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

IP hopping troll back?

A troll who has been hopping on IP range 86.187.x.x (last discussed here) seems to have returned on 31.55.89.19 (talk · contribs). Can somebody investigate and see if a new/revised rangeblock is appropriate? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, same chap. See also 31.55.127.56 (talk · contribs), 31.55.93.53 (talk · contribs) and he reverted Eik Corell, his other m.o., using 31.55.112.2 (talk · contribs) [1] last week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a big range, but there's only about 100 contributions from it since April 1, and a significant plurality of those are disruptive. I'll block 31.55.64.0/18 for one week. ACC is always available. Katie^talk 17:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't come into contact with the 31. range, rather, it's still the 86.187 range for me, with the latest being 86.187.161.103 (talk · contribs). Eik Corell (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

They're both BT ranges, Eik. We realised that the 86.187 range meddles with airline articles as did the 31.55 range who also reverted one of your edits. I've blocked the latest IP as straightforward block evasion and will look into this a bit more later today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I just remembered: One of the first IPs this year doing edits in the style of the 86.187 range was indeed an IP in the 31. range. Eik Corell (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that pretty much confirms that it's the same person. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This editor also edits under 31.50, 31.54, and 31.49 I believe, as well as other closely numbered 86.15x IPs. Tends to focus on video games and television from what I can see, and deliberately ignores establish project guidelines and edit war with any editor that reverts, including walking through contribution histories and mass reverting. Talk page messages are undone with no reply. It's a constant back and forth. I haven't been gathering a full list but some of the more recent Mar/Apr ones have been 31.54.6.123, 86.155.134.8, 86.158.232.106, and 81.158.219.34 ... Those four just from Quantum Break. The unfortunate thing is the editor would be making solid contributions if they wouldn't fight against various project guidelines.... -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Latest IP, only one edit so far but it was to revert @Eik Corell again... 86.187.161.15 -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Now on IP 86.187.162.253. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• And now on IP 86.187.167.37. What can be done about a range block? @KrakatoaKatie and Malcolmxl5 -- ferret (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, ferret, I've blocked and semi-protected pages. I'll have another look at all this and the range block.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• And now 217.38.96.72 (talk · contribs). My, does this guy have nothing else to live for? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And now 217.38.179.4 (talk · contribs). This is another BT range. Not much we can do with those at the moment except block the latest one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The possibility of contacting their ISP remains. I have contacted them about this user twice. They did respond the first time, after an incredibly long time, but at that point, I was being asked to provide server logs, which I didn't and do not have access to, and the user had stopped their disruptive behavior, so I let it go. With the recent editing, I contacted the ISP again with any and all details I could, including AN/I reports, all IP's used from the beginning of 2016, all the way back to some of the IPs used by the user over 6 years ago to establish that this was a recurring problem. No response so far, but maybe you guys will have more luck if you swing around some big words and phrases when you contact them; Adminstrator on Wikipedia, entire ranges of their dynamic IP's being blocked from editing if they don't act, etc. Oh by the way, new IP. Eik Corell (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The most recent IP addresses are BT Wi-fi ranges so they may not even be a BT customer. If they are, it could be that without server logs the IP addresses are not enough to identify the user. Peter James (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And 217.38.81.161 (talk · contribs) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Curiously, this one: 78.145.31.100 (talk · contribs), just came back to edit the same article it had edited a few days before. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

109.156.64.61 (talk · contribs) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

These look like two different editors - one undoing edits by Eik Corell on video game articles, the other editing airline articles. This one looks likely for the airport editor (although this time on BT Broadband) but the 78.145 (TalkTalk) IP may be unrelated. Peter James (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest with aircraft is 217.38.126.10 (talk · contribs). The guy now uses each IP in short bursts for a few pages, then moves on. Previously, the reverting of Eik and the fiddling with aircraft were done by the same IP while it was in use. Another IP editor with a momentarily coincidental editing pattern could easily be mistaken for them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought so at first, too, but immediately after I reverted some of of the 217. IP edits, this happened. Circumstantial I know, but quite a coincidence. Eik Corell (talk)

I haven't found any IPs that connect them (although I've only looked at the 86.187 range) but haven't found both editing at the same time either so a connection looks likely. Peter James (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several articles which this editor returns to war on again and again. Can I suggest that we semi-protect them for a while, until other measures can be refined? Happy to compile a list of the aero ones if asked. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again in the guise of 217.38.148.252‎ (talk · contribs). Pages re-abused this time include:

• Rossiya Airlines
• Thomas Cook Airlines
• Thomson Airways
• TUI Airlines Netherlands
• EgyptAir
• Air Transat
• Jet2.com
• List of airlines of Cyprus

So please, can we do some damage limitation and semi-protect while the negotiations drag on. This is a hot edit war not a UN negotiation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hot war now

• Jet2.com [2][3]
• Rossiya Airlines [4]
• China Eastern Airlines [5]

Can somebody PLEASE semi-protect the worst afflicted pages! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm working on it. I've blocked 217.38.0.0/16 for ten days (which is a big freakin' range but there's 150 edits in last month with lots of disruption), and now I'll look at this guy. Katie^talk 18:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I've blocked 86.187.160.0/21 for three months - I've blocked this range before, in February, and Future Perfect blocked it previously as well. I've blocked 86.163.94.157 on its own for now and I'm going to leave your articles unprotected because I want more data from the range. I can't rangeblock him with the other /21 because that's an ISP-level block. Katie^talk 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess being in the front line makes one nervous. Meanwhile I made a request for page protection, you may wish to close that - or should I simply withdraw it myself? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I made a note there. The bot won't archive it until an RFPP template is added so it will stay up until we act. Katie^talk 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Today it has been 86.163.94.37 and 86.157.42.20 across Thomson Airways, Jet2.com, TUI Airlines Netherlands, TUIfly and Air Côte d'Ivoire, all abused before. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Today, 109.156.65.250 (talk · contribs) at Air Transat] and Jet2.com. 85.150.133.234 (talk · contribs) made similar edits to Turkish Airlines, but that is a fairly busy IP so may not be connected. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems a bit quieter now. There is a random scatter of single edits in similar vein across aviation-related articles by one IP or another, but then there always has been. I don't know how it has been lately for Eik Corell (talk · contribs). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh-oh, back today as 86.157.42.66 (talk · contribs). Edits and return to warring at:

• Titan Airways
• Jet2.com
• Thomas Cook Airlines
• Eurowings
• TUIfly
• Flybe
• CityJet

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC) [list updated 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)]

I have blocked 86.157.42.66 (talk · contribs) for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User ChristensenMJ is summarily reverting an entire page merely to prevent clarity on uncomfortable issues for his church

I made many good faith edits to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_of_the_Mormons%3F

and ChristensenMJ showed up not to edit anything in good faith but to merely revert the entire page back to the status quo WHICH INCLUDES reverting the page to a state where no references were in the reference section (a problem I had fixed in good faith).

ChristensenMJ falsely claims that I made personal opinions in the changes, when I did no such thing, yet he did not challenge any specific change, and he himself injected personal opinion in wholly reverting the page and undoing all my good faith edits, in a way that clearly denoted that he ignored ALL of my good faith edits. I consider what ChristensenMJ did to be a form of vandalism and CENSORSHIP of those attempting to update pages in good faith fashion. ChristensenMJ is clearly a mormon apologist who doesn't want pages updated that would provide any clarity on behavior by the mormon church. Protecting his church from being clearly and accurately described violates the rules of wikipedia and I believe his privileges should be suspended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.56.195 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2016‎

• Yeah, I just reverted you: your commentary needs secondary sourcing. See WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have responded to the user's personal attacks made in postings on my talk page there, but to briefly respond here, I certainly don't believe anything inappropriate was done in reverting what I clearly noted were good faith edits. There is no protectionism taking place. Just looking for well written, appropriately sourced, npov edits - which these didn't seem to be. The lack of those traits and the writing style/content that seemed to imply some sinister effort on the church's part were all that made me "uncomfortable" - to use the IP's words. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The complainant is clearly over reacting, probably motivated by a predisposed view that Mormon-related articles are likely to be controlled by adherents. However, ChristensenMJ could have avoided the overreaction by fact tagging the added content. If no sources arrived within a reasonable time, it could then be removed. The reverted content also needs secondary sourcing. The "continued to be published" claim which constitutes the main difference in the two edits is just as unsourced as the removed material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This user went overboard. I have known ChristensenMJ for several years, almost during the entirety of my Wikipedia experience. In that time, I have found him to be an invaluable contributor to Church-related articles. His attention to detail has been appreciated by me. I have personal knowledge, and my experience with him backs this up, that he has never been selfishly motivated in any edits he has made to Church-related pages. I also know that some anonymous editors come to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble. I was called into question once by an anonymous editor for the "bullying" way in which I edit Church-related articles. Best to let these nutjobs blow off steam and then contribute constructively to Wikipedia, if they choose to do so. I think, ChristensenMJ, that you would be fully within your rights to remove this whole topic from your talk page. Don't let the blustering of an anonymous editor keep you from doing the amazing job you continue to do in working on Church-related articles. In the meantime, if something like this ever comes up again, I would have no qualms about speaking in your defense. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Jgstokes - referring to an editor as "these nutjobs" is not helpful. There was nothing unreasonable or extreme in the anon editor's edits, they are just unsourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Scolaire

User Scolaire has shown a pattern of uncivil behavior and disruptive editing which I think requires an administrative response. This issue was raised in a previous Administrators’ Noticeboard incident discussion, during which I was asked for evidence of Scolaire's behavior. However that discussion was closed before my evidence had been reviewed. In the intervening time I have prepared the evidence more carefully and added more evidence. I am posting that evidence now.

This will necessarily be a long post, because it contains evidence of a pattern of behavior rather than being a complaint about one specific act.

To summarize my findings: Scolaire seems to regard himself as having the power of a judge or inspector over the pages he edits. He acts as if he were authorized to remove at will contributions made by other users, and from that perspective he makes frequent disruptive cuts. There is a quibbling and arbitrary quality to the intention behind these cuts, even though they may be backed by technical justifications. Sometimes this disruptive behavior escalates to uncivil comments on talk pages, often in an imperious and demeaning tone, and accompanied by stubborn reverts to the opposing editor’s changes. The clear intention is to intimidate and wear down the opposing editor rather than to achieve consensus. In short he seems to want to assert that he is always right, and that anyone who disagrees with him, or does not defer to him, is automatically less authorized than him to make edits.

Scolaire’s deletions and disparaging remarks often provoke other editors into heated replies, which he then labels “personal attacks” or “harassment”. This is not just a form of grandstanding, it is in fact a veiled threat, since the terms "personal attack" and "harassment" constitute punishable offenses in the Wikipedia rules. This move also provides Scolaire with a justification for removing (or "redacting") comments critical of him from article talk pages and from User Talk pages. But in spite of this alleged sensitivity, Scolaire himself has very often intimidated users critical of his edits, especially if they were less experienced than himself, or less adept at citing the rules of Wikipedia.

I think this constitutes disruptive editing (or more precisely disruptive deletion and tendentious editing) accompanied by a kind of incivility that violates many Wikipedia guidelines - including “Don’t bite newcomers”, “Wikipedia is not a battleground”, “Wikipedia is not compulsory”, and “Be bold” (the latter because Scolaire is preventing other people from being bold), and probably others I am not aware of. To put it simply, he is acting against the spirit of open discussion and constructive consensus which is the hallmark of Wikipedia.

Listed below are some examples of Scolaire’s disruptive editing and incivility, along with links to the relevant pages. Examples involving myself have been saved for last, because I want to make the point that this aggressive behavior has also been aimed at many other editors besides me.

Article: The Troubles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1.1. On the page called The Troubles, Scolaire systematically removed and undid changes made by other editors, without trying to reconcile differences or improve the text. (Examples here, here, here, and here.) On the article talk page, user Gob Lofa posted a comment protesting against what he deemed to be the politically biased nature of Scolaire’s edits. Scolaire replied that Gob Lofa’s criticism was “nonsense” and that his edits had all been simple reverts of Gob Lofa’s edits. (But by that very statement, Scolaire was conceding he had not tried to improve the content.) Scolaire also accused Gob Lofa of bad faith, saying he had introduced “a convenient line break” to “hide other edits”. And Scolaire added: “Don’t complain when somebody does a blanket revert rather than try to sift out the good edits from the bad.” Gob Lofa invited Scolaire to insert “citation needed” templates where he felt more citations were needed. Scolaire replied: “Adding templates is not necessary. You know where citations are needed and for what. If you do not add them, your edit will be reverted.” The discussion continued in this way for several days, with Scolaire adopting a high-handed and suspicious tone (e.g.: "If it’s not policy-compliant, it can, should and will be reverted” – implying that he Scolaire is the highest authority), while Gob Lofa attempted to appease him, but also argued quite reasonably: “Disliking one part of an edit is no excuse for deleting all of it, that’s just laziness. It’s good that you’ve retreated from your earlier hyperbole but with more care these issues wouldn’t arise.” Scolaire came back with this: “Wrong edits should and will be reverted, and there is no onus on the person reverting to sift out what may be good parts of the wrong edits. Calling it ‘laziness’ is just being provocative. ... Any of your disputed edits that you cannot explain and source may not be restored. Anything that you can justify and get agreement on can. ... Now, this whole business of recycling the same bogus arguments and haranguing me about stuff that I didn’t even say is verging on trolling. I have made my position crystal clear. Unless you have something new to say and you say it in a civilised way, I’m not going to continue with this any longer. Goodbye and happy editing.” 1.2. Still on The Troubles, user Lordofsharks added a new section, after having proposed it on the talk page. The material was well-referenced, but Scolaire deleted it wholesale. Lordofsharks wrote in protest on the article talk page: “I do not believe that you should speak for other editors as you were the only one that brought up this specific issue. ... perhaps rather than simply deleting this information you could provide some specific problems with my submission rather than just stating that it has too much information.” Scolaire replied: “If you could present the ‘take-home message’ of your sandbox page in 100 words maximum, I believe it would be a useful addition to the article, but it is up to you to do the editing down. Trying to re-add massive blocks of text will only result in the edit being reverted again.” The tone of this last remark is typical of Scolaire's talk page comments. His ire in this case is perhaps explained by the fact that he had earlier offered editorial advice to Lordofsharks, which it seems Lordofsharks had not heeded. “I recommend you start small,” Scolaire had advised, “with things like copyediting, correcting small errors of fact and providing citations, and get the feel of it before working up to more major edits. By the way, don’t forget to sign your posts to talk pages by typing '~~~~' at the end. Good luck, and happy editing.” Lordofsharks ignored this patronizing advice, and suffered the consequences. But after his edit war with Scolaire, Gob Lofa and Cliomania came to the defense of Lordofsharks on the article talk page. Cliomania made the following comment: “Scolaire, could you not try editing the text contributed, rather than removing it wholesale? You might disagree with the length or weight of the entry, but suggesting that all of it is unworthy of inclusion seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia. I believe all editors are encouraged not to bite the newbies. The alternative to reverting is to make constructive suggestions about what you think is really wrong with LordofSharks’s contribution.” Scolaire replied: “I haven’t said that it is “unworthy” of inclusion. ... I have suggested what might be done: that if Lordofsharks (or you) could present the ‘take-home message’ of his sandbox page in 100 words maximum, it would be a useful addition to the article. So now, can we stop the criticism of my behaviour and start talking about the content?” – This last exchange is a good illustration of Scolaire's intractability: another editor gently reprimanded him for having an overly harsh attitude, but Scolaire was not willing to accept the criticism or work with it. Instead he recast the criticism as an ad-hominem attack, and stuck to his intransigeant position. 1.3 In the controversy outlined in 1.2, Gob Lofa defended Lordofsharks against Scolaire. Scolaire then took to Gob Lofa's User Talk page to accuse him of “abuse”. The supposedly abusive comment which Scolaire objected was this, from the talk page for The Troubles: “I find your summary of that discussion wanting, Scolaire.” Gob Lofa then replied, still on his own talk page: “I don’t come on article talk pages to abuse you, neither at the talk page you provided a link to nor anywhere else. ... I pulled you up on misrepresenting the views of others there and now you’re misrepresenting my actions. Almost as if you were concerned with scoring points.” 1.4 About a year before the above controversy, but on the same article page, Scolaire removed a whole section of the article. He had proposed the removal on the talk page about ten days earlier, but the section in question had been part of the article for about a year and a half. About two months after Scolaire’s removal, user Jxm remarked on the same talk page: “I obviously wasn’t watching when Scolaire removed this section!” Jxm went on humbly: “I agree that it probably doesn’t merit its own section, as Scolaire notes. Instead, I suggest that we think about reinstating some revised form ... perhaps a few sentences in a footnote or a reference entry directing attention to some suitable sources as appropriate.” In essence Jxm was politely suggesting a compromise where Scolaire would add back some of the deleted text. Scolaire refused this compromise, claiming his existing edit "ought to suffice".

Article: Derry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2. The talk page for the article Derry featured a vituperative dispute as to whether to change the article's name to “Londonderry”. Among the participants was a user named Dubs boy. Scolaire and Dubs boy took the dispute onto their User Talk pages for some additional sparring, which both immediately deleted (e.g. this, this, and this. Eventually Scolaire posted a comment addressed to Dubs boy on the Derry talk page, saying that he didn’t want to pursue the discussion with him; and he then immediately posted a comment to Dubs boy's User Talk page saying: “Once again, when I say I’m going to take no further part I mean I’m going to take no further part. Please don’t continue baiting me on Talk:Derry. Also, please do not respond to this by posting to my talk page. I don’t want to say anything more, regardless of whether you think I have engaged or not. Please respect that.” Dubs boy replied on Scolaire’s talk page: “You can’t tell someone to not post on your talk page while posting on theirs. The sort of hypocrisy that I have come to expect from you. I have not baited you, you have simply fallen into your own net.” Scolaire then initiated a complaint on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, which he titled “Harassment on my Talk page”. On the Noticeboard, no administrators made any comment, but Dubs boy posted many messages in his own defense, including one which resonates with the themes I have been highlighting: “Scolaire has been extremely dismissive of my comments at Talk:Derry, and demeaning of my opinion, without presenting any physical opposition argument, this along with claiming I am a minority in a phoney 11-4 RFC vote, would make anyone struggle to believe that I am the bully and oppressor. I think action should be taken against this user and his disruptive approach to dealing with issues and other peoples opinions.” Later on, Dubs boy posted a note to his own User Talk page asking Scolaire what the outcome of the Administrators Noticeboard discussion had been. Scolaire admitted that the case had been dropped by the administrators “for lack of interest”. A third editor then commented: “These guys [i.e. Scolaire and others] seem quite determined to block all opposition to their agenda. I don’t know what that editor [Scolaire] means by ‘opened ani’ but it is so indirect and avoiding of the important issues, that it must surely be a threat to comply.” - This exchange provides insight into the psychology of Scolaire’s pattern of objectionable behavior. The behavior seems to stem from willfulness, condescention, and over-sensitivity to criticism. These factors funnel into an aggressive use of Wikipedia rules and procedures against less educated or less experienced users.

Article: Guy Fawkes Night
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
3. On the talk page for the article Guy Fawkes Night there was a debate about whether to merge the page with another one called “Bonfire Night”. This led to a heated exchange between Scolaire and an editor named Cassianto, during which Scolaire complained twice of Cassianto’s “ad hominem attacks” (here and here). When the exchange died down, user SchroCat then took the whole text of the exchange and put it into a collapsible box with the title “Complaining about ad hominem comments while insulting others and being petulant isn’t constructive or vaguely sensible.” The implication of this title was that Scolaire’s own comments had been provocative, and therefore to construe the heated replies to such comments as “ad hominem attacks” was hypocritical. Scolaire then insisted on changing the title of the box to “Unrelated discussion”, over several reverts, and gave as his edit summary: “removed personal attack”. SchroCat reverted with the edit summary: “If you want to delete all the vaguely personal comments on this page, do so, but stop editing my signed text. Should I delete all your comments?” SchroCat then posted a message to Scolaire’s User Talk page which said: “Editing other people’s comments ... on the basis that you are ‘removing personal attack’ is laughable, unless you want to strip out all such comments on the talk page. Try that and see how quickly a block will descend.” Scolaire replied: “That was not a comment. It was a hatnote. Hatnotes should be neutral and not contain personal attacks. I seriously considered taking you to AN/I but I can’t be arsed.” The disupte was nonetheless brought to ANI by another editor, and the involved parties were told to calm down or face a block.

Article: Constance Markievicz
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
4.1 On the page for Constance Markievicz, a user giving his name as “Joe kearns” added cited material in support of a point. Scolaire meticulously removed his edits, though giving innocuous-sounding edit summaries for his removals. Joe kearns reintroduced his edits and there ensued a revert war (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) Joe kearns protested on the talk page; Scolaire then replied that he had added a few lines back in to please him, but “the rest of your post is nonsense. ... The ‘controversy’ ... is non-existant outside of the posts on this page by you and your alter-egos 78.18.211.113 and 78.16.86.228. Just peppering the talk page with your assertions doesn’t make it so.” Joe kearns replied: “I don’t have any alter egos, Scolaire. It would appear that more than one person disagrees with you, that’s all: it happens.” Not long after this Joe kearns was vindicated, because the point he had been defending was proved true and incorporated into the page. 4.2. On a related page (Casimir Markievicz), Scolaire removed an item added to the page by the same Joe kearns. Joe kearns protested on the talk page. Scolaire replied: “That’s all bluster.” Kearns then wrote: “You are using Wikipedia to perpetuate a falsehood, for reasons I can only guess at. ... I made my edits in good faith and backed them up with solid citations, and I want you to reinstate them. ... Instead of addressing the facts of the matter, you’re preoccupied with laying down the law on Wikipedia citations (as you see it). If you were interested in finding out the truth and making this article reliable, you would look at the evidence and address the questions it raises instead of quibbling over whether a source is primary or secondary.”

My own controversy with Scolaire
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
5.1. Over a three day period from 29 March to 1 April 2016, I did a large amount of work on the page for Francis Sheehy-Skeffington, adding a lot of material, but basing my additions on the framework that was already present – so that my modification improved the accuracy, style and referencing of the existing material without challenging it substantively. On 4 April, a user named CanK9 commented on the talk page that among my additions one fact was wrongly cited, and he then supplied better references. On 8 April Scolaire replied to CanK9’s post, confirming that the references I had provided were inaccurate, but claiming as well that the references provided by CanK9 showed that the mis-cited fact was “not of great significance anyway,” and Scolaire therefore concluded: “I’m taking the sentence out.” Which he did. About an hour later he also went on to cut several other passages from the article in quick succession (see here, here and here – in each case without attempting to improve the wording. Another hour later Scolaire posted a note to the talk page stating that the material I had added made the article “totally lopsided,” and suggesting that a related page could be created into which the added material could be parked. Another editor replied disagreeing with the creation of a new page, and Scolaire then replied: “What do you suggest, then? Just cut out the added content?” The casual tone and aggressive implications of Scolaire’s comment upset me when I read the comment on 10 April, two days after it was posted. I responded in a rather heated fashion on the article’s talk page: “ ‘Just cut out the added content’ - thanks a lot, a-holes, I actually put several days work into that added content that you speak so lightly of cutting. And the added content is most certainly relevant, given that [etc.]. If you’re so concerned about balance with his suffragist work then why don’t you ADD content to that section, instead of achieving balance by CUTTING good content??” I admit that the foregoing was heated language, but I think that given the context this was not so bad. A dismissive suggestion to cut large blocks of text can be provocative and even offensive. The term “a-holes” in particular was later dug up and used against me, but I don’t think that term is particularly offensive in the context of online discussions today. Nevertheless, I now admit that the above language was a regrettable lapse and distracted from my main contention – namely that Scolaire’s proposal to aggressively delete a large amount of material from the page was a disruptive misuse of editorial privilege. 5.2. At 08:09 UTC on 11 April I posted a comment about Scolaire to the talk page of an article about Sir Francis Vane, a person linked to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington. The comment read: “User Scolaire deleted material from this page which is informative and valuable. I am undoing his deletion accordingly. The material links this page to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington’s page, and one of Vane’s chief claims to fame is his righteous role in the story of Sheehy-Skeffington’s murder.” To understand this note it is necessary to add that in the course of my work on Sheehy-Skeffington I made several changes to the Francis Vane page on 31 March 2016. Then on 8 April, Scolaire removed a hatnote from the page which had been there since before I had begun editing, and which Scolaire himself had left standing on several previous edits (e.g. here). The hatnote directed readers to the Sheehy-Skeffington page for details on a murder Francis Vane had helped to expose. At 08:15 I then posted to Scolaire’s talk page: “User Scolaire, your edits to various pages related to the 1916 Easter Rising show alarming signs of political bias. In particular, you are removing material critical of the British Empire. Please cease from doing this and restore wantonly removed material!” Scolaire replied at 08:28: “Tone it down, man! I’ve responded at Talk:Francis Vane.” But the response Scolaire was referring to (made at 08:27) had nothing to do with my message to him, and was only about the minutiae of the edit to that particular page. 5.3 At the time of the discussion summarized in 5.2, and because of the rather heated exchange with Scolaire on the previous day, I had already begun to look over Scolaire's recent "user contributions" (i.e. the pages he had been editing recently). I noticed that they were mostly pages related to the Irish War of Independence. Later I noticed that on the page Partition of Ireland Scolaire had removed an info-box which linked the page to the series History of Ireland. Scolaire gave as his reason for removing the box: “Doesn’t belong here”. The box was in a subsection of the article rather than in the lead, so I presumed Scolaire meant that it didn’t belong in the subsection. Looking through the history of the page I saw that this info-box had been on the page for eight years, but at some point it had migrated from the lead into the subsection. So at 08:33 on 11 April, I put the box back in its original place in the lead of the article. Scolaire undid my edit, claiming the article was “not part of the series”. I wrote a note to Scolaire on his User Talk page saying: “On the page Partition of Ireland you removed a series box linking to other articles on the History of Ireland. You say you removed it because it did not belong in a sub-heading. Fair enough, but why did you not then paste it into the main title section? Instead you removed it completely. This type of edit is not justifiable - it would have been better to simply leave it there in its imperfect place, than to remove it completely. When your edits of this kind also have a political bias it is hard not to reach the conclusion that you are censoring Wikipedia to conform to your tastes.” Scolaire replied: “I’ve been editing Wikipedia for over ten years. I don’t need you or anybody else telling me what constitutes proper actions. If an article is improved by removing something I remove it, and if somebody disagrees they can make a case on the talk page. The infobox didn’t belong anywhere on the Partition article. It is specifically for articles in the ‘History of Ireland’ series, and that article isn’t one of them.” – Note Scolaire’s one-sided logic here: he himself can delete at will; anyone wishing to add material must make a case on the talk page.

Scolaire's removal of critical comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
6. After the above controversy had escalated to the aforementioned complaint on the Administrators' Noticeboard, Scolaire deleted most traces of my ever having criticized him from active pages where other users could see them. He deleted talk page comments of mine that were critical of him here, here, here, here and here – generally under the excuse that they were “personal attacks”. And he even “redacted” a comment of mine and then “replied” to the manipulated comment! The messages Scolaire described as "personal attacks" were clearly not personal attacks according to the Wikipedia guideline. The offending messages did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire. They were not taunting, jeering, malevolent, or in bad faith. They were not ad-hominem attacks, but substantive criticisms of his editorial behavior. In short my messages were aimed exclusively at his acts as an editor, not at his personal dignity or safety. I have encountered several other places where Scolaire also removed criticism in a similar fashion: in June 2015, Scolaire and another editor engaged in several rounds of mutual removal of criticism on their respective talk pages (e.g. this, this, this and this). In August 2015, another editor who had experienced Scolaire's mindbending "redaction" of his own talk page comments replied to Scolaire: “Editing other people’s comments ... on the basis that you are ‘removing personal attack’ is laughable.” In October 2015, Scolaire removed another editor’s critical comment from his own talk page and transferred it onto the critic’s talk page.

Conclusion

Scolaire’s practice of arbitrary deletion, and his aggressive reaction to criticism, constitute an unhealthy combination of factors which is both coercive and intimidating to come up against. When this goes unchecked, it creates around it an atmosphere of tension, suspicion and ill-will. I therefore request that some form of non-deletable caution be issued to him, which other users could see in the event they became involved in similar types of conflict with him. Given Scolaire's propensity to erase criticism, something like this is required so that future users are empowered to question his authority.

- Wwallacee (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wwallacee: This really needs to be condensed down. Anything more than a third of what you write here is likely to be ignored. Wall of text posts are not the way to ask for help. Blackmane (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to hat all of the content for ease of reading. Blackmane (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have not interacted with Wwallacee since his block on 12 April for harrassing me (see previous ANI case here), and he has not interacted with me. The fact that he has spent those fifteen days preparing this "case" against me shows that he did not, after all, learn anything from his block. I'll say no more, except to note that the whole "case" relates to articles that Wwallacee had no involvement in, with the exception of three consecutive edits to Francis Sheehy-Skeffington and one to Francis Vane. Scolaire (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Blackmane, thanks for "hatting" the content. I have taken the liberty of editing the section titles slightly. I agree this post is lengthy, but I am attempting to show a larger pattern of behavior, beyond the incidents that concern me directly.

During the last ANI discussion, I was asked by the administrators to provide evidence. I did provide some evidence at the time, but the discussion was closed before a proper discussion of that evidence could take place. In the meantime, I have considered the evidence more carefully and have provided additional evidence for my complaint against Scolaire. -Wwallacee (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a simple question, do any of these diffs happen after your ban on April the 12th?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: The answer is no. The diffs concern Scolaire's behavior prior and up to the time of my controversy with him on 8-11 April. I have not done any research on Scolaire's behavior since the ANI complaint he filed against me on 11 April.

With reference to the block of my user account, I want to add that it was a temporary block for 48 hours. The administrator who imposed the block wrote on my User Talk page: "If you wish to persist in your case against Scolaire after the block expires, then do so with diffs and a calm, neutral explanation of why the edits are problematic." - Wwallacee (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So he's preventing people from being bold by reverting them is your complaint or at least in part?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've read thru almost all of the above and I went back to the talk pages of the article to review most of the conversations. What I'm seeing mostly is WP:BRD. What I'm seeing from you is really a complaint about WP:BRD. Be bold and make a change, if it reverts go to the talk a page and discuss it. This very much seems to be the case for Scolaire. This is not something that requires Admin action as it is the way it should be.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is preventing people from being bold. But that is just the beginning of it. Scolaire's pattern of reverting often involves large-scale deletion of material, and he usually does not attempt to compromise or improve the content. There is also intimidation on talk pages of anyone who questions this behavior, and then also removal of critical comments, justified by him with allegations of "personal attack" and "harassment". - Wwallacee (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, you posted to the talk pages of articles where you had no dispute with me, saying that my edits showed alarming signs of political bias, that my procedure was to remove and strip away potentially interesting content, and that my behaviour was wanton. None of that is about content. It is all personal, it is all adverse and it is all untrue. Hence, an unwarranted personal attack (which you repeated 21 times on pages where you had no involvement, hence harassment). Are you seriously saying I should have allowed that smear to remain on the talk page of every article I work on, just because you were mad at me for reverting you once? Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wwallacee, you need to go back and read WP:BOLD. you don't understand it at all. If you have a problem with people doing large reversions then make smaller incremental changes. The evidence you show, the discussions show that he actually is willing to compromise.. The main thing that I really question is if you are here to build an encyclopedia. JzG told you to come back in a calm neutral manner. Not really seeing the calm or neutral. He also suggested you simply drop the stick. The only thing I've seen with your wikilawyering is that you have an axe to grind with Scolaire. Wikipedia is not a battle ground.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to Scolaire's comment above: I don't think my own prior behavior, which has already been sanctioned, is fair grounds for discussion here. What is being discussed today is Scolaire's pattern of disruptive editing and incivility.

But for the record, let me give my own account of the messages Scolaire is referring to. On 11 April, I attempted to bring Scolaire’s disruptive editing to the attention of other editors by means of a naive and unorthodox tactic: posting warning messages to a number of article talk pages that I had identified as being Scolaire’s primary territory. These notes stated (with some variation in the specifics) that I thought Scolaire had been arbitrarily deleting material he disagreed with rather than make any attempt to improve it. I solicited other contributors to monitor this and restore wantonly deleted material. Here is an example. These messages were deleted by an administrator about 45 minutes after they were posted, and 30 minutes after Scolaire had opened an ANI complaint about them. I now regard this as an appropriate action, and I regret having posted the messages. A better forum for airing my complaint about Scolaire's behavior would have been the Administrators' Noticeboard, which is where it is now being aired. However, I don't agree that those messages constituted personal attacks according to Wikipedia guidelines: they did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire. Nor were my messages taunting, jeering, or malevolent in tone. Nor were they written in bad faith. In truth, my messages were essentially a kind of grass-roots attempt to raise awareness about Scolaire's editorial behavior without going to the Administrators' Noticeboard – however misguided that may have been (as I now freely admit).

That said, those messages are not relevant to the present discussion. What Scolaire was replying to just now was my allegation that he has deleted comments critical of him. He did this to a number of other messages of mine which are not among the offending messages just described. Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Scolaire removed (or "redacted") these comments on the grounds they were "personal attacks", which they clearly were not. Again, they did not contain threats of violence or legal action, or insulting epithets, or any kind of insult directed personally against Scolaire.

I am saying that this removal of criticism by Scolaire is a harmful pattern of behavior. Other examples can be found here, here, here, here, here and here.

-Wwallacee (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

From WP:NPA: "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in original). Any posts of yours that I deleted or edited were insulting and disparaging, and were not about content. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to Serialjoepsycho, I don't see how my comments here, or the evidence I am presenting, lack calmness or neutrality. I am just trying to present evidence that I was asked for by administrators during the previous ANI discussion (e.g. here). - Wwallacee (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To get back to the question of whether the main issue here has to do with WP:Be bold... I want to be clear that Scolaire's disruptive editing goes way beyond this. For example, he stubbornly reverts other users when they want to restore material he has deleted (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) He also engages in wholesale deletion of blocks of text (examples here and here - with talk page objection to his deletions here and here). He also has a pattern of interpreting other editors' critical comments as abuse, and thus shutting down productive discussion of his deletions (examples here, in reply to this; and here, in reply to this; and here and here, with response here). - Wwallacee (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So he revets and they want to restore? how do you know they want to restore? Have the perhaps went to the talk page and made that known? This is all sounding alot like WP:BRD.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoe, there is an authoritarian quality to Scolaire's deletions and to his talk page comments - as if he does not admit the possibility of error, and so he doesn't think it necessary to compromise - ever. The pattern goes like this, in escalating order: (1) revert the opposing editor; (2) if the opposing editor objects, revert again as often as necessary without attempting to compromise; (3) if the opposing editor objects, intimidate and discredit the opposing editor on the talk page; (4) if the opposing editor objects, make insinuations of abuse; (5) if the opposing editor objects, report the opposing editor to ANI for harassment or personal attack.

In order to get a full sense of this you have to look at examples in context. For instance in example 1.1 above under the heading "Article: The Troubles", I've profiled a sequence of stubborn reverts, followed by a protest on the talk page, followed by a reply from Scolaire that is both dismissive ("nonsense") and attempts to discredit the critic, and this goes on for several cycles until Scolaire accuses his critic of "haranguing" and "trolling". Or look at example 4.1 under the heading "Constance Markievicz", for a similar story. And look at the example given under the heading "Article: Derry", for an example of Scolaire taking his critic to ANI over a critical comment which Scolaire characterized as "harassment". - Wwallacee (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You have a narrative, but from my personal review of the diffs you provide, the early ones you provided that I reviewed I'm not actually seeing your narrative. MAybe someone else well look and see your narrative.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would really like an admin, before this gets archived, to quietly tell this person it's time to stop. I want to be able to log on in the morning and not find that another "case" has been opened against me. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In reply to the above, Scolaire's interventions in this discussion have all had as their only point to avoid the substance of my allegations by trying to discredit me personally. There is nothing objectionable about what I have done here. I was asked to provide evidence and I have done so, scrupulously. Scolaire's latest comment again illustrates one of my main contentions, namely his need to control all criticism of his editorial behavior. - Wwallacee (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Again, I would ask that an admin tell Wwallacee that what he is saying is not so, that he has had it pointed out to him repeatedly that it is not so, and that it is unacceptable to continue to repeat these allegations. To ignore this campaign of harrassment is to send a message that it is okay to keep doing it. Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire's attempt to label this discussion as "harassment" is another iteration of his well-established pattern of shutting down criticism by framing it as personal attack. I've already given many examples of this behavior prior to my own controversy with Scolaire, but since Scolaire is reiterating, let me also reiterate: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. This kind of behavior is wrong enough, but to seek protection for it is even worse. What would be helpful at this point in my opinion, would be for Scolaire to acknowledge that a pattern of coercive editing has existed, and to commit to changing it. I welcome further comments from administrators. - Wwallacee (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What would be useful would be for you to re-read what was said about me already. Guy: someone with a long career and who is apparently mainly known for scouting activities not his military career. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: he can edit (within policy and guideline) any pages he likes. OpenFuture: I can't find any edits of his that are objectionable, or even political. Onel5969: I can see nothing objectionable to Scolaire's edits, indeed their removal of commentary and opinion was necessary, in my opinion, Guy again: Anonymous editors adding unsourced POV material into the article. Scolaire seems to be doing the important and necessary job of rolling these back. Not to mention Mabuska on your talk page: Whilst I have often disagreed with Scolaire on many topics for years on Wikipedia I have to say I find Wwallacee's claims to be baffling and not characteristic of Scolaire. None of these people have modified their views as a result of this massive block of "evidence". Instead, Serialjoepsycho said above, "I've read thru almost all of the above and I went back to the talk pages of the article to review most of the conversations. What I'm seeing mostly is WP:BRD...This is not something that requires Admin action as it is the way it should be." And again here, "you need to go back and read WP:BOLD. you don't understand it at all...The evidence you show, the discussions show that he actually is willing to compromise." And again here, "You have a narrative, but from my personal review of the diffs you provide...I'm not actually seeing your narrative." When you were blocked, I said all this to you on your talk page. Jpgordon, in declining your unblock request, said, "Scolaire's evaluation below is correct." Persisting in your allegations in the face of a clear consensus that they are unfounded is unacceptable, and I again ask an admin to say so. Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In this disjointed panegyric to himself, Scolaire has quoted eleven comments, but of these only three are from the currently active discussion on ANI. However, only in the current ANI discussion have I been able to post detailed evidence about Scolaire's disruptive behavior. Of the eight older quotations Scolaire has given, five are from the previous ANI discussion, and four out of five date to before I was able to post evidence. The three quotations Scolaire has posted from the current ANI discussion are all from one editor (Serialjoepsycho). So I do think it would be good if some administrators would comment on the current evidence.

Again I ask for a considered evaluation of the evidence I have supplied here of Scolaire's coercive editorial behavior. - Wwallacee (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

So provide diffs of all the people who have said "oh, my goodness, you're right, Wwallacee, Scolaire's behaviour is appalling, thanks for pointing it out." Scolaire (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've looked through the evidence that Wwallacee provided, and I can't find any sign of Scolaire doing any of the problematic behavior that Wwallacee accuse him of. As just one example, in the edit where Wwallacee claimed Scolaire had dismissed Gob Lofa's arguments as "nonsense", he did nothing of the sort, but in fact answered the arguments in a constructive manner. He did say it was "nonsense" to say such things like "as your edit implies", and although I disagree that it's nonsense, I also agree that those kinds of arguments are invalid. I'm obviously not going to waste my time on making a detail analysis of every edit that Wwallacee provided, I'm just going to state here that the edits he link to does not contain what he claims they contains. This *is* harassment of Scolaire, and I think this is only going to end if Wwallacee becomes indef blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

OpenFuture has discounted the value of his opinion on this issue since he says he is "not going to waste his time" reading the evidence I have supplied. For the one piece of evidence that he has indeed commented on, he chose only the first in a chain of linked events that exemplify a pattern of uncompromising deletion and coercive talk page comments by Scolaire. For the benefit of those who are reading this for the first time, let me review the full sequence in question: On an article talk page, Gob Lofa posted a comment protesting against what he deemed to be the politically biased nature of Scolaire’s edits. Scolaire replied that Gob Lofa’s criticism was “nonsense” and that his edits had all been simple reverts of Gob Lofa’s edits. Scolaire then tried to discredit Gob Lofa by saying he had introduced “a convenient line break” to “hide other edits”. And Scolaire added: “Don’t complain when somebody does a blanket revert rather than try to sift out the good edits from the bad.” Gob Lofa then invited Scolaire to insert “citation needed” templates where he felt more citations were needed. Scolaire replied: “Adding templates is not necessary. You know where citations are needed and for what. If you do not add them, your edit will be reverted.” The discussion continued in this way, with Scolaire adopting an increasingly coercive tone (e.g.: "If it’s not policy-compliant, it can, should and will be reverted” – implying that he Scolaire is the highest authority), while Gob Lofa attempted to appease him, but also argued quite reasonably: “Disliking one part of an edit is no excuse for deleting all of it, that’s just laziness. It’s good that you’ve retreated from your earlier hyperbole but with more care these issues wouldn’t arise.” Scolaire came back with this: “Wrong edits should and will be reverted, and there is no onus on the person reverting to sift out what may be good parts of the wrong edits. Calling it ‘laziness’ is just being provocative. ... Any of your disputed edits that you cannot explain and source may not be restored. Anything that you can justify and get agreement on can. ... Now, this whole business of recycling the same bogus arguments and haranguing me about stuff that I didn’t even say is verging on trolling.”

As this example shows, careful and balanced evaluation of the evidence is what is required here. For OpenFuture to bandy about threats of an indefinite block to my user account, after barely skimming the evidence he commented, is not appropriate. I welcome a continuing discussion and reading, but I request that this take place in a responsible fashion. - Wwallacee (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Your statement about what I said is in fact the exact opposite of what I said. I *have* read your evidence. Also, I don't threaten you with a block, I'm not an admin, I can't block you. I'm just pointing out that I do not believe you will stop until blocked. I think the problem here is WP:COMPETENCE.--OpenFuture (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't done anything in this discussion that could be construed as a violation of WP:COMPETENCE. But on the other hand I have carefully shown that Scolaire does have significant Competence issues, for example with the following guidelines which are listed as subheadings under Competence: WP:RANCOR, WP:THERAPY, and WP:DONTBITE. I quote from WP:THERAPY: "Overly focused editing on a single subject can be very detrimental to the collaborative editing process, and not infrequently leads to resentments and alienation that eventually spills over into overt incivility. ... Editors who focus edits extensively in a single area tend to invest their egos in the articles, which has resulted in problems with 'ownership' of articles." - Wwallacee (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to have explained to me how the quote from WP:Therapy applies to an editor with almost 20 000 edits to more then 4300 different pages. --T*U (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If you look at Scolaire's "User contributions" over the last month or two you will see that the vast majority of his edits are focused on the single subject area of Irish independence from the UK. The page "Flag of Northern Ireland" alone (with its Talk page) accounts for an appreciable percentage of all of Scolaire's recent edits. Then if you look at the resentful exchanges he's had with other editors on these Irish pages (some of which I've documented above), you will see that the bits I've quoted from the WP:THERAPY guideline accurately describe the problem I've been trying to diagnose and demonstrate. - Wwallacee (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I can not speak about the user's editing contents, but I really can see nothing wrong with the editing pattern. There is not any sign of any "focus edits extensively in a single area". Many edits to certain pages in certain periods, yes, but who has not done that? We all have our interests, and they guide our editing pattern. I think it is time for you to leave the poor horse in peace. --T*U (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Request Close

This has been up since April 27. No real movement has happened to it. It doesn't seem to have a snowballs chance in hell at leading to any action. Well it may lead possible to another block or ban for Wwallacee, but if he hasn't dug the hole deep enough there's no point in letting him dig it further. Seems a good a time as any to close it. Thanks. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Serialjoe, why would you refer to my well-researched plea for administrative action here as "digging a hole"? I was asked during a previous ANI discussion to provide evidence of my allegations about Scolaire's behavior. I provided some evidence but the discussion was closed before that evidence was discussed. The administrator who closed the discussion told me on my talk page that I could reopen the discussion if I had more detailed evidence. And I did have more detailed evidence. So I reopened this discussion, and I did so in a measured and neutral way.

To any other administrators who may be reading this: Given Serialjoe's disrespectful tone in his close request, I request that my evidence be evaluated by other administrators, and in a more neutral fashion. - Wwallacee (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a block or ban on Wwallacee, only an unequivocal statement from an admin that what he's doing is wrong. To close it without that would be to send a message that he should just try again every few weeks. Scolaire (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

PS As far as I know, Serialjoepsycho is not an admin. But he is entitled to comment, and his comments are in line with everything that has been said by everybody else. It is Wwallacee who is disrespectful to the community in general. Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Scolaire, you are once again deflecting the discussion away from valid evidence of your coercive behavior by making vague and unsubstantiated allegations. I have no intention of opening this thread again every few weeks as you keep saying - nor have I ever said anything to suggest it. What is notable here is your need to control the discussion by constantly having the last word, and personally disparaging your opponent. As you no doubt remember, you were admonished for this very behavior after a previous ANI complaint lodged against you: the administrator then told you that you had "a pride issue" and that your talk page harassment of another editor "served no significant constructive purpose," and that the only reason you did not let go was "because it requires you to swallow your pride." - Wwallacee (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The_Troubles/Archive_2#Questions_about_recent_edits Here's the full discussion for the troubles discussion you want to Cherry pick from. Seems like a policy minded discussion and one initiated by Scolaire. All of the other items you list are like this and if not it's already resolved administrative matters. The only real problem I see is that you have an axe to grind with Scolaire. This is a waste of the communities time. Other than Blackmane condensing your comments and my comments, your comments,and scolaire defending himself, I'm the only one that's looked at it. 6 days of nothing. It's time for the dropping of the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens at this point, I am retiring from Wikipedia. There is no satisfaction in editing if any bold edit may lead to a relative stranger vilifying me at ANI and admins just turn a blind eye. I expected better. Scolaire (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why quit? I've been through worst then what you're going through now & I'm still around. Be calm & carry on. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, but surely this is not allowed?

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

---

User:Doctor Papa Jones (who apparently also goes by User:Jonas Vinther) is allowing some unspecified number of random people to contribute from his account, according to his userpage (it's right at the top):

"I have some friends who occasionally make edits using my account."

This is not allowed -- in fact, it's so not allowed that I can't find the rule right off. It's kind of like "Users will be subject to gravity". Presumably an admin can find the rule, if that's even necessary.

There is this Meta page which states "To use [role accounts], consensus must be made". Roll accounts, though, would be for entities such as User:BritishMuseum (or more likely User:VBC_PR_Department etc.). I'm pretty sure that if roll accounts are allowed (which I'm pretty sure not, on the English Wikipedia), they're for properly constituted organizations and not for "me and my housemates and anybody else at the party" or whatever, with no prior OTRS permission required.

In fact, this is a copyright mess now, since the copyright remains with the contributor (it is released for use by others under CC BY-SA 3.0 by pressing the Enter button, but not waived entirely). It's impossible now to know who wrote what, and in theory all of contributions made by people using this account should be rolled back (I'm not advocating going that far though). This is even putting aside potential for the the whole "Well it was my housemate who called you an asshole, not me" sort of thing and so forth. It's just a mess.

(FWIW, I came this user's page after being directed to this ANI thread where it apparently has come that the user is a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally, although the thread was dropped for whatever reason. This isn't directly related to my complaint, but it sure as heck does not incline me (nor should it incline anyone) to be of the mind "Well, yeah, but he's a nazi, so let's cut him a break")... Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

THe policy you're looking for is WP:NOSHARE, and yeah that's an admission that their account is shared, which is clearly not allowed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus I guess you didn't look at his user talk page where I posted a message to him about this earlier today. Ideally, you should talk to the editor about issues to try to resolve them before bringing a complaint to ANI unless there is active damage being done to the project. This problem could be resolved by Doctor Papa Jones stating that this was a past practice and he no longer allows other users to edit from his account and remove that statement from his user page. I would like to hear from the editor before passing any judgment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Immediately starting an ANI discussion rather than simply going to my talk page is extremely dumb, to the point of embarrassing. In this particular case, Liz sets a good example, so thank you for that. And Herostratus, comments such as "a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally" are obvious personal attacks. Refrain from making such untrue and rude remarks in the future or I will report you! You should instead use your time to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Anyway, I have ensured that only I will edit from my account in the future and also removed the statement from my userpage. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Discussion Continues

My closure has been called into question. So, by all means - discuss the topic further here. Sorry for stifling the discussion here. SQL^{Query me!} 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close: The ideal situation would be that Jonas had a committed identity in place that he used to verify that he was the person who changed the password. Unless there's a pressing need to indef him and force him to start a new account, I don't think there's anything else that needs to be done. Except perhaps screaming "WHEEEE". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  What if I still feel like a nazi when I scream "WHEEEEEEEEEEE"? SQL^{Query me!} 23:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness - The rules were explained to this guy. He appears to get it. Fan-flippin-tastic. He says he made a change to comply with our rules. Is this an ongoing threat to the encyclopedia? Can you explain to me how a block would improve the encyclopedia in this case - without using the word 'nazi'? SQL^{Query me!} 23:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Let's not make a big fuss out of an innocent misunderstanding. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 23:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We are not a bureaucracy. Herostratus's complaints are both insulting and baseless. Referring to another editor as a nazi is a great way to get blocked. You said "this issue is not going to go away", well I think it is going to go away as it is really nothing to make a fuss about. HighInBC

Well yes but here's the deal. It turns out I was right, and WP:NOSHARE says (emphasis added):

"Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked.

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

And as a matter of fact it is regularly enforced. One editor -- an important and useful editor -- had to crawl through glass to save her career her just because another person was using her computer (not her account). She's not the only one.

There are very significant copyright considerations here -- orders of magnitude worse than copy-and-paste moves for instance -- and it's a WMF-level problem if the admin corps no longer cares about this.

But OK. Maybe the admin corps has decided it doesn't like this policy and isn't going to enforce it. Can't make 'em I guess. But it is very very significant and major policy change if you are going to stop enforcing WP:NOSHARE. We have to have an RfC, a CENT RfC I guess, and the copyright people are going to want to weigh in, and the WMF will probably need to have input. It the result of all this (as I would guess is likely) is "Well, no, we like WP:NOSHARE fine", I'm not sure what happens then.

Or you could, you know, enforce the policy, as you've supposed to do. I'm just saying.

As for the nazi thing... it's not related to the matter at hand, but I like to look at the whole situation: the person egregiously, incredibly stupidly, and for a long time, violated a core rule for which the required sanction is termination, and in addition he's a fascist (at the very least, and apparently a nazi sympathizer I gather), which we don't want and cant really have here (see Jimbo's take on the matter, if you care) so getting rid of him is win-win. I linked you the thread earlier (it's here. It was a ANI thread that was initiated by this person and should have boomeranged against him probably, but (losing badly; efforts such as ""But that's like me saying you should not edit such articles either because you're an anti-Nazi -- and that doesn't make any sense!" probably didn't help) he withdrew his complaint and was allowed to do so (a failure of diligence IMO) and so here we are.

Some excerpts:

• "editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone" User:Nick-D (an admin FWIW)
• "self-identifies as fascist and pro-Nazi" (User:Maunus)
• "insists on his user page that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler." (User:Viriditas)
• "he quits Wikipedia, complaining that WP is 'anti-fascist and pro-democratic' and claims that '99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap'" User:Jeppiz
• (Addressed to this person): "I do hope you are aware that I quite openly self identify as Jewish around here. I think you should accept a period of mentoring in terms of the material and methodology you adopt in Nazi - related subject areas" ( User:Irondome)
• "I suggest that anyone checking his editing history, will observe his facist sympathies." (User:David J Johnson)

According to User:Nick-D, this (which just says it can't be displayed) shows that user self-identified as something -- a nazi or else a fascist, I gather, and complained about the Wikipedia being anti-fascist. Apparently some combination of deletion and page moves have made this material unavailable to view (the intent, obviously) but I would think an admin could restore that.

Apparently according to User:Drmies, speaking at at another thread, this user was issued a topic ban at some point... the thread ("User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS") is here but I haven't read it, as this is getting above my pay grade -- I write articles. It's supposed t be you guys's job to handle people like this. Herostratus (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You would do well to keep your issues separate. There is no call for a block for shared accounts because that has been addressed. HighInBC 08:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that Jonas was already close to exhausting the community's patience due to the previous stuff (in short, self-identifying as a fascist and adding large quantities of pro-Nazi material to articles concerning Nazi Germany, leading to a broad topic ban which was instituted last November, and a "not yet" conclusion to a simultaneous discussion of whether he should be blocked outright), a light touch response to blatantly violating a core Wikipedia policy here seems inappropriate. I also think that Liz may have erred in her reading of WP:NOSHARE: it states that shared accounts will be blocked on sight. More importantly, if Jonas has been sharing his account it has to be treated as compromised until proven otherwise - how do we know who reset the password and is currently operating it? WP:COMPROMISED seems clear on the subject. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D holds a deep personal dislike of me, and I of him, so any comments about my conduct on Wikipedia made by him carries absolutely no weight at all. He would be more than happy to see me blocked and I suspect it's the sole reason he participates in this discussion. And since we're playing a game of Godwin's law, you are a fascist and Nazi sympathizer too, Herostratus! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 12:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You have self-identified as a fascist on your user page, where you also stated that "This user supports far-right politics", and "Make no mistake, 99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap and should never be considered anything else." So herostratus is well within his rights to call you a fascist. Do you have, on the other hand, any evidence that Herostratus is "a fascist and Nazi sympathizer"? Otherwise it would be best if you immediately removed those statements. Fram (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Fram, you live in your own little fantasy world; there is no evidence whatsoever that I'm a Nazi sympathizer and I have never made any pro-Nazi edits to any articles, yet I've been sanctioned for such. Also, bare in mind he called me a "nasty piece of work generally" which is pure horseshit. Face fact! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 15:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont see how one could expect more evidence for your being a Nazi sympathizer than the fact that you explicitly stated so on your user page. This is a fact. You may regret that now, but it is a fact you need to face with more integrity than you are doing now. I dont think you are "a nasty piece of work", but your lack of sound judgment and critical thinking in writing about Nazi related topics is obvious to any one who looks over your contributions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It sort of seems like the "shared account" thing was burying the headline here. If the user is being disruptive in other ways then the shared account is just a red herring. If there is a problem we should be blocking the user, not the account(people blocked for having shared accounts are often welcome to create another). HighInBC 16:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Claiming_FA_contributions for other concerns about this editor. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have cleared up these so-called "other concerns" on the talk page. Case closed. And stay on topic. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 17:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Re: premature archive, my bad. Somehow missed the subsection. Consider me self-trouted. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No problem--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Drmies, please confirm that the issue you referred to here is solved. I'd appreciate that. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 20:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Sure, I think removing that star was the right thing to do. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Papa Jones and I have been in contact throughout his Wikipedia career due to our overlapping interest in our suite of articles on Nazi Germany. There's definitely a pattern of him not taking the time to learn about our policies and guidelines ahead of time, and he's been in trouble several times because of that. In addition to the stuff already mentioned (sharing his account and the topic ban on Nazi topics), there was the following things, some of which are historical and are not being repeated, and some of which are more recent:

• quick-passing articles during the GA Cup in 2014. He withdrew from the competition. The best link I could find was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Archive 1
• Copyright violations at Leni Riefenstahl in summer 2015. Talk:Leni Riefenstahl/GA1. There may have been other instances of copy vio as well. I am pretty sure there were, but Riefenstahl definitely.
• Canvassing for votes for the RFA for GeneralizationsAreBad (March 2016). Diff of User talk:Doctor Papa Jones
• Most recently, he sent me an email on April 16 asking if I would like to work on User:Doctor Papa Jones/Nazi power, a planned article on material that is the subject of his topic ban. I never replied to his email, so he followed up on my talk page, User talk:Diannaa#YGM. I guess he was not aware of our policy against proxy editing, which this email was not quite but almost a violation of. So what we have here is an enthusiastic editor who is not taking the time to learn about our policies and guidelines, and is repeatedly crossing over the line. However, he is obeying policies and guidelines once they are brought to his attention. — Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is eminently clear that the discussion has digressed from the "shared account" question to general conduct issues. Not sure how much I can add to this besides asking for all involved to please remain calm and avoid any name-calling that will divert attention from the legitimate issues at hand. This has the potential to generate far more heat than light. My apologies for stating the obvious, it just needs to be said, especially since the last thread got very tense. GAB^Hello! 21:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you're correct about that User:GeneralizationsAreBad. I'm entirely at fault for that. So, sorry. My reasoning was on the order of "Well, if you ever do want to bend this rule and make an exception, maybe this is not the person you want to do it for".

Anyway, at this point my main interest is just knowing what the rule is. I was blocked without warning or discussion for sharing much less than this person did (or anyway of having been thought to have shared, it was actually a misunderstanding), but that was some years ago, and if the de facto rule has changed, its changed, and fine. Just want to know. To that end I've opened an RfC, here: Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Is it time to relax a bit on WP:NOSHARE?. Herostratus (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked Doctor Papa Jones for 24 hours for his personal attacks against Herostratus higher up this page ("you are a fascist and Nazi sympathizer too"), after I had given him a chance to withdraw them (or provide evidence for them), which he didn't do. Attacking someone on his political or ethical beliefs is not the best thing to do here in general; but accusing someone of having such leanings or sympathies without any evidence for it is way out of line. Fram (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That would probably be a block well-placed in both directions. "Do nazis get special consideration that admins don't?" SQL^{Query me!} 01:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Herostratus received no block or even warning for calling me a "nasty piece of work generally" or for being extremely rude to SQL on his talk page following his initial closer of the discussion. I smell favoritism! Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 11:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems odd, Fram, that Doctor Papa Jones received a block when Herostratus repeatedly called him a "a nazi sympathizer and a nasty piece of work generally" and repeated other editors' personal attacks against him. If anything, Herostratus' repeated attacks warrant a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No one is stopping you, but I won't do it myself. I see quite some difference between calling somone "a nazi sympathizer" when that person gives everfy impression of being a nazi sympathizer, and calling someone a nazi sympathizer without any reasonable argument for such description. As for "repeating other editor's personal attacks", you mean things like

"Some excerpts: "editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone" User:Nick-D (an admin FWIW), "self-identifies as fascist and pro-Nazi" (User:Maunus), "insists on his user page that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler." (User:Viriditas)"? Well, much of it aren't personal attacks but accurate reports of what he claimed on his user page, and the remainder are observations by multiple experienced editors of a general pattern in his edits. Finally; Herostratus above has apologised for his remarks: GAB said "please remain calm and avoid any name-calling", and Herostratus replied "Well, you're correct about that User:GeneralizationsAreBad. I'm entirely at fault for that. So, sorry." DP Jones on the other hand was also given the chance to retract his remarks, but choose not to. So one person was called out on his self-declared preferences, and later apologised for the name-calling. Another editor invented similar preferences for someone, and refused to retract them or provide evidence for them. The two are not comparable in my opinion. DP Jones has by the way still not given any indication that he sees any problem with his remarks. Fram (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know, truth is a defense. This is your David Duke moment, guys. You're blowing it.

I don't think the person should have been blocked for calling me a fascist, FWIW. This was obviously hyperbole and mere vulgar abuse because the person was pissed off. Everybody gets pissed off when fascism is involved which is one of the many reasons we don't want it here. I'm not saying the person should be here, just that in and of itself was not a good reason for a block, I wouldn't have done it for that specifically, and I don't expect to be blocked in turn on the basis of even-steven. You can if you want to. Do what you think is best for the project.

User:Liz et al, carrying water for this person to point of calling for the blocking of people who simply point out who the guy is.... this is not good. This is is business. It is a publishing business, specifically one engaged in publishing the world' greatest and most popular encyclopedia, ever. Anything that degrades that we have to look at very carefully. We're an Enlightenment institution and Fascism is not a part of the good mix for several reasons, both practical, moral, and political.... I can't really point them out to you because you either know them or probably never will.

Back on the merits, sheesh. Here's from User:Floquenbeam over at the RfC:

• "Once, many years ago, it was an old married couple who were causing no problems - who were just writing, helping, editing in peace - but made the mistake of saying in passing that they were sharing their account. They were immediately indef blocked, and when they said on their talk page they had been married 50 years and shared everything and didn't want separate ones, it was not looked upon as a harmless endearing quirk, instead it was explained to them in no uncertain terms that if they didn't want to get separate accounts they weren't welcome here. I suggested they just say they weren't going to share it anymore, but they didn't want to lie. They stopped editing."
• "Last week... a relatively new account (who appeared to be productive, though it wasn't my subject area) was instablocked when someone noticed the user page said it was shared... there was no "friendly template", no statement that they were free to create new accounts, just the typical "you have been blocked indefinitely..." template..."
• And of course I (this is Herostratus talking again) was blocked without warning for (mistakenly being believed to have been) sort of sharing my account (even though FWIW I was an editor of many years standing, and an admin).
• And similar for others.

So... If the deal is "Well yes, but User:Doctor Papa Jones deserves special consideration because __________", I'm just curious as to what goes in the blank. If the deal is "Well, yes, but the sanctions are purely random depending on what admin comes across it and what their mood is that day", fine, and that's exactly what I'm trying to clarify at the RfC. Yeah I was acerbic with the admin who said "Not only is this not a problem, its not worth discussing and why are you bothering us?" Maybe it's not a problem. Maybe a block was not called for here. I think reasonable people can disagree about that. Other people may not believe that reasonable people can disagree about these things. Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

First things first Fram! The statements above are personal attacks, certainly not "accurate reports of what he claimed on his user page" as you claim. You should bare in mind that none of the editors who made those remarks included any links to diffs to support their claims—and thus it's pure harassment, nothing more. You would have known this is you'd read the previous discussion. And Herostratus, comments such as "maybe a block was not called for here" are not of much use now... Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 02:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well we can't point to the original diffs because they've been erased -- either oversighted, or a combination of a page deletion and page move the amounts to an oversight. But admins can see them. You are, essentially, claiming that the secondary sources I can point to -- e.g. "It says (or said) such-and-such on his user page" are false. Fine, this is easy to settle. An admin can view them. So who is being mendacious -- you, or the secondary sources I pointed to? Somebody ought to be in a trouble because lying in an investigation is uncool. So let's find out. Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

YES! Let's have an admin find the userpage material that proves I believe "that mainstream history of the Nazis is wrong, and that only he knows the TRUTH about his hero Hitler". This will be interesting. Frankly, I'm tired of all this and I'm not going to argue with you forever. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 13:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus, first, I'm not sure what you mean by "carrying water for this person". What I can see are some editors calling Doctor Papa Jones a "Nazi", which is a personal attack, and no diffs or evidence where Doctor Papa Jones identifies himself as a Nazi. I edit articles about Donald Trump but that doesn't make me a Trump supporter or a Republican! It is ridiculous to assume that an editor shares the political stance of the subjects of the articles they edit.

I can see where editors have made the argument that Doctor Papa Jones didn't always have a neutral point of view and when they provided evidence of this, it resulted in a topic ban. But other editors' attacks against Doctor Papa Jones and calling him names does not make those attacks true and verifiable, I don't care how respected those editors are. I have had no contact with Doctor Papa Jones before this incident but I would make the same request for evidence when slurs like this are made, no matter who the editor was.

It goes without saying that I am just one admin and there are admins who clearly think differently than I. That's not just true in this case but in many situation where there is conflict between editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz, my quotes came from his deleted user page, you are perfectly capable of finding these diffs for yourself. Someone who self-identifies as a fascist far-right lover who believes that "99% of all Hitler-related documentaries, in particular those made by the BBC and ABC, is pure anti-fascist propaganda crap and should never be considered anything else" and who edits nazi-related subjects quite extensively (things like Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday or Columbus Globe for State and Industry Leaders, which needs a GA review as not meeting the GA standards by a mile); I don't see how describing him as a nazi is so amazing. Would "a nazi-fascinated fascist" (which is hard to deny, considering the above and the many other articles he made about Hitler and the people around him) be much better or different? Fram (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday and Columbus Globe for State and Industry Leaders are good articles which nicely meet the GA-criteria. Secondly, there are fundamental differences in expressing yourself and your opinions on a userpage and editing mainspace articles. As I've repeatedly told you during this discussion, Fram, you will not find a single edit to any article that suggest I'm unable to neutrally edit. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 13:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing strawmen arguments. I have indicated why I blocked you, you have not given any arguments why that block would have been wrong. Your block was not for any article edits. The articles I mentioned were only to indicate the focus of your attention, which nicely matches your earlier userpage declarations and many of the negative statements made about you by others. Fram (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

As Liz pointed out, it's ridiculous to assume that an editor shares the political stance of the subjects of the articles they edit. You, more than anyone, escalated this discussion by blocking me during a debate in which name-calling was commonplace. As you know, I wasn't the only editor who questioned the fruitfulness of the block. That being said, I'm done commenting here. Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's hardly ridiculous when that same editor self-identified as a far-right fascist and so on, of course. If you disclose your political stance on your user page and then edit very closely associated subjects, it can not be expected that people will look at these edits and this choice of subjects and not take your own declarations into account. While evidence-based namecalling shouldn't be condoned, it is much less of a problem than evidence-free namecalling, which is what you were doing. The block was a result of this escalation you started and which you refused to retract. Fram (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally I find it ridiculous that some people consider it a personal attack when referring to someones self-disclosed political views in the context of their politically-biased editing. If that was the case, no POV discussion about editors contributions would ever get off the ground as any evidence would be removed under NPA. The sanctions for people editing in the American Politics area would be unenforceable as any any attempt to call out their blatant partisanship would be shouted down. "Nazi-sympathizer edits articles to be more sympathetic to Nazi's!" Big shock there. News at 11. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

On the merits, see Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Is it time to relax a bit on WP:NOSHARE? where it maybe seems possible that rule will be changed. And that's fine. My understanding, based on experience and observation and then reading the rule, was that sharing an account was an extinction-level event, maybe for copyright reasons. It's quite reasonable to say that it shouldn't be, and in fact I've voted to change the rule (other observers are invited to go over there and jump in so's to create a quorum). (I'm assuming that sharing an admin account is a separate level of bad. I hope? It's probably not spelled out anywhere but wouldn't be allowed on general grounds, right?). Herostratus (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs a nap

I am thinking that range-blocking - at least for a while - might be called for. After User:TJH2018a was indef blocked for impersonating TJH2018 and harassing another user, I let them know that their block was pretty darn justified. In retrospect, WP:DFT should have guided me, but cie la vie. The curious little guy then threatened me on his page and then vandalized my page. From the type of vandalism, I am guessing it's a kid (bc who else would think that a WikiCommons picture of a flaccid penis is actually insulting). With that in mind, I'd like to propose a range block for the summer; maybe they will find something shiny and be occupied with that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

From that one edit, it appears it could be a sock of Nolantron as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That seemed apparent to me. What led me to the idea of range-blocking was the apparent interest in disrupting the 'pedia, so I say keep them out for a while. Since it is most likely a kid, they are gearing up for Summer Break. Idle hands and all that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Jack Sebastian, did you ping me telepathically? Cause I do need a nap. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Please do something about this guy, he is ruining my quiet evening with his vandalism including... pictures...-- Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And he did it again this time on my usertalk.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's a lot of penis. I blocked the IP, but I don't do range blocks (note that it wasn't a range of penises--it was just one, multiplied, in an act of narcissistic, penile overdetermination). I'm sorry it ruined your quiet evening; it also kind of ruined my happy thoughts about napping. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Did they teach you the phrase 'penile overdetermination' in med school?

Katie^talk 17:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Seminary. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That was below the belt.--Elmidae (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Troll is still dicking around those two talk pages. I requested protection at RFPP but it's backlogged. Will one of you admins consider skipping the queue on this one? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I see what you did there. = Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, Widr is on it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Might need to go to the talk page archives too as the vandal is hitting those as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, but can the file be deleted? It's not in use anywhere except for when this troll edits. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The file is on commons, so good luck with that .... We could completely disable the image here by uploading something else as a local copy, but it's already been added to the MediaWiki:Bad image list [12] so I don't think that's necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little unfair, the most relevant pages are probably Commons:Commons:Nudity, Commons:COM:PORN and Commons:Template:Nopenis which does suggest recent low quality images will generally be delete. What counts as low quality I'm not sure but the image does have little info which would be a concern. Anyway that would need to be dealt with at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I've nominated it for deletion, so we shall see what happens. Of course the wider issue is that even if it is deleted, there are plenty more (we have the same issue with the bad image list, with the minor advantage that I think adding images to it is easier than deleting them on commons). Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Yeah, we all know there are not enough flaccid penisse in the world to satisfy Common's desire for them.--v/r - TP 19:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

True dat, TParis. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm here. Basically, the only way to combat this thing is to put the images on the MediaWiki list, and put in for an SPI. I took the liberty of creating a User:TJH2018b and User:TJH2018c, so hopefully that will discourage him for a while. If you take a look at my talk page, you'll see that some guy was complaining about him. But that's the gist. Nothing else we can do besides that. TJH2018talk 21:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance; I'm sure the blocked user will eventually get tired of getting cock-blocked. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@@Jack Sebastian: He doesn't stop. It may seem like he's gone, but he'll be back. TJH2018talk 22:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we revisit the idea of rangeblocking? Even the IP troll dared us to make a rangeblock. Unfortunately, in my Orientation to Adminship they didn't cover rangeblocks so is there another admin who can look into this? These taunts and trolling have been going on for weeks now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like 24.114.50.0/18 would cover it, but I'd need to confirm any crossfire or additional IPs it would miss. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, too many good edits from that range it seems. *sigh* -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I got it: 24.114.100.0/21; 24.114.60/19; 24.114.45/20 I omitted the range around 24.114.99.0 since I saw recent good edits from around there. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This situation has been going on for quite some time now. I (and basically anyone who has come to my assistance) have received personal attacks, vandalism, said unsavoury pictures, ETC, since as early as February 2016, and it's about to be May. There are brief periods of time where it seems like the user has stopped, but he quickly returns. Every time one of his IPs or accounts is blocked, the user finds a new one almost immediately.

The user shows no signs of any endgame. Quite the opposite, in fact. The user's vandalism is getting worse. He is now impersonating other users ([13]). This probably will go on for as long as it's allowed. At this point, I think more extreme measures need to be taken. DarkKnight2149 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks as if the selected range block isn't working: ¹

On a side note, is there a way to check to see what doppleganger accounts I already have in place? It's been years since i started my account (and several dissatisfied customers, hence the dopps). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can we taboo the name? Make it go away? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that this was even possible. What an exceptionally useful too (in the right hands). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Considering how everyone else has left this behind, I'll wait for the block to expire before posting at WP:EFR, or sooner if there is a good need for it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well the nap didn't work

In the overnight, the same anon popped up with a new IP and had more sparkling commentary to make on my page (1, 2, 3, 4) and Darkknight2149 (1). I only know about DK, because his page is on my watchlist; I am sure that others are also affected by this Canucklehead's behavior. This kid has managed to evade the somewhat ineffective range block set in place. Really, I don't mind the vandalism (especially when some really awesome patrollers catch it before I even log on for the day), but with the open SPI regarding the user (seen here), it would seem prudent to extend the range block in order to lower the noise/sound ratio. Maybe a community ban is more in order - washing our hands of the kid, so to speak. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

He left a complaint on my talk page this morning[14]. :) Meanwhile I'm looking at another avenue. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and Coffee blocked the 24.114.x.x range for one week while I put that image on the naughty list.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That challenge seems quite unrepentant, doesn't he? I think that, in blocking the range of IPs to keep him out, we point out to the good users that his specific behavior caused the block. Let the locals there sort him out but good. Short of that wishful thinking, perhaps its time to assemble the ban hammer? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, he is de facto banned anyway. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the user doesn't think so, and continues to promise further retribution. He's a legend in his own mind, but still an annoying one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Would a community ban be viable, or is it unnecessary? I'd be willing to author one, if you want. I think I've had my fair share of experiences with this...--TJH2018talk 17:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What would a ban do that we're not doing already (RBI)? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Dunno, but at least we know the (seemingly) anon user is watching the conversation. And, apparently, needs something of a love life. Trolling here might be his equivalent of spanking it.However you guys want to handle it is fine with me. Clearly, I'd like the semi-prot template to remain on my user and talk pages for unregistered users until further notice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if they don't consider themselves banned because there's no template, I'm sure they can be obliged. Blackmane (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification please: DrChrissy and human anatomy edits

Clarification requested please, with this DrChrissy was Tbanned from "human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions (in accordance with the previous close, and to reduce the possibility of conflict with the same group of users)." The entry at WP:RESTRICT says "DrChrissy is also topic banned from human health and medicine, and WP:MEDRS related discussions, broadly construed." DrChrissy has made edits to articles clearly focused on human anatomy, like [15][16]. This led to this conversation on DrChrissy's User Talk, where it became apparent that there's a bit of open ambiguity as to whether editing human anatomy topic falls under "human medicine... broadly construed". Could we get some clarification please? I am not looking for any further sanctions here, just clarity, as this is apparently good-faith disagreement. Zad68 2:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Human anatomy is not in and of itself health related. For example, as an artist I study and work with human anatomy all of the time and my work has nothing to do with health. There may be aspects of articles on human anatomy that relate to health or medicine, and human health obviously references the human being and his or her anatomy. but in and of itself no, not a health related area or areas.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

The particular disagreement we were having was whether human anatomy is part of "human medicine". To me it clearly is, it's a foundational element of medicine, and clearly would be included in the Tban when "broadly construed." To DrChrissy it isn't... thanks for your input. Zad68 18:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The subject matter of the article is anatomy - to describe a normal human penis. There are other penis-related articles which are medically oriented such as Micropenis, Penile cancer and Penile fracture which I have not, and would not, edit. Zad68 directed me to Medicine#Basic sciences to support their argument. Please note that along with Anatomy, this list also includes sciences such as Histology, Biophysics and Cytology. As with anatomy, these all have large areas of study completely unrelated to health and medicine. Please remember that our Medicine article states "Medicine... is the science and practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease." and our Anatomy article states “Anatomy is the branch of biology concerned with the study of the structure of organisms and their parts”. Whilst they are not mutually exclusive, they are very clearly, different. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep it's exactly this that we're looking for clarity on. Zad68 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The clarity is that one uses the word "disease" whereas the other does not. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the important line on the topic ban here is "human health" (especially when "broadly construed"). Even though there are some non-health related aspects to the human anatomy, as suggested above, I think the two areas are so interconnected that the ban would apply. Brianga (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Brianga, do you think the ban applies to Beard, Hair, Earlobe, Moustache...? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I must say, this does look like a continued exercise in boundary-testing. Aren't there enough topics to edit which don't overlap with human health, broadly construed? And why did you even think to edit Quackery? Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You critically forget to mention that I immediately self-reverted. Let's play nicely here. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You didn't "immediately self-revert"; you struck your comments after being reminded of your TBAN. More boundary testing? Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just what point are you trying to make here? You are not even commenting on the subject of this thread. You are clearly trying to poison the well by bringing mistakes I made on another page to this one. Please desist. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it seems there is a wider pattern whereby you keep pushing your luck and wasting everybody's time in the process. Hasn't this come up at AE (and AN/I) before? Alexbrn (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is you that is wasting everybody's time with these spurious accusations. This thread is about whether Human penis is an anatomy article or a medical article. Please stick to the subject. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a false dichotomy to say "anatomy article or medical article", as if they were separate topics. The question is whether human anatomy should be considered to fall under "human health and medicine ... broadly construed". Zad68 20:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is a false dichotomy. You are entitled to your opinion, but so am I. Medicine is about a process - largely, treating disease. The article Human penis is about a lump of flesh that hangs off the front of men. It is not about disease. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No its not Zad. I would disagree strongly. I use human anatomy in both art and dance, but none of what I am doing has to do with health. Human health is a possible subset of human anatomy, as is the knowledge of human anatomy to draw the human figure, and understanding of the anatomy to analyze a skill for example, a jump or turn. To deal with this issue we must clarify both the master topic area and the subsets and then determine which if not all or some fall under "health related". If this is truly a clarification then personal attacks only derail the discussion and delay clarification. This is a larger issue than one editor's ban and probably deserves greater community input. No one's opinion on this can be definitive, and we should have an understanding that all editor's can refer to .(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC))

That isn't the question here, is it? I would say, "maybe" - for hair, it would apply if you are editing about lice, but not a crewcut. But I'm loathe to give an advisory opinion and think we should stick to the issues at hand. Brianga (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

But this is the issue at hand. Zad68 is asking whether I should edit the Human penis page at all, not about the particular edits I made. Contrary to what you think, I can edit about lice at that page, but not on matters relating to human health. I would argue that I should not edit crewcut because that is a fashion and relates to human mental health. This is why topic bans are so stupid. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion based on university classes in biology but I don't think anatomy (and the general area of human biology) necessarily involves health or medicine. I took courses in anatomy and physiology and they had nothing to do with medical treatment or health issues. I think you have to look at the content of the edits, not merely the article title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this Liz - I totally agree. For many months now, I have edited animal behaviour and animal welfare articles such as Dog meat where there are (totally unfounded) claims of medical benefits. I have steered wide of making any edits to such material. I am not testing the Ban, I am trying very hard to adhere to this, even though it is sometimes to the detriment of articles. I am perfectly happy to discuss my edits at Human penis as to whether they are medical or not, but I would like to suggest this waits until we get consensus on the OP's clarification request. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern about boundary testing, particularly after the recent edit to Talk:Quackery, but personally I really don't see edits to articles on human anatomy with no health or medical aspects covered by the topic ban. I'm surprising myself a little here, because in the past I've been critical of DrChrissy's boundary testing, but I don't think that's what's happening here. And I think it's well on this side of the boundary anyway. I guess it's easier to make health or medical-related edits to anatomical articles, and I imagine admins (including me) won't be terribly forgiving if "accidental" health or medical-related edits are made on this type of article. So DrChirssy should exercise extreme caution. And, DrChirssy, the idea of topic bans is not stupid, it's just an understandable problem in execution; if you make them narrowly defined, then someone will always find loophole upon loophole. If you make them broadly defined, then almost by definiton the boundary is poorly defined. Better would be not editing in a way that required inherently imperfect topic bans to be imposed in the first place. But in this particular case, I don't see a topic ban violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little late to the cockfight here, but I agree entirely with Liz and Floquenbeam. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

As do I. Katie^talk 01:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question, which I don't know the answer to. Is the "topic" by article, or by edit? In other words, can one edit any article so long as it doesn't implicate the topic at issue; or must one avoid each and every article that involves the topic? Somewhere in the middle? Brianga (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Its a topic ban, so any edits related to the topic are subject to it. Not pages. The key bit is 'broadly construed' - with some articles the subject matter is linked to the topic in such a way that any edits should be avoided. 2 years ago you could have happily made edits to Donald Trump while being banned from American Politics, now it would be incredibly unwise to even attempt it lest accusations of partisan editing come into play. Likewise someone banned from medical articles and human health should *not* be editing articles on human anatomy. Its deliberate boundary pushing and usually gets frowned upon at AE. The main problem with topic bans is that unless they are explicitly broad enough, people subject to them *always* attempt to keep editing in the same area and poking around the edges. Taking anatomy - someone who is making edits regarding human anatomy/physiology in the context of say artistic depiction, would not be falling foul of a human health topic ban. Someone who is making edits in a section about reproductive success, that certainly *is* a health issue, albeit the edits were correcting US-UK English spelling variants. Which is another *amazingly* silly thing to do, if the article is even remotely ambiguous as to if you are topic banned from it or not, you dont go in and dick around (ha) with UK/US spelling. It makes no substantial difference to the article and if it needs to be done, can be done by someone who is not banned at all from the area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sensible thoughts. Thanks. Brianga (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

However, it is my experience that administrators interpret topic bans in whatever way they like. As a extreme example, Rusavia had a topic ban on editing anything Russia-related, Sandstein pronounced that under that topic ban he could not add to an article about Cuba some pd photos of Cuba because they had been taken by a photographer who was Russian. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

What a surprise, topic banned person decides to be edgy and edit in a gray area because they know that there will, at worst, be some giant multi page bureaucrating hair-splitting discussion on ANI before anything happens to them. Why isn't this person banned yet? I blame society. Here's a lil tip: widely construed means WIDELY CONSTRUED. Instead of editing medical articles, go copyedit articles about creeks or anime or something. Jtrainor (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have been spending most of my time on WP copyediting animal welfare articles and creating new articles. You might like to take a look at Theory of mind in animals and Kype (anatomy) which I created during the last few days. Happy editing. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Jtrainor, those are outrageous bad faith comments to be making. It is not the topic banned editor who has initiated this report. And the report is asking for "clarification", not some backdated ban on DrChrissy. My opinion is that evolution is not "human health and medicine" broadly construed, and neither is anatomy. Editing restrictions are meant to prevent damage to Wikipedia, to prevent damaging actions by editors, but not to be punitive and vindictive just for the sake of being punitive and vindictive. What damage has been done that that justifies an expansion of the subject areas covered by the topic ban? The two cited edits at the start of the report unquestionably improved the articles in question. For example, "Another evolutionary theory of penis size is female mate choice and its associations with social judgements in modern day society" is obviously superior to the badly phrased and unjustifiably absolutist claim that "Female mate choice has resulted in the evolution of penis size through its associations with social judgments in modern day society". The question of whether to go for UK English or US English in science related articles has nothing to do with the topic ban. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for RevDel

I don't know whether it was directed toward another editor or the subject of a BLP, but evidently calling somebody a "(Redacted)" and a member of "(Redacted)" is not considered sufficiently libelous to spur Oversight into action. Hopefully an administrator will step in and do what Oversight refuses to do. (Redacted) Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 06:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Just out of interest, @Malik Shabazz: did you actually contact oversighters and did they actually refuse to redact those comments? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Would you like me to forward the e-mail message, from an anonymous member of the English Wikipedia Oversight team, to you? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Common enough really, from my experience with them the best option is to wait 30 minutes and try again. You usually get a different response from a different person. Its a combination of the oversight team's lack of oversight/quality control, and all wikipedia's policies being open to individual interpretation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Oh, not at all, no, I don't doubt you. I meant it as a genuine enquiry, and I'm disappointed that you got that response from them. Even if they thought oversight was not warranted, then I would have hoped they'd at least rev-del instead - I certainly would have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Only about 1300 editors who have earned the trust of the community via Rfa can see rev-del'd stuff, so it really the right way to go for most inappropriate material. In my experience #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect works well. I've found Oversight responsive primarily for privacy violations, and it is in the best of interest of the community if oversight actions are limited to what is necessary, as so few editors can review the actions of oversighters. NE Ent

Right, but even if an oversighter disagreed that oversight should be used, they still have the tools for a revdel.--v/r - TP 00:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. To be honest, I was more than a little shocked that the shithead individual who replied to me could have looked at the edit in question and written, presumably with a straight face, "If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard." According to Special:ListUsers/oversight, every one of the Oversighters has administrative tools, so whoever it was, they were just being an asshole about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Did the response you got look like a template? Previously, when I have had a declined oversight request, I got a personalised message specific to the circumstance. "If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard" sounds to me like something an oversighter might reflexively fire off without thinking too carefully about its contents (much the same way as some template warnings for vandalism). BethNaught (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was almost certainly a template:

We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight>. If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Noticeboards>). Thank you for sharing your concerns and please contact us again if you have any in the future.

If the Oversighter who was monitoring the mailbox couldn't be arsed to look at the diffs I sent—which were sufficiently egregious that they've been scrubbed from this page's history as well as the original's—they shouldn't have replied at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If oversighters rev-del'd revdelable but not oversightable material, over time editors would naturally migrate to sending all redactable material to oversight, shifting the rev-del work from 859 administrators who are not oversighters to 0 oversighters. This is not a reasonable division of unpaid volunteer time. NE Ent 22:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right. It's much better to leave libelous material in Wikipedia.

Here's a suggestion (one that I made a month ago at WT:REVDEL): Why not make it as easy to request RevDel as it is to request Oversight? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's right you know. There's #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect (which I've often used), but that's about all I know off the top of my head, besides contacting individual admins. Looking it over though, that's all there is. There should be a better way. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I have found WP:Oversight very responsive to e-mails and RevDel requests. They always take care of the problem. I have also found that involving individual WP:Admins directly works. Of course, it may just be the subject matter of what I send them. YMMV. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

As an administrator who is willing to deal with RevDel requests, I am also frustrated that there isn't an easier way. I have had no more than half a dozen direct requests. I would lurk on IRC, but there it is difficult to protect one's privacy: to hide your IP address, you have to register a "cloak" with the channel operators, and even that can be overcome. Not to mention, you have to learn how to use a system which is too complex in proportion for the tasks in hand. I would love it if there were an OTRS-powered mailing list such as the oversight one. About a secret admin cabal being established on such a list: attempts like that might happen, but OTRS does leak and with >1000 sysops having access, I'm sure someone would blow the whistle. BethNaught (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The related problem is the Streisand effect, particularly when it comes to WP:BLP and WP:Defamation issues. So using e-mail to oversight works. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Or email an administrator. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Mass account creation attempts

Dear Administrators,

Over the last few days, I have observed in the edit filter log recurring strings of filter log entries which I have screencaptured here: [17]. From what I can see, the sleeper account throttle is blocking the creation of accounts in rapid succession, under usernames which follow the same pattern. Could this be an automated script creating accounts? If so, are these spambots?

Thankyou, Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a spambot based on the username pattern. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

They don't show up on the logs though, nor are they registered at all. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's because username creation requests are throttled to so many per hour (I think it's six) without need for a filter. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I understand, it's 6 accounts in a 24 hour period. I've run into this limit several times in my work on ACC . ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 20:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming those times were in UTC, I'm not seeing any successful creations around the same time with a similar username pattern [18] Maybe the successful creations were earlier, unfortunately 24 hours is a lot of usernames and even assuming 76 were created more or less in a row, you'd still need to look carefully to spot those ones despite the obvious pattern to the human eye. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at [19] confirms it was UTC and they seem to be hitting every so often, sometimes they try to create a few sometimes just one. E.g. OmearaGryderNRxz, RorerWehmeierGfzz. Can a checkuser see what IP tried to create those failed accounts and then use it to find the 76 I guess they did create successfully? (More if it's been happening over multiple days.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I do remember seeing a few successful creations with a similar username pattern quite a while back now. Those accounts created their userpages with a block of incoherent text, in the middle of which was a spam link to a "Garcinia Cambogia Weight Loss" supplement or other similar snake oil product. I've always wondered why the spambots put random text on their pages - perhaps they are trying to fool automated anti-spam processes by making their spam look like an innocuous passage of text with a link in it rather than a spam link standing on its own. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed their intent to fill their spam with non-sequitur fluff to fool filters or moderators, though anyone with a good BS filter can weed them out on sight. I assume there are plans to do a rangeblock on the offending IPs, yes? Or would that be infeasible? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Problematic long-term IP editor

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

This user has an extensive history of unconstructive edits and adding content without any regard for sourcing or even correctness, and completely failing to engage in any discussion about his edits. He was blocked for 31 hours after this ANI thread, but he promptly returned with no change in behavior. He also edits from many other IP's (apparently from his mobile phone), but this seems to be his main IP, so a long-term block would at least help a little bit. Some recent problematic edits: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Just a sampling of other IP's he has used lately:

• 2605:6000:1709:4009:D0A7:CBF7:417:6517 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 107.77.211.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 107.77.212.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.176.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.176.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.176.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.179.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.248.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.248.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.248.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.250.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.177.250.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.171.251.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Toohool (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Lack of communication is irritating and I was getting ready to throw some blocks and protection around--but what's wrong with this edit? Or this? Drmies (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I never said that all of his edits were wrong. Most of them, such as those two, I would say are neutral. But there are so many wrong edits mixed in with the OK edits, and he shows no sign of improving or listening when people tell him what he's doing wrong. Toohool (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with the admin tools set: it is incomplete. Problems like this are difficult to deal with. The editor covers a few different IP ranges, and I haven't checked the ranges for collateral damage because it wouldn't be effective anyway. Individual blocks are going to be spotty, particularly since he uses mobile edits. It seems most of the time, he does a bunch of edits in one day then disappears, so there isn't a chance for him to see the warnings, as he has a new IP by the time he comes back. I don't know of a good answer unless it gets to the point that protection is needed, at WP:RFPP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that a block of the mobile IP's would be ineffective, but I think a block of the IP I listed at the top would be helpful, as it has persisted for two months now. Toohool (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

107.77.212.211 is part of a /10 network, way too big to block. Admin literally can't. Cingular owns the block, so it is likely mobile phone as well. Maybe someone can, I've looked at a bit at the edits of the /16 network (the largest I can view without CU tools) and see lots of garbage, but not all of it. It would be cutting off thousands of IPs. It needs looking at by an admin or preferably a CU with more experience in range blocks. THe WP:SPI main page (bottom) is one place to ask, pointing them here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about 50.184.105.58. Toohool (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Vivvt

There was some problem on Kashibai and an user reverted my edit. I started a discussion on the talk page but this user, neither discussed anything nor gave reasons but went on to revert my edit. Please, take a look.Krish | Talk 13:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. Your behaviour was unacceptable. Taking your dispute to the talk page is far better than launching personal attacks like you did [27]. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion of whether your edit was an improvement or not has been completely lost. I have no opinion on the edit itself but agree that your use of inflammatory terms is not acceptable, and is the reason why no one is discussing your edit. Please rethink your choice of language and explain why your edit is an improvement to the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If I said a thing to A, why would B revert my edit? It doesn't make any sense. If I go and revert back then I'll be blocked because of 3RR rule? How disgusting is that? I had given my reasons on the talk page and the reasons are valid but hey, I did a wrong thing? My words were caused by that user's (Dharmadhyaksha) constant bad faith on that article. Check history and you will find.Krish | Talk 13:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you are aware of WP:3RR. Please also make sure you are aware of WP:NPA. "My words were caused by that user's constant bad faith on that article." Maybe so, but if you make personal attacks again, you may be blocked. In any case, there's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. I don't believe any further action is warranted at this time. --Yamla (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a case of WP: Own and nothing else. He reverted my ediys wiithout any reasons or explainations, which shows that he owns the article. My reasons are valid. So please give a better reply and an idea to deal with this.Krish | Talk 13:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I put the content back as it was earlier before this particular user thought it to be controversial/unappropriated to the article. I agree that that edit summary was missing and thats because I am using a tool and it was a mobile edit. I dont understand how a single revert warrants for ANI. This is my single (most likely) edit to the article. I dont know how it becomes a case of WP:OWN. Are we becoming so childish in taking such edits/reverts to the board? Simple hopeless! - Vivvt (Talk) 13:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Krish has a history of making personal attacks and has been previously blocked in Dec 2012 for this edit summary and this comment and again in Oct 2013. Not that these two incidences should be considered in current case, but am mentioning them to show that the user is very much aware of WP's NPA policy.
  The user still continues to make PAs as noted below. (Note: I am usually very tolerant about such PAs as many IPs and newbies come barging on my talk page. Some users and admins have been kind enough to revert/revdel them on their own. In case some of these are not really considered PAs, as these are considered case-by-case with no fixed definition, please ignore those ones.)

Towards me

• "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha"
• "Use at least little bit of sense"
• "Would you please stop being a JERK?"
• "I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name)."
• "Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you."
• The Jerk Barnstar: I award you this for being a Jerk like always

I am not sure if I should point PAs made against other editors, as it should be their case to take it up. But these are too many to ignore. Individual editors can of course comment here and ask to disregard the below mentioned comments.

Towards others

• "Are you dumb? "
• "Who the hell made you an administratyor?"
• "You are so pathetic. Now onwards my eye will be on you and I will tell you what is its like to get punished for others fault."
• "I should have known that you are a hypocrite and a big time manipulator."
• "You need to look here before talking and adding shit to that article I am more experienced than you here and know much better than you. You don't tell me what I should do."
• "Thank you Vensatry for getting your nose into the matter, which has nothing to do with you."
• "Get the Fuck out of my user page"

Am hence also pinging the involved editors @EdJohnston, Human3015, Carl Waxman, Vensatry, and Arjann: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What I do on my talk page is none of your business. If someone will threaten me than what sjould be my response. By the way, how about your behaviour? Your behaviour is not very good and its obvious by these hate you have received from lot of people and not only from me.

   "You are being an idiot." - Maunus
   "..idiots like you.." - Maunus
   "You're being ridiculous." - Calvin999
   "Don't like his stuffy attitude." - Bonkers The Clown
   "Your friend (User:Ratnakar.kulkarni) is as bad as you, dishonest and evasive." - Leaky caldron
   "..I hate Dharmadhyaksha and Vivvt for their sheer stupidity." - Vensatry
   "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha" - Krish!
   "Use at least little bit of sense" - Krish!
   "Would you please stop being a JERK?" - Krish!
   "I know my job better than you Dharam (your work is just opposite of your name)." - Krish!
   "Dharm, do you want to hear F bombs from me because it's is irritating me. My work was to nominate....this is not my problem if an idiot reviewer didn't found mistakes. Its not my fault. You are what? You call yourself an Indian? Really shame on you." - Krish!
   "...I have never come across a user who is as stupid as you....You and user Vivvt are pathetic and put other users in a harrowing time. I guess, you should stop chasing users and their work. Rather spend some time in improving yourself. Dumb." - Arjann

.Please tell why all these people have had problems with you? And, pointing out my previous maistakes has nothing to do with this incident of your beloved friend. Both of you are players and both work together.Krish | Talk 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Krish!, drop it. Your recent comments are over the line, especially this morning's "barnstar" and your edit summary calling another user a moron. If I see any more breaches of our civility policy, I will block you. This is quite clearly a content dispute, discussion should happen on the talk page of the article, not grumbling here. Dharmadhyaksha, you are complaining largely about issues over 4 months old and he was blocked (for edit warring) around that time, I appreciate that it looks like things are building up here again for you, and I will watch the article, but you need to focus on the content dispute at hand rather than past behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you, this was a bad comment i agree I shouldn't have done that. I had stopped fighting and would rather focus on my work here. This is waht I'm trying to tell this user that putting prevbious problems had nothing to do with this. But he went on and on. Plus, this guy is not ready to discuss and would revert things like he owns the article. I would like your help on this matter.Krish | Talk 14:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Krish!, you were a hair's breadth from being blocked for that barnstar - I certainly see why Dharmadhyaksha brought up the past, it's your past behaviour which time and again is beyond the pale. You need to be doing the legwork here and you need to drop your complaints. I will be watching, but only as an administrator for poor behaviour. I will not be participating in the dispute. Worm^TT(talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

...and any specific reason I was brought to ANI? - Vivvt (Talk) 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User has gone on a wikibreak, for good. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You never know. Some editors take a wikibreak and never return to editing. Others' long wikibreak ends up just lasting just a week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the first time this is happening, a few of Kirsh!'s previous accounts were blocked for similar behavior. Another incident happened last year that I was aware of; unfortunately, I took the step of page protection instead of blocking as explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive. —SpacemanSpiff 02:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This retiring-leaving-coming-back-again drama is not new with the Indian editors. This keeps happening with some of them followed by Dont-leave-us-come-back-we-miss-you-glad-you-are-back stuff! This archives nothing than talk pages full of emotional talks. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prashantlovehimself/Archive what is this?, I saw this for the first time. SpacemanSpiff just because some editor has a similar name and likes similar subject, doesn't mean it was me who edited from those accounts. I came to know about wikipedia in 2012 (anyone can edit it). and I started writing In MY City article. My first visit to wikipedia was 2012, and I don't need to cry to prove that. I hope people on wikipedia could see the good side of an user, who despite his busy student life have given so much time here.Krish | Talk 03:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have. Your behavior on this account and your previous accounts has been disruptive; in addition to the issue of constant personal attacks against other editors there's also the problem of WP:NPOV issues where you seem to be taking your Priyanka Chopra fandom far too seriously for an encyclopaedia, not just on that particular article but also on other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A fandom? I have edited and written other FLs as well and had planned to. By the way, I don't have any problems with NPOV and I support it. KIndly please try to understand, I reported this user because he reverted an edit, when i had already opnened a discussion. I know it was too small to come her, I apolagize, sorry. Now please close this discussion I have my studies to do and I'm taking a long break for a year. Thank you.Krish | Talk 03:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Open an ANI discussion without having a solid ground and now wants to close the discussion because he has studies to do! Other people are marely wasting their time on WP. Admins, please note that this particular user shall not be taken seriously for anything and everything that involves other editors. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I said that because you said above that its small, for me its still big reason. When someone had already started a discussion then you had not rights to revert until the matter was discussed on the talkpage. So, its obvious you are the culprit.Krish | Talk 05:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Sudden studies or WP:BOOMERANG effect? If I get time I am sure I will find many such wikibreaks that have aligned with non-favourable circumstances just to avoid blocks and bans. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You wish. LOL. This post I wrote on 23 April 2016 dont show its sudden. Check facts before accusing someone of something.Krish | Talk 05:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're going on a wiki break, go on the wiki break. Don't continue editing under the guise that you have 'studies' to do. It's one or the other, and it's quickly approaching the point where a boomerang is in order. --Tarage (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Krish!, you were editing in the past hour which undermines your claim that you are taking a long wikibreak. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Liz Well, I'm still editing because I have an ongoing discussion about the disputed article. So, Isn't that obvious that I'll be editing? Now please close this discussion as I'm sure the discussion on the article's talk page is enough. Thank you for your time folks.Krish | Talk 15:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Why should it be closed without any action against you? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well this is May 2016, if you want to take action for what i did in 2015 and before then i am very sorry that's not going to happen and I think you are trying to provoke me to do something with your texts but i am not interested to fight with you or anyone. This is not a place where you engage in random fights. This is an encyclopedia its better we respect this site.Krish | Talk 19:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The Jerk Barnstar: I award you this for being a Jerk like always." 08:03, 1 May 2016
• "moron Dharmadhyaksha" ...." dumb moron" 07:56, 1 May 2016
• "She was never criticised you MORON" 07:32, 1 May 2016
• "Dharmadhyaksha, everything was resolved at the FLC, so your edits are questionable. Plus, Now I'll be checking on you and I know some of your articles require that template and Wait then watch IM coming" 07:52, 25 January 2016
• "This article was reviewed by editors 10x better than you so fuck yourself hypocrite Dharmadhyaksha-or adharmdhyaksha" 13:21, 22 January 2016

May 2016 stuff... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you already had mentioned above? and the administrator had already addressed them? Give me a break. Bye Bye......Krish | Talk 06:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Admins should take this into account that his behavioural pattern has not changed over the years and he keeps abusing other editors with the strong words. Involved editors have seen this I-won't-do-this drama several times and its really frustrating that its always the other editor who is asked behave with civility. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that the 5 edits were posted 2 days ago, it's obvious Krish! is unrepentant with regards to personal attacks. Those should certainly attract a block, preferably an indefinite one. Blackmane (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Blackmane only three edits were posted 2 days ago so kindly correct yourself. I don't think i deserve a block. I have contributed so much here. I have written an FA, 9 FLs and 10 GAs and am still working on plenty of subjects including two other FLs and another FA. You can't just take away everything from me. It's not like only I had fights or arguments here. Everyone does. By the way, did i tell you this user (Dharmdhyaksha) has a long history of interfaring with my work or should i say had a problem with me for reasons unkown to me. He tried to take me down by nominating two of my GAs, few days after they passed and he was criticised by everyone and the GAs were kept as GAs.

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/7 Khoon Maaf/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Huma Qureshi (actress)/1

Plus, he would add a maintenance templates to all my FLs, would remove well-sourced texts, tag the articles with Provide secondary souces, even where everything was sourced perfectly. So tell me what you guys learn about him. What does it mean when you do these kind of things. I still don't know what is his problem with me. My above reactions were for his this behaviour,which I think was wrong as all of my FLs and GAs were reviewed by some established and experienced reviewers. So tell me now.Krish | Talk 05:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned by SpacemanSpiff "The fact that you have contributed content has prevented many from taking admin action when they should have." However, this dos not give you any authority to abuse people. Everybody's trying to do something or other by taking time from their real time. You have no right to insult that time. I dont see a point why should please take your abuse for no good reason. Does not matter if you are admin or wiki founder or feature content writer or a newbie, people are not here to get abused. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, he is not retiring or taking any break for studies. He just nominated another list for FLC. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've corrected my post to reflect this. However, the points still stands that continuing to attack another editor while your previous attacks against other editors was being discussed at ANI is just mind boggling foolishness. Editors get into conflict, this is true, but for the most part it is over content what you have done is made it personal. Regardless of what you have contributed to the project, this is unacceptable. Editors that have contributed 10 times what you have, have been site banned for just this sort of thing. You are very lucky you haven't been indefinitely blocked already. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, It`s time to stop beating around the bush about blocking Krish. I propose an indefinite ban on Krish for long term personal attacks against multiple users, as shown above. Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, this needs to stop and action needs to be taken Happy Attack Dog (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This reeks of punitive blocking, and I do not believe that the edit summaries thereof rise to the level of an indef. Indef blocks should be reserved for outright vandalism. Such is not the case here.--WaltCip (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support I had left a warning on the user's talk page a while ago for making some arrogantly abusive personal attacks towards another user. See [28]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Did I tell you this user is friends with Dharmadhyaksha? Yes they are. By the way please tell me if its right to remove well-sourced stuffs from articles which are featured and everything. Just because he didn't like the way article was?

• And, do you think this is not a personal attack to me Krish! You need to complete your studies. For our sake. You were not pinged in that message because i knew it would not be easy for you to comprehend it. LOL. I will reply to others. Please tell. Making fun of my weak english that i couldn't even understand his text is not an attack?Krish | Talk 06:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've been here for close to 11 years. I've made a lot of friends and enemies here. That doesn't discount my views. You have the right to remove and add stuff so long as it is compliant with policies and consensus, which isn't the issue here. The issue here is your pathetic behaviour towards others, calling them names, and abusing them, which you did and as a net result I left a warning on your talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nowhere did I mention studies. I haven't participated in any discussion on Kashibai. Why are you distorting the conversation by inserting it after my comment? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support long-term ban. This user has, on multiple occasions, made it extremely difficult for me to contribute here. His constant bad-faith and abusive nature made me take a long wikibreak last year, and I wouldn't wish that upon any constructive editor. This has really gone on for far too long, and action must be taken. Pinging some of the other editors (Dr. Blofeld, BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, Kailash29792 and Vensatry), who have been a victim of his abuse. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Oh my. Look who finally replied to a text related to me. God bless you Krimuk. Please tell the administrators that you used to sen threats on Twitter and troll me there. Please tell the administrators that you have abused me on my talk page and through e-mails. You know I really don't have time for this and I don't think I will show those evidences against you, how much you have abused me here and how uncil you are. You have finally succeeded in breaking me. I really can't take anymore and I feel like it was my biggest mistake to come here and contribute here. I have lost all the energy today and I ask administrators for a long term ban as I'm really fed up of this accusation of being uncivil and abusive, even when the others editors have been as abusive as me. I gave three years of my life to this site, three presious years of my college life. You don't need to ask your friends to come here and ask for a block for me, I am making this job easy for you. I ask for a block so that others can live here freely as I'm the only one who is making there life troubled. Well done Krimuk you have done the impossible and I wish you all the best for your future.Krish | Talk 10:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe Krish! would benefit from close mentoring, and Wikipedia would benefit from a mentored Krish! This is what I propose and I'm willing to act as a mentor if the editor will have me as such.--John Cline (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Am not sure and my memory is weak and there have been many user name changes and there have been many editors in similar article domains that keep confusing me.... But i think he has been mentored by @Titodutta: or was it Dr. Blofeld. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely Oppose ban I didn't realise this was still open. I don't watch ANI, it is a dreadful place. Now, having read the thread, I have some questions. Why does it matter if Krish says he's going on a wikibreak. Breaks are personal, and can come in many forms - reducing your editing, changing focus and so on. There are a number of very high profile editors who still edit despite having a wikibreak notice, or even a retired notice it does not matter. I told Krish he was a hair's breadth from a block for the Jerk barnstar and his behaviour on 1 May and when I did, he stopped that behaviour. He didn't stop editing, he carried on the discussion civilly at the talk page of the article. On the other hand, I've just had to warn Dharmadhyaksha for provocation at that same article. There are two sides to this case, I certainly don't believe that one side should be banned outright. Worm^TT(talk) 13:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• The discussion has somewhat veered onto a different zone. To begin with, the user in question seems to have apparently misused his rollback privileges on the page. That said, it's high time that Krish's behaviour be monitored. Because this is the nth time that his conduct has been questioned – this being the most recent one: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive305#User:Krish! reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Blocked). He's been around here for 3+ years, yet doesn't have the temperament to deal with people – a few samples (when he was a newbie): 1, 2. And this was just a year ago. I don't see much of a change in his attitude. —Vensatry _(Talk) 14:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a site ban. That's a bit extreme for my taste. I'd support an absolute last warning that the next time they make a personal attack on another editor they will be indefinitely blocked. The same goes for Dharmadhyaksha per Worm's post above. Blackmane (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I expressed similar concerns about Prashant/Krish to Ian Rose, Cassianto and SchroCat a few weeks back. Sorry to say but Krish! just never seems to grow up. His recent behaviour is a perfect example of why he's not mature enough to edit here. Incredibly childish and never seems to change as he promises. He does contribute some good work but most of his interactions on here are negative ones and he never seems to learn how to avoid them. I think it's best for everybody if he was banned or at least something severe imposed on interacting with people to stop people having to deal with his nonsense. John Cline and some of the others clearly have little experience of this editor, all the mentoring in the world won't change him. When he doesn't feel threatened and is focused on writing he's productive I think, and at times he can even be pleasant, but as Vensatry says, too many times now and just lacks the control to deal with people. Suggest something severe imposed in terms of interacting with others, that might work, but then you'll still get the same petty squabbles over articles. Irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support sanctions, though not necessarily a site ban. Maybe a two-week ban for incivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemade Pencils (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment from user DMacks

The user DMacks is for some reason, following and stalking my every move on this website. Every time I try to make an edit to a page, he comes in and reverts every edit I make. He also has refused to stop this behavior after I emailed him about it multiple times. I would like to have an admin on this site take care of this and ban him from harassing me in the future. I've only been an active editor on this site for a few months now and I don't feel that this is something that a user like me should have to experience. No one should have to experience harassment like this on a website built to encourage community and help through constructive criticism and page editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingGuildpact (talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

He's an administrator, you are edit warring, and your edits are unsourced and quite frankly nonsense. You aren't seeking consensus, you haven't made a single talk page edit after making changes, and you have made no attempts to engage editors about your edits. Drop the stick or you will be blocked again. --Tarage (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of harassment. What seems to be happening is that you're adding information without any sources. The guideline WP:V deals with this, and it is one of the central guidelines of Wikipedia. When users make problematic edits, it's quite common for other editors to go through said user's other edits, it's not harassment, and it's not meant to be. Eik Corell (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LivingGuildpact - You're required to notify all users when you open a new ANI thread that involves them directly. I've gone ahead and done this for you here.

Looking at your contributions, I see that DMacks has reverted the edits you've made to Mayonnaise and Miracle Whip. Each of his reversions have been explained in the edit summaries that DMacks left (see 1, 2, 3, and 4 (back in Feb)). He cited issues with consensus, not citing a reliable source with your changes, as well as edit warring. Looking at your talk page, you have been previously warned for edit warring as well as for causing disruption (and a block), but you since removed those warnings. It's clear that there are issues with the edits being made, but it looks like these are problematic because of the content you've been changing. I also see no evidence of you attempting to collaborate or even ask about the reversions in an effort to understand the reason behind them; you simply re-add the content back later, which gets reverted again. DMacks is not harassing you nor is he violating any Wikipedia policies. He's reverting your changes for proper reasons, and within his administrative role. I highly recommend that you discuss your concerns directly with DMacks so that he can try and assist you. I also suggest that you make no further edits to the articles until you've properly discussed everything in concern; failure to do so will result in further blocks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been the victim of harassment from DMacks, even if he is an administrator, he shouldn't be abusing his power and privilege to harass an editor. Harassment is to be defined by the victim of the harassment, not the perpetrator or outside onlookers. I am now making a public announcement on an administrator page to let people know that I do not want DMacks involved with me, my edits, or any pages I have edited in the past. I do not want to be subjected to harassment from him anymore. If another admin can take action to block him from being involved with me, that would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingGuildpact (talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 May 2016

LivingGuildpact - Other editors here have already explained that DMack's reversions were appropriate and that he was not engaging in harassment towards you. I understand that you're frustrated and perhaps upset. One part of our job is to try and help you (of course! :-)), but another part of our job is to perform a logical, neutral, and level-headed examination of the evidence and information provided to us, and make a decision or provide feedback based off our findings. If you're going to file an administrator report here, you need to listen to the information and advice that is given to you. They may not meet your expectations or be what you'd like to hear or see happen, but our goal is to be fair and to everyone.

We can only help you if you want our help. Not acknowledging the responses that we've given to you and ignoring our advice makes us feel that we're wasting our time, and shows us that collaboration and achieving consensus is not your main objective. If you'd like, I'm more than willing to assist you with your concerns on my talk page and recommend to everyone here that this ANI be closed (under the condition that you allow me to assist you). It's your choice; if that is what you'd like, I'll be happy to make that recommendation for you. Otherwise, I'll leave things be and move on; I've done my best to try and help you, but I can't force you to be willing to be given appropriate help. Does anybody have objections with my offer to LivingGuildpact? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If he gets mentorship and stops this destructive behavior no one is going to complain. The end result is he needs to stop the edit warring. That's all anyone cares about. Either by blocking or by becoming a contributing editor. --Tarage (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100%. My offer still stands. I'm more than happy to offer mentoring and assistance to LivingGuildpact, should he choose to accept it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much to add here that hasn't already been said multiple times. Edit-warring against multiple editors who are asserting consensus and cited ref, not listening when editors say that those behaviors are a problem, etc...those are all problems compounded. I have no objection to any mentorship or any other process by which editors can move towards contributing in line with out editorial and behavioral standards. DMacks (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Re: "Harassment is to be defined by the victim of the harassment, not the perpetrator or outside onlookers": @LivingGuildpact: I'd urge you to stand back and think about that for a moment. When someone is accused of something, the accuser gets to be the judge? No system of dispute resolution could possibly work that way. If you want to work successfully here on Wikipedia, you have to accept that judgement in disputes can only be decided by what you refer to as "outside onlookers", ie: disinterested third parties (and for the record, I see no harassment either, just reasonable admin actions). That's the way it works here, and that's the way disputes are settled just about everywhere else too. I'd urge you to take the good advice that people have offered you here, and I'd also urge you to read about how Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus and how disputes are resolved. And finally, I strongly urge you to take up Oshwah's very kind offer of mentorship - it can be very discouraging when you're new here and you have your edits reverted, and mentorship can really help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Wars at Payback 2016

There is a wave of vandalizm happening on the Payback (2016) page. Maybe it should be blocked to open edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinobotTM2 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• @DinobotTM2: Payback (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like it's protected and cleaned up. Did we miss anything? -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• I tried a semi-protect, and that was an immediate failure. Article is now fully-protected for 1 week. SQL^{Query me!} 01:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently going through each edit one-by-one to start sorting out the mess and start warning/reporting vandals. This will take awhile...... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. (You'll need it) -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There are now multiple edit requests posted on the talk page and there needs to be some consensus on which information is accurate before any content can be added. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Be weary; I reverted some edit requests immediately after the article was protected. They were blatant violations and vandalism. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User Galassi at Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry

I'm finding it impossible to work with User:Galassi. I started re-editing the the page on the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry on 21 April 2016‎, correcting some recent edits and giving my reasons in extensive detail on the talk page The long list of problems was ignored for some days.

• Since in the meantime Galassi kept reverting, I opened a talk page section with his name calling his attention to the problem of him reverting without answering the issues on the talk page.

• Several long discussions ensued, but only with other editors. See this section, this section and this section, for several attempts I made calling on reverting editors to discuss the issues.

• The sum of Galassi’s comments, despite him being the main reverter, consist of one liners that ignore the technical problems and issues, are void of content, except flag waving. Seehere, here, here, here, here, here, and here

• While ignoring repeated requests to him and other editors to answer the objections on the talk page Galassi has persistently reverted the article ever since, whenever I touch it. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
• All of these reverts restore several pieces of material which the talk page argues either fail WP:RS, or do not reflect the source, or push a non-neutral POV, such as saying a theory whose scientific status is uncertain, has been ‘refuted’ etc. The edit summaries are obscure, and often specious, as in this morning's Reverted good faith edits by Nishidani (talk): Per WP:SYNTH. This cannot be true because the passage he reverted out is a straight quote from a source. I didn't synthesize anything. My impression is the editor is just reverting me at sight without examining the talk page, the sources, or anything else. I found this exasperating and told him so, without mentioning WP:HOUND, and asked him to stop telling me to 'cease and desist', as if he were dictating surrender terms. This morning he saw me edit anew, an innocuous inclusion of another quote from a source already accepted, and reverted it, and then posted the same 'cease and desist' nonsense on my talk page. This looks very much to me like an attempt to needle away and fish up a reportable response.

I think, since he just engages in blind reverts, and refuses to use the talk page, that he should be asked to stay away from that particular article.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, ignore. THis is a RETALIATORY motion. USer Nishidani alone battles against multiple-users' consensus, in violation of WP:OWN, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, WP:POVFORK etc., all of which has been repeatedly pointed to him.--Galassi (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• A browse of the article history indicates that a number of editors take exception to your substantial article-changing edits. Given that your high-handed talkpage pronouncements and the personal attacks in edit summaries have generally failed to convince other editors, I dont think Galassi is the one who needs a break . Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

High-handed? I have twice intervened to stop that editor whom you say I used a personal attack against, from almost certainly getting a topic ban, once quite recently. She uses the talk page, so though she edit wars, and is plainly trying to push a POV, she's amenable to collegial discussion. In that case, I never, never raise an objection to such editors. Galassi refuses to use the talk page, and has consistently edited in execrably bad material the talk page shows fails WP:V. I get pissed off, sure. It took me several months of research to try to master a difficult and controversial topic like Khazars, which I basically wrote, only to find editors frigging about with lazy revert edit-warring to establish a 'truth', while ignoring the scholarly literature. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Which I basically wrote"... So no ownership issues there at all then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No, no ownership problem, a statement of fact. I write articles - it's time-consuming, and hard work; editors like Galassi revert what's done, whatever, on sight. He effectively by his blind and blanket reverts (he never looked at what he was reverting back to) banned me from that article. If you take the example of just the last revert listed above, he cancelled a direct quotation I introduced from the same source used directly above, stating in the edit-summary WP:SYNTH. A direct quotation, as he knows, cannot be an instance of synthesis, and therefore the edit summary was sheer prevarication, and the revert animated by personal enmity without regard to content. I never even scoured Galassi's history or practices, but in the context of his prior bans, for exactly the same kind of nuisance reverting, this seems to be a consistent pattern of abuse. His revert rights should be restricted to vandalism and IPs: if he wants to challenge constructive editors with 10 years of experience and 45,000 edits, he should be asked to note his objection on the talk page (and not just 'vote' there).Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Galassi has been indefinitely topic-banned from Ukraine-related material since April 2013 for failing to adhere to a personal restriction on the frequency with which reverts could be performed. Galassi's talkpage shows that conflicts have occurred with other editors over editing of Khazar-related material, or that other editors have intervened (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The justification Galassi gives for reverting in example 2, "It is common sense, you see. Elhaik is a charlatan, as he is bent on pushing a theory that proposes that a Caucasoid ethnic group descends from a Mongoloid one. 'Nuf said," is foolish: he libels a research scientist based on his own basic ignorance of who the Khazars were, a level of ignorance that raises questions about whether any of Galassi's contributions on the subject can be beneficial.     ←   ZScarpia   17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That is IRRELEVANT here. User Nishidani failed to secure a consensus for his POV, and he is pushing his anti-zionist envelope elsewhere.--Galassi (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No. You were reverting me on every edit I made, with no talk page discussion. You never spoke of 'consensus' in your revert edit summaries, but of ostensible policy issues, which I addressed on the page and you ignored.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." Galassi and other editors appear to have failed to engage in the consensus-building process, instead simply relying on the fact that they outnumber Nishidani to insist that he doesn't have consensus.

Galassi: "User Nishidani failed to secure a consensus for his POV." Wikipedia articles are supposed to outline the significant points of view contained in reliable sources. Perhaps Galassi is confusing properly sourced points of view with what he calls Nishidani's POV?

    ←   ZScarpia   10:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Of Galassi's last 500 edits in the main space (since January 13, 2015), 270 have had edit summaries beginning "Reverted". During this same period, they have only made 86 talk page edits, and almost none of those are substantial original comments. In their entire edit history they have made more than eight times as many article edits as talk page edits. Propose 1RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Place Galassi under 1RR

I propose placing Galassi (talk · contribs) under a one-revert rule, indefinitely, until they can demonstrate that they are willing to engage in constructive discussion on talk pages instead of edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support if duration is to the end of 2016. The restriction should not apply to reverting clear vandalism and block-evading edits by sock puppets. Hijiri88 makes a good case for this. But I do not want this to turn into a first step towards a long block for Galassi. Many of Galassi's reverts are the best thing to do in the circumstances. If the restriction were indefinite, sooner or later he/she would forget and break the restriction, just like he/she did with the more complex revert restriction on Ukraine-related articles. If the restriction were to the end of 2016, he/she would probably remember and obey it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: My above-cited "last 500 edits" was a random number determined by my account preferences. The problem was even more pronounced in the previous 500 edits (327/500 article edits are blank reverts, and only 58 talk page edits, most of them related to Jewish Bolshevism). This is a very long-term problem going back more than three years, so limiting the 1RR restriction to seven months is not productive. And speaking as someone who is himself subject to 1RR (a restriction placed on me because of three brief edit wars that took place almost a year before the restriction, mind you), I can tell you that reverting obvious vandalism and block-evasion, etc. are not affected by 1RR, any more than they are affected by 3RR. Additionally, to demonstrate that an indefinite 1RR would do more harm than good, you would need to demonstrate that Galassi has repeatedly made multiple constructive reverts on the same page in a period of 24 hours. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposals for restrictions need to be clear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not if they follow the standard definitions as laid out on the PAG pages related to the restrictions. There's a reason I linked WP:1RR above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is useless. Galassi rarely makes more than one revert per day on a page, at least during last year. His reverts are usually reasonable, or at least justifiable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Whether he "rarely" makes more than one revert per day is immaterial. On the article under discussion here, he has very clearly been edit-warring, and if he had been under 1RR he would have been blocked three times in the past week. 1RR is not meant to create excuses to block people; it's meant to prevent edit wars, and in this case it clearly would discourage Galassi from edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If someone was engaged in edit warring on a certain page, he/she should be reported on WP:3RR, not here. Then admins would definitely look at this, including other editors who also reverted on the same page. I interacted with Galassi on a number of occasions and agree that he makes a lot of reverts, however most of them were reasonable in cases I know about (no, I did not check this Khazar page because this is something beyond my interests). Hence I do not really see a pattern of recent and malicious edit warring by him. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. If 60% of a user's edits are automatic reverts (not including possible manual reverts), then clearly something is very wrong. Your claim that "rarely makes more than one revert per day on a page" is not backed up by empirical evidence. Other articles on which he has indisputably edit-warred in the past month (read: made more than one revert in under 24 hours) include Muammar Gaddafi, Aristo and Anti-Zionism. In Aristo the edit-warring led to page protection. Whether Galassi was on the "right side" in any of these edit-wars is irrelevant, because edit-warring is disruptive in and of itself. (Please note that reverting a user who isn't using the talk page while you are desperately trying to use the talk page is not, in my opinion, edit-warring; but I'm not a reliable source, because no one disputes that this is what I was doing in my "edit wars" of over a year ago, and I was still placed under 1RR.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if someone makes 100% reverts, that might be fine. His reverts are usually like that. Of course I can only tell about my experience of interacting with this user. It was not usually a problem to interact with him. It did not mean we agreed. And no, I do not think his recent editing on page Muammar Gaddafi (for example) was in any way problematic because it was another red-linked account who edit war against multiple users. My very best wishes (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Perhaps the measure proposed should be reformulated. What is obvious is that on the article in question, Galassi repeated exactly the approach, in regard to any edit I made, for which he has been sanctioned or banned from articles twice in the past. On the article in question he made three reverts on April 23 (here, here and and here). On May 1 two (here and and here, the second involving a patent prevarication as an excuse to again block my editing there. He refused for a over a week to use the talk page, and ignored all evidence on that page that what he was on each case restoring was defective (source misrepresentation etc.). Personally, I just think he should be banned from any article regarding the Khazars, something quite specific. If no one can see a problem in his targeting an editor to effectively ban his participation in editing a page, then of course he can get off scot-free and continue the polite but persistent harassment.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hang on - in the period Nishidani speaks of, three editors were reverting him/her: @Ferakp:, @Monochrome Monitor: and Galassi. So basically, Nishidani was edit-warring with three editors....-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, Ferakp and Monochrome Monitor all know how to use a talk page. If you discuss on a talk page in between reverts, and new factors emerge to justify reverting, then it is ... still an edit-war, but it's "less" of an edit-war. Users who don't use the talk page (or use the talk page, but only post inane, irrelevant nonsense) are the ones who tend to "poison the well", so to speak. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment I made some edits, others kept reverting to them. I haven't been keeping track. I do think it's bad to single out a single editor if a bunch of editors are doing it... majority rules, no? Right now the majority is a mob, but mob rule is better than chaste autocracy, in my opinion. If he broke 3RR it would be different.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC) But Nish isn't edit warring either. I think the word "edit warring" is overused personally. I think of war as aggressive. This is a disagreement that should be resolved on the talk. Not with a vote necessarily, but simple dialogue is nice. I did this because X.... why did you do that? --Monochrome_Monitor 03:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a disagreement that should be resolved on the talk. Not with a vote necessarily, but simple dialogue is nice. I did this because X.... why did you do that? That appears to be what Nishidani is trying to do, and Galassi has been responding with one-line "No, you're wrong"-type non-replies. Of the latter's talk page posts, only two have been more than nine words each: one was 18 words and was extremely hostile and used ... "questionable" terminology; the other was 36 words and not much better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1. Both Monochrome and I use the talk page. I have no objection to being reverted if the revert is rational and explained. Ferakp just jumped in to revert me, in a tagteaming fashion, without reading the talk page. He at least had the decency to use it when I protested, and what was the result,? He altered several parts of his revert to conform to the very real objections I outlined. Galassi did not use the talk page, repeatedly reverted anything I added, used false edit summaries, and tried to provoke me on my talk page. This is why I reported him: he has banned my work on that article, something he had no right to do, and secondly his behavior in my regard repeats a pattern he had been, as emerges here, admonished and sanctioned for twice on Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to the ownership issues displayed above and what is clearly a blatant attempt to remove someone with whom they are having a content dispute from the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: You posted the exact same thing under Nishidani's proposal below. By "displayed above", do you mean in the main thread opened by Nishidani? Or to Nishidani's brief aside immediately above your own post? Or to my opening this proposal? Because if it's the latter it's a pretty bizarre accusation -- I have never edited the article in question even once, nor expressed any interest in it. Even if it refers to Nishidani, how is trying to make edits and seeing them all reverted "ownership"? If anything, the user demonstrating ownership is Galassi -- apparently reverting every edit to the article he/she doesn't like. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly a bad faithed WP:BATTLEGROUND request and the proposer could use a WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Woah. Dude. What the hell? Them's some pretty violent accusations, there -- am I really the one with the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here? If an editor makes almost no edits that aren't reverts, then clearly we have an edit-warrior. Proposing 1RR as a way of dealing with such a poblem is a pretty normal solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There really is no basis for your proposal. It's spurious. Hence the "accusation" (violent? what?). And removing bad material from articles does not make somebody an "edit warrior".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Very strong evidence has been presented that Galassi has been edit-warring in the past week or so on the article in question, and pretty compelling evidence has been presented that this is a recurring problem going back at least three years. On the other hand, your accusation that I have no basis for my proposal is itself, ironically enough, a baseless accusation. An editor whose Wikipedia activity focuses almost exclusively on reverting other users' edits is not the same as an editor who "remov[es] bad material from articles" -- please refrain from putting words in my mouth, as I never said "removing bad material from articles" makes somebody an edit warrior. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also (just noticed this), VM placed the exact same words under Nishidani's proposal below.[29] So did he/she misread the thread and think that Nishidani opened both proposals? Because accusing me of a "battleground" mentality for coming across a random ANI thread, reading through it, coming to a conclusion about what has been happening and proposing a solution accordingly is pretty hypocritical, when VM is doing the exact same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban Galassi from editing Khazar-related articles

Support. This is highly limited, but reflects the fact he broke all the rules to disallow another editor's work on that page.Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, you made numerous reverts on this page [30]. You reverted edits made by several contributors. If you are trying to make a point that Galassi and others did not talk with you, that was not the case, as anyone can see on this article talk page [31], [32]. Why it is Galassi, rather than you who should be topic-banned from editing this page? My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Elementary error, equivalent to saying the Chinese and Eskimos have 5 fingers on each hand, therefore their behavior is identical. Look at the differences, there are at least five, outlined above.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not know much about the subject, but speaking about behavior, I do not really see how this is different: [33],[34],[35]. There is indeed one difference in behavior: Galassi or anyone else did not reported you on ANI, but you did. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to the ownership issues displayed above and what is clearly a blatant attempt to remove someone with whom they are having a content dispute from the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end: How is trying to edit an article a demonstration of OWNership issues? Surely the one who reverts every edit he/she doesn't like is the one demonstrating OWNership issues? Also, same comment as below applies to you.[36][37] Did you seriously analyze both proposals and decide that both proposals should be opposed for the exact same reason? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly a bad faithed WP:BATTLEGROUND request and the proposer could use a WP:BOOMERANG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Volunteer Marek copy-pasted the same !vote into both my proposal above and this proposal, as indicated by the repeated misprint.[38][39] It's not clear whether he/she actually read one of the proposals and copy-pasted the same response into both, and if so which one he/she actually read. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In the news: Whitewashing in Providence (religious movement)

Australian magazine Crikey today brings an article about whitewashing in our article Providence (religious movement).

Background: South Korean, Christian NRM. The organization's leader, a self-proclaimed messiah, is serving a 10-year prison sentence for raping female followers. Followers remaining with the organization are, not surprisingly, convinced of his innocence, and have a documented record in reliable sources for violently beating up Ex-Providence whistleblowers and, in a Wikipedia context importantly, violently trying to suppress negative press.

Wikipedia article history: The article (as well as the merged Jung Myung Seok) was for years the target of tendentious editing by church members. The community decided to indef block two editors in March 2014 (AN/I diff), and after a 1-year semi protection in April, all was quiet and calm. For a short while. The following accounts were created and have shown a keen interest in the article:

• GIOSCali (talk · contribs), reg. 29 June 2014, SPA
• Phoenix0316 (talk · contribs), reg. 21 July 2015, SPA in effect
• CollinsBK (talk · contribs), reg. 10 August 2015, SPA

Editing patterns as well as the talk page exhaustion soon looked a lot like it was pre-March 2014. A prolonged 2-year semi was applied in August 2015. Personally I had had it in the fall of 2015, and decided to step back. Looks like other regulars, Kiyoweap, Ian.thomson, Jim1138, Shii, Harizotoh9 did something similar. Since then new users have joined editing

• BourkeM (talk · contribs), reg. 12 September 2015, not an SPA, but same POV concerns
• SugarvilleMom (talk · contribs), reg. 14 January 2016, SPA in effect.

Comparing a before and after revision side by side shows you the whitewashing:

26 September 2015 — ° — 30 April 2016

From a decent 68k article (all incl.) with 90+ citations, it went down to 46k and ~50 citations. The nature of the contents changes are obvious.

For now I have restored a prior revision, and I suggest we take it from there. More eyes on the article, as well as active participants on the talk page, should the shenanigans continue, would be lovely. Advice on how to proceed in order to secure a more neutral future article would be great. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

For background, here is the closed dispute resolution case from spring 2015 although the only editor who was involved in DR who is mentioned here is GIOSCali. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Support the recent restoration. Not sure exactly what else can be done, other than perhaps restoring some level of page protection. One of the unfortunate problems relating to this group in particular is the comparative lack of English language sources available, at least so far as I have seen, and the occasional, sometimes reasonable, questions about whether those sources are what we would most like to use for our article. The Unification Church, its parent body, has gotten a lot of publicity, and is covered well in multiple sources, but this group doesn't seem to offer that much different for academic and/or western press to cover at length, so there is apparently less obvious reason to go into details regarding it except regarding specific events related to it and it alone. I guess page protection and/or discretionary sanctions might be the best way to go here? John Carter (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

P. S. I'm thinking the article in Crikey itself may merit some mention in the Providence article or some spinout article. The full article doesn't seem to be available on the net yet, but it appears to about some Australian Tax Office employee has been editing the article from a government computer. When it does become available, or when there is some follow up or response, it might not be at all unreasonable to create a wikinews article on the subject, which could be linked to in the article regardless of WEIGHT considerations, and which can serve as a bit of a reminder to others about possible problems with this article. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• As long as there's a consensus to go back to the full version, I'll at least aim to keep it at near there. Starting a job on the other side of the planet left me unable to deal with the continual civil POV-pushing from some of the SPAs. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• My attempting to keep the whitewashing down was a major time sink. Especially since many of the refs are in Korean, Japanese, and other foreign languages. I finally gave up. The article needs to be protected from outright whitewashing in some way. Sam Sailor's revert to a pre-whitewash state is a good start. Jim1138 (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support restoration to version before whitewashing. Support topic-banning CollinsBK. She systematically deleted negative content which were well-sourced, and putting objections in Talk discussions by the wayside, reintroduced dubious claims that are poorly sourced/unsourced ("the sexual assault charges were dismissed by the prosecutors involved" cf. #YTN retractions or "900 million won in compensation" cf. #JMS sued SBS from broadcasting).--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Liz: Sorry, haven't looked at the problem in detail, but I thought I should point out that Shii (talk · contribs) unfortunately hasn't edited Wikipedia at all since July 2015. I really wish they were still around, but given that their 22nd-to-last article edit was to the article in question, it seemed a bit off to say they "decided to step back" from the dispute. I hope for the sake of the project's integrity in covering East Asian religion in general that what Shii intended was to "step back" from the project as a whole for a year or so and will decide to step back in at some point. Cheers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Shit. Sorry Liz. The above was meant for Sam Sailor. The OP was so long and your sig so much longer than both your comment and SS's sig that I misread it as you being the OP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Random comment: It seems that half the article is dedicated as a coat rack to Jung's activities versus the actual movement itself. Not having done due diligence/research on the research, I am not sure if the man and the "mission" can be separated but it seems that the stuff about him can be summarized more than it is. 129.9.75.192 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The existing page on Providence is also the target of an existing redirect at Jung Myung Seok, the name of the founder. That being the case, and the fact that SFAICT in a lot of cases there hasn't been that much mention of either the group or the individual independent of each other, it would make sense to have the one article cover both topics fairly thoroughly. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Karst keeps deleting accurate infromation

User Karst keeps deleting accurate information, that comes directly from the source of the pages members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getmorechevelle (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Since they do not appear to have been notified, I have done so. GAB^Hello! 23:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the revert in question: "Undid revision 718322847 by Getmorechevelle (talk) As a WP:COI editor please place your requests/suggestions on the Talk page." GAB^Hello! 00:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems like BS to me. The editor was bold and was reverted and asked to discuss. The word "keeps" implies that it has happened more than once. The sources that Getmorechevelle has removed is not invalidated by the band members' own promotional contents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Walter. I indeed did not delete anything but restored. From the same diff is was clear to me that the editor had a conflict of interest, hence the message on his Talk page on CoI. Why I was hauled over to ANI is puzzling. Karst (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We just missed you really. It's not the same ANI unless there's a thread here on you. TimothyJosephWood 12:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Russian soldier's article

Alexander Prokhorenko meets notability rules. Another editor who is very disruptive and was obviouly wikihounding Mhhossein nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Prokhorenko.

I can't assume any good faith about this nomination, as FreeatlastChitchat is experienced user who have seen this. According to the nominator's ideology The only fault in this article is that the article was edited by Mhhossein, so I will take it to AFD as I am Free to do anything with Chit Chat.

The article was created by a new user from Sri Lanka. FreeatlastChitchat had no right to harass a new user to satisfy his long term goal to harass Mhhossein. Thank You for reading. --2A03:4A80:7:441:2066:60ED:1134:1A99 (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• There is no disruptive editing going on in the article. If you wish to bring a behavioural issue to light, you will need to provide Diffs. Till then, goodbye. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I had checked yesterday that your last block was due to an WP:AE request filed by Mhhossein. Do you want to waste other editor's time by such reckless nomination? You assumed that Mhhossein created the page, but the page was actually created by a new user. Another question is, do you know what a user should do before nominating an article for AFD? Others check for notability, search for reliable sources if the new editor missed something, while you check your rival editor's contributions. If you don't know the process of how to do google to check for references, then you have no right to make any AFD nomination. 2A03:4A80:7:41A:49BF:DD9C:3BF5:686E (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem here is not regarding your 'disruptive editing' on that article rather the OP is mentioning your hounding behavior. I can provide diffs showing your blatant harassment and hounding on multiple pages in spite of being warned against that, at admin's request. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The AFD was closed as Keep with no Delete votes. It was an unsuccessful proposal and Mhhossein was just one editor who was working on this article. Do you have other evidence of harassment because this isn't very convincing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was nominated as Mhhossein edited the article. If such behaviour is allowed then I have no problem . User A can hound user B and nominate for AFD. Then we have to clap. Do you care about the type of introduction User talk:Muvindu Perera got in Wikipedia?2A03:4A80:7:41A:C133:7604:7EE8:C2D8 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course there is convincing evidence. Of course there is convincing evidence. Admins must always believe the statement of an unregistered editor that another editor is disruptive. Oh, wait a minute. On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Just filing an AFD that was closed as Keep isn't harassment. You say that you can provide diffs. Then do so, or a boomerang block is in order for disruptive claims or disruption.

The page creator, who is a new editor from Sri Lanka was not harassed? There was not a single delete vote in that AFD as the nominator didn't check the notability before nominating the article. Sorry, I forgot, "Registered users can make trigger happy nomination to scare new editors like Muvindu Perera." And nobody actually cares whether this new editor will ever get any welcome message. As he hasn't got till now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muvindu_Perera 2A03:4A80:7:41A:C133:7604:7EE8:C2D8 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Liz: Thanks for your intervention. Freeatlast's behaviroal issues are more than just hounding and I can show you this at your request. Anyway, regarding his hounding, on same cases he was disguised as a normal and good faith editor such as here and here where he was using a very bad language and was clearly hounding me (see the article talk page history), or here where he jumped into the discussion after his seven day block. You can clearly see his clear hounding here where he caused harassment. See his edit here and tell me if it's anything other than hounding and harassment. You can also add his harassments here where he hounded me and got a warning for his bad tone from an uninvolved editor. Also his awkward AFD nominations of my articles had been a question for other editors (see [40], [41], [42]) and I had asked him to be careful about his nominations. These where what I remembered. Thanks --Mhhossein (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein you have presented like 12 interactions in past 6 months (The majority of which are those where other editors agree with me). This equates to like 2 interactions per month, which is infinitesimally small for editors who are editing in the same genre. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Then it shows you had been hounding me at least for past 6 months. --Mhhossein (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory

It would be good if an admin or two could try to get User:E.M.Gregory's BLP violations under control at some point so that they can't make anymore without getting blocked e.g. [43][44][45][46] (the last diff is also an example of blatant source falsification by the way). Just in case anyone thinks this is simply a decent human reacting to racism, it's not. This is someone who said of Regavim (NGO), an Israeli organization whose raison d’etre, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, is to force the Israeli state to speed up/increase home demolitions and forced relocations of Palestinians in the Israeli occupied West Bank and Bedouin in the Israeli Negev[47] - "This is, after all, an organization that has as its core mission such activities as filing lawsuits over illegal Arab construction on park lands and in forest reserves, and illegal Arab grazing of flocks in nature reserves". So, E.M.Gregory's ability to perceive and react to what they regard as racism seems to be dependent on the ethnicity of the target and the degree to which they criticize the actions of the State of Israel. There is no point in me trying to get them to stop because they regard me as one of "Wikipedia's most POV editors", well, that and the fact that I think they should have been topic banned from making ARBPIA related edits long ago because, to put it simply, their personal views mean that they will do harm. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Their recent contributions to Talk:Ken Livingstone, which have involved repeatedly making potentially libellous accusations against the individual in question, have similarly been pretty unconstructive. I'm not sure if that warrants action but if it is part of a wider problem then maybe it does need to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• All these diff are related to a couple of notable controversies that are already described on the corresponding pages [48]. This is something well sourced, and discussion on article talk pages should not be a problem. If anyone has BLP concerns, please post it on WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not whether these controversies should be mentioned in the article, but whether it is a breach of BLP to say of someone described by the local Rabbi as "a friend of the Jews" that she is motivated by "aggressive race-hatred of Jews". RolandR (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Is she? I do not know, but there are multiple publications about it (like here) and a notable controversy and resignation. Not an obvious BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That is the very article in which Rabbi Leavor describes Shah as "a friend of the Jews". Whatever one's view of her reported comments and actions, it is a far (and BLP-breaching) stretch from that to "aggressive race-hatred of Jews". RolandR (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

With respect My very best wishes, I don't think this is good advice or an appropriate and effective response to BLP violations. I'm not here for advice anyway, I'm requesting admin action. These diffs appear to be unambiguous BLP violations by a Wikipedia editor that accuse living people of "race-hatred of Jews" and "advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians". The source is E.M.Gregory's mind and they are expressing their personal views. My understanding is that an editor is allowed to hold any view they like and regardless of any of our opinions about the merits of the views the editor is not allowed to violate BLP by expressing it on talk pages or via article content. When an editor makes a habit of violating BLP something should presumably be done to prevent it happening again. What is going to be done? Something or nothing? If nothing is going to done, that's okay, but I would like confirmation from one or more admins because they are the only people who can ensure that a BLP violation has a cost for an editor who violates BLP. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that relevant portion of the policy is Public figures. The essence of the claim was reliably sourced, belongs to the page and already included. The only question is about wording used during the discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This is about the behavior of editors, one in particular. It's not about what should or should not be included in the articles based on reliably sourced information. If you ignore the fact that the editor accused a Swedish politician of "advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians" in an article apparently based on nothing, then sure, it's then just about wording used during discussion and whether it's okay for editors to use talk pages to refer to a living person's "race-hatred of X" as a statement of fact because to them it is a fact, while to RS-world it is an opinion. If that kind of behavior is acceptable then let Wikipedia say that it is acceptable and we can all benefit from that freedom of expression. If it's not acceptable then there should be a cost associated with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Sean here. It is important that admins make it clear as to whether measures will be brought against E. M. Gregory or not. At present we are simply left in limbo, unsure of quite how to respond to their recurring BLP violations on a variety of different pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If this user makes "BLP violations on a variety of different pages", one should provide a lot more diffs to prove this point. I can agree that four diffs in the beginning of the thread do not look good, however given that people he mentioned have been accused of antisemitism in multiple RS, retired because of the public scandal(s), and that antisemitism can be viewed as a variety of racism, these four diffs do not really look convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is

• the acceptable number of BLP violations for any given editor is precisely zero
• it is not possible to provide a number that represents the limit that separates an acceptable number of BLP violations from an unacceptable number of BLP violations or a valid method to derive that number that remains consistent with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what should be done. I agree that these are (a) BLP violation and (b) pointless and largely useless comments made on talk pages. It's basically the equivalent of saying "there's a POV problem with the article" on each talk page. Now misrepresenting a source is another big no-no. Would a topic ban on the I-P issue be appropriate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me? My edit about Regavim, made on the talk page of Susya, here: [49] is a paraphrase of the organization's mission statement. It is not a "misrepresentation" of any source. The discussion amounts to a difference of perspective, as is true on the talk pages of many human rights organizations. Frankly, what I remember about that particular, extensive, warlike debate over a minor article is that I walked away from the topic out of distaste for the aggressive POV-pushing. Sadly, the article is still tagged for POV a year later, probably because neutral editors are driven away from the topic area. Nasty, aggressive, POV editing of the type exhibited on that page is one of the most serious problems Wikipedia has. Dragging editors who dip so much as a toe into the Middle East to this page is part of the problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The error I did commit was in regard to the resignation of a Swedish cabinet minister who was forced to resign not, as I misstated, because he called on Turks to murder Armenians, but, rather, because he was linked to a militant organization (Grey Wolves (organization)) that advocates (and acts) on such such calls. Error now corrected. Error-free editing is, of course, impossible, but I think my record can stand up to scrutiny.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is fine to say "the allegations of anti-Semitism against X deserve space in the article", but not "X's aggressive race hatred of Jews deserves space in the article". You may think that X is anti-Semitic - that is fine - but keep such thoughts to yourself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, well said.

• E.M.Gregory, if you had kept your personal views off the talk pages and edited more carefully to avoid accusing a living person of something they did not do, there would be no ANI report. The cesspool-like nature of anything remotely ARBPIA related in Wikipedia is caused by people doing things they are not supposed to do, things that are more easily not done than done. I reported you because you are part of the problem, you are making things worse not better, you don't seem to care and you need to stop. If you had said something about a vile human being like Eustace Mullins having a race hatred of Jews no one would care apart from delusional neo-Nazis. But what you are doing will always get someone's attention because your actions will look like BLP violations to many people. It's good to see that you corrected your errors at Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice about Mehmet Kaplan to switch from direct guilt to guilt by association, which I suppose is an improvement, but I think you are targeting those articles because of Kaplan's views about the Israel-Palestine conflict and that your edits are colored by your views. Is that not the case? Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia.
• Can you and will you make an effort to ensure that your personal views do not color your selection and editing of articles so that your actions are consistent with WP:NOTADVOCATE?
• Can you and will you keep your personal views about the real world to yourself when participating in discussions to the extent that you do not violate BLP? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Outsider Note: I will comment later on the concerns brought up - but I want to point out that the few times I crossed lines with the nominator Sean.hoyland it did appear to me that he/she edits articles very pro Palestinian. I especially noticed this when a disruptive IP randomly canvased the nominator Sean.hoyland (among others) into an article in order to assist in posting negative material on a Pro Israeli minister. At one time the nominator was repeatedly advocating dumping negative material (in my opinion undue) on a BLP - all while the subject of the article was undergoing court proceedings and a trial. I must admit that the nominator is much more civil and honest than many other users in this area. However this should be taken into consideration if the motive behind this is to mute and remove an editor due to conflicting POV - especially since both of these editors have been edit warring reverting against each other. Caseeart (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It would have been better to include the diff where I told the IP they were not allowed to edit the article[50], told you that that it is not possible to violate 1RR by reverting the IP because of the 500/30 rule (User_talk:Number_57#Canvasing) i.e. the edit warring report the IP filed was merit-less and did not edit the article or participate in the discussion to which I was canvassed. I don't know who or what "At one time the nominator was repeatedly advocating dumping negative material (in my opinion undue) on a BLP" is referring to. If you make statements like that about editors you should have the integrity to include evidence. The only BLP related discussion I have been involved in recently is Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_20_April_2016 which doesn't match your description. Also, I don't edit war, I stop edit warring. Almost all of my edits are reactive nowadays. If they look "pro-Palestinian" that's because most of the disruption is by editors who presumably consider themselves "pro-Israel". Almost every edit I make nowadays is to a) enforce the 500/30 rule because extended confirmed protection has not been implemented across the topic area or b) address the actions of socks/editors who are making things worse rather than better or c) ensure editors follow WP:BRD in ARBPIA. When the disruption stops or when it is all handled by extended confirmed protection and smart bots, I will stop editing. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify - I do not mean to say in any way that you violated any rules. I thus did not feel the need to leave any diffs. On the contrary when the IP "tried" to canvass you to assist in posting negative material on an Israeli minister, you (unlike others) fully followed the rules and even warned the ip which shows a degree of integrity. I just counted that incident as additional evidence that non involved users also view you as pro Palestinian. (I won't go off topic introduce diffs of an old BLP discussion, and I also changed "warring" to "reverting").

Now, in the Israeli Palestinian conflict it often it ends up that whichever side has the majority of votes gets their way - a concern was brought up in one of the arbitration committees (I can't seem to find it) that Pro Israeli editors are routinely banned or topic banned thus leaving the Pro Palestinian side with the majority. (Assumingly because pro Israeli editors don't follow the rules or as I experienced - also because they are strictly scrutinized and more often reported by pro Palestinian editors - [I rarely edit this topic but I encountered a case where no one bothered investigating or blocking an (alleged) pro Palestinian editor who edited under an ip (sock puppet) to call E.M.Gregory a "fucking moron" [51] [52]- Just imagine if this sockpuppet ip instead would have been a pro Israeli editor.......]). I am pointing out that this may be the motive here. CaseeArt (^Talk 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

<- I see. Thank you for the clarification. What is my motive? Actually it doesn't matter. What matters is whether a rule has been broken by an editor, and if so, what can be done to prevent it being broken again. My intention is fully described in this ANI report and I have tried to ensure that my personal view of this editor, my bias in other words, is included because I'm not an uninvolved observer by any means. Rules are being broken all the time so why report this editor now? The BLP violations were the last straw. To see why they were the last straw, here are all of my interactions with E.M.Gregory since they started editing. I have limited patience with editors who bring what I regard as divisive ethno-nationalist irrationality and aggressive edit warring to articles and talk pages because they just don't seem to care about WP:NOTADVOCATE.

• The first time I noticed the editor was when they made the statement about Regavim (NGO) that I mentioned in the initial comment[53], one of the more extraordinary statements I have read on a talk page in ARBPIA. My immediate impression was that a person who expressed support for an organization whose activities seemed indistinguishable from ethnic cleansing-lite, as far as I could tell, was probably going to start fires.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing - [54][55] - Commented at AfD because, in my view, E.M.Gregory used "a fatally flawed and fundamentally unethical approach to sample information spaces in order to frame and spotlight (or perhaps curate is a better word in E.M.Gregory's case) specific cases, but ignore others"

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing - [56][57] - Commented at AfD because of E.M.Gregory's apparently unhealthy focus on ethnicity and "willful disregard for mandatory neutrality by using indefensible methods to frame and build articles". That article started a fire in ARBPIA.

• Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions - [58][59][60][61] - intervened to stop E.M.Gregory edit warring their view into an article and enforce BRD.

• B'Tselem - [62][63][64][65] - intervened to stop E.M.Gregory edit warring their view into an article and enforce BRD.

• J Street - [66][67][68] - intervened to stop E.M.Gregory edit warring their view into an article and enforce BRD.

Sean.hoyland - talk 20:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Those seem to be mostly edit disagreements between E.M.Gregory and Sean.hoyland. CaseeArt (^Talk 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why someone brought up motives, of users, but yes, I know Sean Hoyland is 100% pro-Palestinian, but I haven't found him to be posting against policy. I've dealt with him in the past and when facts are brought up, it's Okey-Dokey, not an edit war. So we should stick to what is on hand and not about users. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Can we stay on point here? E.M.Gregory, can you understand why (a) it's not helpful; and (b) it's a BLP violation to go to a talk page and say (without including a source) "hey, why aren't we calling this person this in the article"? It doesn't even matter if the name-calling is appropriate, if your only comment is to suggest name-calling without citing a source, it's inappropriate and frankly a useless comment on a talk page. Is the possibility that no one has found a reliable source for the subject possible? I know so much of the joy of the IP conflict is that everyone assumes the opposing side is busily working to do whatever but if you came to the talk page and said "hey, we are missing this issue, here are some sources about it, people would care a lot less (assuming we are talking good quality independent reliable sources). You want to fight about whether that representation is true, good, take it to the talk page but I don't care about that, I first care if you are going to be going around to talk page just posting "hey, why don't we talk about X in this article?" as if that is a useful use of other people's time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Asking why motives are brought up? Once it's established that the possible motive behind this ANI is that a pro Palestinian editor is advocating to ban another pro Israeli editor from editing Palestinian Israeli conflict articles (in order to maintain a majority lead), now we could assess the validity of the case.

Now in response to the case: When one of the most respected editors on pro Palestinian side was blocked for serious personal attacks, and soon after they sockpuppted under an ip to call E.M.Georgery a "fucking moron" (see my diffs)- and many many more such instances - this seriously disrupts Wikipedia but no one bothered to take action. On the other hand, a few times of E.M.Gregory's choice of wording on the article 'talk page' "Article needs coverage of X's aggressove, race-hatred of Jews." without using words like "alleged" or "possible" - is a lesser problem that does not need ANI - You could respond on the article talk page. CaseeArt (^Talk 01:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Potentially connected IP editors (moved from AIV)

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

---

I noticed User talk:Huntster recently protected Brittany Byrnes based upon the edits of 70.212.44.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and other non-registered users. 70.212.44.85 has also edited Heather O'Rourke, which has also seen recent IP vandalism/unhelpful edits. I compared the edits of other similar editors and found a list of IP accounts that have edited at least two (some more) of the following articles: Judith Barsi, Heather O'Rourke, Nancy Allen (actress), Brittany Byrnes, Babe (film) and Mary Kay Bergman.

There are multiple similar edits to Judith Barsi by other IP users beginning with the 2600 prefix, and several edits by other IPs with the 70 prefix are made on the other linked articles. I recently requested protection on Judith Barsi, but (at no fault of the closing admin) based upon evidence presented at that time during the request, no action was taken.

Can someone please take a look at the edit histories of the linked IP users below as well as the articles? There is an uncanny coincidence of edit histories as well as styles of editing (adding days of week to dates, changing cause of death in infoboxes to "Complications from...", wikilinking common words, adding trivial details to infoboxes and article spaces, changing "child" to "little girl", etc.). Also, since the IP users are editing at least two or more of the articles linked above with the same styles, they are likely the same person.

Below are all the IP users I could find. For those who are only editing one of the articles listed, I included the IP because edits matched those of other similar IP addresses in the table below.

There are likely other articles involved and possibly more IPs. See related talk at User talk:Huntster#Protection on Brittany Byrnes and related IP editors. Let me know your thoughts. AldezD (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(Note: I moved this request here from AIV, as this seems the best place to get it visibility without cluttering up a fast-paced board like AIV.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

These are all Verizon Wireless IPs, so it's entirely possible this is the same user with a dynamic IP. I'm not sure what you want us to do about it. Katie^talk 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you apply a range block to the IPs? If not, can you protect the linked articles that are being vandalized? AldezD (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow that chart was a ton of work. So sorry you did all that. Way more simply handled through page protection. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Can these pages then be protected? AldezD (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To respond to your original question, a range block is almost certainly out of the question because, if this is all the same person, they're rotating between IPs on too wide a range to effectively stop with a range block. We'd either have to not block most of the range (so they could still get through) or deal with excessive collateral damage affecting users who have nothing to do with the vandalism. Page protection is the way to go here. Try WP:RFPP. ~ Rob^Talk 04:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just filed for PP here Jytdog (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not involved too much. If an IP range block is not possible due to collateral damage to non involved Verizon users - is there a way instead to "tag" all the edits of a range of IPs as possible vandalism (or similar)? Is there such tools? Caseeart (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing patterns can be recognized, and tagged, with the Wikipedia:Edit filter. --Jayron32 15:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

How to finalize a consensus?

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

---

This is a procedural, not content issue.
Regarding building a consensus in an article: I've done the lengthy discussion, initiated an RfC and sought input on policy from two different policy pages; most of the folk in response to those actions are in agreement with one way to proceed. Still, one editor is resisting the significant (12/6) consensus to do so.
I can't just keep reverting in the consensus view back in, so what is my next step? Do I ask an admin to weigh the consensus and decide? I'm unsure how to proceed, and the one editor in question is growing more aggressive by the edit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Has the discussion been closed? If the RfC has been closed, then you should probably name the editor here with links to them editing against consensus and not responding to attempts to discuss. That would likely require administrator intervention. If the RfC has not been closed and it's been 30 days, I'd recommend WP:ANRFC to get a neutral close. ~ Rob^Talk 23:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm involved in the consensus discussion. Just a couple of clarifications of Jack Sebastian's incorrect statements. "Most of the folk" are not in agreement. And it's more than one editor (referring to me) who is on the other side from Jack Sebastian. Nor have I grown "more aggressive". Nor have I not responded to attempts to discuss. Take at look at the discussion (Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Is the language biased?} for more details. And I'll also note that a significant portion of the discussion occurred prior to the RfC at Talk:Natalie Portman#Major roles, which should not be overlooked. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It was brought up in several venues, and nowhere was it closed by an uninvolved editor, or was there agreement that consensus has been reached. You can find the discussions Here (still an open discussion), Here (still an open discussion - with only a single other editor contributing to the discussion), and here (which was closed on procedural grounds for being in the wrong venue). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

108.29.190.199

• Lenovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 108.29.190.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm not sure this is the right place for this. This IP keeps adding this content to Lenovo: [69] [70] [71]

I've removed it a few times and attempted to discuss: Talk:Lenovo#Promise for Cleaner PCs

Also tried to get the IP editor to discuss: User talk:108.29.190.199

But have been unable to get any kind of response from this editor. The various dispute resolution procedures seem intended for two editors who are in discussion but can't agree. I can't get this editor to discuss at all. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I find it incredibly frustrating to deal with edit warring, non-communicative IP editors, but this doesn't seem like it's worth battling over. A Google search turns up coverage in independent reliable sources ([72], [73], [74]), so I suggest you replace the press release with one of them and let it go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive requests to administrators to have me blocked

Hello,

I am having a problem with an editor and after the user continuously threatens me to have me banned and monitors and follows my editing history. He has recently threatened to bring me to this board. I am openly disclosing that I have previously engaged in sock puppeting and was unblocked a while back. I was temporarily blocked a few months back for edit warring. I have cleaned up my act and evolved as a editor. User:kapil.xerox has relentlessly accused me of endless things when it comes to Swaminarayan topics, and keeps going to the same administrator to have me blocked when all I am trying to do is properly edit Wikipedia and get a consensus. Literally any time there is any criticism, controversy or scandal with BAPS related topics, he shows up and gangs up with a certain group of users to get the information removed and then tries to block me and it hasn’t worked but the threats are getting cumbersome. I have gone overboard with my words in the past and I strongly apologized and have taken my work seriously but at this point, this user knows that there are more things that need to be incorporated and I have shown that all this user cares about is whitewashing all of the articles because maybe, just maybe, they are important to him outside of Wikipedia and he fails to see that he ALWAYS argue, debate and swindle any type of condemnation towards these certain topics. The case I present has examples of constant white washing, meaningless consensus with the same users who show the same bias that they cannot bear to see critical information about this particular religious group from academic & scholastic publications, verified books, news reports and many more sources. The user consistently moderates my posts on BAPS related topics.

Examples of the same group of users obsessing over any critical discussion regarding BAPS and related topics:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Transcendence:_My_Spiritual_Experiences_with_Pramukh_Swamiji
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj#Sexual_Abuse_Allegations
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShastriji_Maharaj&type=revision&diff=709809858&oldid=709809665
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Akshardham_(Delhi)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#RfC:_Is_the_doctrinal_origins_heading_in_the_History_section_relevant.3F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excommunication
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan/Archive_3#Problems_with_certain_version_of_the_article

There is no possible way that these editors have any good faith intention of presenting Swaminarayan articles balance and fair. They promote these articles in ways that violate WP:NPOV. They team up with each other but kapil.xerox is the ring leader and he constantly makes sure that their sect of this religion is portrayed in a positive only manner. They do not ever disagree on any cited and documented criticisms and are culprits in this matter as well. The COI policy states "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." I believe that these people are members of BAPS because they only edit BAPS related articles but rarely to never do they edit any articles about: Swaminarayan Sampraday, Koshalendraprasad Pande, Rakeshprasad Pande, Gopalanand swami, Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi and Nar Narayan Dev Gadi. This is significant to point out because Swaminarayan Sampraday branch of Hinduism-Swaminarayan is the main organization. BAPS is a group that was legally excommunicated from the parent organization based on different philosophies. This is extremely important to note because users Kapil.xerox and others have only expanded and "improved" BAPS articles and slowly manipulated them to be in favor and on terms with what they believe rather than Neutral. They do not know anything about the original group. Gunatitanand Swami is written like a book and Gopalanand swami article could be nominated for deletion. I do not believe they are paid members of BAPS because in religious groups you have to be a devotee and you get "spiritually paid" also know as seva, for doing work. This means doing work to make sure that your organization is only positively portrayed in the media. I conclude that these users belong to a team or group that advocates for BAPS online. "COI editing is strongly discouraged." They are Campaigning and not Declaring an interest. They are violating Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing. In all the articles above the users know that they are "very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral." I do not think they get that "Note that you do not control articles and others may delete them, keep them, or add information that would have remained little-known"I believe that anyone who engages in discussion or simply posts a controversial subject regarding this group will be systematically removed as the he will group up, report them, get the blocked and then revert all the changes. This in turn will never allow any user to make appropriate change due his mob patrolling of my edits.

Example:

Please see the BAPS main article summary introduction. The user has written it so poorly and it is highly misleading. I asked some people if they understand from the summary whether or not they under that BAPS was founded when Shastriji Maharaj (Tried to delete my talk page discussion please see [75]), the founder BAPS left the original group, swaminarayan sampraday due to a different interpretation. Nothing clearly states that for anyone looking for a high level summary. This admin has asked me not to edit that part but I have presented ten books stating the fact that the founder of BAPS left the original group (Vadtal Diocese of the swaminarayan sampraday) to create this organization forming a schism but since I have stopped editing that page, this user has manipulated it to what they want people to read and then accuse me of all sort of nonsense. Look at this misleading information from the BAPS article: “BAPS was established as a formal organization on 5 June 1907 by Shastriji Maharaj. It was formed on the founder's doctrinal stand that Swaminarayan had promised to remain manifest in the person of Akshar, a term used to describe his chief devotee and Swaminarayan's abode”

That introduction above is so poorly written and unclear with so much bias. There is nothing that shows that this is a separate break off group from the original group when the founder left to preach a new philosophy. Why are they allowed to present this on a large scale article as the header when the primary sources state that Shastri left the sampraday after forming a new innovation even though he himself didn’t think that? It is unbelievable that no one picks up on this assumed ownership of this article. This like government agencies that remove things on wikipedia so that the public does not find out about it. I feel that Kapil patel has such a strong conflict of interest by potentially being a member of this group because there is no way to argue that BAPS was formed after Shastri was expelled from the original group. I feel like it is this users duty to this group and the guru to do their part as an adherent to make sure that BAPS is only positively portrayed and since BAPS is a faction or split, he has make readers that BAPS is the right mode of worship and is the only correct group of Swaminarayan had when instead he himself created the Swaminarayan Sampraday and 100 years later a guy came along and interpretated something else. He does not even let readers know about the original group by linking it in the verbiage and let them know how this is a breakaway group. I presented my case here [76] and [77] only to have the same group of users keep ganging up against all of the cited materials to weasel out of having this information clarified. I asked bbb23 who was watching the discussion based on personal requests from kapil.xerox to chime in and tell me if I am going about things the right way and as an admin, he excluded himself when he could have clarified and do what’s best for Wikipedia. You can see all my sources and proof that the introduction is terrible and gives no explanation how the group was actually formed. The users wants to try to show this is the correct doctrine and this group is theologically right even though it is a break off group and the founder was formally expelled from the parent group and manipulate and contrive ways to force people to think a certain type of way. That is extremely wrong.

Where I am wrong, I have learned to admit and I proved it with my post above when actual consensus was reached. I have changed my working to use logic and reason and show remorse over past mistakes. I ask you to realize that this is not about you and your relationship with BAPS. That’s all I asked. I was blocked for awhile so I was not able to reach out to more users to give their input. That is why I opened up some older discussion but you’re lying here that I am conspiring about your editing patterns.

Further, according to Conflict of interest and advocacy, "While both critics and adherents of a movement may be drawn to an article on that movement, both should realize that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy in favor of or in opposition to a movement. Editors should not attempt to turn the Wikipedia article on a new religious movement into a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but attempt to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement. The same applies to articles on groups and individuals opposing new religious movements." The user contentiously edits any controversy and criticism regard BAPS and Pramukh Swami and even the talk pages. He ‘coincidentally’ always works together with the same group of users to agree on removing all cited work that may being "negative" press to this sect of Hinduism particularly BAPS. Also according to Biographies of founders: "In general, the private life of a person is not described in detail in Wikipedia, because it is often considered not very relevant. However founders of new religious movements may be believed by followers to be saints, gurus, prophets etc or claim to be so implicitly or explicitly. In these cases, depending on the beliefs of the followers and the claims by the founder, the private life of the founder can be very relevant and described in more detail in Wikpedia." After explaining this in specific detail on the BAPS talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABAPS, not one response came from these users. Instead, he quietly reported me rather than engage in any discussion. He feels that he knows certain administrators that blocked me in the past and once, I get blocked, it will be simple to revert all the changes.

My reference point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the clopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors. If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard.

Example: Recently, BAPS head and four other Sadhus were accused of raping former sadhus and over a dozen news sources broke the story. When I attempted to add this information to the BAPS Wikipedia article under controversy, I was systematically attacked, blocked and removed without any further discussion about explosive allegation. The users even attempted to say "For the issue about "relatively unknown" I would assert, that is relative. Outside of the state of Gujarat, Pramukh Swami is relatively unknown. To say it another way, for Enlgish wikipedia users, Pramukh Swami is relatively unknown. Thus, WP:BLPCRIME should apply. That argument, of course, is open to debate, and I would like to see what other editors think about this. So, if a consensus of editors does feel that this should go into the article, then I think we need to make sure that it is correct before putting it up. Would love to hear what others think. A user actually said that this guru is not known outside of Indian and that makes no sense as it states on Pramukh swami's wiki page about global growth and BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha is a charitable Non-governmental organization affiliated with the United Nations and the BAPS charities page shows world wide involvement. The organization is recognized as a Non-Governmental Organization that holds General Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. From BAPS.ORG Under Pramukh Swami Maharaj’s leadership, BAPS has rapidly grown into a global Hindu organization and has witnessed a significant expansion in many measurable parameters. Currently, BAPS encompasses over one million devotees, more than 900 sadhus, 3,300 mandirs and congregations, over 7,200 weekly assemblies, and a host of humanitarian and charitable activities. Futhermore BAPS responded to the allegations: On 22 Oct 2013, BAPS responded to the allegations made by two former sadhus, Sanjay Shah (Priyadarshandas) and Rakesh Bhavsar (Nishkamsevadas), that the claims made against Pramukh Swami and his sadhus are utterly baseless and false. http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2013/Message-for-All-5347.aspx The Indian Express reported that “Pramukh Swami, who heads BAPS, and four other top swamis, of alleged assault dating back to the 1970s when they were students at the gurukul.” This was a settled discussion on the talk page of the accused guru and this editor tried to delete the talk page discussion and another one on the Shastriji Maharaj talk page and got caught doing it.

I strongly ask that anyone reading this article please read the root cause of this recent dispute. It is on the talk page of user:bbb23's talk page. Here is the link [78] I have copied and pasted some points here.

Swamiblue (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Holy wall of text batman. Can you give us the tl;dr version please? --Tarage (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read that either. Given the lack of responses I imagine few people did. Please summarize your concerns concisely. HighInBC 12:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR User has failed to reach consensus on multiple articles for proposed edits on various grounds. User does not seem to understand that it is fairly common for editors to be involved in topically similar articles, and so believes that there is a cabal of editors conspiring to block their edits. Something something, a few paragraphs about COI with no actual evidence. Something something content dispute. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh noes. The Cabal has returned. We must protect everyone from everything. Katie^talk 15:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, there is no cabal. HighInBC 15:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what they want you to think. --Jayron32 15:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I once posted a 400-word OP comment on this noticeboard, and was told it was TLDR. This OP is six times longer. And now a bunch of users have posted here commenting more on the colossal size of the OP comment. I'm half-tempted to read through the whole mess and figure out exactly what is going on. Will I get a prize?

Unfortunately in Japan now it's coming up on 2 a.m. Tomorrow is a holiday so I can stay up as late as I want, but ... I really don't want to. I think the cake is probably a lie.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

("cake" refers to the theoretical prize for reading through the entire behemoth, by the way. Just to clear that up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC))

@Swamiblue:, Give me one sentence - what specific action are you asking administrators to take here? Editors who have similar interests are going to edit articles in similar topics, that is a thing that happens - I assure you, we've seen it before. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Editor seems to be shotgunning to add content and rather than have any actual discussion, just moves on at the slightest questioning. Of the links, the first looks like trying to add gossip such a translator not being invited to a book launch on a book article, and unsourced sexual abuse allegations. We have an editor reverting to restore your comment (I think, so I don't see an issue), Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha has an RFC that seems fair. And I can't even see where you edited the other talk pages. My suggestion is to do more than flood a page a page dump of links and instead to actual work the content into the articles sourcing it properly. There's opposition to the first two things you suggest, an RFC to get more views on the 3rd one and I don't even see what your issues are with the last two. If your complaint is that there is a pro-BAPS factions here, well I'd say no one will care or believe that absent a lot more evidence since we are talking about at least a half dozen different editors across a number of topics. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And if the OP doesn't bother to respond, I say we close this and ask the editor on their talk page to provide a coherent, succulent description of their concerns. A number of these discussions go back to September and before so I don't think anyone will act on those. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be succulent, and long as it is succinct. HighInBC 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have warned User:Swamiblue multiple times to stop making personal attacks. They have been doing this for several years now. I even asked the user if they have strong evidence that I have a COI then they can please take it to the Administrator's Noticeboard but to stop making further attacks. Even in this ANI, the user has ignored all of this and is again accusing me that I am a "ring leader", stating that my name is "Kapil Patel" (a dangerous attempt at doxxing), attacking other editors including an admin User:Bbb23. I feel these are sufficient reasons to ban the user. Do I create a new ANI for this? The user was even told by an admin [79] that if they were to continue any of their past activity they would be indefinitely blocked without second notice. Can admins act on this because I feel this is getting way out of hand now. The user was also handed out discretionary sanctions in the past.[80] Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn

Earlier today, an editor sought sanctions (both at WP:AN and WP:COIN) against Alansohn for WP:COI violations, including his actual name and place of residence as evidence. These edits were oversighted on WP:OUTING grounds, so I can't give any useful diffs, and at any rate, the substance of the COI allegations is totally irrelevant to what I'm addressing. Over at COIN, someone else provided a link to an old revision of the page where Alansohn had publicly posted on-wiki his actual name and place of residence. After going from the old revision to the page's current revision, I responded to this comment by noting that the original content was still present on the current version (Note that Alansohn has since removed the content, as is his right, so you won't find it there anymore) and quoting the OUTING policy. In response, I was told that I was aiding and abetting an attempt to violate policy, my actions were claimed to be "trying to find an excuse to legitimize these efforts to disclose personal information", and told that I was being offensive. No evidence whatsoever (as a matter of fact, I'm not trying to aid or abet anything; I'm merely trying to see that policy be followed and not misused), and WP:WIAPA considers "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" to be personal attacks. As WP:NPA notes that "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor", I removed said derogatory comments and left Alansohn a warning about NPA, only to see Alansohn re-post the same content.

Given Alansohn's extensive history of NPA/civility blocks, he's clearly aware of project policies regarding personal attacks. It's time to enforce this policy firmly against someone who edit-wars to restore evidence-free accusations about personal behavior on the part of an uninvolved admin who's merely addressing whether the situation were the policy violation it was alleged to be. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

PS, in order to leave the required "you're at ANI" notice, I went to Alansohn's talk and observed both an additional unsupported attack on me and related hostility directed toward Jytdog, the individual who had provided the link that I mention up above. This is firmly the type of action prohibited by WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and plenty of ancillary standards. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, AlanSohn's already posted his name and his city and state on his Wikipedia page and at least one project space in Wikipedia, for example, he states his state of residence on his userpage , and he's also stated | his real name and city as well as state of residence on Wikiproject:NewJersey so someone else posting the same thing isn't outing, so if the content was removed because it stated his real name and city and state it needs to be put back, not to mention the fact that he already edits as his real name on Wiki (as evidenced above ). KoshVorlon 11:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint here. Nyttend dug up a 10 year old edit to a WikiProject introduction page, where Alansohn identified himself, and Alansohn was irked. I think I would be, too. I don't think his annoyance ranks as a personal attack. In a diff you provided, he stated, "That an admin would be trying to find an excuse to legitimize these efforts to disclose personal information is patently offensive." Saying that your action was offensive to him is an opinion, not an attack. And as far as his extensive block log, his last block was seven years ago, in April 2009, so I'm not sure of its relevance to this complaint. This complaint is just prolonging this case of faux outing. The COI discussion is occuring on the COIN board and I don't think this exchange of remarks ranks high as an incident that requires admin intervention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blatantly not outing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• This COI notice seems like an attempt to attack User:Alansohn, not for the actual coi, but for other behavior. It's pretty much the way Alansohn himself operates, attacking other editors with unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS, so maybe turnabout's fair play, to some extent. In fact, he exhibits that behavior right here, accusing user:Wasickta of outing him when he posted his personal information (and then, typically for a.s. removed it, with a dishonest caption that it had been "inadvertently added", lol). But, is the encyclopedia really harmed by an officeholder making constructive edits to his jurisdiction? I'm more concerned by his other behavior, such as being uncivil, asserting ownership, bullying, use of ethnic pejoratives etc. The community has tolerated all this, so what's a little conflict of interest between "friends"? Jacona (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not commenting on the specifics of this case, but I want to point out that it illustrates the reality that there are significant differences in perceptions among experienced editors about what exactly does or does not constitute outing in the context of COI investigations. I've been told more times than I care to count that I must be a clueless imbecile for saying what I just said, because anyone with clue knows exactly what is and what is not outing – but I am convinced that, in fact, the community really hasn't figured out what our consensus actually is. I've been planning a community RfC intended to delineate exactly that consensus for some time, and I will be getting it underway at WT:Harassment soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish I disagree and strongly. The claim of OUTING was hasty and once it was shown that Alansohn had self-disclosed their real world identity eleven years ago in this dif and that up until yesterday it was prominently displayed at WikiProject New Jersey any concern about OUTING vanished. There was confusion in managing the OUTING concern; there is no ambiguity in how the OUTING policy actually applied here once the facts were clear. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

????? Did you read what I actually said? I said nothing about this particular claim of outing. You are disagreeing with me about something that I never said. Unless you are either opposed to an RfC to determine community consensus, or you agree with those who have said that I am a clueless imbecile! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my response was off-base. Stricken. As am I. You are very far from a clueless imbecile and the proposed changes to OUTING will help clarify the issues more broadly when dealing with COI here. Again, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Looking forward to that RfC. I also tend to agree that, in at least a few cases, it can be questionable whether for instance a comment which has since been deleted at the request of the editor involved might still qualify for indication of self-outing after the deletion. Simply saying what state you might be from is irrelevant to outing of a name, as many people use user names which could conceivably be those of multiple real life people. Establishing clear and unambiguous parameters for outing, how to deal with inadvertent self-outing and any subsequent comments based on that earlier self-outing, and so on might be very beneficial. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note - there is now a thread at AN here about Wasickta's behavior and I think it would be best to deal with that there, and with Alansohn's behavior here. They did react emotionally and negatively to the inept COI accusations. That is unfortunate but human. I recommend that they be warned (again) to stay cool and that this thread be closed. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this is likely the best course. It can be quite flustering to find personal information where you don't expect it. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Just want to add that I completely understand Nyttend's point in bringing this case, but as this specific incident is so messy, it is a mushy foundation from which to launch an examination of Alansohn's behavior more broadly. Based on their pattern of behavior I reckon there will be future incidents that provide a much cleaner springboard to do that, and this case will be one piece of the evidence (a weaker piece, but a piece) in that case. Alansohn really should take what folks are saying here to heart or that day will come. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: I don't know Alansohn or give two shits about him, but I do take note that your "extensive history" is 7 years old.--v/r - TP 20:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• TParis, you don't know Alansohn? Wow--you should go block him and get acquainted. Or get into a content conflict, which is a painful kind of thing. Nyttend, I love you like, well, a brother, but you know there was no personal attack in those comments, and not in that comment aimed at Jytdog either. Nice, no--PA, also no. I don't rightly understand: are y'all feuding?

  Either way, the COI discussion is a storm in a teacup, there is nothing to it. And I agree with Tryptofish that what seems so obvious in some cases isn't really always obvious in others. But that's another matter.

  In the meantime I urge the next admin strongly to close this as unactionable; again, Nyttend, I have great respect for you, but I think in this case you're wrong. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record

This is to let you know that I have issued a formal warning to Py0alb in respect of his general conduct on the site, specifically a blatant personal attack. I am not requesting any administrative action at present as I would like to see if the warning has the desired effect first, but I would like it noted that I have felt it necessary to take this action. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this in relation to something else here? I don't care but a little context would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think its in relation to this unprovoked personal attack here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=718296213&oldid=708946288

to which I responded with support for HappyWaldo in a constructive manner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=next&oldid=718296213

This followed the makings of an edit-war, in which Black Jack refused to follow BRD protocol and left aggressive and threatening edit summaries, see here for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket&diff=718298414&oldid=718281906

Happy Waldo then attempted to diffuse the situation by opening discussions on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718345167&oldid=718244463

He also requested my input on my talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Py0alb&diff=718416782&oldid=702399308

So I commented in a constructive manner here, addressing Jack's refusal to follow protocl: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718424370&oldid=718422779

and tried to move the discussion onto more constructive ground here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cricket&diff=718424979&oldid=718424370

In response to this, BlackJack then posted an unwarranted and unprovoked "warning" on my talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Py0alb&diff=718566617&oldid=718416782

and I replied patiently and constructively on his talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlackJack&diff=718573957&oldid=718040219

For the record, the motivation behind this attack on myself may be related to a previous disagreement over the validity of the term "major cricket", in which BlackJack lost the argument as the consensus view agreed with my post. I will let you judge for yourself whether that is or is not relevant.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket_(2nd_nomination) and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Major_cricket

Also note that this isn't the first time he has started an ANI against myself (the previous time he repeatedly begged for me to be blocked, but admin sensibly ignored this), see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=701294918 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Py0alb (talk • contribs) 10:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is also very much worth noting that at no point has BlackJack alerted me to the presence of this ANI against me despite the big "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" sign above. For an editor of his experience, it would be surprising if this was an accidental oversight.

Py0alb (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@BlackJack: You are the one who made the personal attack, not Py0alb. And you need to try to explain your edit-warring at Cricket, because the boomerang may be about to hit someone. Katie^talk 16:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow--if this is the edit that started all of this, yeah, that's a pretty blatant personal attack on the part of BlackJack. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment by Drmies at their talk page

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

---

@Drmies:, with whom I have had a dispute with regarding Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, is harassing me at their talk page. Their content removal at Cheryl Fernandez-Versini didn't appear constructive to me, and the edit summaries seemed quite vague. I restored the removed content and left a {{Uw-delete1}} on their talk page, and left me a sarcastic reponse ("Linguist, thank you for the nice template.") I removed that, but they reverted me, telling me to "buzz off". I understand that I may have made a mistake with the reverting of the content removal and the warning, but I will NOT tolerate being harassed or attacked on Wikipedia. Linguist 111^talk 19:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: First off, Drmies is an admin and on ArbCom, so any accusations you make are taken seriously. Second off, don't template the regulars. It's your fault that you didn't take it up with him yourself. TJH2018talk 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough on the article, you disagree and revert. This wasn't a mistake yet, just a dispute. Your first mistake, you template a regular breaking WP:DTTR. Then you delete content from Drmies on their own user page in violation of WP:USERTALK. You claim you're being harassed by them when it's YOU going to THEIR talk page. That's like claiming to be harassed by someone every fucking time you ring their doorbell. QUIT GOING TO HIS FUCKING HOUSE. You're the cause of your own problems. Then you create this thread which is going to WP:BOOMERANG hard on your ass. Best advice: run far away from this issue and never speak of it again. (This was the toned down version, the original version would've easily earned me a WP:NPA block).--v/r - TP 19:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, admin and all that has nothing to do with it. User thinks they can impose etiquette on me when they can't find the proper words to apologize for a silly template, that's all. Close with no admin (boomerang) action needed, please. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:JaberEl-Hour

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

---

I am reporting User:JaberEl-Hour for violating NPA, CIVIL, and various other things. He is a Syrian Politician, and has resorted to calling editors concerned about his COI "western scum".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JaberEl-Hour https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.Fred&diff=prev&oldid=716499214

ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is someone clearly WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog approached them in the most polite way possible about their COI, and immediately was called "Western Scum" among other things. This is not an editor we really need here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's enough of that. NOTHERE blocked. Katie^talk 20:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the translations for his user page amount to "Crush the dreaded West, which prevents us from establishing our state democracy. One Arab Nation, with an eternal message" ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I blanked his (offensive) user page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Removal of speedy deletion templates

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

---

The article False Pro has been speedy deleted twice before. I tagged it for deletion for not asserting it's importance. The creator, User:Nathan398 removed the speedy deletion template once, and I warned them. They did it again, and since he was already warned for doing so in the past by another editor, I gave them a final warning. Alas they're still removing the template, even after having used the talk page per its instructions. Opencooper (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And then they removed this thread. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I reported the user to AIV for repeated removal of the CSD tag after being warned not to do so and repeated creation of the page. The removal of this thread, and their other edits makes me think they need a time out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User's been blocked by Widr now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Here [81]. Almost certainly a sock of blocked users 96.81.86.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.218.78.89 (talk · contribs · 24.218.78.89 WHOIS) Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And again. GAB^Hello! 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd say they are block evading, as the other IP's have already been blocked for that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked him, but keep WP:DOLT in mind with regards to the article.--v/r - TP 20:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the first thing they did was revert a specific users edits it seems clear this is a sock puppet. Even if the legal threat is withdrawn the block should stand. HighInBC 21:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Violation of WP:ELNEVER

This concerns the article R2-45. The article links directly to a page on tonyortega.org that embeds 3 minutes 42 seconds of a recording of a lecture by L. Ron. Hubbard, most certainly copyrighted by the Church of Scientology, most certainly not released for reproduction by Ortega. This linkage by Wikipedia appears to be a clear violation of WP:ELNEVER.

(I do not know whether the recording is a spoof, a fraud, or satire. I bring this query on the presumption and representation within R2-45 that it is an authentic excerpt.)

I have brought this issue up twice before, here and here. In the first complaint, one commenter stated the link was a clear violation ELNEVER. Others went on to other issues and nothing was decided. In the second complaint, a non-admin IP closed the issue stating it was a “content dispute”, here.

Someone may say that bringing the issue three times is a case of WP:IDHT. Truly, I did not hear an answer to the question: Is this a violation of ELNEVER -- or not?

Many Wikipedia articles state that the Church of Scientology is highly litigious. Given that fact, I do not understand why Wikipedia is bating the Church on this issue. Why would any Wikipedia editor be willing to violate Wikipedia policy on this specific point and risk litigation with an organization that is said to be highly litigious?

Please, let's have a clear statement of decision that addresses WP:ELNEVER in this case and be done with it. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC BY-SA or open-source content. is part of the section that says limited use may be made of copyrighted material. Is the copyright holder asserting that they will have significant damage from this link? Or are you simply asserting that since the copyright holder is "litigious" that they will sue Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The copyright holder is not asserting anything that I know, and I do not represent the Church of Scientology. If anyone, I represent Wikipedia, and I understand this link to be a violation of WP:ELNEVER:

• For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

1. Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure the clip does not fall under a fair use claim? Keep in mind that the law allows for a much wider latitude for fair use than our local fair use policies. HighInBC 23:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this here for the third time in three weeks when you've been told that we do not resolve content issues here? You are not going to get an admin (to) review this question and decide it one way or another. You were advised to start an RFC on the subject, which is where this discussion belongs. It doesn't matter that an administrator didn't close that discussion because it was closed correctly. You are indeed suffering from a severe case of IDHT. Start an RFC, let the community decide how to handle this link, and be done with it. Katie^talk 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Answer the the question of "fair use": Wiki's standards of fair use are indeed narrow. We do not permit the copying of (150 w/minute x 3.7 minutes = ) 555 words of text into a Wikipedia page. We do not permit linking to a 3.7 minute Youtube unauthorized except from Hollywood production. We make our own fair use determinations -- does this comply?
• Answering directly the question of "content issue": A link is not content, and ELNEVER is not a content issue, as I understand it. None of the copyright pages suggest that copyright is a content issue, except in the most literal sense. That is why I bring it up again. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

My point is that our fair use standards don't apply to external links. We don't hold external links to our standards of licensing, we just expect them to be legal. This means sites we link to can be far more liberal within the limits of the law than we choose to be. I don't see an issue with this. HighInBC 00:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. HighInBC 00:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Userspace subpages issue

The page title of User:Legacypac/Godsygaming is a personal attack against me, alleging gaming (almost a WP:CSD#G10). I asked the user to rename the page and request the title be deleted. They created another page with the same content, User:Legacypac/Godsymoves, but left the other page untouched. The pages are polemic. Now, they've started linking User:Legacypac/Godsymoves in discussions: Special:Diff/718608736 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White River Valley Museum. While the content of the userspace subpages only serves to draw attention to work the community has had to undertake because of content they've moved from userspaces other than their own that was not suitable for the mainspace, it is mischaracterizing and invokes my username. I would request User:Legacypac/Godsygaming be deleted as a personal attack and duplicate of User:Legacypac/Godsymoves. I would also request User:Legacypac/Godsymoves be renamed preferably to something neutral, but at the least, something without my username in it. Lastly, I'd request Legacypac be warned about and asked to stop linking to polemic pages/material in discussions. If Legacypac has a problem with my actions, there are appropriate forums to raise the matter.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks to me that Legacypac is getting ready to initiate the dispute resolution process which is a valid exemption to WP:POLEMIC: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." As this was created May 2nd, I think we're still well within "tiemly".--v/r - TP 23:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: My issue is not with the existence of the content, rather the inappropriate name and the linking to it in inappropriate places.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've thrown a warning on their talk page.--v/r - TP 23:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The linking of DR-preparation notes in AfDs for example was not OK. Can those links/references to these pages be removed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac is going through some turmoil, being slow to adjust to others' concerns, but he is adjusting, and this page appears productive in finding a compromise between him and others who have butted heads against him (including me). It is not overly negative, but factual and current. It is OK while current, but should be removed (or modified to reflect the hopeful resolution) in time.

User:Legacypac/Godsymoves - OK

User:Legacypac/Godsygaming - same as above, perfect copy, but provocatively titled, please delete it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think an evidence page should not be titled in such a way as to assume bad faith. "Godsygaming" is needlessly provocative. I agree with SmokeyJoe that it should be deleted. As a duplicate of another more neutrally titled page it serves no purpose other than to disparage its subject, in other words a WP:CSD#G10. Unless I hear some compelling reason why it is not I think it should be deleted as such. More specifically it should be history merged to User:Legacypac/Godsymoves to retain its history. HighInBC 00:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Touchy stuff like that is best kept on the PC where only the user can see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by the user Oatitonimly

This editor seems to be determined to replace all mentions of Turkish-Armenian War to "Turkish invasion of Armenia." There is currently a requested move discussion started by them but they are trying to replace all mentions of Turkish American War in various articles with their preferred POV in the meantime.([82], [83],[84],[85] [86][87][88][89]) Worst of all they even tried to alter the posts of other editors on a talk page.

Tiptoethrutheminefield warned them about this but they seem to be continuing with deleting/replacing the mentions of Turkish-Armenian War to their preferred version as shown in above diffs. There is also evidence of canvassing, [90],[91] where they seem to be notifying the editors they think would support their proposed move. I think Oatitonimly is not here to build an encylopedia but rather to push an agenda, and I think this type of revisionism should not be tolerated. Darwinian Ape ^talk 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't replace all, just some where I thought it necessary. There are multiple redirect links for a reason. Not all those edits are adding the alternate name, some I was removing things that simply didn't belong.[92][93] The problem was Esc reverted many edits I made without even looking at them, he even restored vandalism that I reverted.[94]

He warned me the name were red links so I changed them to make them work. I notified Marshal because he had proposed a previous renaming discussion for the article similar to this, so I wanted to alert him. Oatitonimly (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)