springee has also tendentiously reverted edits under the premise of "no consensus", which is a direct example of WP:TEND. As per wp:TEND "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article." It's one thing to object to material for RS, weight, or NPOV purposes, but to remove reliably sourced additions because "they didn't discuss it first and get consensus" is a direct example of tendentious editing. Here are multiple instances of these types of reverts by Springee [118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125]. What's even more concerning is that Springee applies his "no consensus" reasoning selectively. It appears that edits he/she agrees with don't get reverted for reasons of "no consensus" and Springee even goes out of the way, in some cases, to thank and welcome the addition of material added without consensus [126]. On top of that, the user protects information added without consensus by citing "no consensus" for removal. This inconsistnecy and selective application shows that this isn't just a matter of not understanding Wikipedia policy, but a matter of selectively disrupting disagreeable edits. I have discussed this matter with Springee here [127], yet the user persists in this type of behavior. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• [Note, this is a later edit. Please note the date and time vs edits below. It is placed here to directly reply to the changes listed in the ANI accusation above]
• The first list of 8 references are simply links to page edit histories. I'm not sure how I am supposed to reply to that material. Yes, I edited on all those pages for various reasons.
• The second list of 8 references are to edits that Scoobydunk claims are WP:TEND. Note that this is a somewhat vague description and not a WP guideline. Scoobydunk claims I'm reverting (presumably solely) with the justification "no consensus". I'm putting forth that his claim is not true. I will go through all 8 of the edits in question to explain why.

1. [128] This is an edit in which I reverted a removal of content by Scoobydunk. Another editor had added the material and I agreed with its inclusion. The related talk section is here[129]. Note the discussion regarding the edits in question began before the Scoobydunk reverted Rjensen's edits which I added back to the article.
2. [130] This edit, like many relate to the changes HughD made to the Chicago-style politics page. On Aug 26th, 2015 an IP editor tried to return the article to the subject it had from its creation in 2011 through April of 2014 when HughD changed the topic to concentrate on a POV fork. The IP's initial edit is here[131]. I noticed HughD's involvement with this topic because this was during the same time period when he was attempting to insert a controversial Mother Jones article into a number of global warming related pages. In edits below I explain(ed) why I was involved in the MJ related content dispute. Since I am from near Chicago I decided to investigate the changes. That is when I saw that HughD had turned the article into a POV fork with no justifications on the talk page. The tag claiming the article was about a meme was simply not true historically and was added to justify removing other content. Thus I did have a reason for removing it that was related to the topic, not the editor. The topic shift was questioned in April of this year with no reply from HughD. The tag in question was only added after the IP editor tried to restore the earlier article topic sentence.
3. [132] Removal of the same tag as above. This time HughD added it back in without responding to questions about the topic redirection on the talk page. Here is my question regarding the article redirect[133]. The tag was restored by HughD at the same time [134]. Restoring a questionable tag when other editors have made it clear that the existence of the tag should be discussed is not constructive editing.
4. [135] This one is laughable. The editor in question was an "undercover" diarist at the Daily Kos. He was indefinately blocked shortly after this exchange [136]. The editor had added ~8k worth of content in a mass addition. Several editors, myself included objected to such a large and not well balanced addition. Several of us engaged in a discussion with the editor regarding the edit he was trying to make [137]. Prior to getting consensus and over the objections of the consensus of the talk page VVUSA/KochTruths added the content. I reverted it. For my trouble I was accused of being on the Koch brother's payroll on the Daily Kos.
5. [138] This was disputed content which had already been added by HughD then removed by Capitalismojo then restored by HughD before he even joined in the talk page discussion regarding the content. I was following the edit history of Capitalismojo (not HughD) when I saw this content dispute. I agreed with the reasons for removal and hence joined in the editing. Note that this Mother Jones content was added to nearly a dozen article and thus what seem to be a range of unrelated articles are all part of the same content disagreement in which several editors were involved.
6. [139] In this case, while there is an active AFD discussing both the Chicago-style politics and Chicago-style politics (meme) (the later a POV fork article created when HughD couldn't get consensus to keep the older article focused on the POV subtopic) pages with a likely outcome that the articles (the parent and the POV fork) will be merged, HughD adds a tag from the parent to the likely to be removed via merger POV fork. For the sake of article stability this sort of editing should be avoided hence I removed the tag. Note this was done after Fyddlestyx did a great job of restoring not only the older content that HughD had removed (see the article's recent edit history) but also did a good job of including mention of the meme content Hugh wanted to focus on. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask that we not put such edits into the article until the AFD and article mergers are complete.
7. [140] This tag (no material was removed) is related to the Chicago-style politics and associated CSP meme article. Another editor tagged the newly created meme page as an orphan. Hugh then proceeded to add questionable "chicago-style politics" references to several articles including this one. The additions were questionable and I put both questions on the talk pages and in the article each time the content was added. As an example, in the Halftime talk edit list you will see I am the second editor [141]. Thus the article tag was an invitation to justify a questionable content addition. The tags were not stand alone.
8. [142] This is an article which was discussing the Southern Strategy. An editor made a large 2.1K removal of sourced content. I reverted that removal and added a discussion page comment asking for justification for such a large removal [143].

• While I can see Scoobydunk doesn't agree with my POVs on various subjects I think he was looking for a reason to claim WP:TEND and thus when he found posts that appeared to fit the pattern he went with it and we are here. I would question how he can claim this isn't about the content when it appears he isn't actually following the content discussions. I will also reiterate my claim from below that I believe Scoobydunk has an axle to grind. Consider this accusation of dishonesty on my part that he posted in reply to my comments [144]. Springee (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? It seems like you are trying to attack me because of a content disagreement on the Southern Strategy article and perhaps left over resentment because I disagreed with you and argued against your claims on the Americans For Prosperity RfC that recently didn't go your way (RfC[145] and your frustration that it was not decided as you had wished [146]). You have disagreed with myself and a few other editors on the Southern Strategy talk page recently. Today I proposed making some changes here [147], the first edit on the talk page since Aug 30th. You personally haven't edited that page since Aug 27th. I proposed adding to a section that you have strongly opposed since it's inception. So today when I proposed additional changes, changes you oppose, you quickly reply (your first content related reply to any article/talk page since Aug 27th). Note that your only edits between the 27th and today were to attack me attack me on Sept 3rd/4th. In that case you were siding with a blogger who initially joined here under the name "KochTruths" and filed an ANI accusing myself and three other editors of being paid stooges of Koch Industries[148]. It seems odd that as soon as I propose some changes to an article you appear to be watching, changes you wouldn't agree with, an ANI pops up, an ANI almost exclusively about edits to articles that you aren't involved with. It seems to me you are trying to game the system by using a ANI to block edits you don't agree with. Springee (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not entirely fair, the concern that you were following HughD was raised by both Scooby and myself more than two weeks ago, in our comments on your edit warring report against Hugh. FWIW, there is pretty clear evidence of your following him too: especially to the Bernard Stone GA review, to Political History of Chicago, to Donor's Trust and to Chicago Style Politics. I was also concerned that you were one of several editors who seemed to be following Hugh, which is why I urged you (and Hugh) to avoid working on the same articles just a day or two ago. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of your wikihounding and tendentious editing is plainly clear. Please focus on the actual merit of the complaint instead of raising red herring arguments in the form of argumentum ad hominem. To address those concerns, I've raised these issues with you over the course of our discussions, and they've gone ignored. Now that the weekend is done and I have time to dedicate to addressing this issue, so I've raised a complaint here. It was specifically this edit [149] that prompted me to raise this issue. Again, you listed "no consensus" as part of the reason for removal, even after you were aware that removing material for that reason was tendentious behavior. Upon further review, I noticed "no consensus" in many other reverts of your's that I was unaware of before. This is continuing and prolonged behavior that needs to be addressed. I suggest you speak to the accusations levied against you, instead of trying to "shoot the messenger".Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• In regard to the "following him to multiple articles and reverting his edits in part or in whole, as well as disruptively tagging his edits accusation the wide range of subject areas covered are: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Political history of Chicago, Halftime in America, David Axelrod, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, Karl Rove and Chicago-style politics. It seems reasonable that HughD is being followed but I am unsure in which direction tend is supposed to be in operation. GregKaye 19:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I mentioned this in a previous edit below but I will add it here for better clarity. There are two recent topics in which I and others engaged with HughD. The first related to the edit warring report I created related to a series of edits by HughD [150]. The pages in question were: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,American Petroleum Institute,ExxonMobil,American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity,Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,The Heartland Institute, and FreedomWorks. You will see there were multiple discussions related to the attempt add a single Mother Jones article to all of those articles. As I said in the ANI there were at least three other editors who disagreed with the insertion as HughD had made it and as he reinserted it. One characteristic of HughD's editing is repeated insertions even as people are discussing the topic. That and the fact that he undid multiple reverts, not just by myself but by other editors who objected to the same article.

The second set of articles relating to HughD's edits all involve the Chicago-style politics article. This article got my attention as I was reviewing HughD's recent edits associated with the then active dispute over the Mother Jones article. Given the range of articles HughD was attempting to put the MJ article into and simply trying to keep up with all the various edits it was natural to check to see what edits he made recently. That is when I noticed the revert of an IP edit to the Chicago-style article (I'm from near Chicago originally so that also caught my eye). Then I discovered the history of the article. April of 2014 you will see that HughD totally changed the nature of the article without a single comment on the talk page [151]. The IP editor was attempting to undo that change. DaltonCastle also noted the change but his talk comment was not answered by HughD [152]. With the support of DaltonCastle I started to revert the article to it's earlier form. The result was HughD creating a second article as well as flooding the original one with edit tags. When an unrelated editor noted that HughD's newly created article was an orphan[153]. TO address this HughD added questionable references to other articles. Those articles include the ones I added "weight" tags to. The articles in question were Halftime in America [154], David Axelrod [155], Mit Romney [156], and Karl Rove [157]. Again these were all related to the same Chicago-style politics content dispute and were added simply to address the article orphan issue related to a newly created POV fork from the older article.

Scoobydunk did mention a few others that are unrelated to HughD (is original post seems to mix and match things). Some are related to the [Southern Strategy] article. This is part of why I think he is going after me as a way to address a content dispute. This one is Southern Strategy related [158]. I guess I'm wrong in thinking removing that much reliably sourced content without a talk page comment is questionable? Again the BRD cycle says if someone reverts it the next step is discuss. However, as that revert related to an editor other than HughD I'm not sure how this counts as hounding or much of anything other than the BRD cycle. Scoobydunk also listed this edit [159]. Well that is a content dispute with me on the Southern Strategy page. Note that I was reverting a removal of his, not adding/readding content of my own.

This final one is a bad joke [160]. That was my ONE revert of content added to all of the Koch Industires page by an editor who, as people suspected was a troll who was almost instantly blocked for the user name "KochTruths" then came back under a new user name and got blocked about a week later (indefinite block) [161]. The editor made a series of article changes, was reverted by another editor and then engaged in something that pretended to be discussion. When he went ahead and made changes that we had not agreed to in the talk section I reverted them. One of the charges made by Scoobydunk is that I was engaged in tagging edits or reverting edits without discussion or cause. That is far from true. I have extensively used the talk pages to try to discuss changes before editing the actual articles. Hence my edit history is heavy on the talk page end of things. For reasons that it can appear to look bad when one doesn't see how the edits I agree that I will avoid editing interactions with HughD once the Chicago AFD is closed out. But I can't help but question Scoobydunk's motives to get involved in something that in which he isn't at all involved. Why join in this boomerang ANI on the side of a trolling editor if you don't have an ax of your own to grind [162]. Springee (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things to address. First, it is also outlined in WP:TEND that improper threading can also indicate tendentious behavior. Fyddlestix and I have already responded to GregKaye's post. If you want to respond to it as well, then your response would come after ours and be placed below our responses, in the correct chronological order. As per WP:THREAD "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to." If you are going to correct the placement of this most recent response, feel free to move my own response (this response), as well. Second, outlining your reasoning for the behavior is irrelevant. Just like the reasoning for edit warring is irrelevant to the fact that an editor was edit warring. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong in the addition/removal of material in an edit war, edit warring is seen as disruptive and comes with swift results. Harassment and tendentious editing is no different. Here we have multiple concrete examples of your following HughD around to multiple articles that you've never been involved in, and reverting his edits. We also have multiple examples of you trying to force people to get a consensus before adding or removing material from articles. There are valid reasons for reverting other users but the objection of "no consensus" is not one of them as identified and explained by WP:TEND. So it's not a part of the BRD cycle. The BRD cycle includes reversions and discussion that actually have to deal with WP policies, and gaining the approval of you or other editors is not one of those policies, as is directly expressed in WP:TEND.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant context here is that Hugh was reported here multiple times (including twice by Springee) for his behavior on Koch and climate-change articles, and was topic-banned for it by Ricky81682 a few weeks ago. Springee has continued to follow Hugh since then, though, most notably to Chicago-style politics, which led to some squabbling between the two of them on the talk page, a spin-off article (Chicago-style politics (meme)) and this AFD. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're not sure about, so I'll repeat it more plainly. Reverting edits because there is "no consensus" is referred to as tendentious editing. Springee has made multiple reverts almost solely based on there being "no consensus" or "no consent" and has spoken this directly in the edit comment of the diffs listed above. I've addressed this issue with Springee, so he's aware that it's tendentious to require editors get consensus before adding/removing cited and sourced material from articles, yet he continues to do so.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's quite fair to claim Scoobydunk is attacking me due to a content disagreement. His posting of this ANI and the retort to my Southern Strategy talk comments were back to back. As for following HughD claims, well actually I agreed with Fyddlestix that it was looking questionable and thus once the Chicago article was settled I am planning on cutting back on editing in general for a while. I'm still rather frustrated by the external attack on me related to the Koch Industries page mentioned above. However, the claims of following all over are not quite right. In reality we have just two recent sets of edits. The first was the set of edits related to trying to insert a Mother Jones article into potentially a dozen articles. Those were the mid August edits. They all related to basically the same topic. I did accuse HughD of edit waring related to those edits [[163]]. Since this was a case of trying to insert a questionable citation into several articles it looks like I'm following to a number of articles when in fact it's all part of the same content dispute. I discovered the articles in question by looking at some of the activities of Capitalismojo and Arthur Rubin. I agreed with them that the edits were questionable. The Chicago-style politics article was one that I admit I found via looking through HughD's edit history. However, that is hardly the hounding Scoobydunk wants to claim. HughD was making lots of edits to lots of articles as part of what I saw as edit waring (again see the recent ANI). I noticed that he objected to some IP edits and immediately posted a "don't do that again" type message on the IP's talk page (one of the IP edits in question [164]). What the IP editor objected to was the way HughD had taken an article about the phrase "Chicago-style politics" and turned it into an article that discussed attacks against Obama. This was don't without comments on the talk page and against the muted objections of others. Sorry, that article caught my attention and I agreed with the IP editor as well as the editor who objected on the talk page. The details of that interaction can be seen in the following talk pages but they are on the up and up. After creating a new page of questionable value another editor tagged it as questionable for bing an orphan article. HughD added tags in several articles that were clearly of questionable merit simply to create links to the new article. That's the ugly history of that story. Note that I didn't go around reverting HughD's edits. I tagged them as questionable because I do think they are questionable. If editors have specific article questions I can answer them in more detail. Do note that what seems like a lot of different articles are actually related by just two edit/content disagreements, the inclusion of a Mother Jones article listing "the climate change dirty dozen" and the edits to and related to Chicago-style politics page and the POV fork Chicago-style politics (meme) including the addition of questionable links to the latter at pages like Halftime in America, David Axelrod, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and Karl Rove.

Regardless, if it will make Scoobydunk happy, I won't join in any new content disputes with HughD for at least 30 days. That should show good faith and address concerns. I still find it odd that Scoobydunk decided to post this ANI right at a time that I'm disagreeing with him in an article unrelated to HughD. Why Scoobydunk decided to posted it instead of the aggrieved also makes me think this is a content dispute. Certainly he has shown strong and vocal disagreement with myself and at least one other editor at Southern Strategy as well as earlier during the previously mentioned RfC. Springee (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The opportunity to step back was when I first raised these issues. This is serious behavior since tendentious editing and knowingly editing tendentiously disrupts the principles of Wikipedia and the enjoyment of other editors. Wikihounding is also a serious form of harassment which is not to be taken lightly. I believe a more serious and long term admin sanction is required to cover the behavior exhibited by Springee.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above post) Sorry for breaking this up, I have been getting interrupted while putting these posts together, hence things are not as organized as I would wish. Anyway, to further my claim that this is something related to Scoobydunk using the ANI to attack me please note these WP:BATTLE posts to HughD's talk page. Scoobydunk is trying to coach HughD into feeling hounded: [165][166]. Hugh has filed a number of ANIs against other editors [167], [168],[169]. Why encourage this action against me by a third party unless there is a personal motivation given the third party is more than capable of posting the ANI himself. There was also this out of the blue attack on me in the ANI that had nothing to do with HughD (the KochTruth blogger ANI) [170]. Why make such an unrelated statement in that ANI unless your intent was somehow personal or content dispute related. Again, I think this point to an attempt to bully to resolve the content dispute related to my post earlier today. Springee (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other claims in this case, this edit[171] certainly looks like an example of "let's you and him fight". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Guy Macon, I'd like to point this out as another example of Springee's tendentious editing. In the diff Macon linked to Springee says "Do not add the material again without going through the discuss part of the BOLD cycle." which is another demand requiring consensus and seems potentially threatening. Springee's attempt to turn the subject matter of this post on me is what he typically does against other editors to avoid responsibility for his actions. The real battleground behavior here is exhibited by sPringee in the form of tendentious editing and wikihounding. Suffice to say, I've well witnessed multiple examples of disruptive behavior from Springee towards other editors and offered suggestions to those abused editors on how to address the issue. It's no surprise that they haven't pursued the issue because Springee and others attempt to "shoot the messenger". This is not okay, and though Springee now attempts to levy accusations against me and my motives, none of this should take away from the harassment and disruptive editing he's exhibited on multiple occasions. Scoobydunk (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you post this ANI a long time ago rather than just today when I proposed making changes you disagree with?[172] These are changes that you seem to be the lone, vocal hold out against. You could have easily posted this ANI in a more timely fashion. Would you have posted this had I not edited [Talk:Southern_strategy] this morning? Springee (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained this above and also gave the direct link to the edit that prompted me to raise this issue. Your edits since that last "no consensus" reversion you made are irrelevant to the fact that I've been monitoring this and have been attempting to address this behavior for some time now. I'll also note, that I have raised this issue before in other ANI posts, but it got completely ignored by admins. I've already spoken to this fact and this behavior is clearly something that shouldn't be ignored. I thought my mentioning this on other ANI reports against you would be sufficient, but since those reports have been closed with no action taken against your behavior, I'm left with no option but to raise my own ANI notice. It's quite simple really.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So wait, you are now claiming this is a conspiracy between several editors to intimidate more than just HughD? "Suffice to say, I've well witnessed multiple examples of disruptive behavior from Springee towards other editors and offered suggestions to those abused editors on how to address the issue. It's no surprise that they haven't pursued the issue because Springee and others attempt to "shoot the messenger"." Who are these other editors and who are these other people we are intimidating? It was less than a week ago I was accused of being on the Koch brother's payroll.

Your edit that raised the issue wasn't today. You linked to quite a few edits. Which "no consensus" edit are you talking about? This one [173]? That would strongly support my view that this is an attempt to control content in [Southern Strategy]. Springee (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in my comment indicated a conspiracy and you can click the diffs supplied in the original complaint to see the different editors who you've tendentiously reverted due to "no consensus". The previous ANI notices with HughD and that Veritasvenci (SP) show you and other editors ignoring the content of the complaint to pursue accusations against the person who proposed the complaint. This doesn't suggest a "conspiracy", but there is ample evidence that editors have ignored your behavior to focus on others' behavior, and this is what I was speaking to. Also, I made a specific response to one of your comments where I outlined the specific example of your tendentious editing. You can find it here [174]. I'm not sure why I'm bothering linking it for you because it's clear you ignored it the first time to continue to pursue your red herring arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That edit was the one that broke your camel's back? Well at least that was only two days ago... unlike most of this stuff, some of which is almost a month old. But why reply just after I proposed edits on the Southern Strategy page? Your ANI and your negative reply to my proposals were just back to back. Regardless, do you think the tag I removed was proper in the case of two articles that are likely to be merged based on AFD consensus? Why add a tag to the article that is likely to be gone in less than a week or from an article which is likely to be gone in less than a week? Isn't adding that, given that consensus is clearly that one or the other will go away it's own form of tedious editing? I noticed that you are the only editor who complained about that edit. None of the involved editors objected. You are of course welcome to join the discussion if you think that tag should have remained. I think if you look into the specific histories of the edits you have cited you will find that they are not unreasonable and I do listen to group discussion and consensus. But if you think KochTruth/VeritasVincitUSA[175] was just here to build a better encyclopedia you are certainly welcome to argue that case. Springee (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing red herring arguments. I think it's more telling that you're attempting to justify your wikihounding and tendentious editing, instead of taking accountability for it. Even worse, you're trying to pass the blame to other editors when you say "Isn't adding that, given that consensus is clearly that one or the other will go away it's own form of tedious editing?" What other editors do is irrelevant to the fact that you're editing has been tendentious. You've been told about it, it's been previously discussed, yet you continue to do it. I'm not interested in content disputes about the tag and we're not here to discuss content disputes. Also note, I'm not complaining about any particular edit, I'm talking about behavior that is evident across multiple articles. So please stop trying to distract from that issue. Scoobydunk (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment The reported user wrote above: "the third party is more than capable of posting the ANI himself." From my point of view it is very clear that the reported user has singled me out, is following me, and digging into my contributions to our project in my edit history in search of articles likely on my watch list, to multiple articles, and reverting and tagging my edits. To me the reported user’s intention is very clearly to cause distress and disrupt my enjoyment of participating in our project. The reported user's stalking is accompanied by tendentious editing and personal attacks WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Whenever I attempted to address this behavior with the reported user (01:11, 12 September 2015; 11:40, 10 September 2015; 20:22, 9 September 2015; 17:19, 8 September 2015; 13:45, 8 September 2015; 13:08, 6 September 2015; 20:24, 28 August 2015) the reported user ignores me or reminds me that I have been warned and name-drops his favorite administrator 01:24, 12 September 2015. The reported user seems incapable of discussing content without discussing editors. The reported user was unsatisfied with a topic ban under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, unsatisfied with a hybrid WP:ARBTPM/Koch topic ban, and immediately following the imposition of the topic ban pursued an aggressive program of edit war baiting toward his goal of a joint WP:ARBTPM/American politics topic ban or more. When my contributions to our project dropped off in the wake of the topic ban, the reported user dove into my edit history seeking fodder for his edit war baiting, and found among others a WP:CHICAGO article I worked on in April, 2014. The reported user decided my edits of April, 2014 were without consensus. The reported user is not here to work on our project; his project is me WP:NOTHERE. I felt so badly when he took his project to WP:CHICAGO article space that I apologized to my fellow project members on project talk. Respectfully request a review of the reported user's editting behavior and at a minimum an indefinite one-way interaction ban. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The reported user wrote above: "I didn't go around reverting HughD's edits." The report user pursued an aggressive project of edit war baiting across multiple articles, please see 14:18, 9 September 2015; 13:52, 9 September 2015; 10:54, 8 September 2015; 07:46, 5 September 2015; 13:04, 1 September 2015; 21:22, 28 August 2015; 00:32, 28 August 2015. That's just the first page of my notifications. More of the reported user's edit war baiting available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The reported user wrote above: "Scoobydunk is attacking me due to a content disagreement." This is a report of problem behavior, not a content dispute. The following series of edits is particularly telling in terms of demonstrating blatant edit war baiting behavior: I removed a tagged, unreferenced, irrelevant, original research sentence from a WP:CHICAGO article; minutes later, the reported user restored the content; the next day, a third party editor removed the same sentence; minutes later, the reported user thanked the third party editor at article talk. For me this exchange was particularly dispiriting. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The above are reverts after discussions were underway and related to material on the talk pages. Given your recent history of disruptive editing (your block log has 4 entries this year including edit warring) and given that your year long topic ban was due to misrepresenting facts as you were attempting to have sanctions brought against an admin, I don't think we can just assume your presentation of the material is at least somewhat self serving. It seems this is becoming a tit-for-tat discussion. That is exactly why I told Fyddlestix I was burned out and ready to take a break [176]. I agree with his last comment (though I realized I didn't actually reply to it at the time). Springee (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits above relate to your blitz to remove content that didn't support the POV fork you added to the article. I was asking only that myself and others be given the time to correct the lack of citations in the older content rather than simply blanking it. You didn't bring your disagreements to the talk page but instead made edits without discussion when it was clear myself and others were now trying to get some agreement on the article changes. The "third party editor" was Fyddlestix and again you are misrepresenting the events. The one line I restored was discussion the history of the phrase the article was about before you changed the entire article into a POV fork without a single comment on the talk page. Fyddlestix took the time to really rewrite the article to include the historic information with references. I thanked him for a whole sale rewrite of the article, not for removing or adding a single sentence. It seems very questionable to present the facts as you just did. Springee (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

HughD, you were topic banned for being less than honest in your dealing with an RAE you filed. You claimed you stepped back when in fact you were topic banned under protest [177]. I can't help but think your above post is a self serving, opportunist set of claims trying to make you look like a victim. For example, on the Chicago talk page why did you start by attacking my motives rather than justifying your edits ([178], [179],[180])? Why did you attack me instead of answer a topic based question? If you look at that talk section in general you will see that I was trying to discuss the article topic and ask why you changed it. You were trying to avoid that topic. This is hardly a case of you being a victim, instead this is you refusing to engage in a dialog about your edits. Do you think comments such as this [181] are productive or focus on the content?

Anyway, as I said in the Chicago-style politics talk page and will say again here, I'm rather tired of all of this myself and I'm happy to take a step back for a while. To avoid the look of impropriety I'm happy to stay away from any new topics you are actively involved with for at least one month. That should give both of us a welcome rest. [User:Springee|Springee]] (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:HARASS: "It is as unacceptable to harass a user ... who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to harass any other user." Hugh (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But in the same section it IS considered reasonable to "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." and "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." The edits you were making were very questionable thus there was an overriding reason. I joined the MJ related articles after looking at what others, not you, were editing. The Chicago related articles were to correct the way you created a POV fork in the original article. To claim this was to hound you you need to show that your original edits to the Chicago-style politics article were reasonable. Even when asked on the talk page you never justified the whole sale change you made to the article. Thus WP:HOUND doesn't apply in that case. The same is true of the MJ case where a number of editors disagreed with you and I ended up working with another editor to try to come to a amicable solution to the problem. Springee (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

FALSE, reverting HughD's edits on the basis of "no consensus" is not an example of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." As a matter of fact, using the reasoning of "no consensus" is actually, itself, an unambiguous violation of WP policy as per WP:TEND. So your reversions are not covered in the scope of exceptions for following a user and changing their edits and actually are part of the reason you're being reported for tendentious editing as well. Also, claiming that his edits were "questionable" is a further admission that they were not "unambiguous" because "questionable" inherently implies ambiguity and uncertainty. You also just admitted to having an overriding reason of "no consensus" which,in and of itself, is tendentious. WP:Hound clearly applies and this comment of yours only further proves it.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution As a means to close this ANI out I propose a self imposed interaction ban between HughD and myself for at least a month. The only exception will be closure of the Chicago-style politics article and related page discussions. As I said to Fyddlestix I was ready for a break and this seems like the perfect time to take it. I hope that will satisfy all involved. Springee (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Solution - I believe HughD's suggestion of an interaction ban as well as a 1-3 month site ban should be sufficient in giving Springee enough time to reflect on the disruptive behavior. The interaction ban only addresses a single aspect of the issue, but ignores the fact that he's tendentiously edited against other editors. Interaction ban would be relatively minor considering that other accounts have been indefinitely banned for harassment, which is what wikihounding is. Springee has also demonstrated tendentious behavior here pertaining to not assuming good faith and accusing others of malice, both of which are outlined in WP:TEND. In just this ANI discussion thus far, Springee has implicated my motives are questionable, accused me of bullying, accused me of gaming the system, accused me of battleground mentality, accused me of levying conspiracy theories, and has accused me of having an ax to grind. Even when HughD offers his input on his feelings, Springee immediately attacks him as "self serving" and "playing the victim" instead of reflecting on the impact his own behavior has had on HughD. This is clearly not strictly about the relationship between Springee and HughD, but is clearly about Springee's tendentious editing, harassment, and attacking others instead focusing on the fact that there are over 8 diffs of his wikihounding and over 8 diffs of his tendentious editing. This requires much more than a self-imposed interaction ban.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree an interaction ban only partially addresses the serious behavior reported here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

1-3 month site ban? Seriously? This again makes me think your intent is vindictive rather than anything else. WP states that blocks are not meant to punish but to protect the site. Thus if I agree to any self imposed limits and stick to them you should have no grounds on which to protest... unless your motives are vindictive. Furthermore, I provided examples of you trying to brow beat an admin with whom you had a disagreement[182]. Here was the last reply to you, "One of us is being aggressive and confrontational. It's not me. ... Guy (Help!) 22:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)". It seems I'm not the only one who would think you are confrontational and will try to brow beat to get it your way. Since you are attacking me with this ANI I am certainly free to call your motives into question. You did the same to me when I posted an ANI unrelated to you. You also did the same TOO me when KochTruth posted an ANI to attack me that resulted in a boomerang and indefinite block. It's funny that you accuse me of not assuming good faith yet you aren't willing to do the same with respect to the edits I was making. Springee (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, harassment is a serious issue. Also, I didn't question your motives, I simply raised the issue of your tendentious editing and wikihounding, thinking that an admin would be responsible enough to address those serious issues. Sorry, but I'm pretty sure "good faith" becomes a non-issue when there are over 16 instances of wikihounding and tendentious editing combined. I also already explained how your self imposed interaction ban doesn't address the issue of your overall tendentious behavior and harassment.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You did question my motives. When you said WP:HOUND you have to question my motives because part of the test for hounding is this "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.". So do you think HughD's MJ and Chicago-style politics edits were "reasonable"? Understand that you weren't involved in those discussions so you probably didn't follow their developments. My "over all tendentious behavior" is a farce. You have only three examples, weak at best, that don't relate to the topic disputes with HughD. The Southern Strategy one is clearly a content dispute with you. One is related to Koch Truth (again, are you defending his edits as valid?) and one is related to a large scale removal of content without explanation. I reversed that removal. I don't see that other editors objected (yourself included). Can you make your case on just the three edits that aren't related to HughD? Springee (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I never addressed your reason for wikihounding nor even spoke to your motives. I only acknowledged the fact that you were wikihounding and have supplied 8 instances of it with other editors contributing more examples. Also, tendentious editing is not a farce and if you would actually read other peoples' responses, then you'd know that trying to defend tendentious behavior is irrelevant. Just like trying to defend edit warring is irrelevant to the fact that a user was edit warring. Making tendentious reverts citing "no consensus" is a violation of WP:TEND and is disruptive editing just like edit warring is, regardless of whether you think your were right/wrong with those reverts. Again, you continue to make baseless assertions and strawman arguments instead of accepting accountability for your behavior which only further shows that you have no intention on correcting this behavior.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding plausible, but false, unsourced information to articles

Editor DN-boards1 has the bad habit of adding unsourced, plausible, but demonstrably false information to articles: [183] McNair did not remove Brooks. [184]. The Tsar Bomb stuff is not in the Kitchen Debate transcripts. BLP issues in Brenda Garow, info/accusations I can't substantiate: [185],[186]. Some kind of intervention is needed, unless we're going to factcheck everything. Geogene (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The Sergeant at Arms removed Brooks, and the person holding that position at the time was McNair. So unless he WASN'T at that post, then it's in fact the case that he escorted Brooks. Khruschev stated he said the quote at the Kitchen Debate, etc. Apologies for any incorrect info. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

False. This book, page 10. [187]. Factchecking is necessary for DN-boards, and also a waste of editor resources. Geogene (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. It states on that page that a page, the Sergeant of Arms, and Morgan escorted him out. I think you thought Morgan was the SOA, but he was a different person. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it says that the sergeant and a page helped Sumner "stumble into a cloakroom". Further, it says that Brooks found his own way out, flanked by Keitt and Edmundson. Use sources, DN-boards1. Geogene (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Then I was mistaken. It should be changed to mention him aiding Sumner into a cloakroom. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks more like you made it up, and that, perhaps, you have a habit of making things up. Geogene (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Racially/ethnic charged statements

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

---

Reporting 77.11.38.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for [188] and [189] which could be interpreted as Jew- and Ukrainian-baiting comments. — Brianhe (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see how. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Um ... contributing to a section titled "Jewboy censorship"? Claiming Ukrainians control The New York Times? — Brianhe (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• No one controls existing section titles. Starting such a section might be a problem, but the comment itself doesn't look like it supports the contention. The second comment might be perhaps interpreted as questionable, but I've seen a lot worse forms of criticism of journalists than that one. Sorry, at least the two quotes indicated don't look to me like much cause for concern. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Also, please re-read the actual section! The title certainly sounds like it might be race-baiting, but it's actually about the purported censorship of the word "Jewboy" that was used by one of the characters in a novel. And I will join Drmies in bafflement as to how you're getting Ukrainian-baiting from his second comment. --Ashenai (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you guys are OK with stuff like this, fine. To me it looks like baiting. — Brianhe (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, lol! Brianhe, is this when I claimed Chan to have not-so-much investigative journalism you started looking up my contributions? 1) Ukrainian Media is full of trash, proof - google Supersharij and watch over 999 fake debunking videos, most have subtitles. 2) I never claimed Ukrainians to control New York times, I claimed that there is huge amount of anti-russian stuff published on purpose. Articles like Vatnik, Putin Khuilo, Russian Troll Army - articles that are self-referenced or edited by the very same circle of people, which are anti-semitic, inflammatory, non-encyclopedic. What is called "street trash" and has its place in yellow press. 3) "10 small Niggers" is the original story name, which is changed in English version to be "politically correct". Just for lols, I opened up the discussion section and found a claim for "10 small niggers" to be offensive, but "10 indians" not. I couldn't resist not to contribute, of how "10 small *anything*" could be seen as antisemitic, given the right view angle. Brianhe, in case you disagree: "10 small brianhe's" would also be anti-semitic. Come on, man, you should probably take a break, there are no angry mastodons :) Unless you are Ukrainian, hehe, just joking =) But, Israel Internet Defense Force on the other hand, aren't they official Israel troll army? That one got me by surprise... unless thats product of raging Ukrainians netizens again. Putin must follow their example and create Internet Force of Green Men :), ofc invite Mr. Chan to interview them, this time officially. Exposing included. I love you guys! 77.11.38.141 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to be a WP:DICK, at least get the original title correct: "Ten Little [add whichever variant here]". Gawd, given the IP's knowledge of Wikipedia, I smell an old sock... Ignore it until it gets genuinely disruptive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This IP seems to be engaging in a breaching experiment by trying to find legitimate ways to be offensive. This IP does not seem to be new here either. Chillum 13:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, most definitely not. The user certainly knows their way around policies, guidelines and wikispeak only a long-time regular would be au fait with. We'll see what happens when their short block is lifted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

User continually reverts correct edits

User:Qed237 almost exclusively makes edits on football player pages reverting the most up to date version of their appearances and goalscoring stats. He does this because other editors have updated those numbers without correcting the timestamp on the page; however, given that he knows the timestamp is incorrect, any reasonable editor would simply update that. Instead, he takes counterproductive measures to ensure that the pages continue to be outdated and incorrect. I cannot fathom why anyone would behave in this manner. Use the Divock Origi page as an example. You can scour his edit history to find similar example. It's almost ALL he does. Admins, you know as well as I do the Wikipedia struggles mightily to retain editors and attract new ones. How can we ever hope to improve that situation if people like User:Qed237 force editing to be as complex and illogical as possible? I don't think this requires any punishment. Someone in a position of authority just needs to tell him to stop. Eightball (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - while I think the person above seems to have a contentious relationship with the reportee, I do think that User:Qed237 isn't necessarily adhering to the principals of WP:ONLYREVERT - i.e. there seems to be lack of assumption of good faith, and a default to reverting as a first resort rather than a last resort, such as [190][191][192]. The intention is probably good, but I think this user is perhaps a little over-zealous with the reverting. --  R45  ^talk! 23:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely accept that I have not handled this well so far. It is an immensely frustrating situation but I should have reacted more calmly. Eightball (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reverting good faith updates is arguably not the best course of action, especially if Qed237 can simply contact the updaters to simply ask them to correct the timestamp. However, just in my casual observations, keeping the stats in these types of articles correct, consistent and up to date is a constant and incredibly frustrating crusade in itself. A veritable hodgepodge of editors inserting formatting errors, premature or incomplete updates, vandalism, mistakes, falsehoods, and original research. If he's trying to keep these articles in a somewhat reputable state, updates that change correct information without updating the timestamp, albeit in good faith, are rendering articles incorrect in what they're reporting. It's perfectly understandable if he feels that slightly outdated but uniformly correct information is preferable to confusing and/or incorrect information. Also, he's not wrong. Do what you're supposed to do and update the timestamp, and this issue doesn't even exist. You can't expect Qed to magically know what the correct timestamp for any given update would be, so between leaving the article incorrect and reverting to a correct version, the choice is obvious. I don't see any good faith discussion about a reasonable alternative solution. Swarm ♠ 01:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Agree completely on the challenges of keeping stats reputable if folks update them without synchronizing the dates, however edits like this [193] where I'd suggest the revert was not done in good faith as it was clear from the comment what date it was based on. In that specific case, I think a revert was unnecessary and Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems would suggest simply fixing versus reverting would have been more appropriate. Another example (and the reason I was drawn to this) were these two reverts done within a 24 hour period for the same content by 2 different users: [194][195] (that was a venue for a future game, not stats) - in that case, I think based on WP:BURDEN, considering that venues are not always cited in these articles (including a venue in the same article), the reverts were a little over-zealous and could have been handled differently. I'll say though that I appreciate the WP:FOOTBALL can be a difficult place to edit and maintain, so I do understand how someone can probably go a little overboard considering how frequent some of the hasty/unsourced edits are in that area can be very frustrating. --  R45  ^talk! 02:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  I myself have noticed this behaviour from Qed237... I think Qed just needs to slow down and consider his reverts, as has undoubtedly been reverting many good edits because the "timestamp" was not correct. JMHamo (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Agree with JMHamo here. It's the same work just updating the timestamp. I know it's frustrating but it makes it easier. Just update it yourself and talk to the editors in question. If that does not help, seek help. But that kind of reverting is, for me, headscratching. Kante4 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that I have had some sleep and time I can try and give my view of this step by step form what has been written above. First off all am I perfect? No I am not, I am human like everyone else. About the allegation that almost all my edits are reverting caps and goals, that is false (and probably written in rage). Football articles are heavily exposed to vandalism due to a lot of different fans and the nature of rivalries between clubs. Due to the high level of vandalism I update my watchlist when I am not currently doing something else and I revert a lot of detected vandalism, and for that reason it may look like I revert way to much when I in fact just revert vandalism. I do a lot of other work as well and I am one of the editors heavily involved in the creation of Module:Sports table and update a lot of templates to this new module and maintain those, as well as other work (not only reverting).

User:Eightball brought up the Divock Origi page as an example and this edit I reverted because I was tired of correcting the editor when he has done this before and has been notified about timestamps. This is a good example of how editors has been notified, but still keeps on doing the same thing and seeing this over nad over again is frustrating. Even with hidden comments the same editors continue (some has been blocked). I usually did update the timestamp myself, but I guess the feeling of having to correct after the same editors over and over again became to tiring.

Also I would like to explain the diffs from User:R45.

1. [196] was probably one of my less good reverts. Many times I have seen these stadiums being changed back and forth, so I wanted a source (adding it in edit summary would have been enough), but as I said, probably not the best revert.
2. [197] also not the best revert, I should have explained it to the editor, I simply confused this editor with an other editor that had been notified.
3. [198] this revert I still think is good. The matches are never shown when there is a list of matches below and the editor I reverted had not made a single good edit and has been reverted by many other editors after edits like this, this, this and this. All of those edits can be seen as delibirate changing to factual errors when changing results, tables and team names to something completely wrong.

Finally I just want to say that many editors has recieved messages but continues to ignore timestamps anyway (some has eventually been blocked) and seeing this issue every day is frustrating. I can understand that new editors and/or IPs can miss updating it, but not editors that has been aware of the situation and not when there is hidden comments. I have once brought up the idea of an WP:EDITNOTICE do add on articles with this issue (just like I created Template:Livescores editnotice for articles with a lot of live updates) but did not get much response other than "we would need to add it on a lot of articles".

If you have more questions feel free to ask me and I will try and respond. Qed237 (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hoax hockey articles and an inappropriately granted Reviewer right

Patrickkane88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Philip Ngo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mathew Tran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
For the administrators' consideration: Patrickkane88 is a recently new user who requested the WP:REVIEWER right a mere two days after creating their account. In a decision which I find stunning, it was granted by Swarm.

The user has come to my attention through what I interpret as a malformed request to semiprotect a page made via edit request here. The page is one which was tagged with {{blp-prod}} by Crystallizedcarbon, which Patrickkane88 removed without adding any sources two minutes later. It was also tagged for speedy deletion for being a hoax (the player does not seem to exist) but the tag was removed by an IP which I may be about to get into an edit war with over my having restored the blp-prod tag, and which has only edited articles which Patrickkane88 has also edited. In very briefly skimming their edit history, I also found Mathew Tran, another entirely unreferenced hockey bio about a player not listed on the roster of the team he supposedly plays for, and have tagged it accordingly. It could be a WP:G3 hoax but I'm not sure if it crosses the "blatant" threshold.

Clearly, this editor does not understand the biographies of living persons policy, a requirement of the reviewer right, or they are blatantly disregarding it, and as such I request that their reviewer right be revoked immediately. Conduct issues can likely be dealt with through discussion/mentoring with the user, but they should not be reviewing in the meantime. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• A couple of points:

• "who requested the WP:REVIEWER right a mere two days after creating their account" - This is not accurate.
• Pending changes is meant to be given out fairly liberally and I don't think I missed any glaring red flags in granting their request, however, I'm only human and of course I am perfectly open to feedback on any admin actions so that I may improve. I have received absolutely no feedback and I think it's poor form to lambaste somebody for an action without ever making an attempt to discuss a concern with them or reach a modicum of understanding.
• If the user is creating/inserting hoaxes, they need to be blocked indefinitely without question. Whether or not this is the case needs to be sorted out.
• If they've merely demonstrated a good faith lack of policy understanding and not malicious intent, I would of course support revocation of reviewer until they can demonstrate that the problems are rectified. However, I will point out that they are not, and never have been, using the reviewer permission. Swarm ♠ 02:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, you're right, I didn't check that well. They created their account on 17 July and requested reviewer rights on 19 August. I also didn't diff the request properly, which I have fixed. Swarm, I sincerely apologize for this error, and heartily retract the suggestion of wrongdoing on your part (which I had thought was an honest mistake, never deliberate misconduct). Anyway, I had meant to raise Patrickkane88's conduct, not yours, and ANI is the place to raise userright issues. I have struck part of my edit but it leaves it awkward to do more; you may strike more if you like.

That being said, it has become evident that the articles they created are indeed blatant hoaxes, as another user has remarked (see edit summary) that Mathew Tran is a student at their school. So yes, I would support an indef block at this point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood, stand by, let me do some double checking. Swarm ♠ 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the hoaxy articles. The other articles about junior league hockey players have now been tagged for WP:A7 speedy deletion. I have also revoked their reviewer rights and placed an "only warning" notice for creating inappropriate pages on their talk page. (It doesn't appear there was ever given a final warning notice.). So further disruption on their part will result in an indefinite block. Thanks for raising the issue, Ivanvector. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the A7 tags and also Mathew Tran as a hoax as well. The name was added to a school article by an IP as clear vandalism and was changed multiple times before finally representing an alleged hockey player. No record of his existence can be found by me either and it was removed by a user claiming that he's a student at that school and not a hockey player. This is concerning as it suggests that apart from creating non-notable unsourced BLPs in good faith, that this user is dabbling in vandalizing Wikipedia as well. Whether or not this is the case, there's definitely a problem here. The bad page creations, lack of sourcing in BLPs, and complete lack of collaboration or communication are all red flags, even if every action they've made was in good faith. A warning is fine, but I agree that this user should not get more rope after this. Good catch, Ivan, thanks for bringing this up. In hindsight the granting the reviewer request was a bit too generous :P. I'll try to keep an eye on them too but let me know if there's any issues in the future. Swarm ♠ 03:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Question:  : Before tagging the the page as a blatant hoax I had to do some digging. I decided to do so because the page looked suspicious and the author removed the prod by adding three references that seem reliable but did not mention the BLP. I could not find any sources, (just a small questionable mention) the main reason that I tagged it as G3 was that when I followed the wikilinks to the claimed championships won, the alleged player was not even in any of the three roasters listed for those winning teams. I explained this in the edit summary when I tagged it. At that point there was no reasonable doubt that the article was a hoax.

• Is unquestionable hoax equivalent to blatant hoax?
• Since I had to "dig a bit" to verify the hoax does that mean that it does not qualify as blatant?
• Should I just have removed the invalid references and restored the prod even though I knew for certain it was a Hoax?

In my humble opinion, if there is clear proof of a hoax (even if this proof is not intermediately evident by a quick look at the article) then G3 should apply, otherwise we give the author the satisfaction of having the hoax as an article at our encyclopedia for at least one week. If that is not what the current wording of the policy is saying, perhaps it should be discussed and clarified and then edited in either way.

I would appreciate the input of more experienced editors on this matter to help me decide how I should deal with similar cases in the future. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Good question. If anyone would like to move this bit over to WT:CSD that would be fine. In my experience, the CSD tags should only be used when it is very clear that an article will be deleted and there is no need to wait for discussion. In terms of G3, I interpret "blatant" as "the article clearly states that it is a hoax", more or less. I guess that's more of a personal standard, since when it was clearly shown that the articles were hoaxes, they were deleted under G3. Perhaps it is worth clarifying the text in the criterion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Crystallizedcarbon When reviewing G3 hoax tags, my approach is to check whether the alleged misinformation is obviously incorrect and is not credible. (For example, the Ricky Yang (football) article stated he was ‘’currently’’ a college football quarterback who played for the Canadian national team, yet the birthdate was for a 15-year-old kid. That set off bells. A quick check revealed no such player on either team roster. And that moved it into obvious misinformation territory.) I appreciate when the tagger specifies the nature of the hoax in the edit summary or on the talk page so that I can confirm their suspicions. But like any CSD deletion, common sense and experience play a role in determining the difference between suspicious and obvious. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer @CactusWriter: That is exactly how I think it should be interpreted. And what I did in this case, it was clearly a hoax since by looking at the roasters it was clear that the BLP was not even a player for those teams. I did include the explanation in the edit summary. I will continue to use the same criteria, but I also understand Ivanvector argument that a literal interpretation of the current wording for the G3 policy could be interpreted to impose a stronger standard and maybe it should be reworded to include not just blatant, but also unambiguous hoaxes. Thank you again and best regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Putting details in the edit summary is a good idea. At the moment G3 is not one of the criteria which Twinkle allows adding a note to. I'll post a note about changing that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Patrickkane88 has also edited under the IP 64.114.223.82, (here) and also inserted the names of these fake individuals to other articles (here and here)- although these were all before his last warning from User: CactusWriter. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

On edit: He's also capable of making helpful edits, for what it's worth... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the edits by Patrickkane88 seem to be a mixed bag -- vandalism with some good edits -- which is the reason I didn't block the account outright without sufficient warning. It's clear that we're dealing with a youthful editor. They can now either demonstrate the maturity required or be blocked indefinitely. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I also note the editor hasn't come here to discuss it, despite being notified and pinged. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless there are some that I can't see because they've been deleted, it looks like all of their "bad" edits came in the past couple days after a brief break in editing. They're in the same topic area so I don't think compromised account. Probably inexperience as CactusWriter says. Let's see how their editing goes from now on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

190.6.236.60's Editing Conduct

Initially an AIV report, the issue seems to be bordering on "vandalism" and AGF. Moving issue to WP:ANI seems like the optimal solution, all other participants of the conversation are being pinged @R45: @The Earwig: to notify regarding new location of the discussion. Please see below for the initial WP:ANI report posed by R45 and comments following by Earwig and myself, JustBerry:

• 190.6.236.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) User is making disruptive edits now, and has been for 2 months on topics relating to Nikki Minaj (i.e. going through articles where refer to her as American, and changing it to Trinidadian). Several dozen edits today already that have been reverted. --  R45  ^talk! 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: On Beam Me Up Scotty (mixtape) (diff): vandalism after final warning. User came on IRC to try to resolve the issue, did not wish to accept any advice regarding WP:Sources or WP:Consensus, i.e. talk page discussion. User:Dragonflysixtyseven attempted to resolve the dispute by removing the nationality all together, yet IP still added the disputed nationality. User excessively swearing in IRC. It should be noted that no discussion was pursued on any article talk page prior to making these changes. JustBerry (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @JustBerry: Some edits are/were just pure vandalism from a month ago [199][200][201] but unfortunately in areas that are less patrolled - I just spent nearly an hour going through his/her July-August edits and cleaning up articles --  R45  ^talk! 03:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: I started doing the same; however, I'm currently speaking with the user on IRC. The user does not wish to abide by the Wikipedia guidelines and policies we, i.e. helpers in the channels, have presented them with. The helpers have also tried to break it down for the IP editor, but the helpee doesn't seem to wish to listen. If you want, we can work on this project together off-WP:AIV. --JustBerry (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Declined. Content dispute. Remember WP:AGF and do not call good-faith edits vandalism – it is very discouraging to new editors. — Earwig ^talk 04:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: The issue is currently being resolved over IRC on an AGF basis. Withholding AIV report for now. Quite frankly, this would most likely not have been assumed had the user not come on IRC. In any event, efforts are being now to create a discussion for the content dispute on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trinidad_and_Tobago or on specific article talk pages, of which the former would probably be the best right now. --JustBerry (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @JustBerry: Frankly this is pure vandalism especially within the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trinidad_and_Tobago space, and I'll just leave non-T&T edits as is because this is far too time consuming to monitor and address. --  R45  ^talk! 04:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: A potential block would most likely fall under the category of edit warring. However, since the user proactively came onto IRC to resolve the issue, AGF can be assumed, as long as a sufficient discussion of the content dispute is done on an article talk page or WP: user talk space of some sort, i.e. WikiProjects. --JustBerry (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: Would you mind explaining how this is "pure vandalism"? — Earwig ^talk 04:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @The Earwig: This edit [202] (changing the land mass of a country) is just disruptive. This edit [203] and [204] changing the ethnic population stat, especially of "white" Trinidadian to 13% (when it is actually 1%, as per the source) would be the equivalent of editing the United States page and changing Blacks to be 50% of the population (i.e. it's ridiculous and absolutely not good faith - the ip traces to Trinidad the user would know better). Frankly if you look through the user's edit history, it's either disruptively manipulating stats, inserting Nikki Minaj into every article possible, and spinning articles to slant pro-Trinidadian (i.e. repeatedly removing references to "American" from Trinidad-Born Americans) is not good faith. There are over 100 of these similar edits. --  R45  ^talk! 04:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response. I admit ignorance of those particular edits; I was only aware of the ones involving Nicki Minaj's nationality. That seems like a debatable subject from my uninformed view: calling her American only does seem possibly misleading due to e.g. this source; see discussion on the talk page. — Earwig ^talk 04:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @The Earwig: Putting "Trinidadian-American" or "Trinidad-born American" is definitely understandable. However the IP user was actively involved in removing references to American from all her album pages and other artistes [205] - seeing the trend, my assumption of good faith ended there. --  R45  ^talk! 04:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: @The Earwig: User:Earwig has confirmed that he is going to sleep now on IRC. Requesting another sysop to bring some closure to this report. Multiple additional diffs have been made by the user post-reporting the situation to AIV. On IRC, when asked to justify this diff, user responded "It is reffered to as that by many countries worldwide." User followed up by saying "To be honest, I don't know how to get the sources and references done to articles just yet, It's still a learning process to me." It seems like AGF doesn't seem like a bad conclusion for now; however, the IP may still need to be monitored by a few editors to make sure further content disputes/edit wars across multiple articles related to Nicky Minaj don't happen at this large scale again, as the user appears to be anxious to make edits directly to the article mainspace without sufficient (any) discussion on article talk pages. Interestingly enough, however, this seems to be a previous discussion relating to this content dispute. I'm considering moving the discussion to WP:ANI. What do you think? --JustBerry (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Pinging Swarm for input, most recently active sysop at ANI currently. --JustBerry (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Just to note the user User:PositiveEM looks awfully similar to the IP users referenced above based on the edit history. --  R45  ^talk! 20:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  @R45: Then perhaps a resolution on proceeding to SPI needs to be made as well. --JustBerry (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Closure needed of "COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature"

The above thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI editing and personal attacks on Democracy & Nature and Talk:Democracy & Nature has now been open for three weeks and grown pretty huge. The case, however, is actually rather simple. Either the accused persons are correct with their claim that I am biased and harassing them. As I am an admin, that is an absolutely intolerable situation and calls for an immediate block (and de-syssopping, I think, so I will ask a bureaucrat to remove the bit, if this is going to be the outcome). Alternatively, my accusation that these SPA editors engage in COI editing and impermissible personal attacks is correct, in which case a block of them would be in order. I call on an uninvolved admin to close the thread either way. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Renewing request. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Either ... or Nope. Please see Wikipedia:First_Law#not_zero_sum. Read the read of the essay. Then let it go. The fact you went back and forth for days bickering with the other guys and there wasn't a lot of effort by anyone else to step in is an answer in itself. NE Ent 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Read again, I don't think I bickered and I was very concise. And I'm very sorry, but I don't take attacks on my integrity very lightly. I don't think the same could be said about "the other guys" as you call them. And several non-admins commented, too, so I don't think this was ignored. But as I wrote above, I request that somebody closes this, so feel free to close whatever way you think is just. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Graphic imagery

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

---

This user page contains an inappropriate photograph and should be removed - see(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sexynudesuploaded). I was looking for userboxes at the time and thought that the user was just calling themselves this for fun, or at the very least they took up an interest in pornography, but never in a million years would I have thought that they would upload such a personal image. I don't have pornographic images on my user page and I never will! However if this is considered okay because they own the image, then I guess other users can upload photos of body mutilation and/or beheadings!

From an absolutely disgusted user,

Yours angrily

User:Kő Cloch (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, you visited the user page of someone called "Sexynudesuploaded" and were surprised and angry to find that they had uploaded nudity? GRAPPLE ^X 11:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The user has been indef'd blocked for WP:NOTHERE Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We better archive the pics though. You know. For science. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia is Not Censored  :) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

My ass it's not censored.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock?

Any chance a rangeblock could be made to stop these socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justa Punk?

• 121.220.23.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.96.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These are the IPs I've blocked in the last week. As a complete layman when it comes to rangeblocks, it looks like the last four at least are very similar and a narrow rangeblock would cover them? If there would be too much collateral, that's fine, but I thought it was worth asking. Also feel free to move this to AN if that's the more appropriate venue, I wasn't sure where to ask exactly. Jenks24 (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• All Telstra IPs from Melbourne. The last four are a /22 range, or just over 1,000 addresses, probably a little too big to rangeblock. Can somebody run the collateral damage tool and point to it for me? I've lost the bookmark somehow. KrakatoaKatie 18:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The one that works is at https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/. It looks to me like this is a busy little range, with unacceptable collateral damage. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC) By the way it's Range 1.136.96.0/23 (covers 512 IP addresses) -- Diannaa (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Just a note that the very first post on ANI above talks about rangeblocking more or less all of Melbourne for the continued stalking and online threats to @Huldra:. The first address in the list falls within that same range. The last 4 may well become part of what is likely the biggest range block ever (if it comes to pass, there's an ongoing discussion on Jimbo's talk page about this). Blackmane (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the answers. Guess I'll just keep playing whack-a-mole with the the IPs. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Complaint against administrator

moved this to align with a related ANI posting. Blackmane (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There is I believe a major problem on the following page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_siren_controversy

Recently I attempted to re-add an incident that had been removed by User Jenks24. I believe this incident is notable and relevant to the article and it is sourced;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AFL_siren_controversy&type=revision&diff=680899455&oldid=680823890

I labeled it vandalism and also left a warning on his talk page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jenks24&diff=prev&oldid=680899830

I also sought consensus for it on the AFL project page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_rules_football&diff=prev&oldid=680900482

Jenks24 reverted all three edits and blocked my IP for 31 hours. He has also protected the AFL siren controversy page preventing any IP correction of his vandalism. In my most recent action I attempted to file an edit request on the talk page concerned, only for Jenks24 to remove it and ban the IP yet again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAFL_siren_controversy&type=revision&diff=681141101&oldid=681137728

I state that I am not a banned user of any description and I believe that Jenks24 is simply using this as an excuse to justify his actions. There should be a consensus established and he has prevented this from occurring. I ask that he be warned for this conduct and that the edit be restored, and/or the consensus seeking edit be restored on the AFL project page. I believe he is disrupting the proper operation of Wikipedia with his actions. I am of the firm opinion that the edit should stay for the reasons I gave on the AFL project page. I note that I am required to notify Jenks24 of this report, but I am hesitant to do so as I believe he will react with another removal and block. Once someone else comes on I would welcome them to make that notification and enforce the retaining of this report. I leave this in the capable hands of other editors for appropriate action. 1.136.96.33 (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@1.136.96.33: You must notify a user that you are discussing them when you post here. That's what the GIANT orange notice is about when you edit this page. I will do it for you in this case: @Jenks24: (also diff). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Nihonjoe. This is just another sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justa Punk. See also the section slightly above, #Rangeblock?, which is about the same person. WP:RBI. Jenks24 (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My IP has changed as it does quite frequently. Jenks24 is again attempting to divert attention from the core issue, and I note that the above IP has again been blocked. I am not a sock of the banned user, and Jenks24 has failed to prove conclusively that I am. The 121 IP noted above is also not me. WP:RBI does not apply because I am not a vandal. I am attempting to add reasonable information and Jenks24 is refusing to address said information. In other words his actions as a result of my report justifies my complaint. What is he afraid of with the addition of the information to the AFL siren controversy? I ask for another editor for a review of this matter and to please ignore Jenks24's unproven tack of distraction, and if Jenks24 blocks this IP my complaint's justification will be re-enforced. 1.136.96.219 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

History of unsourced content by an IP

• 69.248.93.249 (talk · contribs)

Apparently hundreds of edits since June, adding unsourced content and personal interpretations to multiple articles. I'm sure they're meant to be constructive, but many are trivial and it appears that nothing has been connected to a reference of any kind. If that's the case, a broad reversion of the IP's edits may be appropriate. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I reverted some of their edits. Yes, much of it unverified and trivial. Also, competence is required, and that certainly includes English-language competence. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you, Drmies. I suspect it all can go. Much appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  By the way, this may be the same user--as is often the case, there may be more where these come from. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• 100.35.22.145 (talk · contribs)
  • Hmm. I looked at a half a dozen of their edits, and they're not bad. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  Nope. They have the same predilection for unsourced factoids [206]; [207]; [208]; [209]; [210]. I'm reasonably sure it's the same editor, but even if I'm wrong, the edits have the same problems. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Shahzada Mohiuddin

I placed a picture in the article Shahzada Mohiuddin. The image shows the man described, being interviewed. Through several ip addresses, all starting with 182.18... (probably located in Pakistan), this picture has been removed seven times, everytime without any explanation. I'm fed up with it, but what should be done? I posted a comment on yesterday's ip talk page, but it didn't work. Apdency (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's irritating, but the image is tagged as "missing evidence of permission" (Future Perfect at Sunrise's handiwork). If it hadn't been I would have put it back myself, blocked the IP, and semi-protected the article--but as it is, maybe that's why they removed it. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The picture is clearly a screen grab from a television program and the subject is a living person. It's a copyrighted image that the uploader doesn't own. The IP was absolutely doing the right thing, aside from. It communicating. Blocking would have been less than ideal. AniMate 19:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks. Apdency, I don't know if that's an answer since I don't know if that's why the IP kept removing, but it's helpful. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Helpful, yes, but I don't know why AniMate says that it is clearly a screen grab. Which characteristics lead to that conclusion inevitably? Apdency (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't look closely enough (mobile device). I'm more inclined now to say that it's a picture taken at a television taping. Still it was missing permissions, and until that's done it's probably a good idea for the picture to remain out of the article. AniMate 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hoaxing/Vandalism

Hi, a few days ago I reverted this edit on The Snowman. Pretty clear case of vandalism by misattributing credit for several production roles. I looked further into the IP's edits and discovered a hoax which was spread over several articles. It's about a show called the Joey & Fido Show which apparently doesn't exist. Here are a few examples:

[211] [212] [213]

I researched this "show" and the only references to it I could find were all related to this user's entries in the encyclopedia. There is one unrelated Deviant Art page. Almost all of this user's vandalism pertains in some manner to Martin Lambie-Nairn. I ended up having to give up fixing this user's edits after around 70 of them spread all over Wikipedia. Please feel free to review my contributions for a full list. It includes several BLP violations pertaining to Lambie-Nairn in particular.

This user has editing Lambie-Nairn's page each of the past three days adding in unsourced claims, and don't appear to be willing to stop: [214] [215] [216]

I'm in over my head trying to deal with this as I have very little expertise and only sporadic time to edit. I'm asking for some of you folks to please watch some of these pages, and am also concerned that if a user like this spread a hoax once they may be tempted to again. I doubt they'd have been caught if not for making the mistake of editing a popular page like The Snowman.

I apologize in advance if I reverted anything I shouldn't have but every one of those 70ish edits looked like vandalism after reviewing them. I'm posting this here instead of at WP:AIV because I'm not sure if the hoaxing aspect requires more attention than normal.

They primarily edit from an IP in the range of 88.104.x.x, but not always. This changes almost every day. I will go and place the notification on their two most recent accounts.

Thank you Zarcusian (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Joey & Fido. here's more Looks like a new-ish animation, utterly non-notable. Not sure if it is the same thing, but it exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, yes, that is related to the deviant art page artist and is unrelated to these edits, I checked many times. This editor even refers to the show debuting in the 70s and having a feature film, etc.. Zarcusian (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism on Vsauce

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

---

Kids-"raid" in progress on Vsauce: They write repeatedly about the death of the hoster (ref just links to his latest video). Same on his youtube videos and twitter. A rollback and temporary protection would be nice --RicardAnufriev (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Persistent original research over WWE pages

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

---

User:81.136.117.81 over the last three days has persistently entered unsourced information about the buy rates of WWE pay per view events over a wide range, and refuses to stop despite being warned on his talk page. After being warned formally last night, two more edits were found demonstrating that this IP is ignoring the warnings and advice and not discussing them. It would appear that these edits are based in original research. A couple of edits also seek to change the times of matches against the sources already noted - again appearing to indicate original research. As this IP seems to be stable I ask that the IP be blocked for a period to be decided by an administrator. It appears that other IP's in the same range may be engaging in the same behaviour so this would need to be watched. 1.152.96.193 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. Swarm ♠ 22:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Interference with DRN case, possible violation of topic ban

Energy Catalyzer, an alleged cold fusion device, has been a an area of contention for many years, with multiple trips to ANI[217][218] and the article is under standard discretionary sanctions as part of the pseudoscience arbcom case.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere is under a community sanction topic ban[219][220][221] from making edits anywhere on Wikipedia relating to cold fusion, broadly construed.

On 15 September 2015 Insertcleverphrasehere posted a comment to User talk:Robert92107 which appears to me to be an attempt to escalate the conflict between him and another editor involved in the Energy Catalyzer DRN case.[222][223] I responded here:[224]

On 5 September 2015 Insertcleverphrasehere posted a similar comment to User talk:Brian Josephson,[225] this time in response to a warning about edit warring on the Energy Catalyzer page. [226]

When the community imposes a topic-ban, the ideal situation is that (perhaps after blowing off some steam) the topic-banned user unwatches the banned pages, walks away from the topic, and edits elsewhere. We can't stop him from following the disputes(s) that got him banned, but posting comments to talk pages when someone who is still involved in the dispute gets a DRN or EW notice is, in my opinion, stepping over the line, and encouraging editors involved in the conflict to fight each other is unhealthy for the encyclopedia and for the dispute resolution process. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether s/he is trying to get users to fight with each other is debatable; at any rate, his/her behavior indeed seems like violating the terms of the topic ban. (SN: I find it odd that s/he appears to be bragging about being topic-banned.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz and WP:Personal attacks and WP:Harassment

In the #Sigmund Freud section above, Signedzzz showed up, looking to pick a fight with me, arguing that my commenting in that thread was about him. He resorted to WP:Personal attacks, and didn't stop there. Soon afterward, he moved my comments, stating that I should not move his comments. I replied (followup note here), "You moved mine; I w[ant] my comments together; do not cut in between them." He reverted again. I understand that editors are allowed to cut in between comments, but, since I still wanted my comments together, I changed the style of my comments by placing them in the same paragraph; I also moved my comments together like that so that it is clear that my "00:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)" post is in response to both of his latest posts -- the "00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)" and the "00:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)" comments. I warned Signedzzz not to mess with my posts since I'd changed the style. As seen with this edit, he challenged me on that. I reverted him again, stating, "WP:Disruptive editor engaging WP:Personal attacks, WP:Harassment and WP:Talk violations; will be reported if he continues." He replied, "yes i hope an admin does take note."

I would consider this trivial, even the WP:Personal attacks trivial, if this were not an editor who has a serious obsession with me/grudge against me, as stated by different editors in the past. He has a history of trying to egg me on, and a history of severely antagonizing others. He was hoping to prolong the altercation between us, and even revisited this article, seemingly hoping to annoy me in some way, as if I would care that he is fixing his own typo. He currently wants me to remove the WP:Sockpuppet watch section from my user page, because he asserts that it's about him, and that I imply that he is a pedophile in addition to being a WP:Sock, which is not the case at all. He is pestering me now because of that and our pasts altercations. He never lets anything go, and misinterprets matters so badly that I never want to discuss a thing with him. If needed, I will seek a WP:Interaction ban with regard to his interaction with me. He clearly followed me to WP:ANI just to pick a fight. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Lg16spears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - cross posted from WP:AIV

• Lg16spears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Needs some attention. I'm not sure how they keep flying under the radar with these countless additions of rumors, spam, and tabloids with unreliable sources. Warned many, many times, yet it continues to happen and nothing is done about it. Thechased (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC) - I have forgotten how to quote. This report from AIV is cross posted here. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 03:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

SPA Accusation

I have been editing Wikepedia since 2011. If you look at my past history I've edited mostly articles related to WP:JW. I am not much knowledgeable in other subjects, though I have knowledge in one specific field such articles are already brilliant compared to my knowledge. I often have a conflict with these two editors User:BlackCab and User:Jeffro77. In most of the conflicts we usually reach a consensus, though sometimes its bitter for both to accept my changes. See this conflict I had with User:Jeffro77 in past. I been inactive in Wiki because of personal reasons, and I became active recently specifically contributing Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. During the course of recent edits I often had conflicts with these two editors and the talk often end up going off-topic. (like a theological dispute). I revealed that I am one of JWs recently, and User:BlackCab has revealed in the past that he hates his former religion. After I raised some serious issues in main JWs talk page, they feel uncomfortable with my sourced edits. Or they misrepresent my edits as not what they read in source. I was quick to apologize if I made a misquote. But I feel they threatening me as a SPA to hinder me to work further, or use that accusation to revert edits without a consensus on talk page. I want to be judged whether I am SPA or not. I am willing to be blocked permanently if I am one. Notice that most of my edits in the past are undisputed, even in disputed cases we've reached a consensus.Roller958 (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Close as frivolous. Over the years I have not got along with BlackCab on a few occasions regarding this issue in particular. I have gained a respect for this user not only in this area but overall conduct on wiki overall even in disagreement (for full disclosure my family is in the religion and I was raised in it as well). This is a CONTENT DISPUTE which can easily be resolved in places other then here. The same WP:COI you are complaining about him is the same one that you carry as a Witness. Consider that the vast majority of your own edits are also religion based and there is nothing wrong about that. [SPA] are allowed here. You can always ask for a RFC or file Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and if that fails and there is extreme pov pushing you can request arbitration. I would highly suggest not asking for arbitration as it has not been an issue dealt with dispute resolution in the formal sense. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Roller958 is misrepresenting me as someone who is biased because I "hate" my former religion. (This is a blunt and inaccurate portrayal of my attitude towards its manipulative, coercive conduct towards members). I have managed to negotiate with this editor on some issues to reach agreement, but he persists in a course of advocacy for his religion on Wikipedia; his latest suggestion is that a certain claim by a number of authors that is critical of the Jehovah's Witnesses is "highly questionable because adherents never even heard about this rant and (the Watch Tower Society) never felt a need to rebut this conspiracy theory." His usual tactic when confronted by critical matter is that the authors are ex-JWs (and presumably biased), even when they are not. Roller958 does indeed fit the description of an SPA: his editing history is restricted only to articles on Jehovah's Witnesses; the sources he cites are only primary sources of the JWs themselves and his edits are often defensive of the religion and apologetic in tone. (See this, this and this extraordinary one, in which he says it's OK for a religion not to alert police to sex abuse in its ranks when it's only incest.) Beyond that, I am unsure what his complaint is about me. Yes, he is an SPA and I have cautioned him about his conflict of interest as an obviously passionate JW. I am a long-time contributor to JW-related articles (in addition to other non-religious subjects) and I have significantly expanded and improved coverage of some subjects with a range of quality secondary sources. BlackCab (TALK) 05:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mushroomexpertboy1 and Mushroomexpertboy

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

---

(Moving report here from AIV, seems more appropriate)

Mushroomexpertboy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a vandalism-only account with a previous history of introducing factual errors to mushroom articles regarding toxicity (ex. [227]). Following a several month period of dormancy the account was brought back to life again to vandalize my user page ([228]) shortly after I had tagged Nathan Baptiste, an A7-qualified page created by Mushroomexpertboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), before the user then proceeded to remove speedy deletion templates at Nathan Baptiste ([229] and [230]). This account's reactivation was seemingly to circumvent Mushroomexpertboy being unable to remove CSD templates from a page they created themselves. After attempts at removing the speedy template were undone by myself and Thibaut120094, the user then proceeded to vandalize my user page twice more ([231] and [232]) before duplicating the contents of my userpage to their personal sandbox. The content continued to be edited in increasingly severe personal attacks (ex. [233]). The user's disruptive editing and personal issues with me have now moved into other projects with the upload of an attack image (for lack of a better word) to Commons.

I should mention that this user has also been reported as a suspected sockpuppet by me at SPI. According to Special:Log/Mushroomexpertboy this account was created by Mushroomexpertboy, and both accounts have been engaging in disruptive edits. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 04:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

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