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

User:Strivingsoul disruptive editing and soapboxing

Strivingsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for battleground editing after a report by Kudzu1,[1] and later reported again by Ian.thomson.[2] Already at that time there was understanding that the user is WP:NOTHERE, as the user has since effectively admitted to by stating that they "never shy away from defending what is justified according to our religion".[3] The user constantly enters edit wars and off-topic discussions to promote Irano-Islamist views in article space and talk space.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]--Anders Feder (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, I already admit my fault at getting caught in a few edit wars early during my past activities on Wiki. And I have done my best ever since to stick to the three-edit revert rule and settle the disputes in the talk pages as my knowledge of Wiki policies grew.

However, what prompted this user to make this complaint in particular is not really my past performance. What we have here is a clear case of diametrically opposed philosophical/political persuasions. Andres Feder apparently comes from a very strong atheist persuasion which has already prompted him to attack and ridicule beliefs of muslim contributors several times, which has indeed caused offense in the past for some users and has apparently led to WP:CIVILITY warning for him in a past ANI.

But beyond his continued violation of WP:CIVILITY, I can also identify the very same ideological prejudices behind his repeated allegations aimed at discrediting Iranian sources such as PressTV even in subjects where having Iranian official POVs are crucial for maintaining WP:NPOV. I have already dedicated my time a few times countering his arguments such as here and here, arguing for various ideological, political and financial biases of Western sources that he uses to suppress Iranian POVs reported by the official media outlets of the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the pretext that "Iranian media are controlled by the theocracy". So here's the real controversy that has led to his complaint against me. But he apparently wants to condition the users here against me by deflecting attention from the root cause of the difference. He wants to frame a random statement of mine where I said "I never shy away from defending what is justified according to our religion" to imply that I want to push my personal opinions into Wikipedia content. But that's not whatsoever the case and you can clearly see that if you examine the context of that statement. There, I was not whatsoever making that statement in violation of Wikipedia policies. That was basically a statement of my personal belief that came at the end of a discussion about the legal foundations of the Islamic Republic of Iran with a fellow Iranian! It was never made and never meant as statement standing against any Wikipedia policy. In keeping with Wiki policies, I had already explained in length by citing information and sources to counter his repeated allegations of bias against Iranian sources based on Orientalist charges of dictatorship against a very distinct form of theocratic-democratic political system that has emerged out of Shia political philosophy. Admins can already see my record on Islam/Shia/Iran-related topics to appreciate my contributions which has the effect of improving WP:BIAS against Iran/Shia/Islamic topics some of which remain highly underrepresented not just in Wikipedia but in the greater world as well. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Strivingsoul, you go beyond simply advocating inclusion of the Iranian or Shia points of view to vigorous denouncing of those who oppose you. We can include accurate summaries of any point of view regardless of how unreliable, in a general sense, a source may be. You are correct that you are entitled to indefinitely advocate for an Islamist point of view with respect to any Wikipedia policy or content, but you cannot be disruptive in doing so. You need to totally reexamine the way you are conducting yourself. Better behavior on your part will not solve the behavior problems of others or resolve content issues, but is a minimum requirement for continuing to edit effectively. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

But in opposing I put forward evidences and cite information for legitimate reasons. Please note that the primary counterpart of this controversy has always been Anders Feder alone. He continues to bring up the same POVs that are controversial and he tries to render his claims as a factual, objective ground to remove Iranian POVs from nearly whatever Iran-related topics I participate in. I don't know why he is so adamantly opposed to Iran. I even suspect his strong prejudice might be rooted in his sympathy for the state of Israel that is Iran's adversary. I can't find other explanation for a user who repeatedly desecrates my religion and attacks my country based on his personal persuasions. I'm not saying he should not disagree as he has every right to, but to fixate on repeated allegations regardless of repeater counter arguments is what bothers me and is truly disrupting. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"I even suspect his strong prejudice might be rooted in his sympathy for the state of Israel" Jew-baiting, who should have thunk? I have no particular sympathy for Israel or anyone else, and readily act against Zionist POV-editors such as this one too. The reliability of your Iranian sources have been debated extensively here, including by yourself.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

His discussion of issues is also inappropriate, and he may be handling Iranian sources improperly. He is not wrong, as he strongly points out, and has good sources for, when he claims Iranian media is both controlled by the state and propagandistic. You don't have to be a Zionist to get that. The question is how to handle inclusion of the point of view without incorporating "facts" from an unreliable source. This is not easy. Denial of the unreliability of Iranian media is not a viable tactic; there are even claims, by Iranian leaders, that strong expressions of opinion by other Iranian leaders are not to be taken at face value. Nevertheless, assertions of opinion in Iranian media may be included as valid expressions of the point of view of the state. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying that Iranian media are "controlled"? All media in the world are controlled but I don't see BBC for example being undermined for being funded and controlled by the UK government! And whether this or that media is "propagandistic" is quite subjective and depends on one's political stance! Strivingsoul (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean that the state determines the content. The content of the BBC is determined by the British state which requires, other than with respect to certain sensitive issues, that the content of the BBC be reliable. That is not the case in Iran. Such a determination does not depend on one's political stance but on knowledge of the international media. If you chose to edit using Iranian sources (or Russian or Chinese, or American, for that matter) you need to have some sense of what is simply factual, possibly factual, or just plain made up. We do use highly questionable sources, for example, the rate of growth of the Chinese economy, as reported by the Chinese government. Likewise, some Iranian material can be used, but not all. Determining what is appropriate is a matter of editorial judgement. It should not all be excluded, nor should tendentious assertions be accepted as reliable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly the same can be said about Iran. "The content of the PressTV (for argument's sake) is determined by the Iranian state which requires, other than with respect to certain sensitive issues, that the content of the PressTV be reliable. That is not the case in Britain...." but it seems that somehow Western governments are inherently superior to Iran even if they are lead by hereditary monarchs whereas Iran is lead by a modest religious scholar who is appointed and monitored by an elected body of legal experts. Strivingsoul (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Iran could choose to have a free reliable media. There is an overwhelming international consensus that much of the controversial information in Iranian media cannot be trusted and is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia other than as the opinion of the Iranian state. Feel free to advocate for its inclusion, but please don't be disruptive about doing so. That includes ascribing motives such as Zionism to other editors, beating on them, or repeatedly making edits against the general consensus. Please try to find the best Iranian, Islamist, or Shia sources and consistently use them. I'm not that familiar with Farsi media, but I know there are excellent, mediocre, and poor sources in English. Consistently advance the best. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul, Great Britain is led by its Prime Minister and a democratically elected assembly, as is the Netherlands, etc. , with hereditary monarchs playing a ceremonial role but with no real power. And the BBC's content is not controlled by the state - it's also funded by a license fee, not the government. Doug Weller (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

But still the Monarch apparently appoints BBC's Board of Trustees in Council. The licensing is also mandatory for citizens. And there's been all sorts of criticisms of biased reporting against the corporation. The most notorious bias undoubtedly effects BBC Mid-Eastern coverage which has been the target of UK imperialist policies and its alliance with the state of Israel which has been been a source of plight for muslims for more than 6 decades. But we don't see anyone seriously questioning BBC's reliability at least on Mid-Eastern/Muslim developments. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

While the Queen makes the appointments, she has no choice in the matter : "BBC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister. When new Trustees are needed the posts are publicly advertised. Trustees are chosen on merit and the process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments." (from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/trustees/appointment.html). The British constitutional monarch is titular head of state, but not head of government except for ceremonial purposes. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Anders Feder, I have done what I can in the way of jawboning. As noted above, you too, need to do much better. Keep in mind that all states, and points of view, have their media voice, and that all media is in some sense biased, if only in what they choose to report. It is the controversial tendentious assertions of factual content that seek to advance sectarian objectives that need to excluded, not every fact published. Consider the objectives of the Iranian state while making editorial decisions. For example, they would like to embarrass Saudi Arabia over the Hajj, so they might assert questionable facts with respect to the recent tragedy. Obviously, if the behavior you complain of continues indefinitely User:Strivingsoul must eventually be blocked, or even banned, but please don't make him feel that nothing in Iranian media is acceptable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What about his demeaning statements against the muslim beliefs?! Does he really have to attack our beliefs for working in Wikipedia?! Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In addition, that past RfC never refuted my rebuttal of argument from control. As I also argued there and again here, if control is the problem then all media outlets are somehow controlled either by governments or corporations. There has been indeed scholarly critique of the hazards of corporate consolidation of mass media which can affect their objectivity and/or reliability. Please have a look at Corporate media. Strivingsoul (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I go by the closing comment on the RfC linked above.[11] If anyone opens a new RfC on that, I am happy to follow the outcome.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It is sound, but you are twisting the knife. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What source have I opposed that I should not have opposed?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

None that I know of but don't be so nasty. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, User:Strivingsoul, David Duke, and anything connected with him is a subject you should avoid. It is a hot button issue due to his notoriety; a stick in the eye does not make friends. This sort of behavior can easily form the basis of a topic ban as can any anti-Semitic editing, especially using Iranian sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your good-faith advise. But I am afraid I have to defer! First off, I perfectly knew that David Duke is notorious for his past association with the White Supremacist KKK back in 1970s. But what I also know in addition is that over the last 3 decades Duke has apparently developed a very distinct career which can be described as only a White nationalist. Studying his career over the last decade I never saw him harboring any racist sentiments against Africans or advocating anti-Semitism. The reason I'm saying this and I dare to say this is that I personally read his book Jewish Supremacism and therefore I could directly learn about his character and positions from that book. And having read his book I could outright tell that a number of allegations about his views as expressed in the book are totally unfounded. And interestingly those allegations mainly come from such notorious sources as the ADL which has a long history of attacking and defaming even critiques of Zionist genocidal policies and have been exposed for spying on American activists who speak for Palestinian rights! David Duke similarly over the last three decades has been speaking out against Zionist atrocities against Palestinians and for that reason, it is not hard to tell why there is so many vicious libels heaped against him by the ADL and/or other pro-Israeli sources. I know you may find these hard to believe but please before rushing to judgment at least have a look at these two videos where he is given opportunity to speak for himself. In this interview he doesn't whatsoever sound like a White supremacist bigot. He openly rejects any form of racism but also believes that there's a dominant anti-Christian/anti-White prejudice in US media. In his Youtube channel as in this one he deeply sympathizes with the tragic suffering of Palestinians at the hand of Zionist state and is trying to raise awareness. These are some of the alternative sources that paint a much more charitable picture of this person and these alternative perspective supports my claim of bias as per WP:NPOV in the review of the book. Strivingsoul (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no practical difference between "White Nationalism" and "White Supremacism". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, an IP editor from the UK made the exact same distinction in this edit.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That it is possible in an abstract way does not determine the issue, the attitudes of those organized under the banner do, and anti-Semitism is the touchstone, a non sequitur with respect to any genuine advocacy of European welfare. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You are not listening: you have your wet tongue on a 440 Volt line and you are standing in water. Given this post I would not oppose a permanent topic ban from editing any subject related to Jews or Israel. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not mean he has not been a White supremacist. But from studying his recent interviews, articles and books over the last decade that are available, it is clear that he no longer advocates white supremacy which is defined as a form of racism centered upon the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior in certain characteristics, traits, and attributes to people of other racial backgrounds and that therefore whites should politically, economically and socially rule non-whites according to White supremacy. In the interview I linked he openly condemns slavery and all forms of racism. So please before threatening to ban me for simply pointing out some facts, consider examining the sources that I have suggested. Have I made any unfounded claim or have caused any offense?! And what I suggest in this regard is admitting the bias by ADL in misrepresenting the content of the book, as well as, including Duke's recent positions as per WP:NPOV. And for that I can produce direct quotes from his book that disproves some of the negative allegations against what the book says. I understand these facts may contradict some of the assumptions about this apparently sensitive topic considering the alliance most Western governments have with the state of Israel and as a result a much more positive attitude towards Israel, but in Wikipedia we have to be neutral as you all know. If you have lived in the Middle East or if you were a muslim, you would see that sentiments are very different towards Zionism and Israel in this part of the world for obvious reasons. So don't just take your own perceptions as granted and universal. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You've made many an unfounded claim, not the least of which is Duke isn't racist just because he claims he isn't racist. He just happens to think European (non-Jew) whites are genetically superior to every other people on the planet (including your own) and that the U.S. and Europe should be white only. Visit his website where you can see how he laments that Europe is being "invaded" by Muslims. Or how European whites are more intelligent than all other races. That's racism. As of late he's just turned his racism towards Jews because it sells more of his crappy conspiracy books. Duke is a crank and a laughing stock and the fact that you in any way take him seriously shows you have a very bad grasp of which sources would be considered reliable on Wikipedia. Capeo (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

He claims that every people have a right to preserve their heritage. And that multi-culturalism leads to ethnic tension and conflict and destruction of distinct cultural traits of each people. We may not agree with him but he's making a compelling case for his view, and this is unfair to rush to frame it as racism simply because he is against massive aggressive immigration into Europe and America. He also cites Jewish sources which show how multi-culturalism was promoted by Jewish organizations in order to weaken the Christian culture of America. On a related topic, here is one of the Jewish sources he directly quotes that you can see for yourself. The Jewish author admits and brags about their role in the notorious porn-industry and its dark anti-Christian goals: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. (This is really interesting for me, since this is a pattern I have myself witnessed in another case. Israeli Prime Minister Netanhayu had also advocated regime change in Iran back in 2002 through cultural and moral subversion -- by advocating beaming hedonist and degenerate Hollywood productions by a gay Jewish director into Iran in order to corrupt Iranian youths until they revolt against their Islamic government). Just as evident in this example, his book primarily draws from Jewish sources to present his thesis. Most of the book content are NOT his opinions but just quotes after quotes! He is not also claiming there's a crazy conspiracy theory but that Jews have an enormous influence over US media and politics and therefore deeply influence the US culture and politics. And again he backs up his claim by providing testimony from Jews themselves. Here is one of the testimonies he quotes from a Jewish author: I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood. So we can probably suggest that this guy talking about "total control of Hollywood by Jews" is a self-hating anti-Semitic Jew!!

And I'll also be happy if you show me a Duke's recent statement that says Whites are superior to non-whites. There could've been such statements coming from him during his youth where he held more radical views, but I've not seen any statement along that vein in those of his works or articles over the last two decades that I have studied. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Fred, anyone who doesn't see antisemitism in Duke's writing and views should not be anywhere near articles on the subject. Capeo (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What I am simply proposing is balancing the article and admitting the blatant bias of relying primarily on Jewish/Zionist organizations. You did not address any of my evidences and arguments here but only rush to advocate restriction for no legitimate reason. This is not honest. Strivingsoul (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You supplied no evidence, just typical antisemitic conspiracy theories. Comparing Iranian state run media to western free press is beyond ridiculous. Yes, certain outlets tend towards certain political leanings but they all have one thing in common: they freely criticize or report on criticisms of their governments and state establishments and report on everything and anything newsworthy no matter how it makes their home country look. Daily. With no fear of repercussion from the government. As opposed to say, IRNA, which sets out guidelines that must be followed by their "journalists" that allow for no criticism of the state or Islam. Please. Next time a Western country throws a journalist in jail for "propaganda against the establishment" let me know. Until then, you have no point and should stay far away from away from articles on the subject. Capeo (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Western media control is much more subtle and systematic in nature and it is because of the corporate control of the media that is interconnected with others in the rich corporate ruling class. See Corporate media for this scholarly thesis. So the real influential people in the West are not politicians but the super-rich corporations who fund electoral campaigns and lobby for corporate gain and dictate government policies through "non-profit" foundations, promote their commercials for profit etc. Western sources especially in countries like USA, UK, Canada are also notorious for preventing the public from knowing about many dark facts of their foreign policy, e.g. imperialist catastrophic wars against nations driven by corporate grid disguised under "humanitarian intervention" or "democracy promotion" or decade after decade of unconditional financial and diplomatic support for the Zionist regime despite its long hideous human rights record and several acts of massacre committed against muslims. So you can't have a correct assessment of "freedom" in the press if you are not familiar with Political economy critical analysis of the corporate media or have not followed alternative media reporting of the crucial issues that are systematically censored or highly under-represented or misrepresented by a small number of Corporate media conglomerates that control 90% of the media outlets. But contrary in Iran, big money is not dictating news and public opinions but Islamic principles of a muslim nation. In Iranian state media, presidential candidates all enjoy a free and equal time to present their platform without needing to spend tremendous sums on campaigning, but in the West big corporations can practically decide the outcome of the elections depending on which candidates they choose to financially support. In the West big money rules and defines freedom but in Iran it is the Islamic virtues of its committed leaders. And if there are some fringe journalists who were sentenced for their treason or offending the Islamic beliefs of the majority that doesn't say anything to support the idea of lack of press freedom in Iran. Iran has a constitution that overwhelming majority of Iranians voted for in a public referendum. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why I'm responding, this will be my last, but I can't help myself. I'm aware of all the deficiencies inherent to corporate media and corporate influence on politics. Do you know why? Because these issues are constantly reported on by a vast array of media outlets and politicians in the U.S. You think you're exposing some dark secret yet these discussions and criticisms are at the forefront of debate in the U.S. precisely because we have a free press and the ability to criticize whatever we we wish. This: "And if there are some fringe journalists who were sentenced for their treason or offending the Islamic beliefs of the majority that doesn't say anything to support the idea of lack of press freedom in Iran," displays a stunning disconnect in regards to what a free press and freedom of speech are. Capeo (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note to mention that I've opened Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Strivingsoul. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Community ban

Proposing an indefinite community ban from Wikipedia or a topic ban on anything related to Judaism, broadly construed, per Wikipedia:Competence is required and based on the discussion above, especially the claim regarding David Duke that "Studying his career over the last decade I never saw him harboring any racist sentiments against Africans or advocating anti-Semitism." Gamaliel (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And what's so terrible about that claim to deserve a topic ban?! Please cite evidence to counter my claim. I can still cite many more evidences to back up my claim. Others have presented virtually non! And what a fair way of conducting an ANI discussion indeed! Rushing to topic ban regardless of any substantial evidences exchanged! I'm not here to cause trouble but work according to WP:NPOV and to minimize WP:BIAS. Is that what warrants such an aggressive measure against me?! I recommend allowing this discussion to proceed further in the mainspace talk pages. It is too early to judge! Strivingsoul (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I also tag an experienced muslim Wikipedian that I have worked with on Islam/Iran-related topics for arbitration. Some participants in this page seem to be more or less biased against me and the topic, and ignore my explanations. @Sa.vakilian:. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I come here due to Strivingsoul's request and do not want to participate in ideological or religious discussions. @Gamaliel:, As I know, we should judge about the users based on their activities not their ideas. Let's check whether Strivingsoul or Andres Feder have violated the wikipedia policies and guidelines or not. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What does it matter that he is Muslim? The issue being discussed is your behavior, not your religion. Being Muslim isn't a justification for being disruptive.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Anders Feder! You are the one who instigated this whole mess to begin with! You've lumped together so many different issues in your first post that can not be properly addressed here with discernment. The last time I was also banned was also for a similar reason. An administrator rushed to take an unfinished talk-page dispute to ANI while I was still defending my case.

And the reason I brought up religion because as I explained earlier this dispute started out of we coming from diametrically opposed philosophical/political persuasions. You were strongly biased against Iran and Islamic topics hence I needed to counter some of your allegations with alternative information. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying Sa.vakilian is in possesion of some "alternative information" that will vindicate views such as: "[Jews] are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion"?--Anders Feder (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No! But probably compared to you who are driven with your anti-Muslim prejudices, he has the integrity to recognize that I was basically quoting a Jewish journal quoting Jewish porn-producers saying exactly that: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority. They are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Why were you quoting it? What were you trying to show?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't unnecessarily drag this any further! You can just scroll up some paragraphs or use Ctrl+F to locate where I quoted it and in which context and purpose. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose is clear, and Gamaliel's proposal was made in response to it.--Anders Feder (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in evidence for my alternative view here is one from Duke's official website: "In truth, as racism is defined, if you believe in mutual respect of all peoples, and you oppose the oppression of a people by another people, you are not racist, but actually anti-racist. The truth is that any race can practice racism, not only white people.". Strivingsoul (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you're so concerned about quotes being used out of context, just pointing out that you omitted The truth is that the real ultra-racists are those who control the media. The Zio Media demonizes whites and incites hatred in blacks toward whites and self-hatred in many whites toward themselves. They do this so they can divide and conquer and control us all. They especially hate whites and seek to demonize whites because they see the 60 percent of the white population as their biggest competitors for power, so they want to weaken and demoralize white people, and create a coalition against white people while they are the true masters of media, finance and government. from that quote. ‑ iridescent 08:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban "The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and their cultural context are lacking." No ethnic group or nation should be subjected to editing this tone deaf. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with basic policies and workings of Wikipedia. But the problem is this discussion has become too loaded with various disputes. If it was not for Anders Feder extreme opinions and his taking so many different issues to ANI, I would have been proceeding in relevant talk pages to discuss and settle the disputes with other involved Wikipedians. And I can see you yourself admitted that Anders Feder's behavior was crucial for instigating this whole unnecessary controversies. Let's us just discuss and settle the disputes in relevant talk pages. I understand this thread has already become very exhausting and hard to judge so many disagreements. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

People can have a look at my recent useful contributions to Houthis to get an idea of my good understanding of Wikipedia policies. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Death to America, death to Israel, damnation to the Jews." is not ambiguous. See your edit here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't cover up the full facts! Why do you need to cite out of context and ignore alternative POVs already covered in that page which reject the literal interpretation of that slogan?! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban, will accept topic ban from any content relating to Jews or Judaism as a start if necessary - Per [12], [13], and his repeated bigotry throughout this thread. StrivingSoul is either incapable of understanding what antisemitism is, or is here to push an antisemitic POV. Either way, his presence is a net loss to the site. He's repeatedly been told that that's unacceptable, and it's time we show it. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It is you who doesn't understand what anti-Semitism is! Please stop pushing for your accusations and have a look at Criticism of the Israeli government#Objections to characterizing criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism! Considering our unresolved dispute here, you are by no means an impartial arbitrator! Anders Feder has only canvassed biased users against me to corner me by completely ignoring any of the extensive explanations I have offered so far, and repeating baseless accusations! Strivingsoul (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll find that most users on this site are similarly "biased" against antisemitism or any other sort of bigotry. There is a huge difference between criticizing the policies of the Israeli government (something Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper, does fairly often) and pretending that a known neo-Nazi is somehow not a bigot. If you can't tell the difference, you don't belong here. That dispute was resolved, and everyone found that you were wrong. The only thing that was left unresolved was that we failed to block you as a troll for pretending that a man who headed an organization dedicated to violence against blacks and Jews is somehow a spokesperson for tolerance. When you said that you never saw any evidence of racism on his part, you were lying either to us (as a troll) or to yourself (as a bigot). Either behavior does not belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not true! Did you honestly read my explanations for example when I said: I did not mean he has not been a White supremacist. But from studying his recent interviews, articles and books over the last decade that are available, it is clear that he no longer advocates white supremacy. Furthermore, I linked evidences that he openly rejects racism in his statements over the last two decades. My argument is that the charge of racism is true only for the period that he was involved with KKK in 1970s. But at least for the last two decades he does no longer harbor racism against any group. And I have already provided sufficient evidences to back this up if only you care to study them! The problem is this dispute should've been resolved in the book's talk page and not dragged here. This whole controversy started from a disagreement on reliability of Iranian sources. Completely irrelevant to the accusations you posed here. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not like your efforts to bog down constructive editing in rants regarding how mainstream sources are controlled by the Rothschild family, the British queen, etc. are any more helpful to the project than your defense of the views of David Duke.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't twist, generalize, falsify, lie! Have some shame! Produce evidence, context and link for anything you attribute to me next time! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef. WP:NPOV doesn't mean being obliged to give every racist crackpot theorist equal airtime to mainstream views, and given the responses in this thread, this editor is never going to understand that. ‑ iridescent 08:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef. per above. — Ched :  ?  08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Let's just halt this mess for a second, Users here drop in and are simply provoked by the gross appearance of the charges against me and ignore my extensive explanations. But this whole accusatory mess against me started when Aders Feder dragged a dispute over reliability of Iranian sources to ANI and lumped it together with many other unresolved issues in the past such as the dispute over neutrality of David Duke book' analysis to condition the users against me. I should make it clear that I do not advocate anti-Semitism but it is vital to allow legitimate criticism of Israeli government or Jewish pornographers from a Christian point of view such as that of David Duke to be properly represented in the articles as per WP:NPOV, and we can resolve and decide this in the relevant talk pages as I had once attempted here: Talk:Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question. This has really become an unnecessary loaded fuss and unfair accusation game against me over so many unresolved issues. Let's us just proceed to settle them in the long run. I apologize for my part for indirectly having contributed to this controversy but like I said I was not the one who started this but Anders Feder! Strivingsoul (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No one are "ignoring your extensive explanations". They read your extensive explanations and conclude that they amount to nothing.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not "ignoring your extensive explanations". Your "extensive explanations" are predicated on the assumption that the ultra-marginal views of David Duke are mainstream enough that NPOV mandates they be discussed. For anyone unfamiliar with David Duke, just reading his official homepage should speak for itself. ‑ iridescent 08:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What if those "ultra marginal" views such as ones expressed in his book are exhaustively backed up by +600 scholarly references?! I think WP:BIAS warrants fair representation of his views especially when they are properly backed up. His views are also not ultra-marginal and not even quite marginal! There are many left-wing, right-wing and even Jewish critiques who concur with many of his points in regards with Zionism. Example: Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, Robert Faurisson, Norman Finkelstein and Neturei Karta. There are also many Christian Conservatives and Palocoservatives who might not be as outspoken or well-known as him but still share his views on emigration and/or defending Christian values against liberal/Jewish cultural war. Examples E. Michael Jones, Neal Gabler, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and more. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Christian" is not identical to "Right-wing," and many of the authors you list as "Christian" derive their political philosophy from this Jewish atheist instead of the Beatitudes. Most right-wing Christians in America are extremely pro-Israel. Quit trying to play the "you're protecting Christians" card, because you're only going to annoy Christians (and probably atheists and agnostics as well). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef, or ban (although that seems unnecessary), or topic ban (although that would probably just move the advocacy elsewhere). Supporting Duke is one type of problem, but making the statement quoted above indicates a much deeper issue because editors have to be sufficiently competent to understand basics, particularly when engaging in these areas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support siteban (first preference) or topic ban (second choice). Among the things Wikipedia does not need, unashamed apologists for white supremacism and antisemitism must surely rank near the top. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Whatever has the greater consensus. Although topic ban should really be attempted first. Reason: RE David Duke, sheesh. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support I was waiting till I saw their responses to me from last night before I proposed a siteban myself. Now that I see them this morning. Just... wow. David Duke and the word "scholarly" in the same sentence? There is nothing good that's going to come from Strivingsoul's continued presence here. Capeo (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You just like pretty much everyone else in this page, have no idea about Duke beyond than ADL/Zionist propaganda or his past KKK association back in 1970s! You don't even know the guy has a Phd in history! You have not read his scholarly book that contains 600+ references! So you just jump in the bandwagon to spew out "Ban ban ban ban!" You seem so biased and misinformed about this man that you apparently even can't believe your eyes when looking at several pieces of evidences that I have offered in my lengthy discussions! ### for everyone else supporting "ban ban ban ban"! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You're really not helping your case with your continued insinuations about Zionist propaganda. In any case, people with advanced degrees and published books can still be bigots. One only needs to look at David Duke's website to realize that while he's shied away from the overt bigotry of his KKK days, he still harbors a lot of the same feelings towards Jews. clpo13_(talk) 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

David Duke got his "Ph.D" from a Ukrainian diploma mill know for its for virulent anti-antisemitism. They handed it to them because he supports their views. He's not a scholar and his book's supposed scholarly references are quote-mined bullshit taken out of context. He's never published in any journals, never cited by actual scholars and is a complete joke. Not to mention he went to jail for bilking his followers. Your "evidence" is, again, quote mined bullshit that in no way examines the context of the quotes and tries to paint said quotes as speaking for an entire people. It's disingenuous trickery used by people with no argument. Can we just ban this person at this point? Anyone seriously arguing that Duke meets reliability criteria or is a scholarly source lacks the competence to edit here. They're here to push their POV and that's it. Capeo (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Known for its virulent anti-Semitism" Yes! Dare to criticize Zionist genocidal policies or point out things like atheist Jewish pornographers' self-declared agenda of weakening Christianity by moral subversion, or US unconditional support for Israel's occupational apartheid, and then be branded as "anti-Semite" by ADL's Stalinist thought policing, to the point of even making the absurd claim of Self-hating Jew for decent Jews who point out the same injustices by their fellow tribesmen! And my evidences prove that there are perfectly legitimate grounds in David Duke's or (others', for that matter,) criticism of extremist, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian elements with Jewish background, unless you're advocating the view that once someone happens to come from a Jewish background, he or she somehow miraculously becomes infallible and should not be criticized for anything wrong! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (community ban) While I agree with most of the above discussions about lack of competence regarding the David Duke and related issues, there is not enough evidence of Policy violations. Therefor, I think "topic ban" is enough to punish him and community ban is not justifiable. I wonder how the above comments are made in support of the proposal without trying to show how the editor has violated policies and which policies have been violated.​ The discussion, despite being full of hot comments, is not what an ANI discussion should be.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for some little sense! But about "lack of competence" what's that?! And the only policy that seems I have grossly, badly, awfully violated is ADL's political correctness!! But I didn't know that's part of Wikipedia policies, you know! Nobody even told me that! But maybe you can guide me to the relevant Wiki help page! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR is enough. There need not be specific policy violations cited for the community to decide that an editor is a net negative to the project due to soapboxing, POV-pushing and overall lack of a clue. Capeo (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban. This editor, while making a few constructive edits, has engaged in repeated disruption that results in a net negative for the project. Mamyles (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Net negative indeed! I had planned to work on multiple Iran/Shia/Islam-related topics and help other Farsi-speaking editors with English language! But apparently the net negative is really worth it for God forbid disagreeing with ADL or Zionist political narrative! It's you know such an irredeemable crime against humanity! Strivingsoul (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on anything relating to Jews or Judaism. His continued assertions that David Duke's reputation is merely the result of the "ADL or Zionist political narrative" indicate an unwillingness to be neutral when it comes to this topic. With regards to policy violations elsewhere, I'm not convinced this editor is enough of a problem to justify a complete community ban. clpo13_(talk) 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Merely a result of..." when did I say that?! I already admit that Duke deserves criticism for his past association with KKK! But that's not justification to brand him as anti-Semite for criticizing the grotesque crimes of the Zionist state, or the influence of Zionist lobby on US foreign policy, or atheist Jewish pornographers that have vowed to subvert Christian culture in American by promoting moral degeneracy! And it is interesting you talk about neutrality but support ADL's biased review of his book to be cited as fact! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ad it is interesting you talk about neutrality but support ADL's biased review of his book to be cited as facts! Please show me where I did or said anything of the sort. clpo13_(talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:STOPDIGGING. Support topic ban at least, as per Onel5969. GAB^Hello! 01:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The David Duke comments seem to reflect a deeper inability to look at sources/issues and be able to discern propaganda/conspiracy from actuality and that is a massive competence issue. The "... Zionist political narrative!" bit does it for me Jbh^Talk 15:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban as per Gamaliel's nomination. Editor's continued responses to each vote only confirms the underlying assumption which prompted the ban suggestion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban per nom; nothing more to be said. BMK (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban -- WP:COMPETENCE, complete cluelessness, quite possibly being a troll ("Atheist Jewish pornographers that have vowed to subvert Christian culture" -- how tired), etc etc. EEng (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The most laughable part about that, which shows how incapable this editor Strivingsoul is at parsing sources in an unbiased manner, is that they are using this quote mine: Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority. They are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion to justify the statement. The quote is from an essay exploring historical and current Jewish participation in the US porn industry. The essay, as should be clearly obvious through "by this argument", puts forth multiple arguments to explain said involvement but of course this editor settles only on the one that supports his Zionist-conspiracy-to-ruin-everything theory. Capeo (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The most laughable part is that you are quoting selectively to obscure what that article definitely suggests. So here's a veritable testimony: Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said, ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Still more laughable (or maybe sad) part is your implication that even if some of these people were not promoting porn with that explicit purpose, that would somehow discount the heinous nature of their occupation and its inevitable harmful impact on the society. Strivingsoul (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul, since you're accusing me of discounting something that is immaterial to the point I'm going to respond to you though I said I wouldn't earlier. Again, your comprehension of the essay is lacking. "Pornography thus becomes", makes clear this is a presentation of yet another view, among many presented, that MAY contribute to the understanding of the historical participation of Jews in pornography. You seem not to comprehend that the essay makes no definitive statements and draws no conclusions but only points out what may be contributing factors. You are the one making definitive statements based on the authors hypotheticals and a quote from a Jewish porn producer and trying to paint all Jews with that broad brush as part of a conspiracy to destroy society. I note from your response below you've now moved your target from "Atheist Jews" to "Atheist/Liberal Jews". Well, though you've tried to paint me in a bad light, this Atheist/Liberal non-Jew isn't going to share his personal views about pornography with you as it has nothing to do with your inability to put a source in its proper context. Capeo (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm NOT and never been "painting all Jews as part of a conspiracy to destroy society" for that's just an unwarranted, unfair generalization! I already have much praise for many decent Jews who have spoken out against the criminality of the Zionist state or the vehement Zionist propaganda and cultural war against muslims and Christians. I have named some of these commendable Jewish personalities earlier above. Furthermore, it is useful for you to know that I personally come from a country where anti-Semitism is banned by state religious law and is home to the second largest Jewish community in the region. Jews have been living in Iran peacefully ever since the Islamic Revolution in Iran except for a very short-lived wave of emigration to Israel before Iranian revolutionary leaders had still the chance to publicly declare their acceptance and recognition of the Iranian Jewish minority. See: Persian Jews#Islamic Republic (1979–present). Strivingsoul (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, just for the record, could you modify your comments to make it a bit clearer who "this editor" is? I'd hate for anyone to mistakenly think you were talking about me. EEng (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, EEng. I corrected the above to make clear I was referring to Strivingsoul. Capeo (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I realized that eventually, but for a minute I was trying to figure out how to reach through the internet and smack you a good one. Thanks for clarifying. EEng (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol. No problem. It was rather clumsy wording on my part. Capeo (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban Just keeps digging. Irondome (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I see nothing to suggest Strivingsoul has any interest in following Wikipedia's principles, either in his contributions history or this very ANI thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban Racism is against Civility, without civility, Wikipedia would be a battleground of war and rage. As evidenced by his behaviour, I can tell that he wages frequent edit wars and does frequent personal attacks with anyone he opposes, especially Jews. I reckon that a topic ban would not stop this carnage, as one day, he could abuse us as well. A site ban should be more appropriate for him. Support per above. DSCrowned^(talk) 10:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Racism is of course abhorrently uncivil! But even more uncivil is to vilify someone as racist for pointing out things like, the widely recognized racism of the Zionist state, or its hideous oppressive policies or promotion of grotesque moral depravity by Atheist/liberal Jews, or, as also basically relevant to our work in Wikipedia, questioning reliability of a Jewish/Zionist partisan thought police organization such as ADL for presenting a book that criticizes that very partisan organization and its shameful practices! Sounds like racism indeed! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin close this? There is a very clear consensus for a topic ban at the very least. GAB^Hello! 20:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is in dire need of a close. I personally see a clear consensus for a siteban but obviously that's up to the closing admin to judge. I would note that, in my view, a topic ban would be woefully insufficient. From all Strivingsoul's responses it would seem they'd need to be TBed from anything related to Judaism and Israel for sure but they also seem to use pointed descriptions of Jews in a context that implies they have an issue beyond just Jews. You'll note descriptions like "gay Jew", "atheist Jew", and "atheist/liberal Jew" where the description is completely unnecessary unless the intent is to vilify homosexuals, atheists and liberals as well. Capeo (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with a topic ban "related to Judaism and Israel" is that since, as everyone knows, Jews control everything anyway, that's the same a complete ban on all topics, so let's save time and just go with that. EEng (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC) ;)

Ironically, when you actually read the source used for advocating beaming hedonist and degenerate Hollywood productions by a gay Jewish director into Iran in order to corrupt Iranian youths, the hedonist and degenerate Hollywood production in question turns out to be that hotbed of depravity, Beverley Hills 90210. ‑ iridescent 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair I'd be ready to revolt if I were forced to watch "Beverly Hills 90210" ;) In fact if it were actually "hedonistic and degenerate" it might have been an interesting show. In all seriousness though, I don't think Strivingsoul's connecting "hedonistic and degenerate" to the producer being gay was unintentional. Capeo (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what qualifies as hedonism or degenerate in your mind, but to me as a human being and a muslim, a TV-series that features "Lying, cheating, stealing, seduction, betrayal, jealousy, greed, murder ... [by] wonderfully wicked people" produced by an "openly gay Jews" is pretty much evil incarnate, and is yet another confirmation for the Atheist-Jewish moral war against Muslims and Christians! Practicing Muslims and Christians (as well as practicing Jews for that matter) would also find it totally inappropriate for their families to watch a TV-series that portrays youth getting involved in things like alcoholism, pregnancy and AIDS. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sooooooo.... can we close this now? We're at the point where the idiocy of Melrose Place is pretty much evil incarnate, and is yet another confirmation for the Atheist-Jewish moral war against Muslims and Christians! Capeo (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I assume someone must come from a very terrible upbringing and a very dangerous worldview to question the evilness of "Lying, cheating, stealing, seduction, betrayal, jealousy, greed, murder ...". I think that also makes it clear why admins don't heed your relentless agitations, for attitudes of this sort have no place in making decisions in Wikipedia! Strivingsoul (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And now we've moved onto personal attacks. I guess I've had a terrible upbringing because I'm able to separate a trite 90's melodrama from reality. Oh, and having the basic faith in humanity that they can do the same. Capeo (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a fun thread, but we really should close. GAB^Hello! 22:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know of a way to facilitate that though. An admin made the proposal and at least one has voted so there's definitely some admin eyes on this thread. Capeo (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know but maybe that's because they don't see how it is fair and correct to ban a judicious Muslim user that defends his position by citing information and evidences against a majority that just advocate ban based on their preconceived biases. Maybe admins see how this is clearly a case of someone being the most hard hit by Wikipedia systematic bias. Strivingsoul (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. A topic ban is not enough to stop the feuding, personal attacks, and POV pushing. This user is not here to write an encyclopedia. I wish them well in their future pursuits. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Site Ban I don't think that this is going to turn around. I echo Viriditas and wish them well at other places. I'm certain the Farsi Wikipedia could use their help.--Adam in MO Talk 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support siteban - Why is this still open? I don't understand how anyone can read this thread and not know for 100% certain that this editor is not here to benefit the project, and/or able to do so. Please close and institute the site ban. Dave Dial (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I tried to read this rather long thread and also paid attention to the comments by participants. To me, some of them think we have a voting process here and almost few of them could say according to which policy and diff they thought he should be banned and why they are supporting a proposal which is based on an "essay" having "no official status." However I do admit his committing in edit warring for example here where I warned both sides (Shazaami was enclosed to be a sock-puppet). Please note that, accepting or denying Anti-semetism (or any other things such as Flat Earth) by editors is up to them and we can't punish them for having a particular belief, unless they try to push their wp:pov. Also, consider that "editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing," and POV-Pushing "generally does not apply to talk page discussions." Mhhossein (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• My two cents Since there has been so many votes for "site ban" my vote wouldn't count either way, as such, I'm offering my two cents. I'm the one who figured out and got Shazaami blocked as sockpuppet[14] I must say Mhhossein is a great editor, as he has plenty of barnstars on his userpage. That said, Mhhossein and Strivingsoul have very similar userpage (except no barnstars on Strivingsoul's user page yet). Yet Strivingsoul's userpage was nominated for deletion. Mhhossein and Strivingsoul have very similar beliefs, editing pattern and often supports each other during conflicts. That said, why is Strivingsoul always being targeted negatively? Mhhossein is getting praised, as evidenced by the barnstars on his userpage--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm being targeted for Anders Feder's continued unnecessary agitations against me as you can see in this case as well. He tries to frame Muslim editors by appealing to the cultural and political biases of mainstream Wikipedians. He had also tried the same thing against Mhhossein in the past but miserably failed to the point of getting WP:BOOMERANG. I also hope he fails this time too. And I wish he is willing to drop or at least moderate his extreme biases against us who are making positive contributions to Wikipedia on one of the most underrepresented civilizational areas. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Disinformation is indeed an "underrepresented civilizational area" and that is just how it should remain.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, the only real similarities between the two users is that they are Muslim, edit in areas concerning middle eastern politics, and possibly share some broadly similar political views. Those are not the reasons why people are suggesting that Strivingsoul be blocked. While I've only made a cursory glance through Mhhossein's contributions, even if he does things I would not recommend, he seems to understand that one does not misquote figures neo-Nazi conspiracy fantasies as if they are facts. Editors are welcome to believe whatever they want outside the site -- but attempting to change article content based on those beliefs (especially ones as delusional as David Duke's) is unacceptable per WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. StrivingSoul still does not understand that that is a problem.

Also, the barnstars themselves are not protection, but the actions Mhhossein took to earn his barnstars does protect him somewhat. His contributions appear to be overall positive and useful. StrivingSoul has been problematic from the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

David Duke is controversial but unless and until we have conducted an objective study of his works and articles we can't dismiss what he says as "conspiracy fantasies" and just opt for the ADL's position on him and his works -- which by no means is a neutral party. And I don't know where I misquoted Duke? To the contrary it seems that Duke's views are heavily misquoted and even falsified by ADL in order to keep up the image of a persisting anti-Semitic bigot, and deflect from many reasonable points and viewpoints that he espouses. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2015 (UT

Strivingsoul, you need to completely drop David Duke as a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. If you do not, you will indeed likely receive a block (probably an indefinite one) for disruptive editing and/or incompetence. I've been willing to give you a lot of rope on this thread, but if you don't learn from your mistakes and drop these WP:FRINGE-pushing behaviors, you will be blocked. It's just that simple. People are tired of arguing with you. I'm sure you believe you are right, but that doesn't matter. You need to abide by Wikipedia policies and consensus. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I am very grateful for your fair judgement. I understand that this controversy has grown so tiresome, and this apparently because of the very controversial character and career of Duke. Anyways, I thought I could back up my case with reference to WP:NPOV. But if there's no way David Duke can be relied on for anything (even his own opinions!) then I willingly drop this whole case because, then, as you also say, there would be no gain in dragging this any longer other than just more tension. And I'm already sorry for this unintended consequence. Thanks. Strivingsoul (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Mhhossein doesn't have the same fixation on Jews Strivingsoul (and a certain other wikipedia editor[15]) has. Brustopher (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a fixation on Jews. I'm just discussing a controversial topic that happens to be related to Jews. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)C)

• Oppose. The above-espoused views on David Duke are at least partly wrong and moderately offensive but mostly just foolhardy. One can be an anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. I have not seen clear evidence of antisemitism; the opinion on Duke alone can't vouch for that. The discussion here got off-track quickly, partly because of StrivingSoul, no doubt (though Anders Feder is good at it too). It should have been a discussion about the edits cited in the very first paragraph of this thread but no one is talking about that. From those diffs one can make the case for a ban on Iran-related topics. The talk page discussion on Jewish Supremacism isn't all that disruptive; if we can't handle that on a talk page with a number of decent editors than it's looking bad for all of us. And their editing on Houthis, when they removed "antisemitims" as one of the group's ideologies, wasn't wrong: it's in the article again, with this as the only source, but a careful reading of that article proves this wrong: "Houthi supporters and leaders stress that their ire is directed toward the governments of America and Israel...rather than Americans or Jews as individuals....Anecdotally, at least, this would seem to prove true.

  So no, I cannot support such a topic ban, let alone a site ban. I understand y'all are having problems with this editor, but if they're a troll, not feeding them is helpful. Removing/hatting talk page forum posts is helpful. If they're edit warring, report them for it--they've been blocked for it before. Nothing that normal procedure can't fix. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"though Anders Feder is good at it too" What are you even talking about? Almost all of the few comments I've made are two sentences or less long, and most are replies to comments Strivingsoul or others directed at me. You are the user who closed my report regarding Mhhossein too - I am not surprised you would be so indilligent in processing this one also. As for your wishing others well putting up with Strivingsoul, why don't you do yourself? I sure as heck won't, but then again I guess that is your goal?--Anders Feder (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• If you have a problem with the close of that discussion, feel free to put it up for review. My close is here, and comments addressed to you by Ravenswing, Kingsindian, and Brustopher make for helpful reading--particularly Ravenswing final comment, made a month before I closed the thread, itself a clear indication that no action was to be taken. I'm not processing anything here, just giving my opinion, and I clearly won't close it. Note that it's just me and a few others who are going against the tide, but I don't mind disagreeing with them--and I'm not disagreeing because you have something to do with this. If the community decides to ban this editor, so be it. My opinion of you is formed in part by what happened in the Mhhossein thread but again, that has no bearing on this case. (Note that, for instance, I quick-failed one of their GA nominations: I try to be an equal-opportunity offender.) As for me dealing with their disruption, well, I had to look at a bunch of their stuff plowing through the diffs, and I'm not happy with their behavior, as I indicated above; if I were more active in that area I might take action, or I might have taken action already--but it kind of begs the question (one I cannot answer) of what means of dispute resolution were sought earlier. I mean, WP:AN3 is just around the corner, and previous offenders are not typically regarded kindly there. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

When one thinks the Jews control the media and speculates that pornography is a Jewish plot to weaken Christianity, then his anti-Semitism isn't really in question regardless of his beliefs on Israel or its government. Someone who defends an obvious anti-Semite by playing the "you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic" is treading in dangerous waters as well. Bobby Tables (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there is strong consensus for a site ban based on your comment. It boggles the mind and begs credulity that at least one admin thinks otherwise. While good people can disagree, this seems more of a case of bias, insensitivity, and disregard for the facts. If there isn't a site ban, we are only going to be back here in a few weeks. The facts show that most editors are indefinitely blocked for far less (see the recent block of User:MusicAngels for only one recent example). I think we are dealing with a small segment of the community that are unable to clearly recognize racism, disruption, and deliberate trolling when it stares them in the face. Clearly, adminship and the responsibility it requires isn't for everyone, so we need to hear from other voices who have a better reality-based view of the situation. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not wanting to ban someone doesn't mean one defends them, Bobby Tables, and I suppose the reference to Malik Shabazz's evenhandedness went right over your head. Viriditas, your vitriol is well known and it really doesn't bother me, though I do wonder in hindsight why I stuck my neck out for you long ago. That you are calling me not good people, but rather biased, insensitive, and whatnot, that's par for the course. Go ahead and call me an antisemite too. No, adminship is not for everyone, but perhaps if you're admin material you can try communicating via Bradspeak and clarify whose comment you're talking about, and if it was me you wanted site-banned. But you have enough !votes to get the site ban you so dearly want, so why badger the poor schmuck who disagrees with you? Drmies (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I miss Malik <sniff>. EEng (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bobby Tables: "When one thinks the Jews control the media and speculates that pornography is a Jewish plot to weaken Christianity," Seriously, if you can so shamelessly pretend that those are what "I think" and deliberately ignore that those are acknowledged, reported facts that I have basically just referenced and quoted, then that casts serious doubt about your integrity and credibility in having any opinion in this ANI. Strivingsoul (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I thank you @Drmies: for your courage to point out the obvious fact that I'm being unfairly framed here for no real offense. The fact is, if some people are not willing to judge objectively and neutrally, there's no way they can be persuaded otherwise. Despite my persistent patience and restraint here in assuming good faith and supporting my case with facts and references, I continue to be attacked by allegations of anti-Semitism which is obviously unfounded. And when they charge me with being disruptive, they are mostly unaware that the disputes I've been involved with have been mostly with one or two editors who hold very extreme views and have a history of attacking me personally in talk page discussions with the inevitable result of repeated controversies. One can have a look at Talk:Houthis#Disruptive editing/reverts by an "Israeli Jew SunniWarrior" to see what kind of users I have to deal with in areas of my interest in Wikipedia. And this is now ironic that a "ban support" has just come from a Pro-Israeli partisan POV-pusher (masquerading as "SunniWarrior") that I have been dealing with fortitude in that talk page. Strivingsoul (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this is a massive pile-on bandwagon and witch hunt based solely on knee-jerk reactions to the name David Duke and the idea that someone has read his book and found some of it compelling or credible. This is not a reason to site-ban someone. Everything here is totally out of process. The user has not even remotely reached WP:BMB, and we should not even be considering that. As Drmies has said, everything here can totally be resolved via appropriate process. Extreme measures are not needed. The user needs to be given the opportunity to prove he can edit competently, collaboratively, and within policy. If he can't, then there are policies and sanctions in place to handle that. At this moment, this reaction is way over the top, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Softlavender. You know, let me say (not so much to you as to the supporters) that I don't think that Strivingsould is not disruptive. And they're shooting themselves royally in all their feet simultaneously by turning every little think into some enormous discussion of political positions, as if everything is just about content and the opponents' POVs. I just don't think we need to go to this extreme measure. This is another one of those occasions where I sorely miss the presence of Malik Shabazz. I don't really know what Malik would say and I don't presume I can speak for him, of course, but one thing I learned from him is to be very careful with jumping from "anti-Israel" or "anti-Zionism" to "antisemitism", and I found that confirmed at least to some extent in the source cited for the Houthis case, linked above. To put it another way, I fear that if Strivingsoul continues to act they way they do, they will run into an indefinite block followed by a half dozen lengthy and bitterly argumentative unblock requests followed by the removal of talk page access. But for now I prefer to hope that this very discussion (are you listening, Strivingsoul?) will help them reconsider their style of editing, and that it will encourage them to keep more of their opinions to themselves. In yet other words, I think ROPE applies here, and that an indef block, if it happens, will clearly be their own doing. Thank you all, and all the best to those who are dealing with Strivingsoul's disruptive behavior. One way or another there will be an end to it, but I'd rather it be done differently than via a site ban. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support community ban Editor is basically acting as a proxy for the Iranian dictator, Khamenei. Maybe working for the Iranian regime--SunniWarrior (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Says the Zionist, crypto-Jewish, "SunniWarrior". Strivingsoul (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Both editors blocked--the one indefinitely for being here only to disrupt, the other for 72 hours for personal attacks. If anyone feels the need to remove Strivingsoul's insult (the one after "Zionist"), go ahead. Or you can choose to let it stand, because if you support the (topic or site) ban, it sure helps your case. Hard to find a clearer case of someone shooting themselves in the foot. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Like Drmies, I'm not yet convinced that a community siteban is warranted. I do think that Strivingsoul is being disruptive, and there are few surer ways of cementing a reputation as a POV-pushing jerk than to rebut everything everyone posts with "But you're just not understanding that the Zionists are ***RACISTS!!!!*** nonsense. However: it is not a prima facie violation of Wikipedia policy to be anti-Zionist or even antisemitic; it is just one to push a POV along those lines in defiance of NPOV, and it sure as frigging hell NOT a ban-worthy offense to hold a view about David Duke that you find disagreeable. Has that level been breached here to the point of warranting a site ban? I don't see it ... yet. For another, I'm bothered that this is the second time in a month that Anders Feder -- a POV warrior in his own right -- has sought sanctions against someone who disagrees with him politically. I don't know about you, but I don't care for ANI being used as Anders Feder's catspaw against editors he dislikes. Ravenswing 08:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being fair and objective, especially for appreciating that this is yet another unnecessary fuss resulting from Anders Feder's agitation and framing. But when you so confidently declare my characterization of Zionism as racism as "nonsense" you seem to be unaware of the fact that this is a popular view that has been even once adopted by a UN Resolution! Please also have a look at Israel and the apartheid analogy. So you see my friend, most of what I have been saying in this thread or elsewhere are backed up by facts and evidences, yet I don't see why there's so much hostility against me other than for a general bias that seems to be common with many Western Wikipedians on Mid-Eastern subjects and views. Don't you think this is a case of Systematic bias against me as per WP:BIAS?! Strivingsoul (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The determination that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination", contained in the resolution, was revoked in 1991 with UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86. So you could just as well say, "the UN refuted the notion that Zionism 'is a form of racism and racial discrimination.'" GAB^Hello! 20:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Strivingsoul, it's comments like those that will get you banned, indirectly (as in this thread, since I think a lot of what underlies the support for the ban is irritation with your tendentious commentary) or directly, from some admin who has seen enough of it. Perhaps Anders Feder is agitating and framing, but you should be the last one to comment on it. What the UN has to say on something is of no relevance here. If there's BIAS here, and maybe there is, your combative edits and entrenched position are doing little to overcome it. Most importantly, constantly turning everything in some interminable political discussion may feel good when you're 16 and debating with your parents, but here--well, it may still feel good, but you'll find your audience turn rather to an admin asking for a block per FORUM or something like that. And if you keep this up, should it be me blocking you for persistent disruption? Because that is quickly becoming a valid block rationale. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're asking me what I truly think, Strivingsoul, I said a bit of it above. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a discussion forum, and ANI isn't remotely a venue (nor, as to that, is anywhere on Wikipedia) for you to wage war over your political beliefs. I oppose a community ban because it's a knee-jerk, disproportionate reaction to the situation, and that as far as I've found there aren't any Wikipedia policies requiring the permaban of people who don't think that David Duke sits at the right hand of Anti-Christ, but I freely confess I'm not going to lie awake in anguish if the Supports win this one. Your best move right now is to sit down, shut up, and accept that you've already said everything you wanted to say, ten times over, without continuing to comment on everything every editor posts. You'll ignore my advice, I expect, as you'll ignore Drmies', and if you possess a soupçon of self-examination, that you're getting this from two editors who oppose banning you should be the Mother of All Wake-Up Calls. Ravenswing 07:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose a site ban, at this time, largely per Ravenswing. However, I would support an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to this topic area, the scope of which should be discussed if there is some support from other editors for one. Blackmane (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As I previously stated, I support an indefinite topic ban for this topic area. GAB^Hello! 00:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Site ban Valueless nonsense. WP:NOTHERE. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Changing to support: Per Strivingsoul's talk page and his appeal of his temporary block. While I dislike the precedent that someone can be blocked for unpopular views, and greatly dislike handing Feder more reason to think he has a hunting license against editors he dislikes, it's plain that Strivingsoul just can't wrap his head around the need to refrain from insulting other editors, no matter the alleged provocation, no matter how justified he believes he is in doing so. Ravenswing 13:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR on Levant by Debresser

Here Debresser reverted my edit, re-instating a claim not supported by sources. Here the user removed the {{cn}} tag I placed on the unsupported claim. The two reverts happened within 40 minutes, on an article that clearly falls under WP:ARBPIA.

I pinged the user on the talk page and explained the problem with the content they restored, but got no response so far. “WarKosign” 10:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but I agree with you, both edits inserted a fact with no sources that's in contention , at the very least between you and DeBresser, and on the first edit, he's basically saying it's common knowledge. Not a great move. KoshVorlon 16:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's the Sabbath, so Dovid won't be able to reply until tomorrow evening, even if WarKoSign's complaint is correct.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not addressing the matter of the real dispute itself, but might this not be better discussed at WP:AE,considering the existing sanctions? John Carter (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: WP:ARBPIA sanctions can be applied by "any uninvolved administrator", and I figured I can find a few of these here. WP:AE form is quite tedious to fill, the process there is quite slow and I do not know the user enough to decide that an AE case is needed. I just want someone to give Debresser an authoritative reminder that WP:RS and WP:1RR should not be ignored. “WarKosign” 19:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@WarKosign:, I agree with you, and, actually, have, in past, made comments here on much the same basis. When I did so, I was told that it would be best to take the comments to AE by some of the administrators involved. And, if you look at some of the threads above, it can reasonably be argued that this requests on this page can take longer than requests at AE. I've tended to find that to be the case myself. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Nishidani for pointing out that I couldn't come here any earlier because of the Shabbat.

As to the issue itself: because these were two different edits by WarKoSign, it didn't trigger my attention to 1RR. Also, I thought this was simply one of the many politically motivated edits in the ARBPIA area, so I reverted it as such. We have such editors, mostly IPs, the whole time, and they are nothing more than political vandals.

In any case: 1. if the Palestinian territories are in the Levant, then so is the State of Palestine, and visa versa, since they are in the same geographical location, far and by. 2. Since all countries that surround either of them are in the Levant, so are they, and no source is needed. I mean, if that logic can not be disputed.

However, I now understand the issue under dispute is whether it should be "territories" or "state of". The addition of {{Cn}} didn't explain what the issue was. This template takes a |reason= parameter, which was unused. In any case, I still think this was a pointy edit, and don't think there is any chance that a discussion will come to any conclusion other than reinstate the previous version.

I would self-revert my last edit,to avoid the impression that I take 1RR lightly, but WarKoSign already made a new edit. I recommend WarKoSign to open a discussion about this issue on the talkpage, since I think his edit is in violation of NPOV. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith on my part is not an excuse to violate policies. My edits were not by an IP editor nor can they be considered obvious vandalism (even if you disagree).

Both your arguments (1,2 above) are again relying on the unsupported claim that State of Palestine is in the Palestinian Territories. There is no doubt that Palestinian Territories are in the Levant, but as of this moment State of Palestine has no physical location, it is a de-jure entity without defined borders that claims the Palestinian Territories. It is very likely that it will be there one day, but wikipedia is not the place for speculations. I provided the source for SoP *not* having defined location on the talk page, please prove me wrong there.

You are still able to re-instate the {{cn}} tags (or better yet, provide a source that supports the statement I claim invalid). Failing to do so you are still "enjoying" the results of your violation of WP:1RR.

I did open a discussion on the talk page, one where you did not respond until after I opened this discussion on ANI. So far I provided a source to back up my claims, you did not. “WarKosign” 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

And after the Shabbat ended, I joint the discussion.

After your edit, I also edited the article. The result of your edit was that there is no point to undo my old edit any more, since we both made more recent edits.

Even if the borders of the State of Palestine are not clear, the above arguments prove irrefutably that in any case the area of the State of Palestine is in the Levant. Your source does not dispute that, just as it doesn't claim other absurd things, like that it would be in the Americas. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - i'm not sure 1RR applies for the article Levant, because it has no direct relevance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is not marked as such with proper page notices.GreyShark (dibra) 09:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Any mention of State of Palestine or Israel on any article, especially in relation to the territory disputed between the two, certainly falls under WP:ARBPIA: "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted". “WarKosign” 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over an NPOV tag at Vani Hari

Someone want to do something about this? The problem seems to be about whether there are sufficient academic sources which specifically discount the claims of the subject to establish that they are counted as fringe or worse by the academic community, particularly as this is a BLP, or whether some of her claims are perhaps so far out that they don't receive specific contradiction because they are perhaps just that far out. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is Ronz, who has appeared out of nowhere and waded in with his usual absolute faith in his own correctness. If we counted tag-whining in the same way as blanking, he'd already be at 3RR.

This is a tricky article for NPOV, let alone its past off-wiki canvassing. However the current "issue" is a total non-event. Hari is quoted as, for once, stating a simple and uncontroversial fact - although using it to excuse a previous statement, judged as ignorant. This statement is neither fringe, nor challenged as to whether she actually made it (although you may choose whether to believe it as an excuse or not). There is no need for the tag, and no burning dramah to toast the marshmallows over. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There are several problems, of which Ronz' exuberant editing is only one. I think he will be more cautious following a note I left him. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User JzG: ADMINACCT and INVOLVED

I am seeking input from other editors regarding recent actions by JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Guy).

A large volume of mostly congenial discussion has taken place at two articles Kim Davis (county clerk) and Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy about whether content should be deleted, split, merged, moved, and trimmed. In the past five weeks, there have been at least three RfCs, two move requests and three AfDs for these two articles, resulting in various outcomes. The biggest challenge has been to try to keep the discussions focused so that consensus can be clearly weighed.

I'm bringing this to ANI, not to discuss the content, which will resolve of its own accord. My concern is about JzG's conduct as an admin, his use of admin authority in a content dispute, and his refusal to respond to questions about his conduct and involvement.

The following events occurred

1. October 6, 11:10 - JzG closes an RfC [16]
2. October 6, 23:10 - JzG votes in a move discussion [17]
3. October 9, 10:37 - JzG closes an AfD for the spinoff article (Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy)[18]
4. October 9, 10:47 - JzG posts a non-neutral message soliciting "cool headed admins" to get involved [19]
5. October 9, 14:18 - JzG opens a poll in which users are asked to select from one of four options to move the Kim Davis biography to. Note, he opened this discussion while the requested move discussion is still running, in an apparent effort to sidestep an developing consensus.[20]

JzG has alternated between his editor role and his admin roles with respect to this content, which raises conflict of interest concerns as summarized in WP:INVOLVED. There was also concern about JzG opening what amounts to an overlapping move request during an ongoing (formal) move request. Both myself and Prhartcom raised these concerns on JzG's tall page [21] [22]. JzG's response was to delete our requests [23] without a response (which violates WP:ADMINACCT). To his credit, JzG did comment on the article talk page here, here, and here, however, it did not address his WP:INVOLVED status.

After seeing that JzG had deleted my first request from his talk page, I tried to engage him again [24] to discuss my concerns about his conduct, only to have the request deleted three minutes later [25]. His comment on my talk page also left me cold.[26]

I have other concerns about JzG's conduct in other topic areas, but those are out of scope for this discussion.

Comments are appreciated. Thank you.- MrX 23:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

ETA: Forum shopping and apparent conspiring to circumvent consensus: [27]- MrX 23:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comments Stop. The. Drama. MrX has concerns about JzG's conduct, I've had concerns about Mr.X's POV and agenda-pushing conduct at the article and article talk page in question as well as other hot-button issue articles to which he seems to gravitate. Personally, I think JzG (like other editors such as myself) are simply tired of X's penchant for drama, RfC's, opposing viewpoints at the talk page and in deletion discussions, POV pushing, and tendentious editing/discussion style. My suggestion is a boomerang at the most and a trout at the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • On that accord, the multiple polls/processes = the drama, and there's several people at fault for that (one maybe more than the rest, but I'm not going to name a name). The idea that there's just one person with an agenda just doesn't square with the history on what I now call a Shenanigans Page. Rampant POV pushing has come from several editors. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • And Mr.X has been in the middle of every bit of it adding more drama, more dissension, more, more, more. That's my observation, anyway. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It seems to me your issue is about his particular POV more than his behavior, as again, if you look into the history, you will see several people bringing up the polls/processes over and over again. It's not just Mr. X. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Allow me to suggest that any complaints about MrX or anyone else be addressed separately, so as not to distract from the matter at hand. I won't violate AGF and call this a deliberate smokescreen, but it has the same effect as one. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems that even before this admin came along, we have had one poll/process piled on top of another, often repetitive and it had already just about worked my last nerve. Then this admin comes along, and per Mr. X's description, has brought in a virtual dump truck of salt to pour on an open gaping wound. This talk page has become Wikipedia's Shenanigans Page, and someone with a big mop needs to go in there and wipe it all out. All of it. Back to Square One. And this admin needs to be told to excuse himself from this and related articles. There's a power trip or something else I can't explain going on, and if I've just violated WP:AGF, I will advise the concentrated sucking of a lemon. I am unable to put my concern in kinder words. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Not seeing an issue with any of those diffs. The last diff that is complained about actually seems like the best way to consolidate the RfM to a solid title as opposed to the mess above it. Capeo (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic? Fyddlestix (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-RFC? It's part of the same discussion. It started nothing new. It looks like an attempt to get an actual hard count on the suggestions above to finally settle on a title rather than have endless pontificating. Capeo (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Altogether, as Fyddlestix states, this is shenanigans, albeit the admin's actions were abuses on top of existing abuses. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Capeo, it may look like that if just glancing at it but, just to let you know: Guy complicated the situation by introducing an article out-of-scope to the discussion that he said we had to consider; the article (Miller v. Davis) that had almost never been mentioned in the discussions and had nothing to do with the formal RM. His attempt to take the process in a new direction was unhelpful to all the work MrX and I had spent focusing the attention of the other editors on the issue at hand: Moving Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Scroll up to the other ANI issue on this page titled "Kim Davis" for my comment to Guy, and read his response, in which he disrespectfully ignores every single point I make; instead of refuting them he simply restates his position. How could an admin behave this way? It doesn't seem possible. Prhartcom (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: At this point, Kim Davis is notable on her own (including her life, background, and personal life) and her article cannot be disappeared without an AfD. Just a reminder, folks. We don't disappear articles without AfDs or at the least WP:MERGE proposals, but I'm quite sure if the Kim Davis article were to disappear someone would come along and recreate it, and be well within their rights to. The controversy and litigation can be a separate article if needed. Anyway, that's how I see it. RfCs do not determine these things. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Per the RFC on the page from last month, the community consensus is that we have 1 article. Davis has done nothing personally since then not related to the controversy and so still at this point, any article about Davis will be a WP:PSEUDO-biography of a controversy masquerading as something about a person. Claims that there MUST BE YET ANOTHER AFD are completely baseless.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Kim Davis article was AfDed twice already in the past 40 days (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination)) and both of the extensive debates resulted SNOW Keep (and a clear decision against merging into the litigation/controversy article[s]). We cannot override that, personal opinions and non-binding RfCs notwithstanding, without a third AfD. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Back in the day (ahem), two snow keep's in a row would have been regarded as a sacrosanct "final decision", and this is part of why I've been essentially calling shenanigans. We have two hard decisions to keep as you describe, but some editors refuse to stop re-opening this question via various crafty techniques. Then an admin comes along and essentially puts his thumb down on a position in opposition to the double-snow-keep. This. is. maddening. And should alarm anyone who cares deeply about the Wikipedia. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, no matter who does what, the AfDs can't be overridden without a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy that states an AfD can't be overridden by an RfC? Particularly for a merge. Because an RfC is going to get a lot more editors involved than an AfD in most cases. I'm not saying you're wrong but you keep tossing out these rules as though they're some policy that could trump consensus. I ask because merges are done all the time without either an AfD or RfC. Capeo (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Capeo, from what I've been seeing these days, for years actually, RfCs usually don't get that much traction, not unless they are about big events (or other big matters) or heavily advertised (for example, via the WP:Village pump). AfDs usually get more attention. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would note that this incident discussion is not about discussing what to do with this particular article. That discussion doesn't belong here. This is about a process that has turned into a clusterfudge of shenanigans. It's not just about this admin. That was just the cherry on top. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is in fact just about this admin, per the heading. We seem to have some disagreement as to how to expand the scope of this thread to a point where no consensus is humanly possible. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

OK then, in terms of Fyddlestix's question up above: "You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic?" -- Yes, I do think that's a major problem, and a major mess, especially when both recent AfD consensuses were extremely clear not to delete or merge or even rename the Kim Davis article. So yeah, I think we have a problem and Guy should step away from the article. One or more admins should step in an ensure the Kim Davis article remains intact, and then sort out the two(?) litigation/controversy articles so they get merged into each other, without interfering with the Kim Davis article. And no, I don't think admins should summarily delete (archive) civil and good-faith questions on their talk pages (multiple questions in this case) -- they should definitely respond to them and be open to feedback and discussion. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was extremely clear that there should only be one article. The AFD was extremely clear that the content merited an article. The AfD close was extremely clear that a discussion on where to keep the content was merited. And it is extremely clear that there are a number of editors going to ludicrous extremes to attempt to keep the extremely clear decisions from being implemented. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can't see a problem in the diffs under "following events" in the OP. What admin action by JzG am I supposed to be seeing? The discussion JzG closed (first diff) is just another argument between those who are familiar with standard procedure and those who like the liberty of writing a BLP regardless of WP:BLP1E. It looks like the "Cool headed admins needed" post by JzG has morphed to #Kim Davis above, but cool-headed admins really are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  John, the Kim Davis article has gone through two AfDs in the past 40 days, and both have closed after lengthy !voting as SNOW Keep and a clear consensus to avoid deleting, merging, or renaming the article. The only way to override that now would be to have a third AfD, which would be the second in less than a week. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  What exactly are "cool-headed admins" needed for? Bypassing a consensus? Implementing Jimbo's version of a biography? Quelling an uprising? With the exception of one editor who was topic banned, the discussions have been quite collaborative considering the subject. I'm surprised that you don't see a problem with an admin closing discussions and voting in closely related discussions on the same article. When is it ever acceptable for admins to simply delete requests to explain their actions? Hell, I give IPs, trolls, and spammers better treatment than that. - MrX 03:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  Two replies but no mention of the points I made—no admin action has been identified. This report is based on "conduct as an admin" with a claim of an ADMINACCT problem, yet it appears no admin action has occurred—has a page been deleted? protected? an editor blocked? The ADMINACCT issue is apparently the reversion of two posts at a user's talk page: being disruptive and Your Kim Davis disruption. Hint: if you want to talk about an article, use the article talk page, and if you want to talk to an editor, don't frame it in terms of them being disruptive. Wikipedia is open to anyone, so you can do these things if you want, but don't use ANI to whine about your unfounded complaints being archived. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  See where Softlavender sums it up above: "You don't think it's a problem for Guy to close an RFC, cast a !vote, close an AFD, and then start some sort of pseudo-RFC when there's already a merger proposal underway, all on the same - highly contentious - topic?" ... "especially when both recent AfD consensuses were extremely clear not to delete or merge or even rename the Kim Davis article". Wikipedia is open to everyone, but we also have expectations for how processes work. What we have now is shenanigans that were made a lot worse by this admin. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't explained your vacuous comment ""cool-headed admins" really are needed". Closing RfCs and AfDs are admin actions. Hint: actions that occur under the color of admin authority are admin actions. JzG failed to abide by policy which states in plain English "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." - MrX 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Johnuniq, you asked what exactly is the admin action we are objecting to. To answer your question: Inappropriate arbiter behavior. Guy pretended to help us as an arbiter but instead of facilitating us, he attempted to take us in a completely different direction. He had a personal motivation to try out a pet idea of his: to combine the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis article. This was an idea that came out of his own head; it was not currently being discussed. That's not what administrators acting as arbiters do. This was no arbiter. Arbiters don't ignore the current formal question, come up with a different scheme, and try to get everyone to follow it instead of the formal question. Yet this is what Guy did. I still can't believe an administrator did this. When I asked him about it, he deleted my question. When I asked him again, bringing up a series of points to him, his response, instead of refuting or accepting each point, was to ignore everything I said and just repeat his scheme to me (see the #Kim Davis section above). His actions are nonconstructive and unhelpful to all the work many of us have spent focusing the attention of the other editors on the issue at hand: Moving Kim Davis (county clerk) to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy. Prhartcom (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You appear to have made a single edit at User talk:JzG, namely this comment which has the heading "Your Kim Davis disruption". Was that "When I asked him about it"? Do you often get useful replies after posting a message like that? Re WP:ADMINACCT: My suggestion for the OP would be to read what it says—it starts with "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools" (my underline). I still don't see any use of admin tools in regard to this issue—closing an AfD with "Procedural close as merge" did not use admin tools. I will try to not post in this section again because I've said enough—if we engage in back-and-forth it is very unlikely that any new voices will be heard. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, fair point about my note on his talk page. I do have a single question for you, as I do actually need to know at this point: We all know administrators use admin tools. I think administrators are also depended upon to act as arbiters in a discussion. Just because this particular administrator behavior did not involve the use of admin tools, does that mean his behavior is excusable? Prhartcom (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that by now yo have made your position entirely clear. I closed an RfC, and you don't like the outcome. You also don't like the fact that I am trying to draw to a close the filibustering of implementation of that consensus. At this point it might be a good idea for you to stop digging. I don't think you're doing yourself any favours here. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, as I suspected, you haven't actually read the complaint I laid out for you. For the last time, I agreed with your closure of the RfC, and I agree with your opinion that the Kim Davis article should be an event, not a biography. For the last time, my complaint was the following behavior: You attempted to take the discussion in a direction that almost no one was discussing (combining the Kim Davis article with the Miller v. Davis article) and then you voted on your own idea, revealing that you did this for your own personal reasons instead of facilitate our discussion. You were supposed to be acting as an arbiter. Now do you understand? Prhartcom (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I do not find Fyddlestix's above summary of the situation to be remotely accurate and I don't think the complaint here has any merit. I will explain why. WP:INVOLVED prohibits the use of administrator privileges to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Closing an RfC is not an admin action and per WP:RFC any uninvolved editor can do it. Closing an AfD is usually an admin action, but this was strictly a procedural close that directly resulted from the RfC he closed. A procedural AfD close is not an admin action, nor is it controversial. It's a technical decision rooted in procedure, not any reading of consensus. So, his AfD close was an extension of his RfC close, and both were the result of him acting as an uninvolved editor, and he did not use his administrative tools in any way. Thus the WP:INVOLVED complaint is invalid. Secondly, is the notion that it was somehow inappropriate for him to close the RfC as he was not "uninvolved". This argument has no leg to stand on. First, he was not involved at the time of closing the RfC, and has not attempted to act as an uninvolved editor or uninvolved administrator since involving himself in actual discussion. Second, there were two clearly distinct issues here: He closed an RfC that was trying to determine whether to have one or two articles. He involved himself, after the fact, in a different discussion to determine where exactly the single article should be located at. This is not prohibited in any way. Perhaps starting a poll while a move discussion was ongoing was not the most helpful thing he could have done, but rather than attempt to resolve this concern civilly and in good faith, I see accusations of disruptive editing, bias, administrative abuse, flaunting of consensus, causing damage, and "Forum shopping and apparent conspiring to circumvent consensus"—for asking Jimmy Wales for his opinion. In my opinion, this all constitutes a series of unfounded and egregious personal attacks, if not outright harassment. The most likely response that is warranted here, if anything, is a swift WP:BOOMERANG. Swarm ♠ 06:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, you saved me saying exactly that. The reason I asked Jimmy should be obvious: I first got to know Jimmy when I was being attacked for trying to fix a biography that was under attack from off-wiki activists, before I was an admin and before WP:BLP even existed. I'm pretty sure I understand WP:BLP, but in edge cases I will often consult Jimmy, not as "Mr Wikipedia" but as someone whose judgement on biographical issues I trust more than anyone else's. It's pretty clear that some people don't like the consensus to have one article. By my reading there are two groups who oppose that, one which wishes to attack Davis as a small-minded bigot, and one which believes her to be the Rosa Parks de nos jours. My advice to both is: walk away and leave it to people who care a lot less about it. Turning the whole thing into a battleground is not making them look good.

I started the title discussion because the RM can't come to a conclusion. It's being held in isolation from the fact of existence of two other articles. There's a consensus to merge to one title, the next step is to decide which title, IMO, and "leave it here" vs. "move it to some other title" does not help with the two other articles; all it does is string the agony out for another few months while people argue at those talk pages, giving them a further opportunity to filibuster the merge.

Anyone who has a better idea of how to fix this mess is more than welcome to pitch in, as I said at the time on this board. There are some editors active on this topic who I think could perhaps do with being forcibly separated from it for a while. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You created the mess by opening an overlapping RM discussion. A couple of editors tried to tell you that you were creating a mess, but we you not only ignored them, you deleted their requests! Another admin can close the RM in a couple of days. If there is no consensus, then propose another RM if you like. But stop closing RfCs and AfDs, and stop posting non-neutral requests for admins to get involved in content disputes. You're obviously involved and have expressed a desired outcome. Know your role.- MrX 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm: Your baseless accusations of egregious personal attacks and harassment, and trite appeal to WP:BOOMERANG are repugnant. You analysis of this situation is flawed. WP:INVOLVED doesn't exclusively pertain to admin tool use, nor did I even mention admin tools. WP:INVOLVED does say "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." The five diffs that I listed show an admin closing an RfC; immediately voting in a move request; closing an AfD; seeking involvement from "cool headed admins" (WP:CANVASSING); and finally, disruptively creating a move request, because the current one was not going his way. In that chronological order. As a user with a non-trivial amount of editing experience and basic observational skills, I find this conduct to fall short of what the community expects of admins. How would this behavior fare in an RfA?

You didn't even bother to address the fact the JzG refused to answer requests to explain his actions, and merely deleted the questions from his talk page. Not only does is show a disregard for WP:EQ, but it plainly violates WP:ADMINACCT. JzG added more chaos to a dispute that was moving toward resolution and he seems to have done it with a specific content outcome in mind. It's great that Jimbo Wales agrees with him, but what makes his opinion any more relevant that that of Stevietheman, Prhartcom, Fyddlestix, Softlavender? Here's the last biography that Jimbo created six years ago.- MrX 16:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, this is a very simple situation; allow me to restate it: The issue is inappropriate administrator/arbiter behavior (nothing to do with administrator tools). It is fine that Guy began acting as an arbiter for us, to help us organize a complicated discussion. It is even fine that he closed discussions for us; we appreciate the help of an uninvolved administrator. I happen to agree with Guy's view that the article should be an event instead of a biography. What isn't fine is when the uninvolved administrator then attempts to take the discussion in a completely different direction, one that had almost never been discussed. He said we need to combine two articles: Kim Davis and Miller v. Davis. This was not the current discussion. Guy complicated the current discussion by introducing a pet scheme of his. What kind of administrator complicates a discussion instead of trying to help simplify it? MrX and I have had hard enough time getting the current editors focused on the formal questions; we don't need an authority figure to sweep away the formal question and try to replace it with one of his own, and certainly not for the administrator's own selfish reasons. Now does everyone understand why MrX and I complained about Guy? Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the uninvolved people here have told you that the issue is not inappropriate administrator behaviour, and there is no such concept on Wikipedia as "inappropriate arbitor behaviour", your statement is founded on a fundamental error. In fact, as far as I can tell, the real issue is that you don't like the consensus to have a single article and want to re-litigate that debate. That's why you're one of the people I think needs to be forcibly separated from these articles, because I think you have become too emotionally invested in a specific outcome. My suggestion to you is to walk away. It is pretty clear to me by now that, in as much as there is a problem here demanding administrator attention, the problem is you and MrX behaving like angry mastodons. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I created the formal RfC question to have a single article because I knew we needed a single article. This shows how little you understand me or the fact that we agree on so much otherwise. It looks like you will never admit that you were the one who introduced a complication for your own selfish purposes: the Miller v. Davis article. Prhartcom (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What "selfish purpose" is this supposed to be? Good grief. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Since several uninvolved people here and on the article talk page have pointed out that your conduct was inappropriate on several levels it may be a good idea to actually listen. You might note that Prhartcom and I hold opposing views on how the article should be titled and seem to be far less emotional involved than yourself who went shopping to Jimbo and ANI as soon as it was clear that your choice of outcomes was unlikely. Showing a scintilla of respect for people that you disagree with would also help. - MrX 12:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I hate disagreeing with you, Guy, as I noticed we agree on a lot. MrX is right; I wish you would listen and acknowledge instead of just defend and deflect. To answer your question, whatever purpose you had in mind when you introduced that new idea that wasn't being discussed that you had a personal stake in. Anyway, I know you were only trying to help. As a show of good faith, we still need an administrator to close that remaining RM discussion over at the Kim Davis talk page; if you are interested? Or wait a few more days and then close it? Or ask another administrator to close it? Whatever you think. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away from the dead horse. You have a content dispute that has improperly been raised to the level of ANI through an incorrect attempt to expand INVOLVED way beyond the scope. Being an "arbiter" in a dispute is not an admin action unless you are claiming only admins can act as neutral arbiters and that would be silly.

The only thing I can find to criticize {u|JzG}} for is simply blanking the request to explain things on his talk page. A simple "INVOLVED does not apply here because..." would hopefully have nipped this in the bud. That was his error and I hope he will remember a brief response early on can save pages of drama later. Your error is continuing this thread after several un-involved editors have said that they see nothing wrong. Time to move on. Jbh^Talk 13:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. As anyone should be able to see, I have extended an olive branch above. I honestly have a question, though: Don't administrators occasionally help decide difficult discussions? Prhartcom (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they do but they do that as editors. Admins are, by definition, experienced and trusted editors but there are likely hundreds of experienced and trusted editors who are not admins who I would trust as arbiters in a sticky content dispute before I would trust some admins. Being a neutral arbiter is not part of the admin "package" and INVOLVED only applies to those actions which can only be performed by admins whether due to technical ability, like blocking or page protection, or by policy, like making decisions at WP:AE. Jbh^Talk 14:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for explaining that. I myself often act as an uninvolved arbiter to help others resolve their disputes and I have always wondered if I was out of line for doing so, as I was assuming (incorrectly, you are saying) that the job is normally done by administrators. This explains why Guy said he was there in the capacity of an editor. When he closed discussions for us, ruling/deciphering the consensus, we looked to him as someone who could help us organize some of the chaos that naturally comes from a contentious subject. Then we were disappointed when he actually made the chaos worse; injecting a pet idea of his that wasn't being discussed, almost succeeding in taking the focus away from the formal RM question. I hope this helps explain why we were disappointed in what we felt was "inappropriate" administrator behavior. So, do you think he should not have closed a couple of discussions for us, as he was only there as an editor? Prhartcom (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a judgement call on his part and, as a non-admin, not one I feel comfortable second guessing, particularly without spending more time than I want to to look into the surrounding discussions. Jbh^Talk 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• None of the items at the top of this section fall in the category of admin abuse. But maybe JzG needs to be clearer when he's acting an admin and not. It may not be a bad idea for admins to have two IDs, one for admin actions and one as non-admins, to head off this kind of situation. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Understood. I didn't open this ANI but I misunderstood Guy's role; I thought he was there to help us get organized after he closed two discussions then came to the third one and asked us for a "show of hands" for a new idea, etc. but I see now that he was acting on the same level as any one of us. He had told us he was there as an editor, but I forgot that when he began behaving as someone with authority. I hope you agree he wasn't really acting like the editor he claimed to be; that's why I asked you that last question. Prhartcom (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to opine as I haven't seen the edits you discuss. Mr.X's list was not disturbing. I'm a non-admin, by the way, and proudly so. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have no comment on whether the conduct in question was admin-related or not (it was partially, because he closed the AfD as an admin), however Jzg/Guy recently wrote above "I created the formal RfC question to have a single article because I knew we needed a single article", which is categorically incorrect, because as I've stated more than once here, the Kim Davis article has gone through two extremely recent AfDs which closed with very clear consensuses NOT to be merged into or with a/the article on the controversy. If there were two articles on the controversy (which there were), one of them should be merged into the other. But there should not be one single article created out of those three existing articles. That was the main problem with Guy's actions, past and current. The Kim Davis article cannot be merged, redirected or deleted without a third AfD. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae

Starting at the Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Italicization of websites in citations discussion and continuing at the subsequent Help talk:Citation Style 1#Request for Comments: Italics or Non-Italics in "website" field there is a continuing issue with User:Tenebrae, who has difficulty understanding what other editors try to explain, and whose obduracy on several points amounts to a failure to WP:HEAR. (Examples listed below.)

Tenebrae's continual misunderstanding has also led him to misrepresentation of my statements and views, ad hominem attacks, and imputation of bad motives, all of this being a continuing pattern of uncivility that disrupts productive discussion.

Examples, with diffs and timestamps

From earlier discussion: 17:03, 7 Sep and following (see discussion): A misunderstanding followed by multiple attempts by various editors (17:59, 7 Sep, 20:40, 7 Sep 21:58, 8 Sep 00:48, 9 Sep 00:51, 9 Sep 23:06, 8 Sep 01:13, 10 Sep) to explain a key distinction vital to understanding the point being made, yet Tenebrae persists in his misunderstanding (e.g., 20:26, 10 Sep). 20:26, 10 Sep: More persistence, sliding into incivility: "Try and WP:HEAR this ...", followed by "Now stop making false accusations." 23:23, 10 Sep: "Don't you dare accuse me of uncivil behavior, when you were the first to say that anyone who took a different position from yours must, of course, have "faulty" reasoning. And you compound your incivility by falsely claiming I was deliberately misunderstanding in order to obfuscate." From RfC: 01:30, 10 Sep (after I said his "opposition is faulty"): "No. Just because you disagree with me does not make my position faulty. I am not misunderstanding anything". Also: "... you want a field that italicizes it in footnotes. That's ridiculous." 15:10, 15 Sep: "You were deliberately misrepresenting my stance ... in a false attempt at making me appear contradictory." 22:57, 21 Sep (after I said "your objections are getting tiresome, even tendentious"): "... stop with the name-calling. The only thing tendentious is your suggesting that Rotten Tomatoes is not a website. That's just remarkable." 02:43, 22 Sep: "Your double-talk ...", and "your bringing in irrelevant, extraneous points to create a smokescreen because you like the field to be italicized is just remarkable." 23:20, 23 Sep: "... your baiting me with insults", "the garbled, verbose, unclear nature of your writing", "your deliberate dissembling", "stop your smoke-screening", and "Your ridiculous argument". 22:36, 23 Sep (following my attempt to explain a point to him: ... don't you dare make up false claims and accusations, and dissemble like that." 22:37, 23 Sep: "completely disingenuous to claim...." 03:43, 30 Sep: "Only someone who knows he has no valid argument is going to start insulting another person, since that's a form of misdirection, and you've been smokescreening for most of this discussion. You're clearly so angry that rather than read thoroughly and think straight, you evidently only skim what I've been writing here." Misrepresentations by Tenebrae: 23:23, 10 Sep: "... you were the first to say that anyone who took a different position from yours ..."; "claiming I was deliberately misunderstanding in order to obfuscate". [23:48, 11 Sep] 01:30, 10 Sep: "You are claiming that corporations and government agencies suddenly transmogrify by magic into publications." ("Transmogrification" first introduced by Tenebrae at 19:43, 29 Aug where he imputes it as a premise. SMcCandlish commented that "[n]o one made any such argument of "transmogrification".) [22:47, 10 Sep] 15:10, 15 Sep: "You were deliberately misrepresenting my stance...." [22:47, 15 Sep] 22:57, 21 Sep: "... your suggesting that Rotten Tomatoes is not a website." [00:08, 22 Sep] 22:37, 23 Sep: "Why you want to encourage editors to wrongly italicize ...." [02:47, 30 Sep] 20:05, 6 Oct: "I never said anyone "is forcing you to use 'website='" ...." [00:12, 7 Oct] 19:54, 8 Oct: "refusal to respond ...." [01:00, 9 Oct]

I have repeatedly asked Tenebrae to refrain from and/or apologize for misrepresenting my statements and views (22:47, 10 Sep, 22:11, 24 Sep, 02:47, 30 Sep), which he has ignored, or dismissed as "smokescreening" (02:43, 22 Sep, 23:20, 23 Sep, 03:43, 30 Sep, 18:53, 7 Oct). As he refuses to voluntarily refrain from misrepresentations and general incivility I request that User:Tenebrae be topic banned from Help talk:Citation Style 1 for 30 days, a period comparable to the duration of his intransigence. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm reading the discussion on Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Italicization_of_websites_in_citations. Fascinating material; never heard that many words from Trappist the monk since their RfA. and what I'm reading--but I'm only in early September--confirms quite the opposite: every chance you get you seem to play the man (Tenebrae), not the ball (italics). If I were Tenebrae, I would have been really pissed by 01:13, 10 September 2015. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• I mean holy shit.com, even at the RfC your very first comment is about Tenebrae's supposed misunderstanding. With italics. And bold. And those fancy green italics so loved by ANI regulars. Now, I wish that Tenebrae hadn't responded to your persistent goading, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you started it. Hell, you even use highlighted italics in the most patronizing manner. Yuk. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In my initial comment at the RfC I briefly and neutrally noted what I believed to be the basis of his and my different positions, namely, that he misunderstood something. I am a bit surprised that you take objection at such an attempt to clarify and focus, or even the use of italics to emphasize which terms I used. I can't speak for whether "ANI regulars" love "those fancy green italics", but hopefully you have no objection to the common use of the {{Talk quote}} parameter to distinguish words not one's own. As to the use of the yellow highlighting: I am all for any aid to understanding. If Tenebrae had any objection to that then he was free to raise it with me. But in fact my first use of highlighting at the RfC was for the benefit of different editor, who raised no objection. Nor has Tenebrae ever objected, until you suggested it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• I appreciate the other editors here understanding what I've endured with this editor, whose default tone appears to be patronizing and insulting — see exactly such comments to an editor here. Contrary to J. Jonson's assertion above, I understand other editors and they seem to understand me. But with J. Johnson there's clearly something happening beneath the surface, since he will say something I agree with, and then I'll say that I agree with it, and then he suddenly disagrees with it. I gives an example here.

As other editors seem to find, whether they agree or disagree, my suggestion was simple and I believed non-controversial:

1. In the template "cite web", a field's name is "website=". It automatically italicizes whatever is put there.

2. Yet some websites, such as the aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and the Grand Comics Database, by consensus are not italicized,

3. Logically, editors will places websites in a field called, well, "website=".

4. And by doing so, this forces italics on non-italicized websites.

I suggested one thing in the RfC, plus a compromise: Make "website=" non-italicizing, so that editors can easily italicized website that need it; or, a compromise, keep the field italic but just call it something less confusing than "website=". But the obviously angry J. Johnston would even brook the very idea of compromise, instead making off-topic points in green text, yellow highlighters and other distracting gimmicks. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As you seem to consider my attempts at clarification to be "distracting gimmicks" I will not longer trouble to do so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Before you do — since no other editor here seems to agree with your attacking characterization of me, and indeed finds you to be the one at fault — perhaps you should withdraw this pack of inaccuracies and falsehoods before it may WP:BOOMERANG on you. As other editors note, I haven't misunderstood the situation, and your falsely claiming I have in order for you to back an untenable position is really kind of an irresponsible thing for you to have done. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a frequent contributor to Help talk:Citation Style 1, where we try to keep, and are usually successful at keeping, discussions civil, on-topic, and focused on improving Citation Style 1 templates. The discussions linked above went completely off the rails, to the point where each one became primarily two editors sniping at and talking past each other rather than trying to contribute to the discussion in a constructive way. If you follow the flow of both talk page sections, you will see that each one starts out being a discussion about issues, but by the end, all of the constructive contributors have retreated to the sidelines to let two remaining editors argue. Neither editor comes off looking good at all. I encourage both editors to take a break and work on other stuff for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I also keep a watch on H:CS1 and have to agree with Jonesey's summary. I also might suggest that the entirety of the back-and-forth on the talk page be collapsed given the toxicity, and a trout for both of the contributors. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing restriction on J Johnson to prevent him using highlighted italics on talk pages? That really is annoying. Otherwise people need to go away and have a cup of tea before smacking themselves in the face for arguing about italics. Italics. FFS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that a lot of highlighting can be annoying, but hadn't reckoned it as hanging offense. I had hoped that more emphasis (judiciously applied) might possibly focus attention and reduce ambiguity. (I was obviously wrong there.) As to other approaches please note that I asked twice for comments from other editors, but no one responded. If anyone wants a third chance at advising me please explain how I should respond to Tenebrae's "pack of inaccuracies and falsehoods" and innuendos. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy Islamic State of the Germanic Nation

Thread retitled from "Question re username and userpage".

Could I ask for comments on the username Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (t c) in regards to WP:ISU and WP:IU, please?

Their user page could also need some comments; the two flags are supposedly homemade - rather odd to me is the combination of the Christian flag cross and both Muslin and Jewish symbols. The Star of David on a Rainbow flag is ... hmmm ... perplexing. I have asked for their comment re userpage, but they removed it in this diff with the edit summary "remove bullshit".

I notice that in the article Islam in Scandinavia they created, File:Viking towns of Scandinavia.jpg has been used with the caption "Muslims towns of Scandinavia". The article so far has seen some sourcing challenges giving inflated numbers for Muslim population that don't match those seen in Islam by country. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The user is also edit warring against a bot (reported here) and I'm struggling to get them to understand the concept of verifiability and the importance of reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

^(ec) @Sam Sailor: personally I don't think it violates WP:ISU as it's probably not shared. I definitely think it could be classed as inappropriate given the articles they've been editing and Cordless Larry's comment above. samtar ^(msg) 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the note. it is not a name of an organisation i know about Wikipedia:Username policy i just made it up. the name basically is to show my Contributions willing to Wikipedia. which is about Semitic-Germanic cultural heritage, Jewish, Islamic, Bangladeshi....etc. that explain the Star of David on a Germanic flag--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation - given what you've said, would it be fair to assume you meet many of the single purpose account criteria? You may wish to read the advice given to SPA accounts here. A good piece of advice there would be "If you create a single-purpose account, do not pick a username related to the topic you are editing. Adopting such a username might lead some editors to assume you harbor a conflict of interest, causing unnecessary drama." Thanks samtar ^(msg) 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

i do have some interest in the Semitic culture Jewish, Islamic, Bangladeshi....etc but i also do have interest in other topics, so it is just a name based on the famous (Holy state of the Germanic Nation) which itself is an inappropriate name given they relate them self's (the Germanic) to an unrelated culture! i know it is funny but in the Wikipedia article it is included.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation: The word "interest" in the above context does not mean interest as in things you like. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

i know.--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

are you sure your name is not an WP:IU?--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation: Initially I was able to create my account on the English Wikipedia but not French and German because the username violated the username blacklist on those Wikipedias. However, the blacklist has been deprecated. I'm sure quite a few experienced users have seen my username and don't appear to have any problems with it. Also, it doesn't suggest any affiliation with Wikipedia or the WMF. We are all "Wikipedians". That's the term for someone who edits Wikipedia, and does not suggest official affiliation (especially with the words "The Average" added preceding the word "Wikipedian"). The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

whether or not that username is inherently problematic, the user name combined with that user's edits are a pretty solid sign that they are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation was blocked by Bbb23 last night for breaking the 3RR at Islam in Scandinavia, and then a few hours later an IP started making the same reverts, with edit summaries such as "hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh very funny jokes hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i had a nice laught" and "nigga plz". The article is now protected. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation has now created Judaism in Scandinavia and is displaying exactly the same behaviour there by reverting my removal of unsourced population estimates, addition of maintenance templates and removal of an irrelevant map. Pinging Sam Sailor, Bbb23, The Average Wikipedian and TheRedPenOfDoom. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and has now taken to trolling my user talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

oh really not here to build an encyclopedia, than why i created three 3 articles in less than 3 days?--Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Arabic name for "Holy Islamic State of the Germanic Nation" is الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية. That is written on the userpage User:Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation and was displayed in both the flags the user uploaded to Commons, now deleted at File:الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية.jpg and File:מדינה אסלאמית קדושה של האומה הגרמנית.jpg. I bounced this off of an Iraqi friend of mine (mainstream Shia Turkman), who said the name could, as indicated by the user above, be a play on the Arabic name for the Holy Roman Empire (الإمبراطورية الرومانية المقدسة), but that it also gives associations to

1. Greater Germanic Reich of the German Nation, and
2. Islamic State (الدولة الإسلامية‎ المقدسة, "Holy/Sacred Islamic State"),

and that it in any case leaves the impression of someone who, allow a direct quote, "could be either a radical with an agenda that serves Islam no good, or could be someone trolling to give Islam a bad reputation."

The user has added the acronym ISGN to their talk page. It is possibly a coincidental spoofing of Islamic Society of Greater Nassau, but nevertheless further implies shared use, WP:ISU, and their use of File:الدولة الإسلامية المقدسة للأمة الجرمانية.jpg in article space as quote "Muslims Swedish adherents symbol" (Diff of Islam in Sweden and Diff of Islam in Sweden) suggests a breach of WP:GROUPNAME.

Personally I have a hard time seeing why this username would not be considered disruptive and/or misleading, cf. WP:IU. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The editor concerned has been blocked for a second time after I reported them for edit warring, but shows no sign of acknowledgement that they are in the wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

face:b00c block collateral

ip addresses with FACE:B00C in their range are used by internet.org app service and not "geologically localized" in that a person in south asia can get allocated an address for sometime which will be later cycled to any person in EU or NA. admins blocking entire ranges because of vandals using this app is causing too much collateral damage by putting innocents in the block range. please look deeply into this, request to all admins. OP considers it very emergency issue and if possible, involving arbcom in this should be done, OP thinksMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no IPv6 range containing the string mentioned in the current list of rangeblocks. What is the exact text of the block message you're seeing? ‑ iridescent 16:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent:OP notice when not logged in.OP paste ip now before logging in.

2A03:2880:3010:7FF5:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) OP will try post moreMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

2A03:2880:3010:BFFA:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) another. OP using internet.org app, notice all ip has FACE:B00C, all blocked. some vandal on range appear to be from continents outside of OP's currentMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on the information provided, I found that the first address is blocked with this rangeblock (2a03:2880:3010:7ff0::/60) by JamesBWatson. The second address is covered under this rangeblock (2a03:2880::/32) by DMacks, related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo. This second block is most likely covering the FACE:B00C addresses. In my opinion, that block is much too broad, covering almost 80 octillion addresses. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

clpo13, no, it's not. The OP has been trying to get this good rangeblock lifted for some time. User_talk:NeilN#FACE:B00C_collateral_victim. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well there's some needed context. I knew this seemed familiar, too. Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 20:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Clpo13 and Iridescent:clpo understand point correct, 80 octillion address is proof of the amounted collateral, OP not understand why admins fail to understand issueMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 2a03:2880:3010:7ff6:face:b00c:0:1 OP post another nowMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:NOP. Don't want to be blocked? Stop using a proxy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OP not use proxy, OP use internet.org app, free wikipedia, why not admins understand that all user of app get same string ip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) OP request other admins look in this issue, very important, affect all user of internet.org. OP mention MainetteD @GiantSnowman, MainetteD, and Blackmane:OP forgot sign, OP rementionMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely sure why I've been pinged, but in any case having read through the SPI page, the persistent disruption and vandalism by that sockmaster is extensive. An open proxy which has access to 80 octillion IP addresses cannot be ignored. The FACE:BOOC IP's used by the internet.org app make sense given that it's a FaceBook initiative. Blackmane (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OP mention admins because OP believe in good faith, not all user of internet.org vandal, few vandals using app can be blocked on account basis, rangeblock stop all who want do anon edit using internet.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OP should read NOP: "Although Wikipedia encourages anyone in the world to contribute, open proxies are often used abusively. MediaWiki, the wiki software that powers Wikipedia, depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, especially by anonymous users. Open proxies allow malicious users to change IP addresses rapidly, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by administrators." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

possible personal attack detected

after noticing OP edit reverted by knowledgebattle, OP reverted that revert and also posting a message on person's talk page. person removed message from talk then post message on OP talk page in tone that feel attacking/threat. OP maybe paranoid, but feel need to post on adminboard, request oversight.

proof in contrib log, history log, talk page of OP and mentioned person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 October 2015‎

Who is OP? Can you provide a link to what you are talking about? HighInBC 16:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe Mahfuzur is talking about himself in third person here, and this is the revert history being brought to discuss at this august forum and this, the removal of the talk page post. —SpacemanSpiff 16:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought that may be the case, but try as I might I could not find any personal attack. HighInBC 17:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@HighInBC:, yea, that's because there was no personal attack. I'm guessing that @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: is embarrassed, and is trying to get his way here. On the page, Avijit Roy, Mahfuzur went and removed a reference to The Independent right here, and changed the other reference up. I reverted his edit, especially because he removed the reference to The Independent, the news article about Avijit's death. It's still a working link, and it mentions his book. He responded by giving me a cute "warning", using ALL CAPS as if to yell at me. I removed the "warning", and responded for him to keep his warnings to himself here, then explained to him why his edit was undone. He went back and undid the "warning" removal from my own talk page, and @GiantSnowman: undid his re-add of the warning to my talk page.

As you can see here, he keeps going through and trying to change up the references, and people keep undoing it. He's now also got @MarnetteD: telling him to cut it out with the history revisions.

To clarify, no, I didn't personally attack him. Yes, I told him to keep his warnings to himself. He apparently doesn't know how to convey a message simply and respectfully. Nor does he seem to understand how to justify the reasons for his reference removals. So... we're here. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 00:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC) (Completely missed that the conversation continued on below, sorry.) Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 02:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

moved from below as OP, article discussed and issue are the same. Blackmane (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OP notice misformatted writeup and misplaced ref in Avijit Roy so tries to use cite book refstyle, change works to bibliography and remove misplaced ref. OP gets own edit reverted, accused of disruption and threatened with block. OP post to admin talkpage and then to noticeboard cause OP fear abuse, maybe OP paranoid. OP want all to have good faithMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

What you did was incorrect. The Works section of the article refers to the publications by the article subject. What you were trying to do was convert it into a Bibliography, which is generally considered a list of references. You should not be doing this. Also, when you made the edit you removed the reference for the book on the next line, hence the revert by two editors to restore the source. You should not have edit warred with them over it and should have gone to the talk page to discuss it. You are lucky Giant Snowman did not block you for edit warring. Also, I have notified Giant Snowman and Knowledgebattle of this thread. Blackmane (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blackmane:check talk page of them, check time of my posted message. removed ref is NOT a ref of the mentioned book. think "are false refs preferred or no ref"?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting valid references from an article = no no, simple as. You removed (three times!) references including this which does verify what it is meant to verify i.e. that Avijit Roy "wrote several books including his last works Obisshahser Dorshon (The Philosophy of Disbelief) and Biswasher Virus (The Virus of Faith)." Your edits have no justification, and as Blackmane says you are lucky you have not been blocked yet. GiantSnowman 16:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: The ref pointed to an article, where if you read to the bottom, indicates that Avijit Roy is the author of the book in the Works section. The point of the ref was to show this. There is nothing wrong in using this as a source. Blackmane (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is also up above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#possible personal attack detected. —SpacemanSpiff 16:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Spaceman:manual readding of ref do better instead of revert, OP think, OP find location posted as haka instead of dhaka and use of cite web instead of cite book syntax more "eye hurting".Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I was going to move this thread up, but got EC'd. Blackmane (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that, with their last post, M-r-s is referring to the fact that there is a big red "cite error" message at the bottom of the references at the moment. Any help in fixing it by those involved will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the ref error, something that was not affected at all by the content that Mahfuzur rahman shourov deleted! GiantSnowman 16:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I try fixing only bibliography, had misspellings.cite link 72 is better placed elsewhere, now i put link back and my correction together.Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now been reverted again - please can an uninvolved admin block Mahfuzur rahman shourov? BOOMERANG etc. GiantSnowman 16:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks GiantSnowman. Sadly it looks like M-r-s is going to edit war over this. I agree that a curved stick may be needed. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I not remove ref this time, why I get threat now?my new revert has all 72 ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) OP think MarnetteD should have look well into OP latest edit, OP kept all 72 refsMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again you changed the "Works" section into a "bibliography". Please reread Blackmane's post above as to why you should not do that. Also be aware that WP:COMPETENCE is required in editing. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally your edit did not do anything new or different from your previous ones. It only "undid" GiantSnowman's previous one. That is not the way to go with this. MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OP want know why book published by chomsky, hawking, dickens etc are tagged under bibliography but not avijitMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Re-naming the section from 'works' to 'bibliography' is not a problem - what is a concern is a) your removal of valid references and b) your edit warring. GiantSnowman 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OP use small phone, hard typing editing, so revert then small edit to make as admins want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC) @MarnetteD:I not remove ref, I keep works as works this time so what clue to get you speak of?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are having trouble editing while using a phone such that each time you save an edit it causes the removal of the source, you should not be editing until you reach a PC. Mobile editing often has glitches that cause unintended edits to occur. As it stands, your phone editing is causing disruption because each time you save your edit, which is still wrong by the way, it removes the source for the next entry in the Works section. Until you get to a terminal, I suggest you stop editing before an administrator blocks you for edit warring and disruption, potentially unintended disruption and edit warring but it is still disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I completely missed the fact that the conversation was continuing on here. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 02:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

it was a new thread but I combined the two so there wouldn't be 2 simultaneous discussions.Blackmane (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OP understand problem and correct mistake fifth time but admin revert again, why?i not remove ref now,i keep works as works, what go wrong now?Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: Why don't you leave it alone? How about that?

First of all, you keep changing the Ref to be "Cite book". This website isn't the full book. That's an excerpt. If you look at the web URL, it says "Articles". /Articles/avijit/shomokamita1.htm

Also, you keep removing the Location. Avijit was from Ḍhaka, located here.

I'm not sure what your motive for editing this page is, but if you're going to edit, do it correctly. I will try to incorporate your edits. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 22:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mahfuzur rahman shourov: Okay, check the Avijit Roy Works references now. I've gone through and tried to incorporate your edits into the references, and cleaned them up. Is that what you were trying to do? Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 23:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

IP 80.111.220.238 (repeated reverts at Gender equality)

{{cot| Ip Special:Contributions/80.111.220.238 has twice removed a significant amount of text, which is sourced, from the article Gender equality. This is text from several sections, dealing with different issues. The ip offered no valid explanation - the first edit summary was: "reverted - possible vandalism" and the second summary was "p:badpov. reverting to orginal version. can an admin help please ?". The ip, as can be seen, asked for admin intervention. The text removed was very diverse, addressing different topics. The ip referred to neutrality/pov, but some of the text removed was simply describing international policies adopted on the issue of gender equality: the ip removed the phrase: "In 1978, the Council of Europe passed the Resolution (78) 37 on equality of spouses in civil law.[105]" . The reverts also removed a citation (the one for the phrase "For example, in Australia, until 1983 a husband had to authorise the application by a married woman for a passport" ) - obviously leaving a phrase without citation is unconstructive. If the ip has a problem with specific paragraphs, then they must bring it to talk page, explain what the objections are, and seek consensus; not just cut down huge chucks of sourced text. I brought this issue here because the ip seems to have a non-cooperative, hostile attitude; and I sense a future long edit war; and also because the ip asked for admin intervention in the edit summary. I left a message on the ip's talk page too. I think some intervention is needed here to prevent escalation.2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:47FB (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

References

The IP 80.111.220.238 continues to revert without offering any explanation. I think there is a need of intervention.2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B738 (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected while the two IP users (who are both edit warring but haven't broken 3rr yet) discuss the matter, or one of the article regulars establishes consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. When I looked at that article, it came so close to melting my face off that I thought I might be looking at the Ark of the Covenant. Some assistance cleaning it up would be nice. I will note that there's been absolutely no additional discussion and that OP does seem to have a bit of an ownership issue, at least from what I can see. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly. That only happens in movies. In real life you'd be struck by lightning. EEng (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hotel Paid Edits w/ Disclosure

I am a paid editor creating and posting pages on a behalf of a hotel chain. My paid editing status wasn't properly disclosed which was pointed out to me (and which I would have gladly fixed, but that's not the issue here). I made a paid edit to Plaza Hotel which is a page that Beyond My Ken is clearly passionate about. He reverted that paid edit and then reverted the paid edits for all 30+ hotel pages that I had previously done. I've attempted to engage with him on his talk page User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken (Hotels) as to his objections to my paid editing and it's very clear that he won't engage with me on the merits of my work. I feel that Beyond My Ken isn't open to my contributions because of my Paid Editor Status and if you look at my total contributions to the community, I'm making large numbers of non-paid edits for topics that I'm passionate about. I have posted over 30 Paid Page Edits for the hotel chain and only one other Wikipedian total has objected to me in any manner before Beyond My Ken did...and as a new paid editor who did not quite do attribution properly, that's testimony to the validity of my pages for the Wikipedia Community which comply with Wikipedia's style and content guidelines. I would like to repost the pages with the proper paid attribution and I want Beyond My Ken to leave them alone. With Plaza Hotel, I will gladly work with him to see any concerns over my work are addressed (and I repeat my preference to engage him instead of going through these sorts of processes).

While there are 30+ pages that Beyond My Ken reverted, the two most recent were Peace_Hotel and Swissôtel_The_Stamford so those are the ones I would like to put at issue here. Blueberry Hill (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines for those with financial conflicts of interest state that "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles" (emphasis is in the original). To reduce the chance of future misunderstandings, it would help to familiarize yourself with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Blueberry Hill It is a good idea is to check the links you create. Beyond My Ken does not go to BMK's page nor does it ping him. Next since this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hotel Paid Edits w.2F Disclosure was declined this new thread smacks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not forum shopping; the editor was told to bring it to ANI first [28]; see also User talk:Blueberry Hill discussion about not starting with arbcom. NE Ent 20:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes my mistake and I have struck the comment. OTOH you should not be altering your posts on BMK's talk page as you did here. Place a new notice rather than altering an old one is the proper way to handle things. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of Blueberry Hill's edits and concur that most, but perhaps not all of them should be reverted. Here are some of the problems: First, Wikipedia is not a directory. Adding a plethora of restaurant listings and amenities falls afoul of that rule. Use summary style, and describe amenities and restaurants with as concisely as possible. Second, the wording on many of the edits was indeed highly promotional. While some wordings are commonly used for travel brochures, they are simply too charged or too trite for an encyclopedia: for example, on Banff Springs Hotel, phrasings like "beautiful wilderness", "spectacular settings", "luxury dining experience", "authentic" – that goes too far. Even in some cases that avoid using promotional wordings, the intent is still clearly to persuade the reader, which is the goal of an advertisement, rather than to inform the reader, which should be the purpose of an encyclopedia. Example, on Hotel Macdonald : "Travelers who miss their own dogs while away from home can take the hotel's dog along for walks and companionship." Yes, that might be true and might be greatly comforting, but it is still trying to persuade that the canine will make the hotel a more comforting experience. That kind of slant of slant just isn't permissible.

So, moving forward. Paid editors can play a valuable role for Wikipedia. Articles become outdated, and mere updates of room counts or ownership is perfectly acceptable. But paid editors who persist in trying to give articles a promotional slant will run into stiff resistance. Blueberry Hill, I would suggest you read some neutral, non-promotional examples of hotel articles before moving forward: Renaissance Blackstone Hotel would be a good start. If possible, it's easier to write neutrally about the history of a hotel rather than its amenities. Altamel (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from Blueberry Hill's latest contribution [29]:

The 5-star hotel offers 1,261 luxurious rooms and suites, 15 restaurants and bars, access to the Raffles City Convention Centre, and one of Asia's largest Spas. ... Swissôtel The Stamford offers 15 food and beverage outlets including the Equinox Complex, which offer a wide range of cuisines, and settings from casual to elegant. ... JAAN, Level 70 – Serving a distinctive menu of artisanal French cuisine by Chef de Cuisine Kirk Westaway. JAAN was Ranked No. 11 on Asia's 50 Best Restaurants list 2015, and Ranked No. 74 on the S. Pellegrino World's 50 Best Restaurants List 2015 ... [list of 14 other restaurants] ... One of Asia's largest spas, the Willow Stream Spa, featuring relaxation lounges, pools, whirlpools, steam and sauna rooms. The spa offers 35 treatment rooms total, including three couples suites with private Jacuzzi and aromatherapy steam rooms.

This is not WP:NPOV writing, this is not encyclopedic writing, this is not even good writing, this is the writing of a PR flack, solely promotional in tone and purpose. Since Blueberry Hill appears to be incapable of writing in a way that is appropriate to Wikipedia, I stand by my request that he only request edits on hotel article talk pages, and not edit directly any hotel article. We could, of course, go through every one of his edits to clean up after him, to convert the above into something resenbling:

The hotel offers 1,260 rooms and suites and many bars and restaurant, as well as access to the Raffles City Convention Center. It has a complete spa, which includes lounges, pools, whirlspools and steam, sauna and treatment rooms.

but it's not our job to be Blueberry Hill's personal copyeditors, it's his job (literally) to write in a manner acceptable to us. BMK (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the (collective) feedback and this is very helpful. What I'm trying to accomplish and what I ask for is the opportunity to give you pages that are acceptable to this collective group (and any others who might be interested in these topics). I'm comfortable I can do this (and by being public with this issue, I know you're paying attention to me). Would you collectively look upon my future work on these page based purely upon their merits and not based upon something that you previously objected to and not based upon the fact that I'm being a paid editor (and FYI, I've never done PR in my life).? Blueberry Hill (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is useful for some things, but hashing out the wording of edits across multiple articles is not one of them. The accepted procedure is to use the relevant article's talk page and request edits (there's even a handy template). Again, I strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing and follow the procedures described there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not looking to hash out wording here...I'm just looking to be judged fairly and objectively if I attempt to incorporate your feedback. Blueberry Hill (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

All of your edits have been judged on their merits, or lack thereof. BMK (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The wisest option is to propose what you wish to include in the article on the talk page and let other editors dissect the text and distill out anything that might violate WP:PROMO or WP:NPOV. You should definitely include any sources that such text would come from. Blackmane (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Assistance for Blueberry Hill

Blueberry Hill, in the interests of moving things along, you are welcome to an offer of help from me—not indefinitely, but to get you in the right direction. When you have placed your proposed text on the relevant article talk page, you are welcome to ping me using {{ping|Sladen}} and we can go over and WP:NPOV what you've done. If you would like help and are willing to learn, then we'll probably have a solution. —Sladen (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC) And if an understanding of WP:NPOV doesn't come naturally, BMK et al will probably revert you again, and you'll end up back here again.

A good way to start is this: (1) Write your copy offline. (2) Delete all the adjectives. (3) Post the result on the article talk page as your proposed text. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. BMK (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 to that suggestion. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed Swissôtel The Stamford down to the facts and awards with reliable sources. It no longer reads like a brochure. Trimmed Peace Hotel similarly. There remains a "happy talk" problem. At least three people have died falling from the Swissôtel The Stamford since 2013.[30] Somehow the paid editor didn't mention that, even though that's what you find if you look for independent reliable sources. This is the other side of the COI editing problem - omitting the bad news. John Nagle (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No Assistance for Blueberry Hill

I happened to look a bit into the Plaza Hotel, one of User:Blueberry Hill's clients, when writing Oak Room (Plaza Hotel). The institution is now a shell and shadow of its former self, being converted largely to condos many of which are always empty (holding unused multi-million dollar condos is normal for Russian, Saudi, etc. billionaires I gather). The storied Oak Room itself had to be shut down because entitled "douchebags" (not my words) were out of control and wrecking the place. These, I think, are useful and cogent facts which ought to be added to added the article to help the reader answer the question "what is this entity".

Is User:Blueberry Hill going to add this material? No of course not. Is he going to suggest these changes on the talk page? No of course not.

My experience is that User:Blueberry Hill is going to elide all these facts. In theory then other editors are going to take time to check the material very thoroughly, take the time not to just to check the refs to ensure that they're accurate but to take the hours or days necessary to extensively research the entity exhaustively to determine if balancing material has been left out -- that we are not lying by omission.

Is this going to happen? Not in my experience it's not. More likely some editor will come along and at most check the refs for accuracy, be like "looks good to me", post it, and Bob's your uncle, for User:Blueberry Hill.

Why this happens is complicated. Here're some reasons: with User:Blueberry Hill, we have to assume bad faith -- nothing personal, User:Blueberry Hill, its just an effect of your profession that of course people are going to look at your statements with skepticism -- but we are very much in the habit of not doing that because of our community commitment to assuming good faith on the part of editors in good standing.

In addition, people here like to be helpful generally: "Sure, I'll post this for you". In addition, there are editors who think it's ridiculous that we don't allow commercial editing and will post poorly vetted material for that reason. There are editors who think rules against commercial editing are unenforceable and it is unfair to punish people who abide by the bright line rule and will post poorly vetted material for that reason. And of course there are libertarians who will post the material for ideological reasons. There's certainly no rule against backrubbing (you post my PR material to which you have no attachment and no COI and I'll do the same for you). So there're a lot of reasons why, sorry, this is a poor solution.

As an alternative, I'd suggest indef blocking User:Blueberry Hill on WP:NOTHERE grounds or whatever other grounds you like. I don't want him here and he doesn't belong here, period. I don't give a damn if he contributes to Mike Napoli or whatever. So do I. The difference is, I'm not corrupt and I don't hack into the Wikipedia database to damage it for my own personal financial gain (which is what I consider commercial editing to be). That's a big difference.

You're the admin corps. You're supposed to protect the Wikipedia It's simple: get rid of him and people like him whenever, wherever, and however discovered. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Herostratus, hopefully the more positive approach is to offer a limited amount of guidance and support to Blueberry Hill, during which they can choose to make the most of it and contribute according to policy, or other remedies can be looked at. Education opportunity and carrots are much better in the long run than brute force and sticks. Lets presume WP:AGF (per Wikipedia's policies, and regardless of presumptions of WP:COI or not). As yet, I believe we're waiting upon Blueberry Hill's request for review of their next draft/proposed changes. —Sladen (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lipsquid edit warring just short of WP:3RR with very personal application of WP:RS principles

This editor insisted that a paragraph in the lead section of Flat Earth about the myth of the flat Earth had to be removed because the source cited came from an advocacy group, so he removed it once, twice and then a third time. Then they stopped short of a fourth edit, possibly knowing from past incidents that people aren't meant to edit war.

The content problem with their edits was that the article has a whole section about the topic the paragraph he removed discusses, and there is even a separate article about it, both containing many more sources than the single one given in the lead that they considered too biased (let's keep in mind that the lead section doesn't really need references for things profusely cited in the article body).

The reason I am still concerned about the editor's attitude and am reporting it here even though the dispute may (or may not) have settled down is that in the talk page discussion, they insisted about being entitled to edit out content with valid references, just because the references were quoted from URLs belonging to advocacy groups - even though they accepted the very same references when quoted from elsewhere (same text from the same public speech at the very same advocacy group, just, quoted from veritas-ucsb.org instead of asa3.org).

Let me stress again that the paragraph in question really doesn't need references because it's part of the lead section (with good reason) and there is a profusion of references in the relevant section and separate article. At this point I really want to know whether I am to be disagreed with about this view. If not, then I think it's important that Lipsquid understand their edits are not in the encyclopedia's best interest as there seem to have been several potentially similar verging-on-edit-wars incidents.

LjL (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I note this older edit where the editor proclaims in the edit summary that "You can't delete sourced material and those statements" (which isn't correcct, of course, but that's not the point), yet he had no problem deleting multiply-sourced material this time just because of technical reasons, i.e. (I quote) "is not my job to fix the sources of the logically challenged". I find it hard to assume good faith with these plain contradictions. LjL (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yawn.... Lipsquid (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That is all you have to say? Usually people reported on AN/I actually defend themselves from claims made in a report against them. clpo13_(talk) 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Defend myself from what? "edit warring just short of WP:3RR"? I wouldn't think I need to defend myself for not breaking a rule. Another editor fixed the source, I thanked them and have not made an edit since. What I am defending against? Lipsquid (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You could have just said that. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR is just a bright-line rule, as it states itself. You have engaged in an edit war, and I'm absolutely concerned with your continuing attitude about it. The other editor didn't "fix the source", he left the source unchanged, and merely gave a different URL to the same source (same text by the same author). You, on the other hand, had removed the whole paragraph three times because you didn't like that particular website. That is concerning. LjL (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A bright-line rule I did not cross. It seems you don't know what bright-line means? Are there any more accusations you would like to make for rules I did not break? Lipsquid (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would simply like to point out that edit warring is prohibited (I quote: "[...] if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited"), whether or not you cross the WP:3RR threshold, something you certainly knew. Also, thank you for promptly removing your strange accusation that I was "whining". LjL (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I would not say it was strange. I am sure Admins have something better to do than have people file requests for assistance against people who haven't broken any rules, without first making any dispute resolution attempts themselves. That seems like whining to me. Maybe I should file an ANI against you because I find your indiscriminate use of ANI's when you can't define a rule that was broken troubling and maybe you should be sanctioned.. Lipsquid (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Another bogus ANI filing by LjL today. Lipsquid (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out. While 3rr is a bright line which if you cross usually results in a block, there is nothing to stop admins from assessing that edit warring is occurring and blocking the involved parties. Blocks have been levied on editors even when only 2 reverts have been performed. Blackmane (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This problem is a non-problem. LjL opens ANIs against anything he doesn't like without making any attempt at resolution, as evidenced in my case and as evidenced here which is completely out of the spirit of Wikipedia. I broke no rules and he likes to make controversy where this is none. He dug up all kinds of other nonsense about things that happened in the past and all were related to one user, Signedzzz, which I am sure administrators are unfortunately all too aware of who Signedzzz is and how he operates. How about a warning to LjL for opening frivolous ANIs without making an attempt at what the rest of us consider normal resolution methods? Lipsquid (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have applied normal resolution methods in the form of an extensive talk page discussion where you didn't seem to indicate understanding that your style of editing was inappropriate, but in fact re-asserted it was "perfect". LjL (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are so great with dispute resolution that is why all your childish ANI requests get closed. Lipsquid (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Follow-up without commentary: [31]

It seems LjL thinks he is above WP:HOUNDING After the incident on Flat Earth (which I have avoided and not edited since the filing nor will I be editing), he seems to have magically decided to make his first reverts and move the chaos to [| Laffer Curve] & [| Supply Side Economics] Lipsquid (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"First reverts"? What are you talking about? I've been reverting countless edits on many articles. I also had started participating in the Laffer curve-related debates before this ANI. I am also pretty much entitled to see if someone who, in my opinion, is breaking policy (such as edit warring) in one place is doing the same in other places - that's not WP:HOUNDING, in fact it's explicitly mentioned there as not being. Note also WP:AOHA please. LjL (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is by definition WP:HOUNDING "This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight"..."The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Back off, I have made no reverts to Flat Earth and I have stayed away from any of your edits. Move along.... Lipsquid (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of your quotes is the case here. LjL (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Then prove it by moving along... Lipsquid (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring User:Joy

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Enclava&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&action=history - Edit warring and removing articles without debate to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joy. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't even remotely show some edit war. First off, the samples given are on two seperate articles. Two, there appeared to be consensus. No edit war is taking place, maybe User:Vyacheslav is upset because the reverts were of his edits.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

[32]-[33] and [34]-[35] Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As the big bar at the top of the page says, you must notify users of an ANI thread. I have done so for you. Also, you may want to beware the WP:BOOMERANG Blackmane (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I made an actual effort in reaching out to this user on their user talk page right after undoing their blatant revert, but all I got in return was a slap in the face: an assumption of bad faith through an instant report to the noticeboard.

In other news, I invite everyone else interested in this topic to help build a more general consensus in the RfC at Talk:Liberland. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan - Failure to respect RM closure and advice

Although I a loath to bring this to ANI I will not enter into an edit war with User:DrKiernan over this. The article Foreign Affairs was subject to an RM [36] initiated by User:In ictu oculi on 3 Sept. That RM was closed by User:Cuchullain on Oct 1 as No Consensus. User DrKiernan supported the move. On Oct 2, DrKiernan initiated another RM. I closed that RM on Oct 10 as not moved because there was no consensus to do so. DrKiernan initiated a WP:Move review [37]. On Oct 12, DrKiernan unsuccessfully attempted to close the MR after three editors had endorsed my close. [38]. On Oct 12 DrKiernan initiated a new RM [39] in direct contravention to my advice in the previous RM that editors wait six months before initiating another RM. Another editor in the Oct 12 RM suggested a speedy close. I closed the RM with the following comment "Closed per not so subtle suggestion in previous RM - Article is moved protected for 6 months" [40] and subsequently move protected the article for 6 months. I notified DrKiernan on his talk page of my close [41]. Within 3 minutes of my close DrKiernan reverted my close as if it had never occurred showing zero respect for the Admin decision. I have notified editors mentioned here on their talk pages. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have made no edits to this article.[42] There's nothing wrong in opening a discussion on a talk page, or bringing new evidence to that talk page to inform the discussion. Move-protection is over-kill; the page has only been moved twice in the last ten years and never by me. DrKiernan (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Am uninvolved. I closed the RM, as process appeared to have taken place already. Agree with you on the lack of need for move-protection and have reverted to autoconfirmed. -- Samir 18:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Samir. Mike is right: 3 move requests and a move review in less than two weeks is extreme; we're just not going to come to a consensus that quickly. Revert warring on talk pages is still revert warring; DrKiernan needs to step back and chill, stat. As for the merits of the RMs, wait six months and we'll revisit then, there's no particular rush.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia talk:Move review#A withdraw that is a biased involved close contrary to the consensus of the discussion I have challenged User:DrKiernan's close of the review discussion. He clearly didn't like the way the review was going, closed it without reference to the discussion, and proceeded to act contrary to the sentiments of the review discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have boldly reclosed the MR with a procedural close which is the common result of a move review in cases like this where the initiator withdraws or another RM or similar discussion is started elsewhere. PaleAqua (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• No one has mentioned that Kiernan is an admin and that therefore Move Protect would have been ineffective anyway. It seems clear (to me at least) from the above discussion and my read of the various RM discussions that Mike Cline was acting appropriately, the discussions were assessed correctly by Cúchullain, Samir, and Mike Cline. It looks therefore that the MR discussion is heading for endorsement and that Kiernan acting contrary to the closures is abusing the level of responsible behaviour and/or judgement vested in him at his RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably because no one wanted to point out that move-protecting a page an admin wants to move against consensus makes the line clear where abuse of admin rights kicks in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible tag teaming

I would like some advice as to whether the following counts as tag teaming, and if so how I can establish whether the behaviour is acceptable or not. On five occasions during discussions with User:No More Mr Nice Guy, the same uninvolved editor User:Bad Dryer has entered out of nowhere to revert my revert.

(1) Diffs at Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine: [43]

• 22:21, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (13,089 bytes) (+47) . . (It is quite obviously not a simple reproduction , no matter what the text says, as it contains details (such as the 1949 armistice lines) not available to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 21:57, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (13,042 bytes) (-47) . . (Undid revision by No More Mr Nice Guy. The text says "Reproduced" not "Published". The map was actually "published" in the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 18:07, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (13,089 bytes) (+47) . . (attribute)

(2) Diffs at Template:Palestinian_territory_development: [44]

• 22:11, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (2,094 bytes) (-554) . . (it has been discussed before, but I don't see consensus for you version.)
• 21:46, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (2,648 bytes) (+554) . . (Undid revision 664591161 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) this has been discussed before. you need consensus for this)
• 17:52, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (2,094 bytes) (-554) . . (removing this map for multiple issues including NPOV and RS, see talk shortly)

(3) Diffs at United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine: [45]

• 22:23, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (96,759 bytes) (+47) . . (It is quite obviously not a simple reproduction , no matter what the text says, as it contains details (such as the 1949 armistice lines) not available to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 21:56, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (96,712 bytes) (-47) . . (Undid revision by No More Mr Nice Guy. The text says "Reproduced" not "Published". The map was actually "published" in the Survey of Palestine prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry)
• 07:38, 29 May 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (96,759 bytes) (+47) . . (/* United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) */ attribute)

(4) Diffs at British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument): [46]

• 22:50, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (80,739 bytes) (+71) . . (/* Transjordan */ attribution is (possibly) needed, but this text hews closer to the source, and is more detailed and accurate.)
• 21:09, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (80,668 bytes) (-97) . . (attributing to Feith, tracking his view more closely, and removing Bentwich statement taken out of context)
• 00:37, 05 June 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (80,765 bytes) (-4) . . (/* Background and negotiations */ per source. how the source's "there was never any question" changed to "to many observers it seemed" is anyone's guess.)

(5) Diffs at One_Million_Plan: [47]

• 22:56, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) Bad Dryer (talk | contribs) . . (29,828 bytes) (-574) . . (per WP:BRD - wait for consensus before adding this material again)
• 22:27, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) Oncenawhile (talk | contribs) . . (30,402 bytes) (+574) . . (Undid revision 685444238 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) I have read your talk comment. This is impeccably sourced. Your comment is both WP:OR and wrong. See talk shortly.)
• 22:11, 12 October 2015 (diff | hist) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) . . (29,828 bytes) (-574) . . (rv. see talk page shortly)

I am sure there is a good reason, but in my five years editing here I have never seen such coordination.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note: None of the 4-5 month old edits of his Oncenawhile mentions above has actually stuck. That in itself should tell you something. And neither will the one he made today. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

They all stuck - they were all reverts of edits you had made that were later agreed on talk to be wholly or partially inappropriate. (5) is ongoing. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned. You snuck the map past me with a misleading edit summary that made me assume you were putting another map in there per the talk page discussion. Good one. I'll be sure not to fall for that again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Try looking closer. It is a different map, from an impeccable source, but with the same data, so your well-poisoning was averted. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So your edit didn't stick after all. You had to change the article per my concerns, not per your revert. Glad we got that cleared up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. But this tangent might never end if one of us doesn't stop. I hereby allow you the WP:LASTWORD. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, User:Bad Dryer was the editor who caused User:Malik Shabazz to retire. (Bad Dryer was for a while blocked as a Nocal100-sock, but then unblocked.) Draw your own conclusions, Huldra (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There must be some secret cabal. Maybe we can close this and assist them with a cover up.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

She was not implying a cabal, she was reminding Malik's friends there's unfinished business here. See below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile please accept my apology. I had actually misread this while tired. I had actually mistaken that No Mr nice Guy had brought this case against you. Viewing it as such this looked a bit frivolous. As such allow me to strike my sarcastic comments.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• WJBscribe made a comment here not so long ago. Perhaps it's time to give his prophesy some serious consideration. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd Editing

This is a strange bit of editing. User:Jandown and User:Desklin appear to be the same person. This history of Jandown shows them going through and deleting archived comments of other editors. Likely one of the comments is related to this user. Desklin also changed the name on some of Jandown's edits to be Desklin. Perhaps someone that is more used to handling SPI cases can take a look. Arzel (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The two talk pages have been notified, here and here. Arzel (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And ANI is here. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strange indeed. I reverted a few edits where Jandown had messed with an archive. Desklin has been adding questions to an archive that were asked at a refdesk and removed here, by Baseball Bugs. Perhaps BB can shed some light on this matter. Yes, Arzel, odd, and worth another look, though not (just) necessarily from an SPI perspective--but it's a bit late here. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Desklin is a sock of an editor who has been bothering the RD for a while, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2. I think this was obvious to most regulars at the RD. Edit: And I remember now that I left a hint on the the WT:RD then a week or two later someone else brought it up. So I've been removing any of their contribs which haven't had replies on sight. (I've left those with replies given the history of concern over such removals.)

I probably should have filed an SPI, but first I was hoping the reversions with convince them to at least abandon this account (and they did seem to disappear for a while, but they are often irregular), or that one of the admin regulars would block them. Also recently BWH2 semed to have taken to serial sockpuppetry (perhaps with a very odd IP or two) meaning a checkuser didn't do much. Edit2: In fact, I remember now that the hint I left was at a discussion where someone complained about the editor being blocked by an RD regular based on behaviour, without a CU although after an SPI. Which may not have helped encourage such IMO very useful blocks, not that I'm faulting admins for not blocking without an SPI, whatever the case.

I don't think I noticed Jandown, or may be I did but just reverted or ignored the edits on the RD and didn't check the history, can't remember for sure. Edit2: Their Jandown account does suggest CUs may be useful, although it looks like it was only created after they were bugged enough by me and I think others deleting or reverting their contribs. So if the SPI had been filed and CU run early enough it also would have come up fruitless.

Deleting archived comments, normally IIRC replies to their questions which they didn't seem to like for whatever reason is another historic behaviour of BWH2 although I don't think they've shown that for a while, at least AFAIK.

BWH2 also has a history of causing some problems on the encyclopaedia proper, mostly in creating useless redirects, but also sometimes in questionable edits to articles. Although when I checked Desklin's edits to the encyclopaedia proper, many of them didn't seem so bad so I left them, even if I technically could have reverted all. Last time I checked which was over a month ago, I did revert any that seemed inappropriate although IIRC most were minor.

P.S. Just checked the history SPI history which confirmed most of my memory. P.S. 2 Seems they tried to delete this discussion [48]. Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I've seen enough. They're the same--their way of editing the refdesks is exactly the same--and they're not doing anything useful here. There's a couple of useless redirects and then a bunch of messing around in those archives. Nil Einne, feel free to start reverting those edits. I'm going to block for NOTHERE, and whatever the kids at SPI wanna do is fine with me. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979 and soap articles

Cebr1979 (talk · contribs) has made a large number of requests for page protection, (eg: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]) all of which are on soap opera characters, and most of which have had barely any edits this month and hence in my view do not meet the semi protection guidelines. The apparent cause of this, according to Cebr1979, is that a single editor has been undertaking slow-moving disruption (their words, not mine) across many articles, as documented here. A look through 172.0.210.68 (talk · contribs)'s contributions though, suggests to me that this is a good-faith editor and if there was any problem, I think it would be WP:COMPETENCE related. Therefore Cebr1979's protection requests are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. What should we do? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have anything to do right now. Between your post at 0:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) and your request above, Cebr1979 hasn't resumed the disruption. So, since he hasn't continued the problem, I don't know why you think admins need to step in and use their tools. Give him a chance to actually do the right thing before demanding Admins step in... --Jayron32 14:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting blocking or anything, rather it seems this issue has been going on in various places over the past few weeks, and it's probably a good time to bring it to a central place to get some more views. I realise it's a bit odd to have an ANI thread when I just want a discussion, but there you go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie, there is absolutely no disruption from me. I have been in contact with many admins about this guy (something you know because you linked to one of the conversations yourself) and, you are wrong. This is not a good faith editor, it is a sockpuppet using multiple different IPs to make his nonsense edits. I'm not going to bother explaining the situation to you since you can't be bothered to take two seconds to look it up (even though you claim to have "looked through..." like, I just don't even know). Some of those IPs have been blocked for nonsense edits/vandalism and you definitely knew that before you came here so, common sense should have dictated there is more to this story you are clearly unaware of (especially when you were actually aware of it because this conversation was right there in front of you and there's no way you didn't see it). The next time you have an issue with something, my advice to you would be to ask some questions instead of immediately running around to the nearest place you can to instantly cause some drama. I'm not talking to you anymore.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

When I said I wasn't talking to you anymore, Ritchie, I hadn't seen this yet. Don't you EVER come to my talk page and put something back I have removed. EVER. You wanna talk about disruption? Go read talk page policies. I don't wanna see you at my talk page again. I shouldn't need to be schooling administrators on how wikipedia works.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cebr1979, since you don't want drama, what is your suggestion for dealing with this problem? Given the range of IP addresses you list here, I don't know if a range block would be useful. Let's try to resolve the underlying problem rather than the symptoms of too many page protection requests. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Liz, I have already linked to conversations I've had about this guy (there are many more but, now I just don't see the point in even trying). You and I even (indirectly) had a conversation about him on my talk page just days ago. I have already attempted everything under the sun I can think of and it's gotten me nowhere. If you have suggestions, feel free to toss them out.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at a random sample, I see a whole bunch of editors getting angry and upset at IPs on their talk pages, and a random spot-check of them here, here and here reveals a completely clean block log. To pargraphase Willard Duncan Vandiver, "you gotta show me". Where is this disruption? I think if you keep raising frivolous requests to WP:RFPP (all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins) somebody's going to think about ways we can keep the backlog down a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins"

You couldn't be more wrong, Ritchie. I had already decided to stop fixing this guy's mistakes. Let him have his free reign. This is just too much of a headache.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the current version of RFPP I can see Ged UK and Ymblanter also declined some of your recent RPP requests and I see KrakatoaKatie had a word with you about this yesterday. So that would seem to justify my view that multiple admins have addressed this. I was really hoping we'd get to the bottom of who the IPs are, possibly someone that an admin reading this would know about, but I guess not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you were not! You're just changing your tune now! Re-read your original post right here in this thread. You defended this guy. You were not trying to get to the bottom of anything involving him.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and KrakatoaKatie actually approved every single one she looked at so, again... "all of which seem to have been declined by a number of different admins???" You just proved you knew what you said was false when you said it. I'm off for the day. Have a god one! Cebr1979 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Cebr1979, since we're having this discussion here, here's my take on this: Yes, the person who is doing this is a disruptive force, and should be reverted. However, given the low-level of disruption (a few edits a month, at what I am looking at), there's nothing we should do to pre-empt this. That is, page protection is used only when the level of disruption is so rapid or high volume that we can't keep up by reverting. This level of disruption can be managed quite easily by simply reverting and blocking if necessary. Simply: this level of disruption does not merit page protection, by our protection policy. Now that you've been informed of this, please do not continue to make protection requests which you have been informed will not be acted on; you've also been explained to why they have not been acted upon, so I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Just keep up the good fight, keep reverting this person, and we're sorry that we can't do more to stop them; except maybe a range-block, if that is feasible. Page protection cannot be done because the potential for collateral damage against good-faith editors outweighs the need to stop this one person. --Jayron32 16:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Jayron32: As you've already pointed out, I've already done all of that and I had already done all of that before Ritchie came here.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Hours and hours before...Cebr1979 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I got you. I'm just trying to be unambiguous. So long as you've stopped, we're good here. --Jayron32 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Jayron32: Read this conversation please (which I have already linked to) and you'll see there is nothing "low-level" about it. This guy's a pro.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
          • That article in that discussion has been edited (5 times by IP addresses in 2015) is about as low-level as you can get. Now, that doesn't mean this person doesn't need to be stopped, nor does it mean their disruption is to be ignored. It's just that protection is the wrong tool for it. 5 edits in 1 year does not need protection to stop. --Jayron32 16:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Jayron32: The article in that discussion is irrelevant. I asked you to read the discussion itself (which you clearly haven't done).Cebr1979 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Mauna22: Please don't delete comments made by me (or anyone else) as you did here.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Sorry about that. It was an accident. Mauna22 (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
              • I had read the discussion already. We're clearly not even discussing the same point here. You're saying the person against whom you're requesting protection is a disruptive problem, and needs to be stopped. I am agreeing with you. You also keep trying to use protection to stop them. I am letting you know that protection is not the correct solution to this problem. That is all. I don't need to be repeated told by you to agree with you when I already have on the points you're demanding that I agree with you on. We're still not going to protect hundreds of articles that get edited once every few months. --Jayron32 17:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                • You're right, we are not discussing the same thing here. You said he was a "low-level of disruption" and I was correcting you.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • Yeah, I said there was a low level of disruption to that page. I was discussing the article, you were discussing the person. I think we're good here. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Jayron32 18:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I've found it - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumgrainger200 - that was all I was really asking for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So I looked down this rabbit hole when I stumbled upon these RFPP requests last night (and I think the night before or something), but from what I can tell, it goes deep—so deep, I just went to bed instead of deal with it. Still, it looks like this might be LTA from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callumgrainger200 that's spread across numerous IP ranges. They're all soap-opera-related articles, and they're usually mobile-web edits. If you peruse the following categories, you'll likely find instances of characteristic edits from the SPI user (some benign), which seem to have kicked up starting a little under a year ago:

• Category:General_Hospital_characters
• Category:One_Life_to_Live_characters
• Category:The_Young_and_the_Restless_characters
• Category:Coronation_Street_characters
• Category:EastEnders_characters
• Category:Days_of_Our_Lives_characters

This encompasses thousands of articles, so protecting them all likely isn't feasible. If I were to guess, the user has a true "home" ISP with Comcast but possibly travels frequently and/or largely contributes with an iPad anyway (most frequently with 166.173.0.0/16, so AT&T-US, but some appearances in other countries). The edits are disproportionately mobile web and usually revolve around changing template parameters related to sibling/parent/family crap (or trivial name changes), and will long-term edit war over them.

Furthermore, this is a recurring theme with mobile IPs. Given the ubiquity of devices, the relative ease with which they can be used to evade blocks and reassign IPs (even unintentionally), and the lack of responsiveness from abuse departments, it's clear that obsessed users—and make no mistake, this is a case of obsession—can make it difficult to effectively prevent disruption (or even get in contact with them). I'm starting to think AO+ACB blocks for mobile ranges are increasingly in order in cases like this. Even when trying to get in touch with an IP, the chances are exceptionally good that by the time a message is dropped on their talk page, they've already been assigned a new public ip (so they'll never even see it). Alternatively, we could re-evaluate the idea of per-page blocks (a WP:PEREN) but solely in the context of ip-range blocks in cases of severe abuse.

Regardless, not quite sure the best course of action in this instance.

--slakr^\ talk / 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also @Cebr1979: I strongly agree with the others that repeatedly adding a bunch of pages on WP:RFPP is a bad idea. This sort of cross-page issue is better to raising here with an explanation and history of what you've experienced (or on WP:SPI). It might end up requiring a unique solution or simply more people watching the range of articles (if there's nothing else that's easily doable and/or willing to be done), so raising the issue here is more likely to provide diversified inputs. RFPP is more for one-off requests where a specific page or two is the problem (e.g., Penis being vandalized or people edit warring on a couple articles)—not dozens of articles or a whole category. :P Broad, sweeping actions, including protecting a large number of pages (if they're needed) are better suited for discussion here. --slakr^\ talk / 01:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan disruptive editing on Ramana Maharshi´s article

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

---

Use WP:Dispute Resolution for content dispute (non-admin closure) --AmritasyaPutraT 06:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to raise my complaint about the conduct of User:Joshua Jonathan regarding the article `Ramana Maharshi´. His actions clearly fall into WP:DISRUPTSIGNS points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. I dealt with User:Joshua Jonathan some time ago (2013), in relation with an old threat on the page `Ramana Maharshi´, please see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ramana_Maharshi/Archive_3#Suggestion_for_lineage-section Facing his obstinate opposition to every opinion not in line with his I already complained: “...you didn´t discuss any of the points people made here up, instead you are bringing third people opinions which only distort the debate. You spend so many time criticizing other people´s work and putting down their words saying there are just opinions with no steady information behind them when, indeed, you are the first one bringing here opinions, not facts or reliable data.” In relation with this conversation other users raised complains about Joshua Jonathan as well. I gave up then, feeling it was impossible to deal with such attitude, I think user Iddli did stop editing the page about the same time for the same reasons. I came back recently trying to make some adjustments on the page only to find even fiercer opposition from him. User:Iddli summarized the situation in a recent conversation in the Talk section of the page: “I very strongly agree with what Mauna22 has said above about how discouraging it is to attempt to edit the Ramana Maharshi article. I worked on this article for years. I have read dozens of books about Ramana Maharshi and used to very much enjoy collaborating with other editors on this article. However, as soon as Joshua Jonathan began editing it, any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible. After repeated attempts to continue working on the page, I finally gave up. Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him, rules the page with an iron fist, and makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors yet aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors). The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem. I, for one, would very much welcome Joshua Jonathan taking an extended break from editing (controlling) this article so other past (and, I hope, new) editors can freely contribute and collaborate.” From some time now Ramana Maharshi´s article is being overruled by User:Joshua Jonathan. He is pushing harshly his POV promoting his preconceived assumptions on Hinduism, the colonial era in India, and the relation between religion and politics in that country, adding information not directly related with the article in order to uphold his postulations, changing the very nature of the article, that is a biographical one. He is constantly putting down every commentary that doesn´t fit his agenda, treating them with disdain and asking constantly for justifications and evidence, demanding editors to defend before him such changes while he himself feels free to make any change without asking. He demands as well any data to be strongly supported by sources while he again feels free to introduce his own changes without any backing whatsoever, bringing third party opinions or information that is not even directly related with the person of Ramana Maharshi or his life for the sole reason that “is useful”. He even goes further than that and when the sources that support a particular position he´s not comfortable with are presented, he questions the sources, stating that they might be biased. He is reacting negatively again and again to each and every change not coincident with his political and religious views. Since he started editing the article there´s no room for opinions that do not tally with his, making it impossible to edit the page anytime he feels his position endangered. I believe this conduct throughout this years is being discouraging and disheartening and keeps new editors away from the page. Mauna22 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Reply by JJ: Regarding WP:DISRUPTSIGNS points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6: you haven't given an explanation or clarification for this allegation, nor any diffs. let's go through them anyway: 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." - please make clear which POV, and where. Show disruptive deletions. Show deletion of reliable sources. 3: "Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." - show diffs lease. 4: "Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." I've extensively partcicipated in discussions at the talkpage; please substantiate. 5: "Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." - I've answered and explained extensively at the talkpage 6: "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles." - that's a harsh allegation, which you really have to substantiate. otherwise it's a baseless allegation. Take note of the many Barnstars I've received for diplomacy. Regarding the 2013-thread: that's a rather long thread you're referring to. The allegation you make, "you didn´t discuss any of the points people made here up, instead you are bringing third people opinions", is not supported by by any diffs or examples. I give my own opinions there: "So, to my opinion, this subsection is well-placed, well-organised, and highly relevant to the article." I also agreed with some suggestions: "I have no problem with the lashram-section. You can re-insert it - in the original section." I've also reaised my concerns with he edits discussed there, cocnerns which apparently were not satifactory answered: "Basically, it comes down to ignoring the discussion, and simply pushing your point of view. Unacceptable for Wikipedia, and very poor behaviour."; "We've discussed this list of qualities before; most of them are unsourced, and were removed for that reason. The present discussion is not a valid reason to bypass WP:VERIFY and reinsert them; they are still unsourced. The subsection that is now in the article is sourced, even without the disputed lines. Replacing sourced info by unsourced info is not an option." So, I think that you're presnetation of that thread is not really accurate. Regarding Iddli's complaints, I've answered those at Talk:Ramana Maharshi#User Joshua Jonathan´s conduct regarding Ramana Maharshi´s article. I'll repeat them here: "any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible" See the thread above, Talk:Ramana Maharshi#Questions cropping up, which contradicts this statement. See also Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Journey to Tiruvannamalai, Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Stillness - samadhi, and Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Jung-quote for some other examples. "Impossible" seems to be a misplaced qualification. See, on the other hand, Talk:Ramana Maharshi#Bhakti before Awakening, where I wrote, in response to Manua22, "I think this is relevant info; would you like to add it to the article?", to which Mauna22 responded "How come you are so eager to change something when it coincides with your point of view and how, in (sic) the other hand, you are so resistant to make changes when proposals do not coincide with it?" Not exactly an example of a collaborative spirit, was it? It's in a thread where Prodigyhk and I agreed after some discussion; "Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him" - I've made over 500 edits to this page; most of them were additions of info, and meticulous work on details such as the publications. I also provided sources for unsourced info provided by Iddli. A good example of collaboration and constructive improvements; "rules the page with an iron fist" - that's a subjective statement, which needs explanation and explication; "makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors" - the normal procedure is to edit the page. When you object, you can start a discussion at the talkpage. If you think I've failed here somehow, you'll have to provide diffs; "aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda" - there's a long series of edits I haven't touched upon, nor objected to. In case I've got objections, I do voice them; that's the normal procedure. Regarding the term "aggressive," it seems an apt qualification of your own tone, as exemplified by your response quoted above, and this thread itself; "his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors)" - if you mean that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of webpages written by devotees, yes, that's an agenda - which fits in with the objctives of Wikipedia. See also Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 3#Neutrality, where this issue was raised before, by another editor; "The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem..." - a talkpage is intended to discuss the article; looking back I see a lot of discussion. If the problem is that I don't agree with some of your edits or POV, no that problem won't be solved if you expect me to simply agree with you. Nevertheless, many discussions have been resolved at the talkpage, as can be seen at the talkpage-threads which I linked to at "problematic." Apologies for the long response; I prefer to give an accurate response. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Input from Iddli: Everything that Mauna22 has said above tallies with my own experience of attempting to continue editing the Ramana Maharshi article after Joshua Jonathan began editing it. Mauna's description is thorough and accurate. I have no doubt that Joshua Jonathan can and will go to great lengths to try to prove that Mauna22 and I are completely wrong, and he will no doubt endlessly cite wikipedia rules and cherrypick past examples of his generously allowing another editor to insert a line or two in order to back his point of view but the fact remains: attempting to edit the Ramana Maharshi page with Joshua Jonathan is so frustrating and his level of control is so intense that he is driving away good editors who would like to improve and collaborate on the article. His response to Mauna22 is just more of the same. (Iddli (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)) Input from Dseer: I concur 100% with the complaints by Mauna22 and Iddli about Joshua Jonathan's heavy handed and non-collaborative editing of the Ramana Maharshi article. His reply is cleverly legalistic but in reality it is is just so much smoke screen for his agenda driven and disruptive editing rather than collaboration. He is not really serious about collaboration as a close review of the record shows. As a typical example of the disruptive damage to which this non-collaborative editor Jonathan is willing to do to push his views, see this statement he recently back put in after being challenged: "Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised [sic] in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students. That is of course total opinion not fact that "neo-Advaita" conforms accurately to Ramana's teachings since Ramana even had a problematic relationship with traditional Advaita let alone neo-Advaita, and it is a claim widely disputed as well as conflicting with the rest of the article. A close reading of Ramana's words in context shows little evidence that would support such a claim that neo-Advaita actually popularizes his teaching rather than modifies them at best. Poonja himself dismissed the neo-Advaitan's claims of enlightenment in an interview with David Godman. His personal views should not be the determinating factor on what is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dseer (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Dseer (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Comment from Uninvolved editor: Joshua Jonathan is the best editor in the Indian religion pages, often taking the role of mediating content disputes. He is frequently attacked by religious single-purpose accounts, which seems to be the case here. A non-admin closure seems appropriate, since this is a content dispute.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Reply by JJ: typical responses: no diffs, no examples, only accusations, and rejecting my response as "cleverly legalistic." I have provided "a close review of the record" above which shows multiple examples of "serious collaboration." This comment by Dseer is also typical: ""Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised [sic] in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students.["] That is of course total opinion not fact". This comes from two academic publications from Philip Lucas: Lucas, Phillip Charles (2011), "When a Movement Is Not a Movement. Ramana Maharshi and Neo-Advaita in North America", Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. Vol. 15, No. 2 (November 2011) (pp. 93-114) {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Lucas, Phillip Charles (2014), "Non-Traditional Modern Advaita Gurus in the West and Their Traditional Modern Advaita Critics", Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Volume 17, Issue 3, pages 6-37 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Lucas nor I do say that neo-Advaita teachings 'conform accurately' to Ramana's teachings. Neo-Advaita is being mentioned in two different sections; the "devotees" section also provides criticism of neo-Advaita. Dseer failed to notice this? Far from being a "typical example of the disruptive damage to which this non-collaborative editor Jonathan is willing to do to push his views," it shows a serious problem in the understanding of plain text, the contents of the article, and the usage and value of academic sources. This sort of misunderstandings may be the causes of the prolonged discussions with these editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss with you JJ; your relative knowledge gap is evident. You have only a small fraction of the knowledge on this subject and of the sources I have and it shows which is why your friend Victoria's endorsement as "the best editor in the Indian religion pages" carries no weight with those who actually have that knowledge. That sources claim Ramana Maharshi's rings teachings have been popularized in the west as neo-Advaita is not in dispute but that is imply their opinion and yours. The objection is not to the source but to the implication that these represent Ramana Maharshi's teaching and your refusal to work with editors more knowledgeable on the subject disputing that. A more accurate way of putting it in the article is that this is a sourced claim that is disputed not written as a fact. Since Poonja is on record in an interview denying any of these neo-Advaitans were even realized although he told them so (probably a test of ego they failed) and the teaching lineage is self-claimed, the so-called popularisation [sic] can be seen as selective distortion instead; a sourced view BTW. As I said to you in the talk pages a month ago, you can find sources for all sorts of claims, that Ramana was deluded, insane, nihilistic, possessed, political, a supporter of Hitler, uninterested in combatting evil, etc. I don't care if you dredge up a list of such sources as long as it is clear these are simply opinions. What the other editors do not appreciate is the way you interpret things out of context without discussion. As I said as well, David Godman is probably the leading expert on Ramana Maharshi alive today. We would appreciate a little more humbleness in your confidence in your own interpretation and more deference on details to such a recognized expert easily accessible in illuminating and weighing the evidence in conflicts. BTW the claim of single purpose religious account is absurd. I have expertise on NRM cults and non-dualism, and various related practices. I confine my editing to where I have special expertise, unlike some others commenting here. And I am only concerned with those who foster misinterpretation that could be avoided; not creating a artificial haliography. 72.220.97.195 (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I raised my complaints about User:Joshua Jonathan behavior in relation with the Article `Ramana Maharshi´. He had tyrannized that page for several years already, keeping editors away and carrying on his personal agenda. Two others users (whom I don´t know!) supported my claims.

Today I came here and instead of editors investigating the case to the detail I found that right away its me and the the users that support what I said those who are under suspicion: that´s outrageous. “religious single-purpose accounts”. Really? What´s next?

An “uninvolved editor” appears all of a sudden claiming litteraly that “Joshua Jonathan is the best editor in the Indian religion pages”. If that is not WP:PEACOK please tell me what is...

Can please some editor that is not friends or has any relation with User:Joshua Jonathan check this whole thing out. I will really appreciate that.

Thanks, Mauna22 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute it seems, as was already pointed out. Time to use some form of dispute resolution. ANI is not for content disputes.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -Serialjoepsycho-. This is not about the particular contents of the page in this or that point but about one user trying to keep his political agenda no matter what, using disrupting behavior throughout the years.

Please inform me if there´s gonna be a investigation or if you need diffs or something. In this case is difficult to provide diffs because is a procedural that has been on for at least two years now and is difficult to see it references in different places and times.

Thanks again, Mauna22 (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's possible, I doubt it. There's not alot in the way of diffs and everything makes look like a content dispute. With a content dispute, if you've reached you peak in discussing it on the talk page, you move on to some form of dispute resolution to try to build a consensus. You might consider a WP:RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate your time and attention.

Please take look at [55] is a good example of Joshua´s behavior. It is from two years ago. Its not like things were ok since that discussion until today, the thing is -and this is my claim here- that he got rid of editors with his disruptive actions during this time, and that is why there has been no much fuss during such period in that article or its talk secction.

In WP:RUNAWAY we can find different tactics disruptive editors use to evade detection as is the case:

• Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive.
• Their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article.

I would add that he produces protracted commentaries to defend his position (when he can actually use links and diffs), which is another way to discourage debate because few people have the time or the will to engage in so very long disputes, see: [56] [57] [58]

Thanks, Mauna22 (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way I would like to ask someone to investivate User: VictoriaGrayson conduct. User: VictoriaGrayson entered this debate yesterday with a rather awkward commentary [59]:

“Joshua Jonathan is the best editor in the Indian religion pages, often taking the role of mediating content disputes. He is frequently attacked by religious single-purpose accounts, which seems to be the case here. A non-admin closure seems appropriate, since this is a content dispute.”

Which is disrespecful and clearly WP:PEACOCK

S/he also started to edit the talk page or Raman Maharsi´s Article, Saying twice the same thing at different points [60] [61]:

“I agree with Joshua Jonathan”

Period. No explanation, no elaboration; only unswerving support to Joshua Jonathan

Thanks again, Mauna22 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Undiscussed contentious page move (again)

User:Film Fan continues to move articles that could potentially controversial moves (ignoring WP:RM#TR). I previously raised this at ANI and he was warned not to do this by admin User:Number 57. This now continues with the page move for Felix and Meira which includes this edit to prevent it being reverted (exactly the thing Number 57 warned him against). Please can this be moved back to the title pre-move (happy for a WP:RM to be logged, if needed).

Recently he moved the article for Point Break only for that to be reverted at a WP:RM raised. FF already has a long block history for edit warring over posters being uploaded and knows the WP:RM process, as this has been pointed out to him several times. I see this as being contined disruptive behaviour. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked a week for this. clpo13_(talk) 08:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Editing the redirect is simply inexcusable, and Number 57 wasn't the only admin who warned him against that. I've blocked Film Fan for a week, but I think he might need explicit sanctions. He seems to be practically allergic to collaboration. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: User has a block log a mile long, including an indef exactly two years ago, which was rescinded after 11 months because "User has made a commitment to change the behaviors that led to the block", but he was re-blocked 5 months later for edit-warring. I think we may be looking at a site ban if problems continue. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"The root of the problem here is Keysanger"

User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces ...etc" in June 2013 because he "has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History). His ban was conditionally released on 1 September 2015 (diff) whereat he vowed "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." (diff)

Six weeks later he edited War of the Pacific's talk page and wrote (diff)

1. I am more interested in dealing with other projects in WP than butting heads with a user that doesn't want to drop down the axe
2. This article needs to be heavily reviewed and fixed by an editor other than Keysanger.

And in editor's @Neil P. Quinn: talk page (diff) he continues:

1. Keysanger has been "working" on this article for several years now, and there has been no progress toward it reaching the standards for GA (much less FA).
2. The root of the problem here is Keysanger.
3. [Keysanger] he writes a soup of words that are more confusing than clear.
4. What Keysanger is doing in this case would be like claiming that the Mexican-American War was caused by Mexico's envy of the United States (instead of writing about the accepted view of American Manifest Destiny expansionism).
5. If an editor can't contribute positively to an article, either because he doesn't have the appropriate language skills nor has non-partisan intentions, then that editor should not be allowed to continue making a mess of the article.

It must be emphasized, that I have not interacted with MarshalN20 for a long time (years?), aside from my warning in his Amendment request or as he accused me to be a sockpuppet. That is, MarshalN20 personal attacks have its source solely in his battleground conduct as the tribunal established.

I see in MarshalN20's conduct a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and, even worse, the rules set by the amendment. I expect that the community apply the needed sanctions on the wrongdoer to end definitely the personal attacks. --Keysanger (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider to have broken my personal "vow" since I have not actually edited any article about the War of the Pacific. I don't consider talk or discussion spaces the same as articles—albeit discussing the semantics of my words is surely not within the scope of AN/I (as my vow was not part of the resolution that lifted my TB).

In fact, Keysanger's request here is entirely preposterous. I have not personally attacked him, and have actually been quite empathetic to him in our recent interaction (see [62] and [63]). As Dentren indicates, my comments are a criticism of the "work" that Keysanger has done in the article.

I place "work" in quotations because Keysanger's contributions to the War of the Pacific article, in a time-span of over half a decade, has left it in a complete mess (I called it a "soup of words," and that's a mighty kind use of words). The article needs serious work from editors competent in English who can write an adequate prose with proper paraphrasing and summarization of reliable sources. I would volunteer to help, but can't do so now due to other commitments.

This is why I left a message on Neil's talk page. He attempted to help resolve a problem in the article, but the situation is so convoluted that he could not make sense of what was going on. My message was in no way or form uncivil; furthermore, Neil even thanked me for taking the time to explain to him the issue and provide him with an example (see [64]).

This AN/I request surprises me greatly, but at the same time it opens an opportunity for a WP:BOOMERANG case where I hope the community can take a look at the War of the Pacific article and see for themselves its current state. I am even considering to propose that a community topic ban be placed on Keysanger so that he no longer can interfere with other editors taking charge of the article; please let me know your thoughts on this. Sincerely.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, and by the way, I didn't accuse Keysanger of being a sockpuppet. I pointed out in the SP investigation, as a commenter (not nominator), that the editing patterns between Keysanger and another user were very similar. However, this SPI took place in May 2014; it has been well over a year since then. The fact that this user continues to harbor anger over this, as well as his comment in my topic ban review (of a case that never involved him), serves as evidence that the saber still rattles.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger's description of the case is incorrect. The ban has not been lifted on the condition that he doesn't engage in the war of the pacific articles. The ban has been lifted, period. He is free to edit the article and the talk page as he see fit. For a year, if he causes trouble, the ban may be reinstated, and if he doesn't, it may be gone for good. So, this case should be checked only on the grounds of his actual comments. So far, I don't see anything wrong with them. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a liberal dose of WP:DROPTHESTICK to Keysanger, first the sockpuppet accusation was made in May 2014, that's over a year old, second, his ban was released in full by the Arb's, MarshalN20 on his own promised not to edit the articles and he's doing just that, the talk page is not the same as the article. Further, you | struck out some of what he wrote and claimed it was a personal attack, Dentren | removed your strike out and MarshalN20 actually | re-wrote the struck out parts even though they didn't qualify as a personal attack, further your were the sole | opposer of his request to release him from his Ban, and you went back to 2013 to show diffs of his supposed "bad behavior". (* Edited 10/14/2015 1525 EST * ) Looks like Keysanger tried to | close down part of this discussion as well, big time not cool, and I should know, I've been called on just that same thing. Let's have an admin close this up with a note to drop the stick. KoshVorlon 16:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kosh,

you didn't understand the issue. As I wrote below, sockpuppetry is not the case. MarshalN20 and WCM accusation was immediately rebuked by the admins. The case here is MarshalN20's "The root of the problem here is Keysanger". It is a personal attack under any consideration. --Keysanger (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The root of the problem is explained in my original posting at SPI [65]. The key points back then, remain the same now:

1. Keysanger is disruptive on the War of the Pacific, seeking to remove material on the grounds of a national POV basis. This doesn't reflect a WP:NPOV or the prevailing view in the literature. He's been raising the same issue on the article since September 2009 as far as I am aware.
2. Keysanger has repeatedly baited Marshal about his topic ban.
3. Keysanger has a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, disagree and you're an enemy. I thought long and hard before raising the SPI, largely for the wrong reason as at the time I regarded him as a wikifriend. As you can see above - [66] apparently I was "rebuked" by the SPI.

I would strongly urge Keysanger to drop the stick here, withdraw what is a frivolous complaint and take a break from the article before he sees a WP:BOOMERANG headed his way. WCM_email 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WCM analysis of Keysangers behaviour. He has long tried to impose a particular vision on the events sorrounding the War of the Pacific, one which avoids putting Chile as the "bad boy" diff. He has extended his activity to Economic history of Chile solely for the purpose of cleaning or creating a particular image of Chile regarding the causes of the War of the Pacific, and rejected mediation diff. Keysanger is an old user, active for more than 6 years, we should expect a minimum standard from him.

PS. In August Keysanger made a vitriolic attack on me diff after I brought up the issue of him using socks/meatsocks (if untrue, why react that way?). I declined to bring the issue up for ANI then, I bring it up now anyway, just to not let this behaviour pass by. Dentren | ^Talk 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to return to the central point of the discussion, is MarshalN20's battleground mentality compatible with the goals of Wikipedia?. In my honest opinion, Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. --Keysanger (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of Clarification

Above Keysanger claims that Marshal accused him of sockpuppetry, this is not true. I started the SPI check after a new user appeared, with obvious knowledge of wiki processes and immediately began editing on the War of the Pacific and supporting Keysanger in talk. He was also disruptive on Chile-Peru football rivalry which was a bit of a pet project of Marshals. Check out Chelios123 (talk · contribs) for details. At the time it seemed a clear case of WP:DUCK to me. Although not actively involved in the War of the Pacific I was previously one of the parade of editors that have tried to mediate the dispute on this article. WCM_email 11:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

He accused me as he wrote "Based on the history, it seems that there is either a sock or meat relationship going on here." (diff), but that isn't the point in this case. --Keysanger (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Au contraire, Keysanger, this is very relevant to the case. Your opening statement here intends to portray the idea that I have an agenda against you, and also that you are appalled by my alleged breaking of an inconsequential "vow". However, this example and the one of your ArbComm comment (both which you brought up here on your own), demonstrate that you have raised this AN/I case in bad faith. Raising a frivolous AN/I report because you are still angry over a year-old SPI, but claiming it is for a good cause, fits the definition of a cynical gaming of the system. The boomerang is real.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This ANI is the epitome of battleground behavior. When is soon? Even if he "vowed" "to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon." the topic ban was lifted. Soon is undefined and in requesting a topic ban be lifted pretty much shows an intention of editing in this area. Arbcom lifting the topic ban allows for him to edit in this area. There's no actually need to wait for the "soon" time period, if this isn't already after "soon". While he does not softly kiss any ass I'm not really seeing any breach of Marshal's release from his topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Dmateh

Dmateh (talk · contribs) is a student of Savitribai Phule Pune University who is upset over what he claims are the school's unwritten rules. Several times now he has used the school's Wikipedia article to air complaints about these rules [67] [68] [69] [70]. The material was removed by User:JustBerry and myself; we both attempted to explain WP:RS and WP:NPOV to him at User talk:Dmateh#Recent edit to Savitribai Phule Pune University and User talk:Psychonaut#Savitribai Phule Pune University. He does not seem to accept the policies, and in retaliation for our not allowing his unsourced criticisms to stand, he blanked large sections of the article—basically anything that didn't have a <ref> tag nearby, no matter how uncontroversial or trivial to find sources for. I told him that this was disruptive but he seems to have dug his heels in. He's re-added the unsourced content, claiming that it is his "right" to do so.

I don't think any further communication from JustBerry or myself is likely to help. Could someone else please have a word with him, or take whatever action they deem necessary to curb further disruption to the article? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I just posted an edit-warring notice on his user page. His position seems intractable but I'd like to see if he responds to warnings from other users. I hope other editors can watch this article as well to see if this disruption continues or the editor decides to move on to other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; hopefully he'll get the message. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock? for Mumbai IPs

At a bunch of hip hop music articles there is a person from Mumbai who is engaging in persistent introduction of unreferenced text and wrong information, using multiple IPs. For instance, the IP changed Gold to Platinum for the album Rolling Papers[71] but the source says Gold (page 3 of the results.)

• 59.184.132.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.132.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.135.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.135.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.145.57 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.151.126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.153.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.164.176 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.167.235 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.169.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.175.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.189.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.184.190.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

There was some action in August from Special:Contributions/59.183.57.203 but that is outside of the above range which suggests a rangeblock of 59.184.132.1 to 59.184.190.256. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Range 59.184.128.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses). There does not appear to be any serious collateral damage so I am going to lay down a range block for a week. Thanks for reporting, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You rock! Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocking

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

---

Before blocking someone, should an Admin while investigating, question the user about to get blocked and maybe even question other users familiar with the user in question? It would seem more fair to me to conduct an investigation like a court of law. What do you guys think? I was thinking that the user about to get blocked should be able to defend themselves. Fr33d0m0fS33c4 19:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fr33d0m0fSp33c4 (talk • contribs)

1. Generally, Admin give warnings prior to blocking, so editors have knowledge that what they are doing is unacceptable.
2. If an editor is blocked, they typically still have access to their talk page, where they can always make an unblock request.

Is there a particular incident you're referring to, or are you just asking about things in general? Sergecross73 msg me 19:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Context is everything. You give no context. A admin should ask questions to the involved user and others if necessary. It may not be necessary. This is not a court of law.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just to second Sergecross73 above, the talk page access a blocked user is normally afforded provides a means of making an unblock request and explaining their actions. In the rare cases where someone should not have been blocked, the mistake is often rectified relatively quickly. In all the user reports I have done, admins have always weighed up the contributions and made informed decisions, sometimes declining my report and just warning the user. samtar ^(msg) 19:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Any reason we should not block this extremely obvious and likely block-evading sockpuppet? Guy (Help!) 19:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

To stop the Cabals from taking over wikipedia, because after wikipedia it is the world.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm samtar ^(msg) 20:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Granted, it is not a court of law. I was referring to an incident some time ago where someone had 2 accounts and was blocked for sock puppetry. I don't remember who blocked them or who was blocked. The blocked User wasn't active in-between the time a warning was given and when he was blocked. I'm guessing he got on one day to find that he was blocked, didn't know anything of him about to get blocked. I was wondering if the time between a warning given and the block given should be more than a few hours. Fr33d0m0fS33c4User:Fr33d0m0fSp33c4-User talk:Fr33d0m0fSp33c4 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

talk page comment needs addressing

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

---

This comment is pretty much completely unacceptable. Considering it was made by an IP, it might be useful to see if it can clearly be identified as an IP sock of some sort as well. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked and revdel'd, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think the edit history of the IP in general here might be seen as maybe indicating that the IP is being used by someone who is involved in other discussions with those editors, particularly the comments here which indicate that the IP with very little history thinks DeskOS has previously edited in a nonproductive manner, here in which s/he seems to me anyway to be calling DeskOS a troll for some reason, and here where s/he insults DeskOS again. I don't know what User:DeskOS may have been editing to earn such a description, but it is hard not to see some sort of hidden agenda here. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously a sock. GAB^Hello! 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, but I'm a verbose bastard. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

And I just repeat obvious facts to sound intelligent. Sorry about that, too. GAB^Hello! 20:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

IP 173.24.226.12

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

---

Hello. There is an IP who is continuously vandalizing Wikipedia after final warning. He was been given 4 level 4 warnings, and still has not stopped vandalizing and blanking pages. He was reported on the admin inversion against vandalism page, but somebody removed him and he still hasn't stopped. I don't think he's a sock IP. Why is he still not blocked? I am not an administrator, so I am unable to block him. I gave him a level 3 warning for removing info. Spike789 ^Talk 20:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Has he edited since he received the final warning at 01:01 yesterday? I actually don't see any edits from that IP at all since then. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear John Carter, I believe so. But shouldn't he/she be blocked with vandalism after final warning? Spike789 ^Talk 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Since it's obviously the same person and since they've been introducing hoaxes for over a month, I've blocked for a month. Incidentally, that IP address does not appear in any AIV revision going back to September 19th. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, thanks for letting me know. Spike789 ^Talk 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

IP editor ignoring WP:V

89.205.38.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP user was blocked in August by User:Laser brain for disruptive edits that seem largely to revolve around changing genres without regard to sources. The person received a level 3 warning in September. When I came upon the same behavior (changing genre to contradict sources) I tried to explain, in case there was a misunderstanding of policy. There's not. The response was to again change genre inconsistent with source. Personally, I'm not really a soldier for the genre wars, but I think WP:V counts. And it doesn't look like this IP is inclined to agree. He's not adding sources or replacing sources. He's just changing content regardless of source.

Bringing it here as it's not really "obvious" vandalism, although it is disruptive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• In the single diff you posted, the IP is correct -- read the citations; the genres are posted on the right of the AllMusic Overview. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I must be missing something, Softlavender. :/ The genre for Guns 'n' Roses, for instance, says "Pop / Rock". The IP changed the genre from "Pop / Rock" to "Hard rock / Heavy metal". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue. The IP is using the "Style" info on AllMusic, as opposed to the rather spurious (in my opinion) "Genre" info. But his edit summary was compelling: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Online_only says: "do not use genre sidebar" from AllMusic. Which is probably a good rule to follow, especially in cases of bands that are clearly more (hard) rock than they are "pop". Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't disagree with that (and said as much to him or her), although s/he seems to have been cherry picking "styles" rather than using all - but I have to wonder why if the issue is the source s/he doesn't replace it with sourced material rather than changing to content that contradicts sources s/he retains. :/ At least that would just be WP:NOR. (I removed the genre field from that table, by the way, per the talk page. It's a chronic problem, people adding unsourced genre information to that stupid list, and if AllMusic isn't reliable for this that means none of the genres were sourced.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the band clearly is or is not, whether the source is reliable or not, he's making the article say something different from the source. The bigger problem here, is this IP has been used since July, and seems to get into at least one edit war every week, and never uses discussion except for the occasional edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dealing with genre warriors is frustrating at the best of times and one could make a wiki-career on little else if one was so inclined. I consider blocking only when they are completely outside the bounds of WP:V, engage in edit warring to keep their preferred version, and refuse to discuss—which was (and continues to be) the case with this IP. Edit summaries are not discussions. I would recommend a more lengthy block. --Laser brain (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA violation from User:Thursby16

User in question never spoke to me and then, suddenly, send me a message: "You're racist" and nothing else. MYS77 ^✉ 23:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff is here. GAB^Hello! 23:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

have you asked them what they're talking about? Rather than throw NPA warnings, it might keep things calm to find out what their beef is. Blackmane (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

100.2.244.59 at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

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

---

100.2.244.59 (talk · contribs · logs) has been an awfully stark defender of Caitlyn Jenner and the LGBTQ community, though probably a little too stark. Lately, at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner, they've been complaining about the current image of Bruce used in the infobox as "icky Bruce", and any attempts to point out that a photo of Caitlyn cannot be added unless it is free have been shot down by them making accusations about editors being transphobic, and have recently threatened to message Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger about the matter, refusing to assume good faith and communicate, even despite the messages on their talk page. Zappa24Mati 03:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Perusing through the IPs edits, it really doesn't seem like Wikipedia is a suitable place for them. They seem to basically have no capacity to have a civil conversation with someone they disagree with. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• The IP has a point, in that the image of Jenner does not match her current assigned gender, and could very well be interpreted as a deliberate snub. It would be better to have no image. Guy (Help!) 03:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That isn't exactly a point. Many biographies have older images. Right now the only image of Caitlyn available to use is the Vanity Fair image. It is Non Free and generally we do use the best free image for the infobox but...it is not strictly prohibited. Its a local consensus. I have no idea why it hasn't been suggested. Perhaps a bold edit will help in this case.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

How many of the older images have the wrong gender? Guy (Help!) 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder? I can think of only one...and we deleted it. Surely there are those we are not aware of. one...maybe two. Images of living people rarely get updated if there are no free images to use.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Guy, that observation is less than pointless in this context, as having a point does not in any way excuse bad behavior. To even bring it up here sends the message that it does. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't excuse the IP's behaviour. However, I also don't excuse having an image of a living person in their former gender as the primary identifying image. This should not need to be explained, it is ordinary common decency. Guy (Help!) 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand you, but you don't understand me. The point is Wrong Venue, with results detrimental to the project. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• The IP is just trolling (Godwin's Law and all) at this point. Last five edits as of this posting: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. Needs an immediate block. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps but I trust that Guy has raised the validity of the actual point. While it was not done gracefully by the IP, it does have the fact that Bruce is the male ID and Caitlyn the female ID. I just removed the image for now as that make the most sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, Softlander has reverted that. For the moment I have changed the caption for clarity.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently consensus to retain that image. To remove it, there would need to be a consensus to do so. Feel free to start a WP:RfC on the matter. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that the consensus is to retain the Bruce image itself but that there has been no other alternative besides using the Vanity Fair image as was suggested (on the talk page) but no one responded. Clearly this is an issue on the talk page with 4 sections on the page right now trying to get that image replaced...but no one has suggested, removing the image entirely until now.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I still suggest an RfC. You may find therein that there is indeed a consensus to have no image in the infobox rather than a male image. But until there is a valid public RfC of proper duration, it will always be a subject of edit-warring, because the status quo and current consensus is to have that free image of Jenner in 2012 in the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A valid ANI discussion can do the same thing as can a valid DR/N or other venue, but the talk page is still the place to discuss and form consensus. An RFC could be next, or this ANI could sort things out...or other optional form or DR.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No on both: ANI is for editor behavior that needs intervention; DR/N or 3O is for resolving entrenched disputes between specific warring parties that are completely stuck and going nowhere, and it is not binding for longterm decisions, especially not on such a public article, and one that is on DS. Only a public RfC of 30 days' duration will resolve the situation so that it does not have to be revisited in 5, 10, 20, 30, 50+ days. RfCs are held on the article's talk page, not elsewhere, so the venue is the same. (I'm not going to respond on this further, as I'm repeating myself across two venues.) Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI is not for resolution of content disputes, widespread abuse notwithstanding. If you don't believe me, expand "Are you in the right place?" at the top of this page. The last bullet is: To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution. (Perhaps that could be clarified by inserting "content" before "disputes", since a behavior issue could be considered a dispute. But the meaning is clear enough for our purposes based on the target of the link.) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE also unambiguously supports this. This is part of WP:DR, a Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, uhm...this thread is actually a conduct issue that may need intervention. It is based on content that could be discussed as part of the conduct issues here, but are not the focus of the board. DRN is not for just entrenched battles between specific warring parties. Its for content disputes. Some content disputes have some conduct issues that can be mentioned if need be and the guidelines mention this there. As for whether or not to intervene, perhaps. But as was pointed out, this is attracting a lot of this conduct issues so...maybe the content issue is the source of these conduct issues and maybe there is some logic to the reasoning...as Guy mentioned. Just a thought. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As that leaves me utterly baffled, I'm unable to respond and I concede defeat. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you have indicated that you do not understand my point, let me clarify. This ANI filing was made by User:ZappaOMati (a school) about an IP user they felt needed admin to look at for possible intervention. The article falls under sanctions imposed by Arbcom. It is a controversial article with many content disputes but they all seem to be handled on the talk page. However, the image issue continues to draw unneeded attention due to the lack of an image to illustrate "Caitlyn" and not just the old "Bruce". Guy suggested just leaving the info box empty and that suggestion seems to be aimed at that attention issue. I agree and believed that a bold edit could be done but it was reversed. Intervention has been carried out by others who have removed the post on the Caitlyn Jenner talk page and a content based discussion has begun on the article's talk page. Part of what I was speaking to was the idea that DR/N is for a specific type of dispute mentioned above. It is for content disputes that have had extensive discussion and continue to be able to come to a consensus on their own. DR/N is a mediated discussion and is different from AN and ANI but it can touch on conduct as an inhernet crossover with some rare cases. We have written the guidelines at DR/N to address this.

My point is, the thread is not really about the content dispute but the continued content disputes this attracts. I suggest closing this now as "community intervention is underway".--Mark Miller (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Personal threat made on Thor Halvorssen Mendoza against article subject

Greetings,

I am hoping the administrative community takes note of this rather alarming incident. A User:HRFDN has certainly been making disruptive edits and potentially malicious edits.

Here are the vandalizing edits on Halvorssen's page. They attempted to say Thor Halvorssen had been shot and killed on September 28, 2015 in New York City - which is not true. But this does appear to be a threat. Also considering the next edit stated "Halvorssen is a dead man".

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Halvorssen_Mendoza&diff=684096085&oldid=672659489
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Halvorssen_Mendoza&diff=684096546&oldid=684096085

This almost clearly is a threat. Halvorssen is involved with the Human Rights Foundation and has undoubtedly made enemies internationally. Interestingly, they made edits on the Human Rights Foundation page to call it a "corporation" rather than a non-profit, and that it only serves the Americas - hinting that HRW is some American weapon.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=684094785
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=684277910

They also made several edits to add external links to a site (https://humanrights.foundation) which is not the Human Rights Foundation website and appears to be hastily created to deceive viewers.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_human_rights_organisations&diff=prev&oldid=683817028
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_human_rights_organisations&diff=prev&oldid=683818264
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Internet&diff=prev&oldid=683953296
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=684095212
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Rights_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=684277315
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Bahrain&diff=prev&oldid=684279000
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Day_in_Support_of_Victims_of_Torture&diff=prev&oldid=684279524
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_human_rights_instruments&diff=prev&oldid=684280087

On the surface this is blatant vandalism that is non-constructive to Wikipedians. On a deeper leverl, a malicious threat such as this against a human rights activists is not to be taken lightly. I hope the administrative community will take the appropriate steps to reverse this damage and ensure that it stays off of Wikipedia. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User is indeffed, and his website blacklisted. I've also informed the Wikimedia Foundation about this. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Marathon

This case was first taken to ArbCom, where the overwhelming consensus was that it should have been first posted at ANI. Therefore here it is:

Initiated by SBHarris at 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sbharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Mark Marathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1[77] 2 [78]

Statement by Sbharris

I am user:Sbharris, on WP since 2005. Late last year I got into an edit dispute with user:Mark Marathon which turned immediately nasty. Not only did he erase my warning on his talk about edit warring, he came to my talk page to continue the debate and add an inappropriate template. Long after I had decided to WP:DROPTHESTICK, 2.5 months later he came back to my talk page to continue a demand for apologies, despite being factually wrong. See [79] This kind of aggression does not work on me.

I find this user has been editing since 2011, so is not a newb. He has in fact been blocked 6 times by 6 different admins, starting immediately in May 2011 and continuing to yesterday Oct 3, 2015, for various kinds of edit-warring. [80] Here is the last block—a war over a comma in a lede sentence: [81]

This user’s TALK page is a WP:battleground, and would be even more so, if he didn’t remove the many past complaints and warnings there [82], including mine. My own attempt to restore my own complaint to his TALK page was yesterday reverted by the blocking admin user:Bbb23, with the comment that I don’t get to edit other people’s TALK pages. Fair enough, but where then goes the full record of this kind of thing? I am talking about a pervasive, longstanding problem with no evidence that despite repeated warnings and blocks, the editor learns anything. See WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Rather than go to Bbb23’s talk page to complain about another editor (which would seem to violate WP:NPA), and having massively failed (along with many others) to mediate with Mark Marathon himself (so much for WP:Dispute resolution), I have no alternative but to come here. I ask that somebody block Mark Marathon to avoid further such battles. Which, from the record, are completely inevitable. If nobody wishes to unblock, it will turn into a community ban (here is your chance, user:Anthonyhcole). If banned, if Mark Marathon wishes to return to WP under another name in 6 months per WP:STANDARDOFFER and behave himself, I won’t object. I believe in redemption. But I've personally had it.

Other “ordinary” editors who have tangled with Mark Marathon may wish to comment. A partial list (20 people) follows so that they are auto-notified. You don’t want to see a full list. I am not including the many warning notices from administrators, or the administrators themselves. I would like to include admin user:Anthonyhcole who seems to think that Mark Marathon has gotten a raw deal in the past [83], and should comment in this dispute.

User:AussieLegend, User:RTG, User:Afterwriting, User:Djapa84, User:Dougg,User:Varlaam,User:Mike18xx,User:Thomas.W,User:Barek User:Ronz,User:Tortie_tude,User:ImperfectlyInformed,User:Jusdafax,User:Shiftchange,User:Nomoskedasticity,User:Binksternet User:Gabby_Merger,User:Montanabw,User:Rstafursky

And of course you can add me to the list. SBHarris 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Müdigkeit

I haven't seen a single link or reasoning why this should be handled by arbitration and not at WP:ANI. Such cases should be handled there. If they cannot be solved there, then they may come back.--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Simply a procedural note that it is typically the procedure that when a user removes a expired block or warning from their page they've acknowledged that they received the message. We don't permanently brand editors with scarlet letters for previous infractions. It is the responsibility of the editor bringing the complaint to research, determine, and present the diff backed narrative showing how a editor has a pattern of misbehavior. The editor's log page can help guide this research, but we do not depend entirely on the editor's talk page to help us understand their sanction/warning history. The only exception to the removal clause (as far as I know) is active sanctions may not be removed from the user's talk page.

Should this case be accepted, I do not wish to be included in any case updates. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

Seeing as how I was pinged (albeit the ping didn't work quite right, I got here via other notification), I'll just note my own experience. The full block of Mark Marathon was in part a WP:BOOMERANG that occurred when he filed at ANI on me here. On his talk page, the discussion targeted myself, RexxS, Wehwalt, Mark Arsten and DangerousPanda is more or less complete here. His generally hostile tone in edit summaries in that period is here. and talk page discussion links here. After his block in March 2014, he turned around and did the same thing again in December 2014 in a related article, straight to the bullying and the threats: [84]. And, I noticed today he was making similar pointy tags with snotty comments on yet another article earlier this summer. He also recently picked up the stick again on the same article. Further examples of tone include [85]. I don't necessarily think this is a case for ArbCom, ANI could probably review the pattern and act, but maybe if the other users mentioned above all have had similar experiences of pointy edits followed by hostility and threats, then maybe the overall pattern is something to consider. I'm not an Arb, it's why you all get the shiny badge. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I think this belongs at WP:ANI, at least in the first instance. It does not take much digging to find that Mark Marathon is given to rhetorical exuberance, overstating trivial disagreements, grudge-bearing and the like. I think we can probably handle that sort of garden-variety misconduct. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Afterwriting

Apart from the frequent battleground problems mentioned by other editors I believe that there are also ownership and competence issues with this editor as my own unpleasant and very bizarre recent conflict with him at Waltzing Matilda indicates. I had made a number of mostly straightforward style and phrasing edits to the article which were all reverted by him with the claim that they weren't "Australian English". Apart from one innocent mistake, when I didn't realise that a place name was that of a property instead of a town, all of my edits were, in fact, consistent with both the MoS and conventional Australian English. He then made a number of comments on the article talk page about "my" editing "mistakes" which were nearly all about problems with the previous version of the article which he had reverted back to. In other words, I had actually corrected most of the problems he was complaining about but he had restored them. Even after I pointed this out to him with diffs he still kept criticising my edits for the same reason and reverting all of my subsequent attempts to improve the article's style and phrasing. His behaviour has been highly hypocritical and extremely petty. Despite providing the evidence to him he never admitted to restoring the problems he was falsely blaming me for. Very, very strange. Afterwriting (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

It kind of looks like the last thing he did he received a block for. There's little in the way of evidence here and he doesn't have to keep your warnings on his talk page to the best of my knowledge.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Noting all the pings to individuals that may have a beef with this user I do wonder if the canvassing policy is relevant to ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant to ANI, yes. To arbcom... no. Arbcom is no consensus process. Notifying involved users is normal. And that above was originally posted at arbcom.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

extensive vandalism with multiple accounts/IPs

 Done

Firstly, I'm not really sure how Wikipedia works 100%, so please bear with me on this one...

This article:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YK_Pao_School has been vandalized extensively, but various accounts/IPs, that I assume are the same person.

Banning these accounts would not really help, as new accounts would be made immediately to continue with their vandalism.

I am very willing to do a little research and restore the article to it's pre-vandalized state, but this seems worthless at the moment, as it would be vandalized by the previous accounts or new accounts.

Is there some way to lock the article, while allowing certain users to restore the article?

If no one can edit it, it will remain vandalized, if it is left as it is, it will be vandalized as soon as decent editors try to remove the vandalism.

thanks

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Spacecowboy, I've protected the page with wp:Pending Changes so from now on edits by IPs and newbies have to be checked before they go live. That should fix this page, if you get other ones like this then WP:RFPP is a page dedicated for requesting protection. ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that was both quick and awesome ! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 31.176

On football articles there is a big issue with a dynamic IP that for a long time has been editing old results to incorrect results (diff), adding teams that has not qualified to tournaments (diff) and other delibirate factual errors (like moving Olympic games from London and Great Britain to Korea diff). This has caused frustration with me and other editors (diff, diff and diff) and I have seen multiple reverts from different users (just look at the contributions and you see the reverts after). The IP adresses I can remember and see on my watchlist after warning them are:

• 31.176.132.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (21 July)
• 31.176.137.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (1 September)
• 31.176.138.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (8 September)
• 31.176.142.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (2 September)
• 31.176.143.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (22 September)
• 31.176.145.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (3 September)
• 31.176.148.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (11-12 August)
• 31.176.150.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (5 August)
• 31.176.152.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (21 September)
• 31.176.157.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (today, 15 October)
• 31.176.164.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (4 October)
• 31.176.166.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (10 August)
• 31.176.173.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (11 August)
• 31.176.189.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (30 September)
• 31.176.190.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (31 August)
• 31.176.191.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (12 October)

There is probably a lot more, so if a rangeblock could be done it would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The range is a dynamic /17 according to DNS lookups (31.176.128.0/17). I fear there will be too many false positives, though; it's not easy to search older edits here on the English Wikipedia, but many of the contributions from the range on other language Wikipedias (which are faster to check) were benign (although the Italian one has dubious football-related edits that might need looking at). --ais523 13:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The range is 31.176.128.0/18 (covers 16384 IP addresses). All the edits from October except for one from this range are football-related. I am laying down a range block for one week. Please make note of the range for future reference. Thanks for reporting. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, you're right, it is an /18. That'll teach me to do rangeblock arithmetic in my head… What tool did you use to check the contributions? I tried using the rangecontrib tool on WMF Labs but it took several minutes to load and doesn't show many results. --ais523 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I used this one and changed the start date to 2015-10-01. The range calculator I used is the simple one in my sandbox.-- Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate

RoseL2P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is identified on Commons as an alternate account of A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A1candidate appears to be a clean start of Random user 39849958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly user:Levine2112. A1candidate has outstanding sanctions (0RR restriction )

• AN discussions of Levine2112
• AN discussions of A1candidate

It seems to me that the sanctions preclude a WP:CLEANSTART, which was in any case problematic when changing from Levine2112 to A1candidate. I think this user needs to be restricted to a single account, since making statements in arbitration cases with undisclosed prior history witht he participants is not in the least bit cool. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. If this is Levine2112, they should still stay away from alternative medicine articles, broadly construed, especially chiropractic. If this is A1Candidate, they have a serious COI regarding TCM and acupuncture, and should stay away from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

found someone use talkpage as file/datahost

User talk:ShankarSG1 check pleaseMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)