Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit) / Articles by Shevonsilva

DRN suggested we come here to resolve this dispute, please see the case filed there for information on the issue Here. Would just like the discussion to be closed before a breadth of new articles is created by the same user. We may need to pursue WP:Bundle, depending on the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calibre(unit), and creating all these new articles will only complicate the matter, requests to the editor to discontinue creation of these types of articles have gone ignored. Involved editors include Shevonsilva, Johnuniq, and PamD. War wizard90 (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• To get an idea of the issue, see here (permalink). The close at DRN suggested WP:BUNDLE, that is, nominate all the pages for deletion in a single request. I would like a lower-tension discussion of the issues first where the inclusionist/deletionist model need not be considered. It is disappointing that another twenty articles have been created in the last 24 hours, and a discussion here might strongly suggest that further articles should not be created until the fate of the existing articles is decided. The difficulty is that the source is not sufficiently reliable to be relied on for obscure information which is not verifiable in other sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (after e/c): Shevonsilva (talk · contribs) is creating a large number of stubs for units of measurement, sourced to one single book in which some other editors have little faith. These include many obscure and obsolete measures, some not included in the Oxford English Dictionary. The structure of each article is that the unit is "defined" in terms of other units, unlinked, some of which are themselves of complicated and variable definition, and then a "Conversions" section which gives conversions to other imperial and metric units to a smetimes implausible number of decimal places. As a recent example, see Sarpler (before later edits by other editors). The definition is "26/9 Wey", converted to "330.21524536 kg", while Wey (unit) shows a complex situation. The same editor has added content to existing articles in an unhelpful way - see addition to "Hogshead" (presumably "Madeira" was intended?).

S/he does not comply with normal talk page convention of signing at end of comment, despite requests - is this a WP:CIR issue if they cannot understand the convention and its usefulness? (See confusing comments added at an AfD).

This mass of dic-def stubs is not improving the encyclopedia, and the editor is unwilling to pause and discuss them. PamD 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would also note that WP is not supposed to be an adventitious collection of trivia. Looking at these stubs, it doesn't strike me that they meet the notability criteria for inclusion. WP does not need to include reams of information sourced to a single text; at a minimum, even granting that these units are notable for our purposes, we'd want to cite several independent sources. Even if the one source is not dubious, it's not best practice to cite information from it that appears nowhere else. Moreover, one book's assertions about tens of (ambiguous) archaic units and their (supposed) values does not make material for tens of encyclopedia articles.

However, the book itself seems to be a reputable academic publication, so perhaps the information would be more at home in another article, such as this one. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The author is talented ("Manager of Recycling"), but does not appear to have credentials that would make the book sufficiently reliable to introduce novel facts about units. Shevonsilva has hinted that there is more in the book, but so far it appears that each article is based solely on an entry in a table that might say, for example, that 1 wrap is 240 feet—there is no indication of where or when the unit was used, and no underlying source. I guess we will just have to make a group AfD, but this ANI discussion needs to persuade Shevonsilva to stop creating stubs until a consensus is established. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Point taken – I was just assuming that Springer wouldn't publish total crackpottery (I don't think it would), but of course that doesn't imply that the book is correct. Taking a closer look at it, there are a few odd assertions, such as the cubic imperial units being the "chief" measures of volume in the UK, together with a table that has cubic rods and register tons, the latter of which I'd never even heard of, and there are plenty of grammatical and typographical errors. Seems Springer needs to do a better job of copy-editing and fact-checking their publications. Archon 2488 (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I have just encountered this editor's contributions. At least some are simply junk: quires is an ungrammatical duplicate of quire. Shevon Silva's native language does not appear to be English, but I wonder about this Cardarelli, who first edited some book with MJ Shields, then had a later version of the same book translated by MJ Shields. Entries like Dash (unit) ‎(Total text: "Dash was a US unit of capacity used in food recipes.") do not fill me with confidence that the author has a clue what he is talking about. A dash of rum improves lots of things, but this does not make it a unit in any coherent sense. And as for Springer (assuming this is the right one!) "In 2014, it was revealed that Springer had published 16 fake papers in its journals that had been computer-generated using SCIgen. Springer subsequently removed all the papers from these journals. IEEE had also done the same thing by removing more than 100 fake papers from its conference proceedings." Amazon offers this "encyclopedia" for 153 pounds. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Propose block of Shevonsilva (talk · contribs) until the user agrees to stop making edits based on the problematic source before a consensus is formed. In the last few hours, the user has created eleven more junk articles (Bale (unit) + Breakfast cup + Bundle (unit) + Coffee measure + Coffee spoon (unit) + Dash (unit) + Quires + Salt spoon (unit) + Teacupful + Water glassful + Wine glassful). Johnuniq (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  I have struck my block proposal as it is not needed now that Black Kite has warned Shevonsilva to stop creating articles until a consensus forms concerning the pages created so far. I intend to examine the pages in a day or two and will nominate those I think are unhelpful for deletion in a single WP:AFD. That is apparently the best way to get a discussion on what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I have investigated several of these cases that have come to AFD and find that they all seem grounded in some genuine usage of the unit in question. For example, the dash is criticised above but that unit already appears in our existing coverage of cooking weights and measures - see pinch (cooking), for example. The work in question has a reputable publisher and, while that doesn't make it perfect, it seems more authoritative than the nay-sayers who don't seem to research the topics thoroughly themselves or consider alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE and WP:BITE. This just seems to be a matter of ordinary content creation and our editing policy is quite explicit - that we should encourage half-baked contributions so that something might be made of them. Andrew D. (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you opposing the block? The indentation of your comment does not make this totally clear. In any case, the issue is not really that someone has made one or two poorly worded articles on notable topics which might reasonably be improved with effort from others; it's that someone who is perhaps simply not competent is creating a large number of poor-quality stubs of questionable notability, based on one reference. Far from being a nay-sayer, I was initially perhaps too kind to the book – on closer inspection it seems to have serious problems, as Johnuniq and Imaginatiorium have pointed out. It's also possible that the editor in question is simply not here with the goal of improving WP, because for some reason they seem hell-bent on making as many articles as possible based on the content of one book, to the point of seeming like a SPA.

But as I said above, even if all these facts check out, it doesn't follow that it's appropriate for each little factoid to have its own stub article. There's no reason why such information couldn't be amalgamated into a single article, which would likely be more useful and accessible to readers. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I oppose a block of this editor as this would be quite contrary to our principles of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:BOLD and WP:IMPERFECT. The topics in question might well benefit from further development and editing but this is normal for new work. The devil is in the details in such cases. For example, Archon 2488 says above that he has never heard of register tons and seems to condemn the Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures because of this. This seems quite mistaken because register tons are quite well-documented here and elsewhere and he may read more about the concept at pages such as gross register tonnage and ton#Units of volume. This example further demonstrates that source in question is reasonably respectable and is more authoritative than its critics. Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: what I was criticising was the assertion that units like "register tons" (and cubic rods, etc) were normal units of capacity in the UK. I've lived in the UK my whole life and I've never heard of a "register ton". I'm sure the unit exists (or existed), but it's obscure, at least nowadays. I would never claim to be an expert on any system of units except perhaps SI, and I am not claiming to be more authoritative than the author of this book.

The book has a number of odd statements like that, as well as being written in less-than-perfect English. But regardless, my original point still stands: I don't see why lots of arcane obsolete units each need their own article, when each of these articles consists of a dictionary-like entry combined with a dubious conversion into metric units. It's poor-quality material which doesn't obviously add anything to the encyclopedia. Far better to find out which of those units can be reliably traced to reliable, primary historical sources, and put their definitions in an article on old measurement units, rather than scattering them all over the place in a plethora of stubs that nobody is going to read. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have lived most of my life in the UK too and instantly recognise the register ton as a unit in shipping. It's quite familar and not at all obscure in my opinion but I was also surprised that editors had difficulty recognising the usage of calibre too. The cubic rod is more antiquated but it is easy to find 19th century sources which show that it was commonly used in quantity surveying contexts, e.g. The Arithmetician's Guide; House of Lords Session Paper. As editors seem to have trouble with these measures then this seems all the more reason that Wikipedia should cover them. Blocking the editor who has gone to the trouble of helping to fill in these gaps seems quite wrong. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment If we are going to import Cardarelli's labours into Wikipedia en masse (should we really be comfortable with the wholesale appropriation of such an exceptional work?), we should at least get his name right. Every reference I've checked is of the same form: "Cardarelli, François Cradarelli (2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. London: Springer. p. nn. ISBN 978-1-4471-1122-1." (my emphasis). @Shevonsilva: please could you correct those references? NebY (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@NebY: The word, Cardarelli, is now correctly applied in the articles. Shevonsilva (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shevonsilva: no, "Cradarelli" still appears in 61 articles[1] and in every case that I have checked, it originated with you.

In checking, I find that you have included conversion factors with absurd numbers of digits, such as Point (unit):

"1 point = 0.006944444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 inch feet

"1 point = 0.0001763888888888888888888888888888888888888888889 m"

and the repetitive presentation of a unit used for weighing wool eventually rendering it in micrograms:

"1 sarpler ≡ 2 sacks

"1 sarpler ≡ 26/9 Wey

"1 sarpler ≡ 330.21524536 kg"

Such absurdities are not acceptable in this encyclopedia. NebY (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is half dicdef and half just non-notable units of measure. I AfD'd one of the articles, and came across this. Today, I came across Cord-foot. I think there should be a discussion on whether or not they are notable, and act accordingly, and in the meantime, mini-stubs should stop being created. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 02:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply from Shevon Silva

@Johnuniq: @PamD: @War wizard90: I have repeatedly explained to refer the full source to Johnuniq. He did refer only a sample chapter of the book and based on that he asked me for references where all the references and bibligrophy list was available in the end of the book, and I have provided him on-line references too to provide the reliability of the article. He ignored any of my suggestions and continue to challenge the source without proper grounds as I could provide many other sources too.

• Without trying (being unable to do so only by accessing sample chapters) to access reference list and bibliography list provided in the end of the book, Johnuniq is incorrectly stating the fact that secondary sources are not available. (I have already provided some on-line sources too traditionally)

• Again little faith issue is a personnel idea of User PamD. He has to access secondary sources provided by the book. He believed every unit must be included in the Oxford English Dictionary which is not the case for many units as Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary for English words and it does not cover all the English words and foreign words.In the article Sarpler, it is clearly mentioned sarpler was a UK weight for wool, and in the article way, it is clearly mentioned the unit was also used as weight for wool and it was exactly equals to 252 pounds which can be exactly converted to "330.21524536 kg".With regarding article Hogshead, I have corrected the error in the word Madeira. This addition is helpful as it is defined another additional usage of hogshead.

I will comply with the talk page conventions in future.

I have already discussed these dic-def issues in my talk page and in some relevant talk pages in relevant articles. I explained I have started the articles and additionally I have given unit conversions and some additional informations too. In future, other authors can improve the newly created pages by including further sources. This will be a contribution for Wikipedia.

Johnuniq must buy the book and go through the whole book including the reference list and the bibliography list.

Pam must understand Oxford English Dictionary is not the only source available for words.

War wizard90 must understand to suggest a way to increase the articles rather than deleting new articles without understanding the future contribution that can be provided.Shevon Silva 01:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Four days ago I asked here what the book says about two example units, such as how and when the units were used, and what references for the units were given. There was no response, but elsewhere you provided two links (nuclearglossary.com for "wrap" and ceramicsandminerals.com for "Rod (Br volume)"). However, they are just websites about something else, which also list every claim about units that their authors could find—they are not sufficiently reliable to verify novel information. When modern sources aggregate facts, there is a danger that they simply echo each other. What is needed is a reference to a scholarly source with footnotes, or at least a reference to pre-1920s writing that mentions the units (how would anyone now know how many feet there are in a wrap unless a contemporary account is available?). What is needed is a commitment to stop creating new articles until the issue has been thoroughly discussed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Now I provided a response. And, you mentioned those units were not mentioned elsewhere. I provided some on-line references to prove the fact that these units were mentioned other places too. For reliable references, please visit bibliography list in the book. I never mentioned these units were used in pre-1920s. I mentioned these units were/have been used. For further references, please pursue the bibliography list of the book. Shevonsilva (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand your reply. My comment (just above, starting "Four days ago") contains the two "on-line references" so I do not know why you mentioned them, and I explained why the websites are not reliable sources. From your replies I infer that you have not seen anything about rod or wrap apart from the conversion factors—there is no indication of when or where those meanings applied, nor the context. There are no known references verifying the information apart from a one-line entry in a table providing a conversion factor. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:: I was trying to provide the fact that these units are mentioned in other places as you told me that these units are not mentioned in anywhere else. You are doubting a reliable source. For your knowledge, I will provide some other articles where "François Cardarelli. Encyclopedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures" is used as a reference.

• Obsolete_Polish_units_of_measurement

• German_obsolete_units_of_measurement

• Pound_(mass)

• Unit_of_length — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Before criticizing any book, the book must be thoroughly investigated and all the references in the bibliography list must be thoroughly pursued. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Unit wrap is found in page 348 in another reliable source is "Zupko, Ronald Edward (1985). A Dictionary of Weights and Measures for the British Isles 168. American Philosophical Society". Wikipeadia articles must be thoroughly investigated before commenting on them. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It cannot be exactly converted to any value in kilograms, because to do so would be anachronistic. The avoirdupois pound today is precisely defined by the kilogram because of an agreement which dates from the 1950s (and going back slightly further, the imperial and US customary units had been variously defined in terms of metric units since the 19th century). But you cannot retroactively apply this to a unit which existed before the metric system did; at most, you can give an approximate equivalent. The measurement technologies that existed centuries ago could not have defined a standard to that level of precision, so it is misleading and meaningless to convert it to 11 significant figures.

It's not anyone's responsibility to buy the book in order to check your sources.

I don't think PamD was arguing that the OED is the ultimate authority on units, but rather that it would be an example of what notability might mean. Generally, for something to be the subject of an article rather than information included in another article, it must be notable in its own right, which includes being well-documented in several independent reputable sources.

It's not the main goal of WP to increase the number of articles for the sake of doing so; the objective is to provide a large quantity of high-quality relevant information, and making a new stub for every obscure fact under the sun will not accomplish that. You cannot create lots of stubs and expect that other people will eventually turn them into something useful. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Archon 2488:

I never mentioned the conversion was applied before 1950s. These units were still used until very recently according the source provided (i.e. after 1950s). In that case, it is permitted to translate to an exact value as these units were used until recently and they were defined exactly based on pounds or yards.

Before arguing about the validity of a book, user must thoroughly check the sources provided in the book.

With regarding notability, again please refer the bibliography list provided by the book.

one goal of WP is to provide extensive information. I am initiating that.

Shevonsilva (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note I have warned Shevensilva to stop creating these articles until a consensus forms on what to do with them. I hope blocking will not be necessary. Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: What to do with them is to improve the article if it is necessary. I am too trying to provide more extensive information on the article and provide references to other articles too.Shevonsilva (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite:: Despite your warning, on 26 December 2014, Shevonsilva created another seven articles and three redirects:

    Articles: Cord-foot + Deal (unit) + House cord + Rick (unit) + Stack (unit) + Standard (unit) + UK and US counting units

    Redirects: Split deal + Perfect ream + Whole deal

    Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I draw particular attention to the UK and US counting units article created by Shevonsilva - it includes such definitions as "1 Hat trick = 3/2 Pair" and "1 Thousand = 125/18 Gross". I find it hard to credit that any remotely credible source would express numeric values in such a way, and would like Shevonsilva to clarify whether these bizarre constructions are actually in the source, or are her own definitions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the sample chapter on page 34 of the PDF (numbered 53 in the PDF). The only information given is in a table titled "UK and US dimensionless counting units". In one column is "Hat trick (nest)" with the weight 1, and in another column is "Pair (brace, yoke)" with "≡ 3/2" on the same row as the former unit's "1". What a mess. Similar for thousand/gross, in the same table. In case you're interested, the table helpfully tells us that a thousand ≡ 1000/3 hat tricks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre. The table in the source seems designed to present information in the most confusing manner possible, and Shevonsilva has cherry-picked it for additional obscurity. A simple statement that 'Pair = 2' and 'hat trick = 3' would have been sufficient - except that the term 'hat trick' is only ever used in relation to sporting scores as far as I'm aware (the Online Etymology Dictionary seems to concur: [2]). The table omits such context entirely, making it worse than a collection of dictionary definitions. To put it bluntly, it is junk, published by Springer or not. And certainly not an appropriate source to cherry-pick for the dog's breakfast that is presented at UK and US counting units. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nor is it an exercise in numeric obscurantism - accordingly, we have no need to use the Encyclopaedia as a source, and we certainly don't need to cherry-pick it to confuse our readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump is the one engaging in cherry-picking here. The sample chapter shows that the Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures is a huge compendium and that the great bulk of this content is accurate and uncontroversial. The work has a standard form of presentation for conversion factors showing the ratio of the different units of different sizes. So, for example, there are various nautical measures of length such as the nautical mile, the cable length and the fathom. This generally seems quite reasonable but it's possible to nitpick particular combinations, because, for example, there's not a round number of fathoms in a nautical mile. That's all we're seeing in the case of the dimensionless units - the application of a standard form of presentation to cases for which it is not especially well suited.

• I think there is a serious issue here: you are almost alone, but you persist with the claim that this is a reliable source. I am looking at the sample Chapter (Section?) 3 here [3]. I assert that Table 3-262 (on page 136 of the PDF) is almost total gibberish, and I have plenty of sources to back this up. Do you dispute this? Imaginatorium (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Such tabular information does need some narrative to make good sense of it. For example, I have investigated the case of deal which is mentioned above and find that there's plenty more to say about it - see Tree Lore, for example. The current draft page we have is just a crude start which needs a lot more work but it is our editing policy to work in this way - starting with a crude, rough-hewn first draft and then shaping, trimming and polishing it into a better form. This is the standard work of content creation and the platoon of would-be inspectors should not rush to criticize immediately. We have a big backlog of reviews wanted for hundreds of articles in places such as Wikipedia:Good article nominations or Template talk:Did you know. They are the best place to challenge our content, not WP:ANI.

Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A simple question. Was it me that decided that it was appropriate to define a 'hat-trick' as '3/2 pair', or was it Shevonsilva? If that wasn't cherry-picking for obscurity, it was incompetence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that we can't rely on the book. The bibliography looks impressive (I found the first page of it here) but no part at all of the text or the conversions in the sample chapter 3 is tied to any particular references. Anyone who's taken an interest in ancient units of measurement or simply tried to translate an old text will be disturbed by the simplicity of the tables in that chapter and a cursory check shows Cardarelli either neglects or is just unaware of the variations in units over time and place (for example, in the values for weights of wool in the UK). The book might sometimes provide a starting point for further research but it is clearly not reliable. NebY (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Update

Since 24 December 2014 when Black Kite and Lesser Cartographies asked him to stop creating stubs, he's created half a dozen more. I gave him a final warning 06:16, 26 December 2014. He then created another similar stub 14 min later. I blocked him for two days. He just put in an unblock request. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Shevon is female. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

{{gender|Shevonsilva}} = he NE Ent 10:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have updated my summary of all the articles in my sandbox (permalink). That page shows the content of the 82 articles. When I feel up to it, I intend working out which I think should be deleted, and nominate them all in one batch. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Holy moly, that's a lot. Thanks for gathering that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This list shows clearly what the problem is. Why for, instance, does WP need a separate article for a fraction of a unit? There are other miscellaneous errors in the (dubious) conversions, e.g. it is stated that the sarpler is equivalent to "160 stone", which is then converted to the specious "330.21524536 kg". Leaving aside the issue of specious precision, that is not even the correct conversion factor; converting 160 stones (i.e. a long ton) to kilograms gives a value of about 1016 kg. I am not sure whether this was an error in the book or in Shevonsilva's transcription of it. The article on the point has ridiculous recurring decimals. Apparently a magnum is equivalent to "2 reputed quarts" – it seems that a "reputed" quart is a sixth of an imperial gallon, but we are not given any explanation of this, or a link to another article. Indeed, there are few links to any other articles in any of these stubs, and I don't believe they are linked to by other articles, which further decreases their usefulness.

This ties in with another problem mentioned above: the lack of contextual information, or even awareness of context, to the extent of providing totally specious conversions such as from hat tricks to grosses or thousands. In practice, nobody uses "hat trick" as a unit of anything; it refers to something very specific, i.e. a single player scoring three goals (or points, or taking three wickets, etc.) in the course of a single match. Treating it like a dimensionless unit of counting and converting it is utterly meaningless. To say it again, you can't get much encyclopedic information from a table of conversion factors presented without context. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment User:Johnuniq above seems to be on the right track. I think it should be noted that I also recently batch-nominated a couple of very similar of these articles for deletion... this is getting a bit out of hand; time for community to officially decide whether or not we should include them. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 00:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Viewfinder indefinite topic ban from Jacob Barnett

I am here to request an indefinite topic ban of Viewfinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from editing Jacob Barnett, Talk:Jacob Barnett, and discussions directly connected with the subject (for example, future AfDs). Viewfinder has been persistently defending media claims that Barnett expanded and/or disproved Einstein's theory of relativity. For example, the TIME article "12-year old expands Einstein's theory of relativity" says "Could Einstein’s Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he’s got the solutions to prove it." They then go on to present Tremaine as having "confirmed he’s on the right track to coming up with something completely new." Almost all of the sources we reference say at least that Barnett "expanded Einstein's theory", which present that "expanded theory" as though it were a real thing. The Daily Mail, for instance, states that physicists "confirmed the authenticity of Jake's theory". Multiple sources have said that he is "about to disprove Einstein", that he is "disproving the Big Bang", etc. Here are just a few examples of this in the media:

• Indystar "The numbers that keep him from snoozing are the same that led him to develop his own theory of physics -- an original work that proposed a "new expanded theory of relativity" and takes what Einstein developed even further."
• Time "12-year old expands Einstein's theory of relativity" and "Could Einstein’s Theory of Relativity be a few mathematical equations away from being disproved? Jacob Barnett of Hamilton County, Ind., who is just weeks shy of his 13th birthday, thinks so. And, he’s got the solutions to prove it."
• CTV News "he built a series of mathematical models that expanded Einstein's field of relativity, which was described by a Princeton University professor as ground-breaking."
• The Blaze "he’s working on an expanded version of [Einstein]’s theory of relativity. So far, the signs are good. Professors are astounded. So what else does a boy genius with vast brilliance do in his free time? Disprove the big bang, of course."
• Yahoo News "12-year-old boy has new theory of relativity" and "he's about to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity."
• Huffington Post: "Barnett believes he can prove Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity wrong, TIME reports. Astrophysics professor Scott Tremaine of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton confirms he's onto something. Another project in the works: disproving the Big Bang Theory."
• MacLean's: "Diagnosed with severe autism as a child, Barnett is now 15 and one of the world’s most promising physicists"

References

Now, all of this is obvious nonsense, as has been pointed out to User:Viewfinder by myself User:David Eppstein, User:Agricola44. However, perversely User:Viewfinder defends such statements in the media, and even denies that there is any obvious falsehood in statements of this kind. In several places at Talk:Jacob Barnett, as well as in a discussion at WP:FRINGE/N, where I address such material substantively and directly. Here are some of the points raised by User:Viewfinder:

• "You seem to be suggesting that his mother may have been serially lying to reporters. They're surely not all that gullible and her claims are likely to be verifiable." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Barnett_(2nd_nomination)
• "Surely if Mrs Barnett were as dishonest as some contributors (notably SB and DE) are implying, then that would have been exposed long ago and the media would have stopped publicizing her." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Barnett_(2nd_nomination)
• "You are challenging the reliability not just of the subject's mother, but of many internationally known publications, with plenty of fact checking resources. All of them are wrong and you are right? Strong stuff." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Barnett_(2nd_nomination)
• "For the most part, I still maintain that he did think he had expanded relativity..." Talk:Jacob Barnett
• "Whether or not the material in question is fringe, it was written in publications that are certainly not fringe." WP:FRINGE/N
• "So if I am denying relativity, then so were the entire international broadsheet media. In the words of a contributor to the DRV, this is nonsense. Utter nonsense." User talk:Sławomir Biały
• "I see no 'obvious falsehood'." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Barnett_(2nd_nomination)
• "To dismiss 'all' these sources as 'patently false' and 'blatantly unreliable pieces of journalistic sensationalism', is, pardon me, ridiculous." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Barnett_(2nd_nomination)
• "Of course there is truth to some of the coverage... On the subjects of expanding relativity and the misrepresentation by the subject's mother, I think that the truth is debatable. For the most part, I still maintain that he did think he had expanded relativity, that he may have done so, and that he may have thought he was on the way to disproving Big Bang." Talk:Jacob Barnett

The most recent episode concerns the addition of a link to an obvious piece of promotional flap from the article. This link clearly failed Wikipedia's external link policy: a promotional link for "The Spark", maintained by the subject's mother, falsely presented as the subject's official website. Viewfinder then reverted the removal of this link, vigorously maintaining on the talk page that it had encyclopedic value, even though its actual purpose is obvious to anyone visiting the site. Viewfinder wrote the following at the AfD, suggesting probable WP:SOAPBOX reasons for this: "I happen to agree with Charlotte Moore who writes in the Spectator that '(Kristine) is an admirable woman, Jacob is a remarkable boy and their story deserves to be told'" and added: "I feel this way because I see SB refer to mother's cynical attempt to flog her new book in the media and BBB use the uncivil expression FFS, then refer to 'extremely poor' science journalism as 'normal', which I see as nasty attacks on an individual and a profession respectively. Loads of people attempt to use journalists to sell their work, and very few succeed. Despite the scientific flaws, that the mother has succeeded must surely count for something. Perhaps these journalists admire her determination to publicize her case of autistic child prodigy and frankly I agree with them. Go, Kristine. Go."

I have submitted that there are definite WP:COMPETENCE issues involved in Viewfinder's behavior. I have observed that he or she seems to be absolutely unable to read what is actually written in sources, guidelines, etc., and doggedly continues to defend the outlandish claims made in the media, despite many editors' warnings. I have raised the issue of what sources actually say twice at Talk:Jacob Barnett, and once at WP:FRINGE/N, but Viewfinder has refused to engage on any specifics. So it seems that there is a dichotomy here, either between WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE: either this editor is acting in good faith but functionally illiterate, or he or she is wilfully acting disruptively. (In any event, I have been warned that it violates WP:NPA to point out one of these things, and WP:AGF to point out the other. So apparently there is no way to call out an editor for being a net negative to the project, wasting the time of otherwise productive editors. Is AGF really a life sentence?)

In either case, it seems to me that the community's patience has been thoroughly exhausted. As User:Agricola44 points out "We're all going batty." I motion that we should all be allowed to get on with more productive things, by issuing a topic ban of User:Viewfinder for topics related to Jacob Barnett. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. As nominator. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the third application to get me topic banned for my contributions to the talk page at Jacob Barnett. The last attempt was dismissed as being "not an ANI issue" and this attempt appears to be no different. I have only made one recent edit to the article itself, and when the nominator reverted that edit, I did not pursue the article any further. Yes, I have been having my say on the talk page, defending the international media against what the nominator calls "obvious falsehoods", but it that really grounds for a ban? Is there really evidence, as the nominator claims, that I must be either incompetent (he has called me an "incompetent idiot") or acting in bad faith? Viewfinder (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that the discussion that you linked to is not ANI, and the comment that you misquoted actually says as much, that "This [forum] is not ANI", I think this very comment nicely illustrates the kind of persistent incompetence that we all have to deal with. Or perhaps you are deliberately misrepresenting things. But in the end, it doesn't really matter why you do this sort of nonsense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Also, I wish to draw attention to Viewfinder's accusations that those who disagree with him are part of a "cabal": here, here, here, and most recently here, in violation of a bright line against any such further insinuations that I set here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not use the word "cabal" in the most recent example, even it appears on the nominator's user page. I referred to a tightly-knit deletion team, that has come together to go to considerable lengths to get the article deleted. I opposed these attempts, and so far they have been unsuccessful, but it is not hard to see that the nominator wants to deny me any say in likely future attempts. If I am so incompetent, why must he go to so much length to get me topic banned? Viewfinder (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Just looking through some of the discussions between Sławomir Biały and Viewfinder, I notice that of the two, Sławomir Biały seems to be behaving rather badly. Repeated insults is no way to persuade anyone and may actually result in sanctions against you. I also notice that Viewfinder seems to be overly willing to respond to all the insults and the arguing. Not sure why he thinks that will accomplish anything other than warming the air. If Sławomir Biały were to restrain himself and argue only specific article content and Viewfinder only responded to arguments regarding specific article content, they might find their differences a little more manageable. – JBarta (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this bullshit has being going on forever. Viewfinder has been systematically WP:IDHT, and enough truly is enough. Do productive editors really need to put up with civil trolls who can stick their fingers in their ears, going "Lalalalala", despite endless entreaties from multiple parties? Surely not. Productive editors can only take so much of this. So, I'm looking for something a little more useful than "let's all just get along mmkay." That's been tried. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd also note that Viewfinder has made precisely one edit to the article in the last four months and rarely edits the article in general (at least looking back a year or so)... though of late the arguing is rather continuous. A lot of this seems like arguing just for the sake of arguing. The cure for that is quite simply... stop arguing. – JBarta (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, lots of trolling indeed has occurred on that discussion page. He even brazenly continues the trolling here: see his two posts immediately above. Shall I hat or revert future trolling, then? Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was actually thinking that you are continuously arguing with someone who doesn't actually edit the article (or at least edits very little). If you restrained yourself to just discussing edits he actually makes, you two would have much less to argue about. – JBarta (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but the latest episode regards a revert that Viewfinder made to the article, concerning a link that obviously did not belong there. Viewfinder seems intent on questioning any change to the article, no matter how obvious, on what seems to be purely idealogical grounds (see, for instance, Talk:Jacob Barnett#Ordering of first paragraph). Moreover, it still seems that there is real work to be done there, but positively no meaningful discussion can proceed whilst Viewfinder continually derails things on the talk page. See, for instance, his most recent "proposal" to implicitly validate the relativity denialists, added at the end of a section where it did not belong (which followed a long discussion over a month ago already rejecting a similar such proposal). He does this out of an idealogical commitment to the subject, and that creates an extremely unpleasant editing environment for the good-faith editors there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I am mystified when I visit User:Sławomir Biały, seeing a notice stating the editor is "semi-retired", and then check their edit history. That says they haven't edited since August 6, 2013, but here they are, happily editing away. Can anyone explain why their edits aren't being logged in their contribution list? I am in general agreement with Sławomir Biały on the content issues, but their repeated hostility and personal attacks against Viewfinder are beyond the pale. I urge Sławomir Biały to cease the insults immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If I got this right, it appears that Slawekb is signing their posts as Sławomir Biały (and user Slawekb redirects to Sławomir Biały ). --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, User:Slawekb is a declared alternate account of User:Sławomir Biały. NE Ent 02:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

So, the insulting editor who declares they are "semi-retired" has made 500 edits since October, and their signature makes it exceedingly difficult for average editors to view their history. Seems odd to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a very clear link in a large and obvious text box near the top my user page. I find the characterization that I have made it "exceedingly difficult for average editors to view [my] history" rather astonishing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały, this should really be discussed at the article's talk page, but we'll look at it here as an example of consensus building instead of arguing (hopefully). That "latest episode" was an attempt to re-add (after you removed) "jacobbarnett.com" to the infobox on Jacob Barnett. A perfectly reasonable inclusion per Infobox person. That his mother is trying to sell a book about him on his web site is no big deal... lots of people promote their books on their web site and I know of no wiki-guidelines prohibiting that. The fact his mother is involved is perfectly reasonable as Jacob Barnett is still a kid. That said, could you support the inclusion if it were in External links instead? – JBarta (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I also don't wish to get into content discussions here, but the link clearly did not belong in the infobox (see {{infobox person}} and WP:ELOFFICIAL). Viewfinder continued to defend the presence of the link in the article, when the first paragraph on talk should have made it quite clear that the link was unacceptable. Halfway through the discussion, Viewfinder asks "Are you really claiming that the disputed link gives no additional, substantive information about Jacob?" Well, yes. That's obvious to anyone visiting that website. So why ask the question in the first place? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Part of consensus building is compromise. When two editors see things differently, and WP guidelines aren't egregiously offended either way, sometimes a little give and take goes a long way. With that in mind, could you now support the inclusion if it were in External links instead? – JBarta (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose the matter on the discussion page of the article. I'm taking a time out from the whole affair, although I suspect there will not be much consensus for that either, given the responses regarding the original placement of the link. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking for a bit of compromise on this small point from you here now. Will you give it? – JBarta (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that the arguments made on the discussion page by User:Agricola44, User:Tkuvho, and User:David Eppstein are soundly rooted in the WP:ELNO guideline and WP:NOT policy, and fairly conclusively demonstrate that the link does not belong even in the External links section. So, no: I don't think that, as a rule, guidelines, policy, and pretty clear consensus should be disregarded in the interests of appeasement. Having said that, I have removed myself from the fray there, and I will not object if things were hypothetically to go the other way. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

SB, you freely quote WP policy, NOT and ELNO, but what about all the insults? Will you stop these? 166.173.184.59 (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I am on a self-imposed interaction ban with Viewfinder. I do not see the future need to make any other further observations regarding Viewfinder's competence to edit Wikipedia, since there now seem to be enough outside uninvolved editors watching Talk:Jacob Barnett to guard against further disruption there. I expect that Viewfinder will also refrain from directly confronting me, O mysterious "anonymous" interlocutor. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like to thank JBarta and Cullen328 for their measured replies here. Now that there are some outside observers at the Jacob Barnett, I think I will self-impose an interaction ban with Viewfinder. I do not think any productive discussion can be got from him, and the stress level of dealing with him is not good for me (or anyone else). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Is SB going to stop insulting other editors? 166.173.62.223 (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. First, let me say I've never been big on this sort of administrative intrusion into an editor's activity, but it seems we all have our limits, and second, it would be good to keep in mind that we're not here to debate SB's conduct or editing habits. Those aspects can be discussed elsewhere. That said, the issue in my mind is not actually whether Viewfinder has made very many recent edits on the article. This episode actually flared because of a single edit regarding the mother's website that promotes her book and her speaking tours. Rather, the problem is the continual pushing on the talk page for cleansing the article of objectionable content (which, incidentally and unfortunately, is the only content that is supported by WP:RS). Why exactly is this a problem if Viewfinder is not actually editing the article? Two reasons: (1) Definite consensus has already been established regarding the nonsensical nature of the claims, the sources, the mother's website, and so forth and so on. (2) The talk page requires the ongoing attention of many of us in order that the pushed proposals do not become accepted via acclamation. This has become a real nuisance and it is not likely, in my opinion, that any real common ground can be found at this point because the gap is too wide. In particular, on one hand is a group of editors, many of whom (e.g. myself, SB, David Eppstein) have some familiarity with research physics, that insists on a conventional bio consisting of those facts that are supported by independent sources. On the other is Viewfinder, who insists on a romanticized article that paints a heartwarming picture of an autistic boy who rose above his doctor's expectations to take the world of research physics by storm. Unfortunately, the latter version is patently false according to the conventions of the research profession, i.e. that Jacob has never published a paper on besting Einstein, disproving the Big Bang, or any other subject, nor has he been tipped for a Nobel prize, etc, etc. The very nature of the sources, which are comprised entirely of idiotic claims of non-existent research accomplishments by Jacob, his handlers, and media commentators, make this article an inherently bad reflection on Jacob, but likewise the only reflection we can actually report here. As I said, I don't know if this is the administrative answer or not. But I do know that we could all certainly spend our time better elsewhere. Agricola44 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC).

This is not fair and contains factual errors. I have consistently supported the inclusion of links to articles published by the scientific community that state that Barnett did not disprove or significantly expand relativity or done anything else to merit a Nobel Prize. Agricola, who is part of the tightly knit group that appears to me to want to own the article, is calling for me to be topic banned for using the talk page to defend widespread international media coverage that he calls "idiotic". (That is his POV; no RS has been provided that uses that kind of language.) In any case, earlier today I stated on the talk page that I had set out my take on this matter and would not repeat it. Apart from defending myself rather than ignoring the personal attacks, sorry about that, I cannot see what I have done wrong. Has not the real cause of the problem been the persistent personal attacks by SB, which created a nasty atmosphere that undermined consensus building? SB has implied above that he will discontinue these. At the last AfD and DRV debates, I forcefully opposed the arguments for deletion put forward by SB and Agricola, arguments which were rejected by admin. It appears to me to be very likely that they want me topic banned before their next attempt to nominate the article for deletion. Viewfinder (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not the article talk page, so I apologize for responding to this, but it is a good example of what the "consensus position" is having to deal with. First, it is clear (or should be) that claims of multiple, enormous accomplishments in research physics (besting Einstein, disproving relativity, etc, as detailed above, in the AfD, in the talk page) are ipso facto nonsense, especially in light of the fact that there is no vetted research work published, much less submitted on these topics. The claims, and there are many of them, are what I called "idiotic". Conversely, if one carefully reads what Viewfinder just wrote, you see that s/he does not accept this. Viewfinder wants a source that discredits these. Nevermind the lack of basic familiarity of science, this position represents a lack of awareness of where the burden of proof lies. It lies with those making the claims, i.e. Jacob, his handlers, and the complicit media. There is no proof because there are no papers! Viewfinder persists in this bating and there seems to be no way of getting him/her to do a little homework to see how senseless his/her position is. Rather, View wants to romanticize the article because s/he has an admitted affinity to the subject, which is clearly clouding any objective consideration. This is making life difficult for many of us (the accused cabal) that are not willing to see this article made into a non-encyclopedic feel-good and completely false story. I will address anything further back at the talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC).

It seems that we are not about to agree about the media coverage, and as you say, this is not the place to debate it. But is that a good enough reason to get me topic banned? Viewfinder (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support for both Viewfinder and Sławomir Biały being indefinite topic-banned from the Jacob Barnett article. And, given that editors can be blocked for behavior that is less disruptive than the insults made by Sławomir Biały, I favor Sławomir Biały being blocked for several days from editing Wikipedia. 107.19.108.233 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous IP: while we are here, perhaps this would be a good time for you to clarify your relationship to I'm your Grandma. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), DoctorTerrella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), LadyLeodia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the other two anonymous IPs earlier in this thread. You seem to be stalking me from your sockpuppet accounts. (Any checkusers around?) Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are me. Serial accounts, no overlap. Why? Several reasons, short fuses of admins, but mostly I find you intimidating. I have tried to contribute constructively. You have insulted me. So I moved on to a new identity. 166.173.184.59 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This explanation doesn't add up. User:I'm your Grandma apparently "retired" as the result of being blocked for disruption at Global warming, an article I have never even edited. This was well after I had any contact with him or her at Talk:Fourier transform, where I responded rather curtly to some incoherent criticisms concerning that article. The same editor then apparently stalked me to WT:WPM concerning the featured article Euclidean algorithm and subsequently wrecked that article, requiring an RfC and the valiant efforts of a number of distinguished mathematical editors, myself included, to sort the mess out. Now User:LadyLeodia has suddenly appeared as a "new" editor at Fourier transform, followed me to ANI, and has introduced still more socks (obvious provocateurs) onto the scene. It's hard to see how that is a legitimate use of alternative accounts. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

SB, you are a smart guy, very smart. Your contributions to WP would be much more effective if you stopped insulting people. As for me, I will not, any further, explain my identity. I am, now, an anonymous IP. Good bye, 166.173.63.171 (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Abuse by TheRedPenOfDoom of fellow editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop&diff=639643141&oldid=639642361

A bit too ad hominem/abusive for WP, I think. Happy holidays. Bramble window (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weeks-long vandalism to multiple articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following account and IP addresses are one person; all IP addresses are based in New Jersey and involve similar editing patterns and goals (sorted chronologically by editing):

• 149.151.85.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:C:4180:51C:44A3:C7BC:EA33:3048 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 149.151.138.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• RRRR8888 (talk · contribs) (blocked indef by 5 albert square)
• 2601:C:4180:51C:61E5:23AD:3BDC:99E4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked for 1 month for block evasion)
• 2601:C:4180:51C:F15E:14CE:31DC:BC85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:C:4180:51C:28A1:5A90:1B6E:DD4C (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:C:4180:51C:D9EE:DAB7:DC01:3739 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:C:4180:51C:749B:7160:7609:860F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Over the last few weeks, this person has been repeatedly inserting false and unsourced information into a multitude of articles. Their IP addresses change day-to-day and they appear to edit from two locations, so blocks have proven unaffective. Placement of misinformation tends to be on The Game Awards (now protected), American Ninja Warrior, Hess Corporation, and other game show, band, and TV-related articles. Blatant misinformation include small things like incorrectly changing band dates and the number of shows in a TV series.

Any attempts to warn and contact have been unsuccessful (with the exception being at Talk:The_Game_Awards, including a personal attack). User doesn't seem to let up despite warnings, blocks, reversions, and multiple attempts to contact from multiple editors.

Any possible action at this point? Not sure how plausible a range block would be; protecting targeted articles has been done with The Game Awards, but I'm not too fond of protected other articles yet. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Range blocked for a month (2601:c:4180:51c::/64). One good edit in last two months compared to overall edits. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to deal with a persistent long-term vandal

A British IP user, sometimes known as the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Martial arts vandal or Burton-on-Trent vandal, is known for extensive edit warring against changes to push articles into MOS compliance, genre warring, content blanking, and generally disruptive behavior on martial arts-related articles, especially Hong Kong action films. He's been active for perhaps six years now, and I've tracked his IP numbers back a few years in the linked LTA report. Among other requests for administrative action, a range bock and community ban were floated. Both were declined, and the LTA report was written instead. Over the next few months, I tracked and reported him to AIV, and he was blocked fairly quickly.

In the last report, however, Ronhjones declined to block him. In a discussion on his talk page, we discussed alternatives, such as permanent semi-protection of affected pages. This works, but it doesn't do anything to stop the vandal's disruption from spreading to new articles. As a compulsive edit warrior, it's kind of pointless to revert the vandal unless he's been blocked, as he will sometimes edit war for hours to keep his changes. While I and the involved vandal fighters obviously welcome any semi-protection or alternative proposals for dealing with him, I think the vandal still needs to be blocked to limit his disruption. However, if we're not going to block him, then I think we need to find consensus for an alternative proposal, hopefully before he can disrupt too many more articles.

Rather than re-submit to AIV, I've taken the issue here, so that a discussion can happen. Besides the Whac-A-Mole at AIV, two other possible solutions were offered a while ago: contacting his ISP directly (abuse@sky.com) and an edit filter. Recently, discussion of both took place recently on my talk page after the vandal blanked conversations about his disruptive edits. Would an edit filter be a good idea? I've tried to incorporate enough data in the LTA report that an edit filter would be possible. I'm not familiar with the edit filter itself, but I do have some recollection of regular expressions from back in college.

Oh, the current IP is: 90.197.99.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Contacting his ISP is pointless. An edit-filter would be the way to go. You've got IP ranges, the articles are generally in two categories ... that should be enough. You'll need to include as much detail as possible at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Knowing the ISP is Sky - there's definitely no point - Sky will not be interested at all. It's probably a Sky customer, who gets broadband as a package with their Sky TV network - they are not going to stop him paying his £30-£45 a month fee. For the same reason a rangeblock is impracticable - it will hit many thousands of people. An edit filter is an interesting idea, I'm not sure if his edits are similar enough to trip a filter, but it would be worth a trial. There's very little else that can identify him once he starts from a new IP address - the UK system cannot geolocate the user by the IP address, all the IP address as UK wide. There's ten pages he seems to like, semi-protected for now - maybe we need a combination of semi and filter... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I guess there's no point in contacting Sky. Maybe I can put together an edit filter proposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

E-cig editors

See earlier ANI thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:TheNorlo

This user has referred to me as an Idiot here and a moron here. And than refers to me as a troll here. This makes it clear that he and User:FergusM1970 are referring to me [5].

This user is a WP:SPA who only edits material regarding electronic cigarettes [6]. They were previously warned about edit warring here and were at ANI for incivility here [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the WP:SPA I can assure you that I am not affiliated with the industry. As for the idiot and moron accusation. I'm sorry Doc, please accept my apologies. I still think that you might be a troll though has your action seems to suggest. TheNorlo (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not just these two episodes, its the general "anyone who disagrees with me is a moron" attitude and incivility that characterizes TheNorlo's interactions with editors he disagrees with. And there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue in not addressing sources, but simply engaging in debate that consisists of merely repeating statements of unsupported opinion as if they were uncontestable fact and telling other editors that their opinion doesn't matter.

• "Right now, the bottom line is that we need to remove the statement that says that there is no evidence.... Which is false, period.TheNorlo (talk) 6:01 pm, 17 December 2014, last Wednesday (5 days ago) (UTC−8)

It is false! The studies did find some evidence... Not strong evidence, but evidence nonetheless. See hereTheNorlo (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The new RfC is WP:DISRUPT and I suspect that his is intentional. Doc James opens up the conversation by saying that a Google search shows that health articles comprises the vast majority of articles, this is an outright lie. This entire RfC is based on a lie."

These are my basis to say that Doc James is lying, now I agree that it isn't very scientific but on the other hand, Doc James claims about google results showing that " If one does a google search one finds that by far the large majority of the articles discuss the potential health implications primarily were not more scientific. I have posted this in the appropriate section of the talk page.

I just did a quick google search in the news section using "Electronic cigarette" in the search fiels, and then complied the numbers of articles of the first 9 pages of google and I divided them in 3 main categories (Health, Regulation and Usage) plus one category (other), this is what I found:

• Health: 23 Articles
• Regulations: 22 Articles
• Usage: 10 Articles
• Other: 25 ArticlesTheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• In a discussion, mischaracterizing my position with a straw man argument: "Let me get this straight.... Formerly 98 oppose the proposal because he dislikes the title of this talk section? If that's the case, we have to disregard his opposition."
• "You did not provide any other reason for opposing the proposition other than the fact that you were offended that I called the Grana review "nonsense" (I should of said garbage) how exactly did I mis-characterized your position? Opposing substance because you don't like the form shows a blatant lack of arguments and makes your opinion irrelevant."

Formerly 98 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Why have you never countered my "straw man argument"? because it wasn't one. My arguments were valid as you guys can see here.TheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

More content disagreements. AlbinoFerret 19:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No. This is not about a content disagreement. You are being disingenuous. This could result in a WP:BOOMERANG block/ban for supporting disruption. I think admins want to cut down on this kind of behavior. User:AlbinoFerret is one of the problem e-cig editors. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we know QuackGuru, anyone who does not hate e-cigs with a passion, is a problem editor.TheNorlo (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru No, this section against TheNorlo is over a content dispute QG. If you have some proof that it isnt, provide it. Secondly, that section you keep linking to was closed long ago with a finding of no consensus, and you forget there is a long section on your disruptive edits to go along with the dozens of others you have been blocked/banned over time. There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month, but if you continue to bring it up, I will start a section here about your slanderous comments against me. AlbinoFerret 08:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to User:AlbinoFerret.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&curid=42877829&diff=637458479&oldid=637418234 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "remove pure health related claims from a page on regulation". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637569001&oldid=637568901 User:AlbinoFerret wrote "the specific adverse effects are medical claims and not legal in nature". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=637681446&oldid=637668408 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638529647&oldid=638526634 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638536969 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=638606344 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638827743&oldid=638815324 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=638907061&oldid=638608587 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=prev&oldid=639381769 Did User:AlbinoFerret delete relevant text from Safety of electronic cigarettes page that he also deleted from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page? Most of the paragraph is not found in any other article. So why is it being deleted when the text has nothing to do with legal status; it's just shoehorning in health claims.? Isn't the Safety of electronic cigarettes page about health claims? This is what User:AlbinoFerret deleted from another page where he stated the text does not belong.[8][9] If User:AlbinoFerret believed the text he deleted the Safety of electronic cigarettes page belongs in another article then why is he not moving it to another article? These are the facts. User:TheNorlo is a saint compared to User:AlbinoFerret. User:AlbinoFerret wrote "There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month." How about now? QuackGuru (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Why are you posting the details of your content dispute with AlbinoFerret at ANI? In a section about the conduct of TheNorlo?Levelledout (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC) This is a behavior problem claiming the text is not relevant to the Safety of electronic cigarettes page when it was deleted the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page. User:AlbinoFerret claimed in his post above "There was no finding of a problem with my edits even after a month." I was responding to his comment. I provided evidence his edits are a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC) An editor deleting text from an article because for instance they didn't think it was relevant and you disagreeing with them is definitely not a behaviour problem, it is the definition of a content dispute.Levelledout (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC) User:AlbinoFerret claimed it was not relevant for the Safety of electronic cigarettes page but then he deleted a lot of the same text from the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page. The text is relevant but he claims it should go in another article. But he did not add the text to another article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks for proving all of this is a content dispute. You have taken summaries from other daughter pages of Electronic cigarette and placed them on Safety of electronic cigarette. Thats the process of creating a WP:POVFORK. If the information is relevant, it should be on the daughter page with its topic. You just dont seem to get it. The material is off topic for that page. AlbinoFerret 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC) You deleted this. The emerging phenomenon of e-cigarettes has raised concerns among the health community, pharmaceutical industry, health regulators and state governments.[17] A 2014 review stated that e-cigarette regulation should be given consideration because of the "reported" adverse health effects.[27] For example, they found that "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that e-cigarettes contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, such as nitrosamines and diethylene glycol, which have potentially harmful effects on humans."[27] Additionally, a WHO report in 2009 cautioned that the "safety of e-cigarettes is not confirmed, and e-cigarettes are not an appropriate tool for smoking cessation therapy."[27] "In a nutshell, the WHO report shows that e-cigarettes and similar devices pose threats to public health," said Douglas Bettcher, director of WHO's prevention of noncommunicable diseases.[41] In several countries advertising for e-cigarettes has been monetarily restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive.[35] Almost all of the text is specifically about safety. You have not made a reasonable argument to delete the text about safety. Rather than delete it you could of tweaked the text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbinoFerret claims it was a WP:POVFORK to include health claims in an article about safety but the WP:POVFORK was adding it to the Legal status of electronic cigarettes because the paragraph has nothing to do with legal status. The material is off topic for the Legal status of electronic cigarettes page but on topic for the Safety of electronic cigarettes page. QuackGuru (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

More content disputes, keep posting them QG, it only proves my point that this is all about content. AlbinoFerret 14:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo

TheNorlo, the problem is exactly illustrated both in my comments above and in your comments here.

• You refer to a WP:RS as "Garbage" because you do not like the contents.
• You mischaracterize the basis of my opposition to your proposal and suggest that my opinion as an editor can be disregarded
• You attack the character of other editors and call them Idiots, morons and "liars" , thus violating the talk page rules calling for an assumption of good faith.
• You use unnecessarily opinionated and provocative language that seems intended to galvanize your allies and provoke your opponents rather than support consensus building

On the basis of the Above, I propose a 6 month Topic Ban for Electronic Cigarettes be applied to TheNorlo. His behavior is combative and consistently fails to conform to either the letter or spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and the rules described at WP:TALK. His edit history consists of a total of 576 edits, of which 474 are are E-cigarette related articles or talk pages, and the vast majority of the remainder are on the talk pages of other editors focused nearly exclusively on these articles. He is clearly here to WP:ADVOCATE and not to build an encyclopedia, as shown by a consistent failure to seek consensus, by his incivility to those he disagrees with, and by his laser-like focus on a single article and topic. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Just to be sure it gets counted, I'll make the obvious statement that I support my own proposal. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You guys are really on a seek and destroy mission to get rid of every editor that you disagree with it's incredible, is AlbinoFerret next? I never referred to WP:RS as garbage, I referred the study of Grana/Glantz as garbage 2 completely different things, a study that is frustratingly over cited by the article, +- 25 citations, that is almost twice as the other WP:RS source that we have there.

Please explain to me how this conversation here for example, shows me not trying to reach consensus? I could give you more examples but why would I? Just make your case and let's see how it unfolds. TheNorlo (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Circulation is one of the top medical journals. Hardly a "garbage" source. Lots of issues with incivility. Has been warned about them in the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Again I referred to the grana glantz review as nonsense, not circulation and not WPRS policies.TheNorlo (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This comment you made on Dec 22nd at 13:49 is inappropriate [10]. You were encouraging the harassment of another editor. And this was after your apology here on Dec 22nd at 07:39. Also to that "apology" you later added the comment "I still think that you might be a troll". So not really an apology. This was also not appropriate [11]. You appear to be too personally invested in e-cigs and I think it would be best for both you and Wikipedia to edit in another topic area for a while. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Temporary 6 months topic ban on EC. Noteswork (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am new to all this wiki bureaucratic procedures . Dont you get to say why you support or oppose, or is this only a matter of how many votes are pro\con? TheNorlo (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You have confirmed that you should not have insulted Doc James, yet you have also confirmed that you should have still insulted his comments. That's not even an apology. Noteswork (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I believe that insulting Doc James was an unacceptable behavior on my part, but attacking his comment as being stupid is justified. I still think that his argument is stupid. Doc James is a certified physician, stupid people do not become physicians, so I admit that the personal insult was out of line. TheNorlo (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Behaviour problems and non-neutral editing is well-evidenced above; the EC article is a fraught mess as it is, so this temporary ban would likely be a positive step in helping to improve that situation. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what non-neutral editing are you talking about? The article has been locked since the Big Bang. I am actually trying to improve this article, I am not the one engaged in edit warring, I am not the one that got this article locked. Whatever, ban me for six month and let's see how better and neutral this article becomes. TheNorlo (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• OpposeThis is a content dispute where one side is in disagreement with the other. Nothing pointed out rises to meriting a topic ban. This is an attempt to remove an active editor from a page that has a lot of disagreement over content. AlbinoFerret 11:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Note. User:TheNorlo informed User:AlbinoFerret on 07:28, 24 December 2014 about this before he commented here. This appears to be canvassing by User:TheNorlo. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I am not familiar with this whole procedure but I see that every editors that I disagree with are here supporting the ban, so I asked the other active editors of the article to drop their 2 cents here as well, If you dig deeper Quack, you will find that I notified more editors. If that's against the rules then I didn't know.... But something tells me its not really canvassing. TheNorlo (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru I have been involved in this discussion since December 22nd. diff I did not take what TheNorlo said on my talk page as asking me to comment here. I would have posted in this section regardless of his post on my talk page, because once I post on a topic I come back to it until the discussion is done. AlbinoFerret 13:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for what its worth. Some here claim that I edit in a POV manner but no one has presented any evidence of this. show me an actual edit that I have made on the article that shows a clear bias on my part. I dare you. I am the only one here that have admitted to be biased on the subject but I edit consciously so that I am as neutral as possible in the edit that matters I.e. the edits that ends up in the article. Again, show me where my bias as transpired on the article. As for the insults Doc James, I should not have done that, I should of said that your arguments were stupid, I should not have said that you were stupid, that was a mistake. You were saying that an ecig is only an ecig when its full of liquid and that it seased to be an ecig when its empty and therefor ecigs are drugs, that my friend is a stupid argument, espescially for a man as educated as yourself, as others have pointed out. TheNorlo (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. When User:TheNorlo was not logged in back in May he wrote "This is (Redacted) ridiculous! And they have the balls to keep removing the POV sign! There is no (Redacted) concensus!"[12] Rather than stopping this kind about behavior he has continued with similar behavior problems based on the evidence given by User:Formerly 98. He can't edit from a neutral point of view. For example, he wants to propose to drastically shorten the lede for the e-cigs article. The lede isn't especially long to begin with and the lede is readability for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Come on Quack, This version, is number one, a work in progress, number 2 neutral, number three I am not the o ly one that thinks that the status quo is hard to read. If you think that it is to POV, you should comment in the discussion section so it can be fixed. This is clearly a content disagreement. TheNorlo (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - Presumably its going to be said that I'm only commenting here after being notified but I have already contributed to this discussion and was going to make this comment anyway. I accept that TheNorlo has engaged in personal attacks which is unacceptable. However I'm not sure about any of the other evidence of conduct issues. I would support a warning for personal attacks which would give them a chance to correct their behaviour.Levelledout (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing again. User:AlbinoFerret was previously canvassed by User:TheNorlo. User:Levelledout was canvassed on 01:02, 25 December 2014 by User:TheNorlo. User:SPACKlick was canvassed on 01:05, 25 December 2014 by User:TheNorlo. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen was canvassed on 01:09, 25 December 2014 by User:TheNorlo. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I just told you that. Read above. As I said, Every single active editor on the article that I disagree with is here trying to ban me. So I have asked the other active editor to pitch in their 2cents on this ban proposal. Is this vanvassing? I don't think so but again, I am not familiar with the inner workings of wikipedia policies. I am learning as I go here, give me a break. TheNorlo (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Not too wrong because you have notified involved editors. Noteswork (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

User:TheNorlo notified the editors who mostly agree with him and almost always disagree with me. QuackGuru (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry Quack, I didn't realize that all this was about you. TheNorlo (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said, every editor that I have profound disagrement with are here already. The editors that I have reached out to are the other involved editors. I do not believe that these other editors are particularly partial to me, I have had some content disagreement in the past with some of them but we were able to work them out (I think) TheNorlo (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC).

This is not true. The following editors have participated significantly on the Talk page and in editing the article itself

• Zad68
• Wnt
• CFCF
• Cloudpk
• Yobol

But none of these editors was canvassed. Only his closest allies. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this list Ill notify them later in the day. No body seems to care that I am new at this and didn't know that I could notify people..

And it is weird that all of you guys are here, every editor that I deeply disagree with are conveniently right here to ban, just like that, magically, without any canvassing. TheNorlo (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes the efforts at canvassing are unfortunate. Another reason that I support a topic ban. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, this is against WP:CANVASS. Your notice is barely neutral and you admit that it's only to get the votes you want. If you want to be taken seriously, you would notify all the relevant editors and argue on the merits here. I'm sure the closing admin will consider this not a vote and the fact that the only editors who opposed it were those you specifically sought out is clear vote-stacking and not helping you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never admitted such a thing, please don't put words in my mouth, thank you. I will not notify anybody else... I get it.... TheNorlo (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• @QuackGuru, how can it be canvassing again when TheNorlo has not canvassed before? I was already involved in this discussion, on December 22 I made a comment above. diff. This is a subsection, the whole topic is one big section. SPACKlick has also made a comment in the discussion of these two editors so was aware of the section here. diff. While he may have canvassed the remaining two editors, its impossible to know all of wikipedias rules. TheNorlo is a newer editor, his first edit was in May of this year. He is taking this section seriously, as it should be, and looks to inadvertently broken a rule by informing two uninvolved editors. With the comments on the Electronic cigarette about this case with a link to it, I am almost positive all of the notified editors, SPACKlick, Levelledout and KimDabelsteinPetersen would have looked at this section and most likely would have commented, and SPACKlick and myself were already involved in this section on AN/I. AlbinoFerret 14:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Above User:AlbinoFerret opposes the ban and wrote in part: "Nothing pointed out rises to meriting a topic ban." User:AlbinoFerret wrote "But he appears to have outed you as one of his meatpuppet friends."diff I am debating on filing a statement on this on the sockpuppet board."[13] User:AlbinoFerret also wrote "Why did you and your secret friends do this?"[14] It appears User:AlbinoFerret has some issues with commenting on the talk page. That may be why he thinks it does not rise to the level of a ban. User:Ricky81682 warned User:TheNorlo for bias canvassing. User:AlbinoFerret, that is your opinion it was not canvassing. User:AlbinoFerret, don't be surprised if you get banned. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one here that didn't understood a word of what Quack just said? TheNorlo (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

All I see is that QuackGuru just presented evidence that he himself and other editors were conspiring to edit (meatpuppets). If he isnt blocked for this, he should be permanently topic banned from all Electronic cigarette articles. TheNorlo was not involved in that so I question why he outed himself. I asked him for an explanation on his talk page, which he deleted and did not respond. I was thinking about coming here about it. I was also looking for another post where one of the named editors in a post replied with "We".

I never said it wasnt canvassing, but that it looks to be the inadvertent breaking of a rule by a newer editor. That the canvassing was really limited to two editiors because the other two named were already involved so cant be said to be canvassed. That the two who were would have most likely seen a mention of this section on the Electronic cigarette articles talk page and come here and commented anyway. AlbinoFerret 13:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to correct you, my first edit was the 26 of October 2013, a little more than a year ago. But as I said many times, I am still new at this wikilawering stuff. But I get it now... I will not notify any body ever again about anything. I just find it weird that every editor that disagree with me are here. I'm sick of this anyways.... Let them have their ways, Merry Christmas, I'll be back in 6 months. TheNorlo (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose And yes, it might look as if i've been canvassed to lend my support here to TheNorlo, but in fact i have/had read everything on this thread earlier. I am supportive of the ban below, but there was already a pile-up, and i couldn't see any reason to add more to that conversation. But in this case, i can't really see any reason to ban (topic or otherwise), because i can't see any real wrong doing or misbehaviour. We all as editors have views, and if we can't express these, such as saying that we (along with some rather eminent scientists[15]) find the Grana et al. review to be rather crappy, then you might as well ban me along with TheNorlo... There is some incivil language pointed out above, but really considering that almost every person who disagrees with QG, Doc James and Alexbrn etc. have been called socks, SPA's, unwitting industry shills, fringe supporters etc... then there should be a rather big ban-hammer going around - and maybe there should. But this isn't one of the cases. --Kim D. Petersen 20:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen "can't see any real wrong doing or misbehaviour." That is a problem when one of his closest allies supports the continued behaviour problems. I would recommend to the closing admin to consider banning the editors who continue to support the behaviour problems. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. TheNorlo (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: if you really want to discuss WP:BOOMERANG.. then we should discuss your behaviour as well - shouldn't we? But you can be relieved by the fact that i personally find this "lets try to eliminate editors who disagree with us on AN/I" behaviour to be rather dispicable and low. Please do not throw stones when you yourself are living in a glasshouse :) --Kim D. Petersen 17:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Per Doc James and Noteswork. Civility issues seem to be the main issue here coupled with potentially some competence issues on what constitutes a reliable source and blatant self-described advocacy issues a section below this. Since the user appears to only primarily edit E-cig articles and appears to be an WP:SPA at my quick glance, the best choice here seems to be giving them a break from the article either voluntarily or otherwise. Better for them to start out in less contentious topics to figure out how to approach things civilly.

I'll also point out that aside from Noteswork and myself, we're left with involved editors in varying degrees. I'd ask the closing admin to be mindful of that. The drama from E-cig articles appears to have the community wanting to avoid it as much as possible. After following the conversations through boards for awhile, it does seem like there are pervasive advocacy problems among some editors, some of which are amongst the current opposes. That's not to say there haven't been some issues on the "other side". However, my read of all this over time has been that there's a group of editors who are very passionate about the topic and some appear to reach the point of defending E-cigs who dedicate a large chunk of time to the topic to say the least. This has resulted in other less involved editors having to dig their feet in to try to combat the amount of passion and time these editors spend on the article (sometimes over 18 hours a day). This is a hallmark of why WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI (in terms of passion, not for being paid) like behavior are so tough to deal with on Wikipedia. No idea how to actually fix that, but that's just the view I'm left with as an outside observer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 One thing I will agree with you is that the community is avoiding e-cig topics. Not just here but on other notice boards. This makes asking questions impossible. I have started or been involved on sections on the OR, RS, and NPOV noticeboards that have gone unanswered by uninvolved editors. How are editors supposed to find out if what they are doing or thinking is correct if no one answers them? I also disagree with the idea that some are involved in advocay. There are checks and balances in having editors who disagree on edits. This imho keeps the edits conforming to WP policy and guidelines. AlbinoFerret 17:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a little bit more of a user talk page discussion, but maybe it'll do some good for other folks to see it. The main issue I see at RSN, etc. is that you folks basically take over the board and continue the argument there when the board should be a place for outside opinion. Someone should post a question, and other involved editors are welcome to clarify or state additional info, but the primary goal should be to let other editors comment. Instead, the thread is swamped with the same back and forth between involved editors from the article talk page, and that essentially shuts down the ability for an outside editor to make an effective comment. In your case, I would say you are one of those editors that stands out sometimes. That's not me saying it's due to malice or anything like that, but simply that you comment a lot at those boards and need to learn to step back a bit. If folks follow that approach, that will open up the atmosphere for more outside comments, but some of the damage has already been done for the time being too. As for advocacy, I'm just saying that's what the behavior I'm seeing is indicative of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 Here is a perfect example of what I pointed out above. link There are only two posts, both on the same day and the second only clarified my question. It went unanswered until it was archived. TheNorlo was the other party to post. All that was asked is if it was a reliable source, no back and forth. I for one had doubts if it were but to prove it to myself I asked the question. TheNorlo wasnt sure, and I posted the question and linked to it to show him that there are places to go and ask questions without arguing. I also agree that it would be better if this were on a talk page, but its an issue that needs more eyes on it imho. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I recall those threads pretty clearly. There had already been other threads previous where the issues I described were more clear. That was a point where I decided it wasn't worth it to comment as an outside party as I'm sure many others probably did to looking at the lack of response. It was actually threads like those that my damage is done comment was based on. I don't have a solution for that specific problem now other than hopefully time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, in the short term this creates more of a problem than it solves. On a contentious article like e-cig where there are editors who have not been exposed to such articles, it gives them no opportunity to learn outside of the articles talk page. Since the talk page moves so fast because of the total number of editors, there is no time. It makes arguments more likely to happen on the talk page, because no one answers the questions, the editor who asks questions is left to what they think is right. Outside editors answering questions can and does stop this. AlbinoFerret 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 WP:ADVOCACY is specifically directed at editors who disregard reliable sources, and the overall gist of the literature in favor of their personal opinion - not editors who know something about the topic, have the time, or who are passionate about it. If we only measured editors more positive on how disinterested or how little time they put into a topic, then Wikipedia is lost. Or in other words: Since when has "passion and time" been a Wikipedia no-no in and of itself? It is the disruptive behavior, and/or the disregard of the literature in favour of personal opinions that is a problem - not time and passion. --Kim D. Petersen 18:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I was still talking about advocacy with the passion and time comment, namely when it reaches the level of being tendentious. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong group of editors when you say it contains a tendentious editor(s). I dont see one section of any of that page that fits TheNorlo or any editor that questions what the medical group is doing (that being 90% one editor). AlbinoFerret 19:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about the "other group" I highly suggest reading this [16] if you're up for tongue-in-cheek humor by replacing version with editor or group. I like to do that to give myself a bonk on the head when I'm tempted towards fingerpointing in a dispute anyways.

Tendentiousness is a broad behavior issue, so it can be easy to overlook since it's at a more general level than just an isolated comment that can be diff-linked to. Disruptive editing, IDHT behavior coupled with competence issues, and others that can arise within content disputes are problematic and can give the appearance of POV-pushing. Those are some of the hardest behaviors to address here at ANI too. I'm seeing more of those issues stemming not from the med group (though one does have a history of really digging their feet in on some fringe topics) but from the other side of the court more often. That's been brought up to individual editors and at these boards, but it doesn't seem like the point has gotten across as there are combined editor behavior issues that are snowballing together to form the drama here. Either way, this is all my 2 cents at this point, so after reading this, I'd hope all involved editors take a moment to reflect on things they potentially didn't hear some time ago. Otherwise, I've given my thoughts on it all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I woukd like to say that I have learned a lot from this little episode and that regardless of the outcome it's been very informative and will probably make me a better editor. That being said, I believe that the only thing that should warrant me to get banned is the insults that I have targeted toward Doc James, I accept that they were unacceptable and unproductive. I do not accept however the advocacy accusations. I believe that an advocacy accusation would require more proof than simply me saying that I am passionate about the topic. I would like to know which edit I've made on the article that leads to this accusation. I also do not accept the accusation that I disregard WP:RS. I am not the only one that thinks that a certain review article is being given to much weight in the article, even experts in the field says that this review is rather iffy. Calling it garbage might of been a little to strong but should not warrant a ban. Anyhow, I will tone down my language (as much as I can) in the future. TheNorlo (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite community and/or topic ban, per evidence presented by Formerly 98. ElectricBurst^{(Is there anything you need of me?)} 00:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of at least six months from all e-cigarette articles, broadly construed. The editor's "passion" seems to have clouded their judgment. The insults and canvassing seal the deal for me. Perhaps some time spent working on topics where they can be dispassionate, and observing the destructive effects of the unbridled passions of others, will enable them to mature into a productive editor. Perhaps not. Time will tell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If you guys think I'm going to waste my time editing articles I'm not interested in, you are out of your minds. I'm out, see ya. Congratulation to Quack, Doc and Formerly. Enjoy. TheNorlo (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970

This editor is more concerning with evidence of 1) incivility 2) meat puppetry

1. Here they link to one of their freinds twitter feeds outing themselves. Another one of their friends also tweeted the entire thing to me.
   1. Here he refers to those who do not support e-cigs (known as ANTS as "illiterate fucks")
   2. He also says "I've modified my clock to sound more like Wikiproject Medicine. Now it goes "dick doc, dick doc, dick doc..."" and much more
2. He also has used his twitter feed to direct people to edit the e-cig article with some success. User:Entropy72 join after being invited. Among a few others. There is an active group that is trying to change Wikipedia's content on e-cigs to be much more favorable of the products. With a number of the other WP:SPA currently editing likely also related.

They have a long block log [17] and have had previous unblock request declined due to incivility [18]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry what? Outing myself? As what, me?

This is a Wikipedia noticeboard, Doc. It is not the Internet Police. What I say on Twitter is nothing to do with AN/I and very definitely nothing to do with you. And as for what VapeMeStoopid writes, take it up with her. I wish you luck.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 07:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc do you have any Diffs of specific incivility on wiki from this user? SPACKlick (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Twitter can't provide diffs.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I have not, to the best of my recollection, posted a link to my Twitter account on Wikipedia and I would much prefer it if other editors did not do so.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• FergusM1970, without actually putting myself fully into this I will have to play somewhat devil's advocate here. I don't like doxing or really bringing in one's personal social media accounts- I actually try to keep my personal social media accounts private myself. However at the same time I have to say that if you make comments on a social media account about an incident that you're currently involved in, odds are high that it will be discovered and posted on here- especially if it is particularly incendiary or comes across as you trying to rally others to come on to Wikipedia to help argue a case or a viewpoint. This may not have been your intent, but that's why you do have to be careful about posting on social media outlets and what you post. It's why I try to never mention anything on my personal social media accounts, because I know that these things can and will be brought up on here. This doesn't mean that I particularly like the idea that I have to censor myself off Wikipedia in any form or fashion, but if you do post anything off Wikipedia then you run the risk of it getting mentioned here if an editor thinks it may be applicable to an ANI case or incident. In this particular case you made a tweet on 4:05 PM - 20 Dec 2014 where you asked people to come to the talk page for an article you are editing and vote on a subject- something that is highly discouraged on Wikipedia because many of the incoming editors are often completely unaware of Wikipedia policies and their opinions may not fall within said policies- especially if you're asking them to vote a specific way. (It's also seen as WP:CANVASSING.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not objecting to him complaining about anything I said offsite, and I'm easy enough to find if anyone's interested enough to look, but I don't post links to my own accounts and I'd prefer it if others didn't either. I did ask current Wikipedia members to contribute, which I realize was suboptimal, but as the RfC has heavy undertones of WP:IDHT and WP:FILIBUSTER, being opened immediately after an identical one found no grounds for the layout Doc wants, I was somewhat frustrated. Doc has been very problematic at that article and has managed to get it locked twice in three days by starting edit wars.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• @FergusM1970: I am quite honestly disappointed that you allege that Doc "refuses to engage constructively" yet you are involved in such childish behaviour. Honestly? Grow the fuck up. And I suggest you and TheNorlo read the relevant policies before I sanction you for your problematic behaviour. —Dark 10:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of canvassing? Please explain how. And pkease explain how my behaviour is problematic, other than the fact that I laughed at a joke and that I inderctly called Doc James an idiot and a moron, to which I've apologized. TheNorlo (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He's doing his best to prevent any changes being made to the article, which is in a dire condition. As of yesterday there were a number of discussions and attempts to find consensus, some of which were making progress, but Doc started edit-warring to restore his preferred version and got the article locked again. Now he's repeating an RfC that was closed a few days ago. He seems determined to bring the article under the scope of MED, even though there are no obvious grounds for doing so, and to prevent any improvements unless that happens.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SO that excuses your behaviour? —Dark 10:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I shouldn't have posted that link to TheNorlo.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It was organized per WP:MEDMOS for a good 18 months [19]. Yes you managed to get a number of people to join this RfC through your hard recruitment. This user has since been blocked User:CheesyAppleFlake and it was closed as no consensus. Since than our WP:SPA pertaining to e-cigs have expanded in number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But the point is that it shouldn't have been organised per MEDMOS because it isn't a medical article. I know that you have some unconventional views on the subject but they are not supported by either general or medical sources, so the article shouldn't be organized according to them. Exactly one person joined that RfC at my suggestion and he made what looks like a moderate and reasonable comment.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPA expands not because of canvassing but because of passion. Vapers are passionate people because (get ready for this unsourced claim Doc) Vaping works and it as changes their lifes! And vapers go on wikipedia read whats being sais on vaping and realize that this article is preposterous and that they must do something about it. So spare me your theories on how we are responsible for this mess.TheNorlo (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt they do see what it says, because it's unreadable. Largely because Doc won't let any changes be made by anyone who's not coming from a MED position.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This sort of "the other side is wrong and unreasonable because they refuse to accept my point of view" is typical advocacy behavior, and is not productive debate. This is exactly why we should not have WP:SPAs taking over our articles and using them for WP:ADVOCACY. Many members of this group are on the page pretty much 18 hours a day. It is impossible for anyone who is not willing and able to dedicate their lives to this article to engage in a meaningful way with discussions held among hardcore advocates and "consensus" decisions being made within intervals smaller than that between visits to the page of most non-WP:ADVOCACY editors. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that WP:ADVOCACY is a strong accusation and needs to be backed up with proof. Its to easly tossed around when people disagree with the other side. That some editors find the subject interesting and want to devote time to the article is being twisted into some kind of negative thing. But that investment in time, is to them, to make the article better. Something that is also being twisted. The SPA accounts is something that has been disproven but seems to pop up as an excuse to silence active editors. If you find something important, spend time doing it. If not all this looks like is a stumbling block is being tossed in front of editors who are active and who some have disagreements over content. Both of these sections appear to be on silencing editors in a content dispute. The excuses for silencing them now appears to basically be I dont have time to discuss things. AlbinoFerret 16:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I would ask you to review WP:ADVOCACY, which is not the same as paid editing, but simply putting support for a POV above having as one's primary motivation the building of an encyclopedia. I think the evidence for this is pretty straightforward. While not an expert user of the tracking software here, I seen that Fergus has edited Electronic Cigarette related pages 1193 times, and there are an additional 193 edits on ANI and other dispute pages that are likely mostly associated with the same subject. This is out of a lifetime total of about 4500 edits, with the 1193 being mostly recent and many of the non-Electronic Cigarette edits apparently being for hire. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Paid advocacy by FergusM1970

Yesterday, when I followed the link in the talk page conversation where FergusM1970 was insulting User:Doc James, I was led to FergusM1970's twitter account where he advertises that he is a paid e-cig shill. To quote: "Veteran, vaper, writer and paid e-cigarette industry shill." And he links to where you can contact him to write. I followed the link and saw mention of Wikipedia work. I wrote to him by email to ask him about the situation and to give me a list of all of his Wikipedia accounts and all the articles that created or edited for hire. He gave me an initial list and then revised it a few times. FergusM1970 denied to me by email that he is paid to edit the e-cig article. And he changed the twitter profile to add "And yes, I know, some of you really ARE too fucking stupid to recognise sarcasm. Tough.Deal with it." after the bit that says he is a e-cig shill.

Since FergusM1970 is a tendentious editor on the topic of e-cigs, and I answered a RFC on that article talk page last month, I decided to pass the information to @ User:Nuclear Warfare (who has dealt with him in the past) for evaluation and further action. I've not heard back from him yet.

I woke up to see that this discussion was now on AN/I, and also I see that FergusM1970 is trying to remember all the articles that he wrote and list them on his user page. A good number of them were deleted for lack of notability which kind of shows the problem with doing this type of work. I regret to say that I don't think that FergusM1970 is the type of editor that fits in well on Wikipedia. He has been block numerous times for not understanding or following basic rules. Yet, he is soliciting work to edit Wikipedia articles. For that reason, I support a ban from editing Wikipedia entirely. And if is to return ever, I support a permanent ban from editing in all areas related to tobacco including e-cigs. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"I was led to FergusM1970's twitter account" No you weren't. You went poking around in my business just because you could, and oh my, I bet you were excited when you found something you could invoke Wikipedia's arcane and stupidly bureaucratic rules to deal with. Who the fuck do you people think you are, Interpol? How DARE you sit in judgement of my behavior, however vile, on a site that has damn all to do with you? How's the total number of active editors doing these days? Still going down because new editors are put off by the alphabet soup of rules and self-appointed guardians of the One True Way? It's people like Doc, with his wikilawyering bullshit and little clique of lackeys, that are driving editors away. Ban him and that illiterate cretin QuackGuru and you might get somewhere. Anyway I'm out of here. RationalWiki here I come.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason my profile says "Paid e-cig industry shill" is that I was accused of being exactly that after correcting Professor Martin McKee when he misrepresented some data. People who actually are paid advocates don't generally advertise it on their social media profiles, and certainly not using the word "shill." It's sarcasm.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

My antennae go up at anyone editing Derwick Associates. [20] As an editor quite familiar with Venezuelan politics and the entire suite of POV Venezuelan articles, it always appeared highly likely that something was amiss when a non-Spanish-speaking editor engages an obscure Venezuelan lawsuit affecting a couple of high-profile people. Why Fergus was editing that article never made sense to me, and he most certainly removed reliable sources, as I pointed out in the earlier e-cig thread.

On the e-cig articles, having read through some of the article talk (which reads pretty much like these ANIs), it seems that Fergus and several others there are unable to confine their comments to sources and content, and have disrupted the talk page with comments on contributors. I suggest a review of the e-cig talk page could lead to some topic bans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has read the e-cig talk page and read that its a personal interest of FergusM1970 because he is a user of e-cigarettes. I doubt a topic ban is warranted, but look and see. This is a content dispute in which one side is trying to use editing on other articles to remove an editor they have a content disagreement with on e-cig. I see no evidence or any proof of paid editing for e-cig. AlbinoFerret 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Off and on wiki, FergusM1970 doesn't show signs that he wants to contribute in a collaborative way. It greatly concerns me when a Wikipedia user in good faith is trying to collaborate on a talk page, and has to put up with the level of vitriol that he is throwing on and off site. It runs off all of the sensible people who won't put up with the negative environment. It is especially worrying on a medical related article with high page views when is it really important that we follow the highest quality references and not let pov pushers take control. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He didn't have to put up with it; he deliberately sought it out. As for POV pushing, I'd suggest you read the discussion I had with Doc a couple of nights ago on his talk page about why he insists e-cigs are a drug. He is making claims based on what I can only describe as sympathetic magic, such as that an e-cig only becomes one when filled with a specific type of liquid and, the rest of the time, is something else entirely. That's not just WP:POV; it's WP:FRINGE. As for the article it's not medical-related, and this is the entire source of the problem. It's about a consumer product that isn't licensed for medical use anywhere in the world.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As for what's running off the sensible people, Sandy has a great quote on her user page about that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Google is your friend; blog discussing paid editing on Wikipedia's Derwick Associates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You got me. Hands up, I did it. Not that it matters, but I really wasn't paid for the e-cig stuff. Bye.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But you have been paid by e-cig industry to write about e-cigs. So, your statements on twitter and on Wikipedia that you are not an e-cig shill are not truthful. you answered request and being awarded the work to write 8 SEO articles about electronic cigs. We have no way of knowing if someone was paying you to start these threads, too. Or if you just want to please your previous and future clients. It is not possible to have collaborative discussion with you since you are paid to have a pov. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been paid by mattress shops too. If I commented on beds would you call me a shill for Big Duvet? I'm a freelance writer. I've been paid to write about everything. I've even written web content for a male chastity device shop, and I now know far more about those things than I ever wanted to, believe me. Shill for Big Padlock? Urgh. However, it's how I pay my bills so I can keep on writing fiction and feeding the damn cat.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure

I am a freelance writer. Like practically every freelance writer today I frequently get asked to edit Wikipedia; I would say this happens on more or less a daily basis. I turn down almost all of these requests because they're along the lines of "Can you create a site for my awesome new company?" or "We need 100 editors to tell the truth about what's happening in Gaza." I do not do promotional edits and I do not do paid advocacy. However if I feel an article is worthwhile and likely to pass WP:N then sometimes I will write it. Nevertheless I am not being paid to advocate for e-cigarettes. I am doing this of my own free will because the article, on a significant topic, is in a deplorable state on multiple levels. I have submitted information on all the paid edits I have made to FloNight for investigation; I have nothing to hide.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay so you add peoples CVs to Wikipedia for money such as Jerome_Katz and Tony Succar

And you adjust companies articles such as Derwick Associates removing content they may not like [21]

You appear to even be willing to edit war for pay [22], [23], [24] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You got one out of three. User:FloNight knows the articles I was paid to edit. I think that'll do for now.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's nowhere near good enough. Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to publicly disclose any paid editing you have done on your user page or the relevant talk pages. You indicate that you continue to agree to the TOU with every edit you make. If you do not, I will block you. (In fact, I think there are grounds enough for an indef as is, but I will leave that up to the community to decide.) MER-C 12:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that; Wikipedia's rules are too extensive and convoluted for anyone to know them all. I'll get it fixed today.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Done.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that TOU demands disclosure of all paid editing, not some. —Dark 13:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I've erred on the generous side and included articles I edited while writing eBooks on the topic.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to play it your way, so be it. I know irrefutably of several articles that you engaged in paid work on, that are not listed on your userpage. I hope you understand the repercussions of partial disclosure. —Dark 13:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you want deleted ones as well?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@DarkFalls:, Care to share how you know this for a fact rather than making vague accusations? SPACKlick (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The evidence will be shared with the arbitration committee upon request, but no, I am not inclined to share here. —Dark 14:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970, you should fully disclose all contributions you were paid for. If User:DarkFalls knows for a fact that you did not do that, I suggest that you get blocked for indefinite time, i.e. at least until you disclose those contributions. Maybe your next edit should rectify this problem? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

DarkFalls appears to know more than I do, which is certainly not impossible. I've found and added a couple more. I'll have another look later. Right now I don't have the free screen space to do a line-by-line search of my records.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A few other company pages you have written for pay are Cartell

And I assume you are paid to help people try to keep their articles [25]?

User:SandyGeorgia may wish to take another look at the Derwick Associates

Basically all your edits need to be scrutinized Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

She's welcome to take another look. As for Cartell I'm quite happy to tell FloNight why I created it. As I said, I have nothing to hide so you can scrutinize to your heart's content.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 11:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You could not pay me to care about Derwick Associates (and I already showed that Fergus removed reliably sourced info). There are much bigger POV problems in the Venezuelan suite of articles, and that is such an obscure topic that I've long wondered what would motivate a non-Spanish-speaking, uninvolved-with-Venezuela articles editor to find or even care about that article. Fergus, were you hired to deal with that lawsuit on Wikipedia? How did you come to be interested in an obscure Venezuelan lawsuit? Do you speak fluent Spanish? If not, how can you read the sources, the majority of which are in Spanish? I can assure everyone that editing-for-pay goes around in Venezuelan articles, because I've been approached several times (and refused, thank you very much). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I found it through "Random article". I do that sometimes when I'm bored. Usually I just have a read, correct some spelling or punctuation and move on (that's why I edit things like Orange is the new black, Archie McPherson or Sudarium of Oviedo. I'm not interested in prison porn, retired football commentators or fake relics either). Derwick was in such a mess I saw it as a challenge. As I said, I used a machine translator and calls to my sister in law in Salamanca.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still stretches my imagination that considering all of the routine and rampant Corruption in Venezuela, someone who doesn't speak Spanish and can't read the sources would care about an obscure lawsuit affecting a couple of very powerful people in Venezuela. Going to the trouble to make calls and machine translate sources on an obscure lawsuit in a country where corruption is the new norm isn't something that makes sense to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly it stretches mine too; I have no idea why I bothered. Then again I have no idea why I spent so much time on the shroud of Turin either; arguing with relic believers is utterly futile. All I can say is it seemed like a good idea at the time.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You thought it was a mess, so on your very first day of editing there, you first removed numerous reliable sources and next tried to have the article deleted. You then went on to use a government source to add original research and POV.[26] And then, only nine days after you "found it through 'random article'", you are expressing knowledge of a Venezuelan blogger and accusing another editor of socking. [27] Curious that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• 'Comment Yet another section on AN/I to try and remove editors on the other side of a content dispute. While the actions of those accused are not the best this is purely on an article Doc James is invested in and is even willing to edit war to win edits. Doc James is the reason the page is currently protected for 3 months. See Electronic cigarette section in this dated archive. This is an attempt to remove very active editors from a talk page that has an RFC started by Doc James and many other proposed edit sections the editors are involved in. Its easier to remove others you disagree with to win rather than work with them. As for the comments made, Doc James is involved in those discussions arguing for the sake of arguing and pushing buttons. That doesnt excuse some of the comments but puts them in perspective. I for one think Doc James needs to walk away from the article for awhile. Evidence of why is the second RFC on the same topic that Doc James started before but didnt get consensus for his vision of the article. Its getting to be disruptive and calls for stopping the second RFC are strong. AlbinoFerret 12:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What so the meat puppets and WP:SPAs can manage the article on this multi billion dollar product so that it matches their associations / industries point of view and not that of the World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control etc? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You're blinded by your loathing of THR. I am very far from an industry advocate. I know perfectly well that we don't know much yet about the long-term use of e-cigs. I know that there's very likely some residual risk. I don't want to see non-smoking teens take up vaping. Yes, I'm pro-vaping, but that's because a) I know exactly how effective they are for smoking cessation, and b) I keep up to date with all the science and not just one aging activist in San Fiasco who doesn't have a single medical qualification to his name. There is an emerging scientific consensus than they're two, possibly three, orders of magnitude safer than cigarettes; nobody is claiming they're anything like equivalent in risk. There's no evidence of a gateway effect, despite what's been claimed in borderline fraudulent "reviews" that claim to pull longitudinal data from a cross-sectional study. The exhaled vapour doesn't contain harmful levels of anything. But the Wikipedia article doesn't convey any of that. Instead it's full of stuff about particles, all based on one outlier of a review. One review says the particles are the same size as in cigarette smoke, at 100-200nm. THREE say they're from 250-600nm. Guess what one you want to use? Your preferred review also neglects to mention the fact that particle density in vapour ranges from 6 to 880 times lower than in smoke. There's a lot of stuff about metal particles, but not the fact that the levels of those particles are 10 to 50 times lower than the FDA permitted limit for an asthma inhaler. In short you are filibustering and edit-warring to preserve an article that is not only incredibly POV, but also so badly written that if my ten year old niece handed me it I would be embarrassed for her. People are not joining Wikipedia and editing there because I have recruited them to my international shill cabal. They are editing because they have found the article and recognised that it's crap. You don't have to worry about me any more, so take a step back and look at it again. Maybe read a few papers from someone that isn't Stan Glantz or Margaret Chan. Because if you don't, I guarantee the problems will continue until you finally step on your crank so badly that it cannot be overlooked.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have to agree with AlbinoFerret that is not helpful to the content dispute, this even approaches Wiki Hounding. Per WP:NPA Comment on content, not on the contributor.If you think you see a long term problem with FergusM1970 gather more evidence before coming back here (or go to arbcom) Avono (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In the past week I've reported Doc James twice for edit-warring that resulted in an article having to be locked. I suspect that's not entirely unrelated to this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Also note this diff here where Doc warned me for edit warring when I'd made a single revert. This took place one minute after he'd made his own third revert[28][29][30], repeatedly restoring his preferred version in place of one resulting from an edit request while the article was locked; the article was locked again three minutes later. This looked like an attempt at intimidation.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would say that I find it pretty remarkable that folks engaged in WP:ADVOCACY to the extent that >95% of their edits are on this one article, who have engaged in personal attacks against him, would accuse Doc James of edit warring. And suggesting that the article was locked because of Doc James is simply a mis-statement of the facts. I requested that the article be protected, and I did so because ADVOCATES began making massive POV edits the moment the previous protection expired. Doc James actually added a comment supporting the protection shortly after I requested it. It is very difficult for me to understand how the facts of this situation came to be so completely mis-stated here. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but that, frankly, is bollocks - just like your claim earlier that the last RfC was open for one day (it was eight weeks). The "advocate" started cleaning up the construction section after the protection was lifted; it was Doc who started making massive edits, and the renewed protection you asked for rather conveniently went on right after he'd used up his last revert. As for your "95% of edits" claim, meh. Whatever.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 16:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No that's not correct. The RFC ended up in deadlock. Then a second vote, based on the incorrect and disputed premise that there was a consensus for change, was held on how to reorder the content. It was closed within 24 hours, and an edit request made to the supervising Admin, with no one notifying those who, not being dedicated advocates, do not check the article talk page multiple times a day. It was a clear effort to stuff the ballot box. Another reason why we don't benefit from having advocates dominate our editing process. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98 That appears to be a twisting of WP:ADVOCACY, there is no question that FergusM1970 has edited other articles as a paid editor, which he has disclosed. But there is no proof that Electronic cigarette was anything but a personal interest. I also thing that you are completely wrong on the reason E-cig is currently locked for 3 months. Its clear that it was because Doc James reverted 3 different editors to win an edit war. The Electronic cigarette section in this dated archive clearly shows why it was protected. Your request for protection was on the 18th, the page was unprotected on the 20 and Doc started an edit war. The 3 month protection was because of a section in the 20th arcive detailing that edit warring. AlbinoFerret 16:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

After the page was locked Doc started to try and get his edits another way by an RFC. Two of the most vocal commenters against Doc's position in that RFC are now named in this section. Its a content dispute. AlbinoFerret 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In light of these revelations, can we consider re-opening these and viewing them as linked? No one can now deny that Derwick pays for reputation management. It is likely that Fergus was hired as additional support by a PR firm contracted by Derwick, meaning this long list of suspected socks are linked to each other but not Fergus directly.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Majogomezsz
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FergusM1970

Community ban discussion of FergusM1970

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per this and the evidence above,[31] a ban should be discussed. I suspect the rest of the isses at e-cig will take care of themselves if Fergus is removed from the picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind adding to your header, User:SandyGeorgia. I came across this request on Elance, where "Wade" is looking for "... Someone with knowledge of the E cigs industry to write content for us for SEO purposes. ...". An assignment awarded to Fergus Mason. Adding this as evidence for both the abovementioned case, and for the suggested ban. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Beetstra, add whatever needed to my header; I'm not following anymore. The e-cig situation was bad enough, but people make their own choices about smoking. Many people have died, and many more lives have been ruined, by corruption in Venezuela. I need to vomit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Elance should start charging you fuckers rent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 18:12, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Ah so Fergus is making edits for the e-cig industry on Wikipedia at 25$/hour. Thanks User:Beetstra that explains a lot. We should probably look at a few of the other WP:SPAs who are editing aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk about adding two and two and getting Avogadro's number. No they're not, you brain donor. Go read my work history; seems like every other bugger has, so why not you?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban. I spelled out above the reasons for a ban. Someone who either does not understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or does not care about them should not be accepting money to create or edit Wikipedia articles. And his tendentious editing of e-cigs and comments on twitter that he linked to himself makes it difficult to see how it is possible for him to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥

• Support - though a plain indef block for violating our wmf:Terms of use would be enough (why is that not a standard block reason?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Striking this per above added evidence for violation of the wmf:Terms of use and now being co-proposer of ban. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While I can't comment on the ban given the evidence above I would say I highly doubt removing Fergus will resolve all the issues at e-cigarette. His edits only go back to the 3rd of December the problems go back way further than that. SPACKlick (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No his first edits were to Ruyan [32] a ecig manufacturer back in July 2013 followed by electronic cigarettes shortly there after.

His first edit to e-cigs involved removing a review article from a well respected journal [33] and it just went from there. He was actively working on other paid jobs when he started. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC

I've mentioned the concept of Idée fixe to you before; now you seem to have another one. Your current fixed point is that the problems at the article are caused by me being a paid advocate for "the e-cig industry". (There isn't really any such thing, but I wouldn't expect you to know that. It's actually quite complicated.) Your Idée is wrong; I am not, and never have been, paid for editing that article. The problem is that you cannot let go the idea of making it a medical article. You now have a medical article, under MED, called Safety of electronic cigarettes. You've barely touched it. Apart from Quack's initial slathering of word salad, which of course has resulted in an unreadable mess, about the only person who's done significant work on it is me. And weirdly enough nobody complained about my edits except Quack, and even he went away when I pointed out that the text he claimed I had deleted was in the first sentence after the lede. I don't know if this trouble-free editing, without adding or removing any significant information, suggests anything to you. But maybe it should.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is clearly a content dispute and dredging up things from the past and outside WP to try and remove a very active editor from Electronic cigarette. If there is proof of problems on other topics perhaps a topic ban from those articles is possible.AlbinoFerret 17:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The problems go way, way beyond a single content dispute that is happening now on the e-cig page. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I do agree that this is a content dispute, but in violating the terms of use and our NPOV-pillar they, as a side effect, removed themselves from that dispute. I also don't think that the dispute will end here, nor that it started here, but that is is irrelevant for why a block and/or ban should be applied. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He just supported his own block, Im out as I have nothing to say about other articles and will not support paid editing, especially without disclosure. That cant be defended and wont be defended by me. AlbinoFerret 18:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support community ban, and suggest a re-investigation of the old SPIs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Not because of the e-cigarette dispute, but because FergusM1970 repeatedly stated above that he wasn't paid to edit the Derwick Associates article, only to finally admit that he was when presented with evidence. Clearly, a contributor who refuses to comply with requirements regarding disclosure of paid editing until obliged to by evidence cannot be trusted to have fully disclosed such paid advocacy now, and cannot be trusted to make such disclosures in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Highly problematic in a number of respects, and showing no sign of contrition. Has damaged the project and the signs are will continue to do so if allowed to. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support an indef block. Don't waste your time on the SPIs though. About the one thing I hate more than petty-minded tuppenny Hitlers who think they're it because they have admin rights is sock puppets. There are more urgent problems needing sorted out on Wikipedia than Phantom Pherguses that aren't even there.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Alexbrn and per the comments above by FergusM1970, who makes the case for his own ban more eloquently than anyone else possibly could. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Most of what I do is real writing and I am pretty good at it. Perhaps you could buy my chupacabra novella for a few young adult relatives this Christmas? It's on Amazon. You can find a link at my Elance profile, seeing as you all enjoy having a good poke around there.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per ATG. Violating ToS in regards to paid editing (and then lying about it to boot) should always be an insta-ban. Any attempt to play the victim in the e-cig realm is just an irrelevant diversion (and bad faith at that, given it was being used to attempt to get someone else sanctioned while simultaneously engaged in own misbehavior). If we cannot trust what he says, how can we have good-faith discussions or accept at face value that given cites support content? DMacks (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block/ban. User does not appear to be making edits in good faith. ElectricBurst^{(Is there anything you need of me?)} 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I'd have blocked me half an hour ago. The suspense is killing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 18:17, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

• Support bc of the lying, a misuse of community trust. Avono (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

God, this is painful. Or pitiful, one of the two. Someone just please pull the trigger FFS. It's not like it's controversial, is it? Even I don't disagree!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

FergusM1970, what's being proposed here is a community ban, not just a block. It's a more serious matter because you will have to appeal to the entire community or ArbCom to be able to edit again. Normally the discussion will stay open for at least 24 hours so people have a chance to weigh in. If you're really eager to be blocked during the discussion I'll oblige, but maybe you'd like a chance to be part of the conversation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban - In my opinion, there's no place at all on Wikipedia for paid editing, but even if one takes the position that paid editing is allowed as long as the editor is totally out front about the COI, this editor doesn't qualify for a pass. BMK (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support community ban from wikipedia and also from e-cig topic areas. In terms of the e-cig. I'm willing to accept that the twitter shill thing was probably sarcasm, it dooes seem like it was only added recently. So it's possible there's for once no paid editing (alhough the denials obviously don't mean much in themselves and it appears they have been paid to write in this area before for something). However the problems the editor has shown in this topic area combined with the fact it appears to be something they care strongly about and the poor history suggests they probably should be kept well away from it for a long time. As for the general ban, well the paid editing is bad enough. The initial denial was not only poor form and dumb (I mean the links on the blog still work, so it should be obvious even without the blog it won't be hard to work out), but suggests an extremely poor level of basic research or something equally bad.

  To explain, I found the wordpress blog about FergusM1970" & Derwick Associates a few hours ago by simply searching for the name "FergusM1970". I didn't mention it here because of our outing policy and figured someone else (e.g. DarkFalls) would likely bring it to arbcom. Also, although at the time FergusM1970 had added stuff to their username without mention of Derwick Associates, they hadn't explicitly denied (that I saw) that they edited that article for payment, this was before they claimed they came across it via the random article here. Since the wordpress blog is dated late 2013, I'm guessing it's been easily findable for most of this year just like I did. While searching for yourself may seem a little vain, if you're going to try hiding some of your paid editing, logic would suggest you should perhaps at least search for your name just to make sure there isn't something widely known if you haven't done it in a while. So either this wasn't done, which raises very serious WP:competence issues for a place like wikipedia where research is necessary. Or searching was done but FergusM1970 either thought no one else would find it, or they'd already decided to go out in a blaze of glory. None of these scenarios suggests FergusM1970 should be allowed back easily.

  Nil Einne (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree; in fact I shouldn't be allowed back at all. It would probably give me hypertension or ulcers or something. More desk splinters in my head, at least. Anyway, someone actually sent me a link to the blog last year, but I just shook my head ruefully and forgot about it; you'll appreciate that from a moderately talented writer's point of view it wasn't exactly the high point of my career to date. When Sandy posted the link I had a major WTF moment. Never mind. You're spot on about the "shill" thing. Any time we dare question The Word Of The Almighty Glantz about vaping we get labeled as paid advocates, shills etc. We're just people who don't want to smoke any more, have found a solution and aren't going to let it be taken away, so it's pretty bloody annoying.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The point is, if you're going to blatantly lie about your actions, it makes sense that you should know your lies are not discoverable within about 10 seconds by searching for your wikipedia name (i.e. the most basic research of all). And wikipedia does require some degree of basic research skills, beyond simple writing skills so whatever you skills in the later, the apparent lack of any in the former does cause grave concern. (Since you're a freelance writer, I would have thought it matters there too. But that's obviously between you and your employers and the nature of wikipedia disputes means this probably won't become something people are likely to find.) For that matter, forgetting that you were already caught out suggests an inability to remember important stuff. Important for the reasons I mentioned earlier (i.e. an area not to continue to lie about), not because the blog may have been a high or low point of your career. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I take your point. I generally am pretty good at research, although some of my skills are a bit specialized, but I certainly dropped a bollock on that one. As for it being important, it really wasn't; I've done a few hundred writing jobs by this point (mostly not on Wikipedia, by the way) and that was one of my earlier ones. Anyway I have a lot to do, and what was the point of making a big effort? I should have listed it, but it wouldn't have made any difference in the end. Oh well, I could always go to Conservapedia; they're positively allergic to fact-checking. And facts. Anyway, there's probably enough of a consensus to ban me now, don't you think?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I never said anything about a big effort. As mentioned, 10 seconds, i.e. probably less time than it took you to write the silly random article comment or any one of your replies on this page was all it took. I'm not saying the job itself was important. I am saying the issue itself was important because for whatever reason you apparently decided it was something to lie about. And there's a big difference between not listing it or mentioning it, and coming here to claim you found it from the random article link which is clearly untrue. As mentioned earlier, when I first came here and found that page, the only thing of note was you didn't list it, which seemed silly but not such a big deal. Oh and there were the insinuations by DarkFalls, the primary thing which made me search for your wikipedia name, and I would have thought you too. I come back to find you dug yourself in to a very big hole for whatever bizzare reason by saying you came across the page by the random article function. Unless you're now claiming you not only forgot about the blog, you forgot you were paid to edit the article, and then just made up some crap about "random articles" rather than going through your records to check, or at least just not saying anything if you didn't know, which is almost as silly. Presuming you are really editing e-cigs solely for personal and not professional reasons, you should by now appreciate it was incredibly silly. Paid editing is frequently look upon very poorly, and when you have that history, it best to not get involved in anything controversial you care about. It pays even more if you're not willing to be upfront about your paid editing when challenged (or at least run away rather than making up silly stuff). Frankly if I had the same feelings about you towards e-cig articles I would be majorly pissed, fortunately I don't really give a damn (or if anything lean more the other direction). Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I forgot the blog but I did remember editing the article, of course. As I said, not something I'm very proud of; I realized fairly quickly that Derwick were, if maybe not as bad as Batiz said, well on the way.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah but that's the point isn't it? Even if all it was is you were embarassed to admit you'd edited it perhaps because of what you found out about the company, it's a little bit silly to then forget someone had already noted your involvement. And so think it's okay to come up with this random article story which frankly is about as silly as those "my brother did it" that we get, generally from minors. (As said, even having forgotten someone had already noted your involvement, it's also a little silly to think no one would find out when the pages where you were awarded the jobs are public.) These comedy of errors all adds up to suggesting you're "not someone we want on wikipedia" even given the most generous spin. (And I've now spend probably an order of magnitude or two more time replying than I ever did searching & reading about your paid editing, so won't be replying further even if this does further illustrate my point.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As I say, I really didn't give it that much thought. After all what was the big deal?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view obviously. I appreciate it was a major breach of TOS, although I didn't know about disclosure until today.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban for clear violations of our terms of service regarding paid editing. The editor has proven that they are not here to build a neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia. The massive chip on the shoulder seals the deal. I recommend that the paying clients ask for refunds, since a more honest and constructive attitude to editing may have helped to improve rather than disrupt the articles in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban per above. Should Fergus be allowed to return it should be subject to an indefinite topic ban in eCigs at the very least, if not also all topic areas related to products, businesses, and medicine (given the paid editing concerns). I also suggest referring this to the Foundation for the type of TOS-level ban that we've started to see enforced lately. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban. Wow. About 10 years in the purgatory that is Conser-vape-pedia might be just deserts. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, I was joking! I actually got permabanned from Conservapedia about an hour after finishing The Greatest Show On Earth. User:Conservative created a whole blog about me. They're not as bureaucratic as here but damn, they get really excitable when you mention Richard Lenski. Nah, RatWiki's more my scene. It's OK to snark there, and if anyone launches personal attacks everyone else just breaks out the popcorn.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"I know I don't smoke. I don't inhale because it gives you cancer. But, I look so incredibly handsome with a cigarette in my hand ... that I can't not hold one." - "Woodbine" Allen. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a bit of a thing for steampunk, so I actually prefer big polished steel or brass devices. The whole "not dying in my 40s" thing is just a bonus.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

With so many people arguing to ban me I almost feel like I should put up a fight. It seems somehow rude not to. How about, as a compromise, you give me an indef topic ban from everything but let me fix spelling, punctuation and grammar? I'm not really fussed either way but you'd get to banhammer me and, seeing as I'll still be using Wikipedia for research every day, I won't boil my blood looking at all the errors. As I say, it's no biggie, but this way if anyone's really annoyed I've asked for something you can say no to. Just a thought. Obviously I won't take any money from advocates of the Oxford Comma; even I will only stoop so low.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment from a disinterested editor here (and not having read completely the volumes above), but instead of willfully accepting an indefinite topic ban, why don't you instead willfully make a concerted effort to absorb the criticisms given and indefinitely change the behavior that seems to have irked people so? Seems that might make everyone happy... quite possibly even you. – JBarta (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In principle I'd say yes, but I've thought about it and I'd rather just make a clean break. I've been at Wikipedia for more than seven years and there's no doubt the atmosphere has changed. While a lot of the hierarchy are admirably flexible and helpful, plenty more are the sort of people who, in another life, would have been traffic wardens or public sector customer service staff - always too eager to reach for a rule and apply it as narrowly as possible. My nemesis, Doc James, is a perfect example; he's forever gold-plating rules. There's another one below; certain types of paid editing are strongly discouraged, and others are a WP:N violation, but as long as you follow the rules (I didn't) there's no blanket ban. Gold-plating, either through applying rules he/she isn't familiar with or out of bloody-mindedness. No, it's just a less welcoming place now. That's why so many new editors don't stick around; some tinpot Stalin jumps on their first edit waving a fistful of acronyms and they just say "Bugger this, I'm off to watch cat videos." My heart isn't in it any more. Sorry; I do appreciate the thought.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact I'll expand on that. If a new editor turns up and starts editing on e-cigs Doc immediately decides they're either an SPA or a puppet of me. Except maybe they're just someone who saw the article about a fast-growing activity, realized how shit the writing is and wanted to improve it. They're not going to feel very welcome when they're greeted with that sort of suspicion and hostility.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I've been here for going on TEN years and I find it to be much the same. Over time, immersion can create the illusion of things getting worse simply because negative experiences pile up in our memory... but the issues were always there... you're just noticing them more. I too have had a run-in with DocJames and found him a less than exemplar co-editor (at least in that encounter) but that could as easily be said about anyone by anyone else... and he may well feel the same about me. Such is the nature of the Wikipedia beast. A bunch of passionate, overly-blessed-with-intelligence editors, usually of differing views, different approaches and many with a combative streak all tossed into a pot and expected to get along. The reality is a dysfunctional bastard of the ideal... but in the end it does work. At any rate, it seems you have made up your mind. If you dive back in at some point, I hope this episode will result in future editing to go a little smoother for you. – JBarta (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You could have a point there. My experience is that organisations tend to ossify over time, and my assumption is that that's also happening here, but I'm certainly not going to bet my life's savings on it. But yes, I have made up my mind. I'll sort of miss it, and I do think I've made plenty of good-quality edits that have improved the encyclopaedia, but the topics that actually interest me are minefields and there's limited satisfaction in fixing the typos or grammar fuckups I find while I'm researching. It's especially frustrating that this has blown up just when we were starting to make real progress on the e-cig article, by concentrating on the bloody awful writing and leaving the content pretty much alone, but hey. You win some, you lose some. And now I'm off to finish an eBook on Louis Vuitton because, unlike the e-cig article, I get paid for that. Have a good one.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban Paid editing is prohibited by the TOS per here this isn't a Wikipedia English policy this is a Wikimedia foundation policy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, it isn't. Not as a blanket policy anyway.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban It is possible to argue that being a paid advocate can lead to improved articles, but there is no way to pretend that the encyclopedia is assisted by a paid advocate who bludgeons editors trying to oppose such advocacy, as seen with the provocative language in this section alone. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah well, I've done exactly one paid advocacy job, a year and a half ago, and I was glad to be shot of it. I don't think it improves the articles at all.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what your user-page says unless that "one job" was multiple articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between paid writing and paid advocacy, or more precisely one includes the other. I did one paid advocacy job, on Derwick Associates.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is actually the most enjoyable night I've had on Wikipedia for a long time. I'm even swearing less because I don't have that frustrating feeling of banging my head into a flabby, amorphous mass of bureaucratic dough. So, in a weird kind of way, thanks guys.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban and refer to WMF Legal as per my threat above. MER-C 02:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - A warning will suffice. Most of FergusM1970's edits have been generally constructive. -A1candidate (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, don't bother. Even I'm not opposing it. I agree that a lot of my edits have been constructive, perhaps even most (and the vast majority were certainly unpaid, including all of them before 2013) but I'm not temperamentally suited to this sort of consensus-building process. I'm happy to leave; it's time. Everyone will be happier, and if anyone misses me they can come visit me at Twitter. Let it go.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter, the fact is that Fergus got paid for it which means someone benefited from having the information added, money talks big in the real world and sometimes WP:AGF can only go so far. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban - I almost don't want to !vote because it seems like piling on at this point - so perhaps it's time to close this. FergusM1970 is violating the Terms of Use and many policies and guidelines, e.g. WP:NOTADVOCATE, but he is also clearly violating an important part of WP:PAY

"Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit "billable hours" to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. No editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them. Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus against his or her position by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:WikiBullying, WP:Own or WP:Civility."

This is a key reason that it can be impossible to deal with paid editors - they never shut up. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that it's particularly important now, but I haven't accepted hourly-paid jobs for a long time, only fixed price ones. I did violate WP:PAY, however, because I didn't disclose that I was being paid.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also a self-employed freelancer, but the difference between FergusM1970 and me is that I have never accepted a penny as payment for editing Wikipedia and never will. I edit Wikipedia as a volunteer activity. In my off-Wikipedia work, sometimes I work on a fixed price basis, and sometimes on an hourly basis. I make that decision based entirely on whether or not I can accurately predict in advance, based on past experience, how long a given job will take. One approach to pricing is not morally superior to the other. In both cases, I am fully committed to the best interests of my paying customer, disclosing to them everything that I know as a professional in my field, that they may not be aware of. I have my doubts that this editor has informed his paying clients of the risks they face in doing business with such a sloppy editor. As a published freelance writer for decades, I am almost as unhappy for deceived clients as I am for this editor's disruption of the encyclopedia. I recommend the virtues of silence to this editor, who seems to enjoy spouting off in a most inappropriate way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Shrugs. I'm not making any moral claims. Hourly just doesn't work for me. Anyway my clients seem happy enough.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point I feel a consensus is clear would anyone be willing to close this so we can move on to other things? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Suits me, although I wouldn't mind finishing my conversation with Doc. No biggie. Maybe I could ask him to ban me when we're done?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I reversed the closure as premature. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Given the contentious nature of the subject being discussed (debated/argued/lambasted/beleaguered), how can this result in anything but a gathering of those opposed to paid editing? Any vote to the contrary will simply be used in the future to call into question the neutrality of their edits. I'm not for or against the issue, but debating this issue should not require a scapegoat. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'm fine with getting banned, because Wikipedia eats up far too much time when I could be doing something constructive instead, but you have a very valid point. This is not a referendum on paid editing, because paid editing is not against the rules. I am not being banned for taking money to make edits. I am being banned for taking money to make edits without subsequently disclosing it, as I should have done.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OPPOSE this vote - --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm bored. Can we talk about how Doc James claimed to be a clinical assistant professor on his user page despite the University of British Columbia faculty site not listing him as one?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Impressive. So here we have Fergus editing my user page [34]

Yes UBC is slow at updating their website.

Here is a link [35]

And here are the tweets that he cc me on [36] and sent to UBC about this suposed discrepancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't CC you anything, Doc, and you cannot hold me responsible for what other people do.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry yes, you just sent them to UBC. It was your friends that cc'ed me Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it might spur them into updating the list a bit faster. I've asked people not to tweet you but I can't stop them, and the fact is a lot of vapers are angry with you.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism in my page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have a problem with the user Taichi, has recently been vandalizing my page German Guatemalan placing another false data of cobaners of German ancestry, the exact data its 150,000. I am not of Guatemala, but I have my residence in Guatemala, and it was easier to refer to the German club Guatemala, and was informed that German Guatemalans varies from 300,000 to 500,000 but coban are 150,000 but Taichi arbitrarily placed 50,000, and the worst is that my page was protected from staying with false number without change, I was create this page when I was use the account Halias 23, but i lost my password, and now I use my IP, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.125.162 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

re: "my page", please see WP:OWN — Ched :  ?  03:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If the IP is Halias 23/ELreydeEspana, he/she is block evading. [37] And see this earlier ANI thread: [38] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible threat to kill?

Hello everyone

I came across this diff in my watchlist a few minutes ago. I've rev del'd the diff as it basically seemed to be a possible threat to kill someone.

My understanding of policy is that we can't be the judge as to whether or not this is a serious threat so I'm also going to raise this to the emergency team to be on the safe side. However, this is a long term abuse case, details can be found at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Malusia22, this says that all future abuse needs to be raised at AIV/ANI. Raising it here to see if any further action is needed--5 albert square (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I had something similar come up recently here. User Mdann52 helped me with it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. @Mdann52:, like I say the LTA case states that if there is abuse from this editor then something needs to be raised here or AIV. I'm raising it here firstly because of the seriousness of the threat and secondly because I'm wondering if there's any type of further sanctions or action from Wikipedia that then needs to be taken. Can you advise please? --5 albert square (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@5 albert square and Scalhotrod: revdelling and reporting it to LCA is the appropriate action. If there is a history of this sort of thing, then indeffing is a good idea IMO as well. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

User:DefconBot is down

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone fix this? I don't know python and the userpage told me to go here and A930913 Hasn't been online in 2 weeks. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've manually updated it for now. --Biblioworm 16:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Biblioworm! TF ^{{ Contribs }} 17:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban on Jews and Judaism needed for AliAkar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• AliAkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:AliAkar/Jewish Supremacism (My Awakening to the Jewish Question) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• See also David Duke and User_talk:Mike_Rosoft#Jewish_Supremacism_.28My_Awakening_to_the_Jewish_Question.29

AliAkar has tried more than once to create a draft for white supremacist conspiracy theorist David Duke's book "Jewish Supremacism." The first attempt to move it to article space was was deleted by User:Mike Rosoft under WP:G11. That draft presented the work as "meticulously research" sic. When we pointed out to AliAkar that Duke should be trusted about as far as things can be thrown at him, AliAkar accused both Mike and me of having "self interest with this book" and "a personal problem with this book and the idea of the author." When I finally pointed out that Duke is, according to our article on him, known as a "white nationalist, conspiracy theorist," and "advocate of antisemitic conspiracy theories," AliAkar replied that he was simply trying to introduce the book, not Duke's ideas.

Mike deleted the draft (because there is no way it was ever going to become an article in that state), and AliAkar recreated it pretty much the same, calling the book "influential," downplaying the fact that Duke is a notorious conspiracy theorist and white supremacist (also downplaying the hoax nature of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for this draft), and claiming "Jewish Supremacism must be authentic." It also cites David Duke 25 times, and contains

AliAkar has created drafts for other articles in the past that, despite requiring a lot of cleanup, are still here. However, it's clear that AliAkar has a blinding antisemitic bias and should not be allowed to edit articles relating to Jews or Judaism. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic, borderline WP:DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If his edits had been against Muslims instead of Jews, he would have been banned immediately and all his edits would be oversighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.89.186 (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, because WP is part of the vast pro-Muslim conspiracy, except of course when it's part of the vast pro-Jewish conspiracy [39]. EEng (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Even pro-Jewish edits not criticizing Muslims are oversighted: [40], [41] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.40.216.222 (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC) I signed up to be part of the vast pro-Jesus conspiracy, am I in the wrong place?--v/r - TP 18:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Even if this were generally true, it would be because WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a religious battleground. I don't want edits to be "pro-Jewish" or "anti-Jewish"; I want them to be factual and useful. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now We need to tread carefully here. We do not sanction editors for their politics, religion, sex or sexual preferences etc even if/when their opinions are odious. Topic bans are the tactical nukes of WP sanctions and should only be employed when there is evidence of persistent, unrepentant disruptive editing in a given subject area, and after counseling and or the application of lesser correctives (i.e. temporary blocks) have been attempted without success. I am seeing very little of that here. Talk page discussion appears to have been limited to the issue of the book. If any other problematic edits were raised on the talk page, I missed it (always a possibility). I see no formal warnings. And I see no indication of any blocks. Yes,there are some rare and commonsense exceptions where you break out the heavy artillery right off. But this doesn't look like an unambiguous case of NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

AliAkar has made it clear that they intend to continue to introduce material promoting David Duke's "Jewish Supremacism" as factual, instead of the WP:FRINGE material it is. Blocks or site bans would be necessary for NOTHERE, but this is more of a WP:CIR issue: there is no reason whatsoever to believe that AliAkar is capable of engaging in subjects relating to Jews and Judaism neutrally (quite the opposite, in fact), but he can contribute positively in other areas.

At the very least, can we get a few more voices to explain to him (so he doesn't just think it's me and Mike) that the content of the page is unacceptably biased toward the book's claims? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that his article is not well written, and it is clearly biased with the intent to promote David Duke's nonsense. His books are not in any sense "influential", except perhaps among neo-Nazis. To read this article one would not get the impression that Duke is not an impartial authority on Judaism or Jewish culture but rather an extremist fringe voice and a crackpot (which, indeed, he is). Presenting fringe views as if they were mainstream (or, perhaps, even notable) is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. For example, we do not write about Fred Phelps as if he were an authority on LGBT rights. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree, to which end I have posted a level 2 warning on their talk page. When dealing with a problem editor, we don't start with bans. We try to work with them and then issue warnings if the problem persists. The next step would probably be a block of some kind. If future editing suggests we are dealing with an anti-Semite on a mission and who just can't be reasoned with then a topic ban becomes a legitimate option. Right now this sounds like an attempt to topic ban someone because we (quite understandably) find their views offensive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Based on what I have seen from a quick glance, I think this editor's future contributions should be the subject of some scrutiny. I would suggest we keep an eye on what they are doing for a while so we can address any potential problems quickly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support for topic ban and even indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE, and WP:SOAPBOX. I find Ad Orientem's oppose up above to be so far off the mark, that I can only assume he responded without actually looking at the problem . AliAkar is not here to build an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment as well. I don't see any particular evidence on uncivil conduct or anything of that sort. I don't even understand the warning, did User:AliAkar even edit Jewish Supremacism or David Duke? Now the editor's versions of the article aren't remotely neutral and won't likely be posted as is but that's an issue for deletion of those drafts if you want. Move them to Draft space and have it reviewed before being created. It's not like it's impossible to create a neutral article on that topic. Mahdi Zein-eddin is pretty standard for a new user in my view. It's problematic and needs to be reviewed but nothing that's a red flag to me. I see that his uploads at Commons were all deleted but that again isn't something particularly unusual for a new user. Is there something I'm missing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• It also cites David Duke 25 times, and contains Contains what, Ian.thomson? Looks like you hit "delete" one too many times :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't ban editors simply for holding political or religious views that we disagree with. The article in question looks like a good-faith effort at a well-sourced article describing Duke's book. While the article has some problems (mostly with the grammar, but also with its POV), this is nothing which can't be addressed via collaborative editing involving editors with different viewpoints. In the event that the user actually edit-wars to preserve their biases, or resumes copyright violations, then I'd be happy to consider a block or a topic-ban. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nobody has proposed banning the editor for holding certain views. What was proposed was banning the editor for crossing the threshold you yourself established for bad behavior in your oppose. The OP made it clear that the user has restored the problematic material after having the community already discuss it with them. The user has therefore crossed the threshold for a topic ban that you support. Lastly, this is not a "good-faith effort" as you claim, but a giant soapbox. I take it you don't work with content very much. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs for the edit warring, then, as well as diffs showing that the user had been previously warned about edit warring. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Query. Obviously this draft cannot be allowed to enter article space as is; the position the user takes on its fringe claims does not belong on Wikipedia. Are there other Judaism-related topics in which he has shown himself to be disruptive, or would it be enough to ban him from the topic of this book and/or Jewish conspiracy theories, broadly construed? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I want to introduce this book in WP and don't want to introduce David Duke's idea about Jew. I try to edit my article about this book and correct my grammar mistake in the article. Thank you for your attention AliAkar (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• @AliAkar: as Ian thomson already said, you tried this before and you were given feedback which you have ignored. Will you be changing the article to accommodate and meet the criticism you've already been given? Until you do, I really don't think you should be working in this topic area. When someone has a strong bias like you do, it's best if you find something else to work on. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, since it is premature to impose a very wide ban on the basis of very narrow edits. The article AliAkar created was absurd and irretrievable without a complete rewrite—deleting it was the correct course of action—but that is not by itself a basis for a general "Jews and Judaism" ban. I propose a more limited ban on articles related to David Duke or "Jewish supremism", since it is clear that AliAkar is incapable of writing a rule-conformant article on those subjects. The ban can be widened later if necessary. Zero^talk 08:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeat vandalism on Marissa Mayer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[42]

There has been constant vandalism and require an admin to protect the page pleaseAdlhgeo1990 (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Responsible users:

1. U:2601:B:9E00:E950:3039:5F9A:637F:F63F
2. U:76.111.172.54 (blocked already) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlhgeo1990 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term disruptive editing by editor with confirmed COI (User:John Foxe, article:Bob Jones University)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Bob Jones University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:John Foxe has a COI with Bob Jones University as a professor there. (He disclosed this under his enwp username [no real name divulged] to a newspaper in Jan 2011 and confirmed this at WP:COIN in Dec 2014.) Here are my concerns:

Issues with article ownership. He has contributed 1105 of the 4077 total edits to the article, and has made 8X more edits than any other editor (per tool). He has been accused of exhibiting ownership by four different editors at three different points in time: in Feb 2007 by User:Emote (diff1 and diff2) and by User:Barang (diff3), in May 2014 by User:Abductive (diff4), and in Dec 2014 by me (diff5).

Usage of misleading edit summaries. Recently, he has made several edits either removing controversial info about the university or changing its meaning under edit summaries that are misleading. For instance, in diff6 he used the edit summary "the "crest" is different from the logo" to make a minor wording change about the uni's logo but also to remove info about how the uni president disparaged two religions using the official uni website. In diff7 he used the edit summary "put the "cult" statement in a more logical place" to not only move the info of the the same event but also to completely change its meaning.

Preventing change to POV statements. Two editors (diff8, diff9, diff10) removed a POV statement from the lead ("Though the conservative religious, cultural, and political stances taken by the university have often generated controversy, they have also resulted in greater institutional influence than might have been anticipated from a college of its size."), which he reverted each time stating that he "can provide a reference", which he never did until after the recent COIN investigation, and which failed to validate NPOV anyway.

Based on his contributions to this uni article, both recent and past, I am unconfident in his ability to contribute directly to the article without bias and feel action should be considered. I propose an article ban that excludes the talk page (that way he can still suggest edits). —Eustress 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unembarrassed to say that, with perhaps the possible exception of one other person, I know more about the history of Bob Jones University than anyone living. I've just finished a scholarly book manuscript that covers its early years. It's hardly surprising that I've made more edits than anyone else—I'm simply more knowledgeable than anyone else.

I admit to having been sloppy about edit summaries on occasion, but the nature of the changes I've made in those circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. I'm more interested in correcting bad grammar, sloppy syntax, and disjointed paragraphs than in making ideological statements that would be reverted anyway.

The alleged POV statement in the lead had a proper citation until Eustress himself removed it here. I restored the footnote, then replaced it with a substitute that Eustress suggested.--John Foxe (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If Eustress believes I've edited the article in a biased way, he should prove that allegation by providing examples.--John Foxe (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be obfuscating the real issue, as the citation you're referencing pertained to a separate POV quote (as shown in the diff provided) you contributed to the lead. Had the same citation supported the POV statement in question, another ref tag should have been placed. (As an experienced editor, you're well aware of WP:PAIC "ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies".) The point is, two editors excluding myself tried to remove a separate POV statement, which you obstructed.

You say above that you are "more interested in correcting bad grammar, sloppy syntax, and disjointed paragraphs than in making ideological statements", but the myriad diffs above prove otherwise. I'm not proposing an action that would prevent your knowledge of BJU from being incorporated into enwp, as you would still be able to suggest edits to the talk page with an article-only ban. You're a professor at BJU and your actions have been very disruptive. —Eustress 00:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No comment on anything except the lead statement. Does anyone question this idea? Do we have any published sources that say otherwise? The school seems to attract far more attention than the typical 2800-student college (how many Americans have heard of Waynesburg University, for example?), and through things ranging from the publications of BJU Press (popular among Christian homeschoolers throughout the US) to its interracial dating stance (well documented and very unpopular among most people throughout the US), it definitely has a lot more influence, whether influencing people toward its positions or against them, than any other school of comparable size in the country. Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, yes, two editors (myself excluded) questioned this idea (see diffs above). The point is, John Foxe's editing behavior regarding this one line of text is further evidence of biased and misleading editing. —Eustress 00:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither in your diffs nor in the article history do I see any evidence of reasonable opposition to this statement on NPOV grounds. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(sorry, I failed to include diff10 as evidence) —Eustress 00:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As another but separate example, on Bob Jones III, John Foxe removed all reference (see diff11) to Jones' role in a sexual abuse scandal at BJU with the edit summary "I'd be happy to work with you on an appropriate summary statement." —Eustress 00:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eustress, You say, "You're a professor at BJU and your actions have been very disruptive." (made a comma error, by the way). It makes no difference if I'm Bob Jones III, you need to prove my editing of Bob Jones University has been "very disruptive." You haven't even proved it that it's not NPOV.

Think about it this way: the person who knows the most about the history of Brigham Young University is probably a prof at BYU and certainly a Mormon. Would it be COI for that expert to edit the BYU article?--John Foxe (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is very clearly a conflict of interest for someone to be editing the article about their employer. There are few more definitive examples of a conflict of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if the editor is an expert in the subject and has edited in a NPOV manner? (I'm presuming that in the hypothetical above, if the expert about BYU history were retired from BYU or just a Mormon, you believe there would be no COI).--John Foxe (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your rebuttal here exhibits textbook COI -- per WP:COI, "People with a conflict often 'esteem too highly their own reliability', and fail to realize the extent to which the conflict has affected their judgment." —Eustress 18:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sort of like the Salem witch trials: if you say you're not a witch, that proves you're one.--John Foxe (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, even if the editor is posting in an NPOV manner - that would be merely showing dealing well with having a conflict. It doesn't eliminate the reality that the editor would have an obvious interest in serving the needs of his employer. Having a conflict of interest is different from exhibiting bias... which they seem to realize at Bob Jones University, as their appeals process for concerns over discrimination or harrassment has those two possibilities as different reasons to accept an appeal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Do I understand correctly that John Foxe does not deny his conflict of interest (working for the University and writing a book about the subject)? If so, they had to post a notification about the COI on their user page long time ago and do not edit this University page, or at least never make reverts on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Some of the editor's edits do look helpful to the article and are not as obviously biased as might be expected in such a case. Overall, the article is pretty well written and illustrated, and the editor might be a large part of why that is so. I'm not saying there's no problem here, but ... —BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If they post a notification on their user page about their COI and stop edit warring on pages related to their COI, that might be just fine? My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• If an editor has a clear cut COI issue, then there is every reason for that editor to adhere to COI principles. Both being an employee of the subject university and having written an (apparently?) yet to be published book on the subject would both constitute very good reaasons for suspecting COI, as both at least potentially relate to the possibility of the editor having some sort of monetary conflict of interest. Obviously, if the book to be published were to be perhaps found significantly inconsistent with other reliable sources, or perhaps misrepresentative of the subject in some significant way, admittedly unlikely as that seems, that would be a reasonable grounds for COI questions on the basis that demonstable questionable reliability of the book might impact any proceeds to the author from it. There is no reason for the editor in question not to adhere to general COI guidelines and suggest significant changes to the article on the talk page, and receive positive feedback on the proposals, before making them. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eustress only knows that I told a reporter in 2011 that I was a BJU faculty member. He doesn't know that I'm one now. He needs to present credible evidence that I've edited the BJU article in a non-NPOV way.--John Foxe (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to state that I've never edited at Wikipedia or written a book for pay. (I wish I could say otherwise for the books.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that you have a conflict of interest and promise not revert any other editors on pages related to BJU? My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It's my position that I've edited the BJU article in a consistently non-NPOV manner and that it's your responsibility to present credible evidence to the contrary. I've made more than a thousand edits. There should be plenty of evidence. Set forth your case.--John Foxe (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Too bad. If you refuse to adhere to COI guidelines, that can be a reason for a topic ban or worse. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

He didn't "refuse to adhere to COI guidelines"; he refused your suggestion of a self-imposed zero revert limit; there's no policy requiring that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• From what I can gather, John has provided a source for the statement in the lead but it was later removed? You can't state that an editor is violating NPOV after you remove the sources supporting the statement. Whether the statement in the lead represents a synthesis of the source is another matter entirely though. Edit summaries aside, I am not seeing serious issues that require sanctions although the editor should pay more attention to COI issues - the proper process for editors with COI is to suggest edits on the talk page, rather than to implement them directly. The removal at Bob Jones III is justified, given the original form violated WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, although the current form seems to be adequate. —Dark 00:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is irrelevant here. Everyone suppose to follow WP:NPOV on the project. WP:COI is a different official guideline. Here is the problem: John Foxe is in state of conflict with other contributors (as obvious from his reverts) in the subject where he evidently has a COI. Moreover, he refuses to acknowledge his COI and comply. Given the fact that he is prone to edit warring [43], that means he is probably going to continue reverts. That does not look good. Indeed, this user seem to be under an 1RR restriction which he has violated two days ago [44], [45], in a page were he has a conflict of interest. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding that 1RR restriction referred to above, is that something imposed after the apparent lifting of such a restriction in August 2013? (Regarding the removed source citation, I think that citation was attached to a different sentence than the sentence being discussed.) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of the 1RR restriction. is it still in place? I will let another admin review whether a sanction for that is necessary. Also note that COI is a policy formulated to ensure policy compliance in terms of NPOV and verifiability so I have no idea why you say that it is irrelevant. I should also note that he seems to be edit warring with an SPA, which I have since blocked for disruption. Seems evident that it was an account created solely to edit war/harass the editor. —Dark 02:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Having looked at the lifting of the 1RR restriction and your participation within it, I will say that I do not appreciate being misled and it does nothing to help your case. —Dark 02:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, 1RR was lifted. I forget about this previous ANI discussion and only looked at his block record (I have a lot of other things to do besides editing here). I withdraw from this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to set this record straight. I interacted with this user on one occasion more than a year ago (and almost forget, sorry!). That was unpleasant [46]. I therefore argued that his 1RR restriction, which he received before, should not be lifted. The restriction was lifted, and it was said that "it should go without saying that any resumption of the previous problems would lead to more admin action". And here we are again, because John Foxe reverted multiple users, including an administrator, on a page where he has a conflict of interest [47],[48], [49],[50],[51], [52], [53] vs. [54], [55], [56], [57] [58] [59] [60], [61],[62]. If that does not justifies some kind of administrative action, then I do not know what does. My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And he said he will continue the same [63]. No wonder, because he effectively receives an endorsement on this noticeboard so far. That's fine with me. I do not edit these subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I tend to agree with DarkFalls here. Obviously the guy has a COI but he seems to be willing to put forward an effort to color inside the lines. @John Foxe:, I recommend that you avoid editing in a way that could even appear to be disingenuous, such as using edit summaries of, shall we say, fuzzy accuracy. That's just not playing fair, as your edits are numerous enough that other edits are going to rely on your edit summaries to see what you're doing. I also recommend that everyone on the page practice WP:BRD as a matter of habit. As a side note, anyone want to own up to Subterreynean? That was a particularly disgusting outing attempt. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize about those edit summaries. I edit a lot of non-controversial articles and get used to writing summaries like "stylistic tweaks." That doesn't (and shouldn't) cut it at an article as potentially radioactive as Bob Jones University.--John Foxe (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the question. Should an editor, who evidently has COI, officially acknowledge that they have COI and do not revert other editors on a page where they have COI (as required by the official guideline), or they can edit just as any other contributor by claiming to adhere to WP:NPOV? If the latter, then we do not need this guideline. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether a college prof bears the same relation to his employer as say, the Chief of Information at Megacorp, it is incumbent upon Eustress to prove that my editing at Bob Jones University has been (as he has claimed) "very disruptive." He correctly stated that in 2011 I told a reporter—who was writing an article on edit wars between Mormons and non-Mormon at Wikipedia—that I was a teacher at BJU; but he can not say, without revealing my identity, that that's true today. The only way to prove that I have a COI is to demonstrate that my editing here has been non-NPOV—or, I suppose, by having a buddy at the Deseret News call me again.--John Foxe (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

JF, please assume good faith ("buddy" comment?) and stop taunting editors to out you. I was concerned by your behavior at BJU and was troubled to learn about your employment at the university. Since you have been editing surreptitiously on enwp, I thought it appropriate to pursue COIN/ANI to air out the issue. (WP:COI, "If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly.") I outlined the disruptive editing from the beginning: you've contributed 1105 of the 4077 total edits to the article, and 8X more edits than any other editor; there are 5 diffs pointing to ownership issues, 2 diffs regarding misleading usage of edit summaries, and 4 diffs signaling POV pushing. I still think an article ban with exclusion of the talk page would be the best way to incorporate your suggestions into the encyclopedia while adhering to our COI guideline. —Eustress 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

My interest has been to underline your responsibility to prove that I've been editing in a non-NPOV fashion without revealing my identity. Eleven diffs from 1100 edits seems pretty small potatoes to me. As I've said above, I probably know more about the history of Bob Jones University than anyone living. I've just finished a scholarly book manuscript that covers its early years. It's hardly surprising that I've made more edits than anyone else—I'm simply more knowledgeable than anyone else. While I'd prefer to assume you're acting in good faith, you've edited this article since February 2012 but only pursued the COI after I noted on the talk page that you'd "reintroduced errors of fact" in your extensive reworking of the history section.

Again, are you willing to ban all faculty members at Brigham Young University from editing the BYU article? Would it make a difference if those BYU faculty members were retired? Don't all Mormons in good standing have a "financial connection" to BYU?--John Foxe (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have looked at the article and it comes across as quite neutral to me, representing controversial aspects of the University detachedly. There are much bigger POV problems out there. I see no evidence that John Foxe is engaged in advocacy, I also see no evidence that he is more engaged in promoting outside interests than in improving the encyclopedia and following our rules (which is the definition of COI). It also seems clear that whatever John Foxes relation to BJU is it is not in a marketing capacity (since he is writing academic manuscripts) but as a faculty member and historian working with the school. I dont see a major problem in the presented evidence, but would encourage John Foxe to not edit war and to give space so that other editors may also participate fully in the writing of the article - being more knowledgeable also carries the responsibility of using the knowledge gracefully, using it to educate others and not to exclude them. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restoring the edits of User:Arthur Rubin/IP list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm concerned about what has been going on, for years and years, involving User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. In short, apparently a very long time ago an IP user in Grand Rapids, Michigan vandalized some article, was blocked, and came back on a new IP address with the same behavior. Ever since, User:Arthur Rubin, User:Vsmith, and perhaps other administrators have been listing the new suspected IPs of whom they presume to be the same editor, reverting them, and blocking their IP addresses because they are from the same geographic locale, or have been editing very roughly similar articles, or exhibiting vaguely similar behaviors such as creating to-do lists. After reviewing User talk:Arthur Rubin/IP list, it seems like the original IP and events are not even available from Arthur when he is asked for them. I suspect that the evidence connecting the editor(s) being reverted today to the original offender would be tenuous at best, if it was even forthcoming.

The worst part is that most if not all of the edits being so meticulously reverted are clearly good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Not only that, but they have been markedly improving both in quality of content and sourcing through the years. Yet they are still utterly discarded with the same uncaring template messages as are reserved for the worst vandals. The admins participating in this endlessly repeating pattern are meticulously following the letter of the WP:BANREVERT policy. I can not imagine any more heartless way to prevent what have clearly amounted to thousands of good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia, or any less caring way to force the community to turn our backs on a persistent volunteer who has reformed and wishes nothing more than to contribute, but is still unwilling to communicate, having learned that the community is severely deficient in empathy.

Do I have the right to restore any number of the reverted edits which I am willing to personally approve and take responsibility for? Would anyone object if I did so? EllenCT (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen evidence of "good faith", and there is nothing vague about the similarities. (Per WP:BEANS, I decline to list them in public.) But, at least as far as I'm concerned, you may restore any edit you wish to take credit for, keeping in mind WP:OVERLINK, the actual WP:REDLINK (not at all similar to the one he uses), WP:EGG, WP:SEAOFBLUE, and other guidelines or "best practices". Back in 2012, I used to check all the edits, and found that (1) it took me longer to check the edits than it took the vandal to make them, and (2) most were inappropriate. I often do a cursory check to see if I've reintroduced a questionable statement, but when the batch has over 100, there isn't really time and I risk crashing my computer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• To clarify, an editor is welcome to make an edit. If that edit happens to duplicate what a banned user did, fine. However, making a habit of tracking activity around a banned user and reversing reverts of the banned user would be very unhelpful. WP:DENY is our only defense, and a habit of supporting a banned user would encourage them to re-double their efforts. If two admins think reverting the banned user is worthwhile, they are very likely correct. It is very hard to make sense of long term abusers—I recall one who made hundreds of good edits, some of which were a bit peculiar, but they were generally supportable. After several weeks of being left largely alone they started getting more and more bizarre. One thing they did was to move all the references from each paragraph to the end of the paragraph, and we are talking reasonably scientific topics where a para might be ten sentences with a dozen refs. Articles looked really weird when all the refs were at the end of the para! At that point, a couple of us started challenging the edits, and that's when it turned out that the user was not your average kind of editor. Fortunately, an admin swept past a few days later (coincidentally) and indeffed the user as a sock of an abusive LTA, and reverted the hundreds of edits the user had made to many articles. The watchers were very grateful. Repeating the moral of that story, the user looked 100% good for a month while they made many edits, and it was only later that they started getting slowly but definitely weird and obdurate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you; the reasons that you state are exactly why I raised the questions. Have you looked at this particular series of edits? For example, are you able to identify any hint of bad faith or incompetence in Special:Contributions/99.112.212.84? Do any of those edits with more than a handful of characters added constitute anything that you wouldn't call improvements? I haven't seen anything that I would call peculiar or bizarre, but I admit I have only looked at a tiny fraction, and mostly the recent edits on the list. I am concerned that while the statement "if two admins think reverting the banned user is worthwhile, they are very likely correct" is most always true in general, holding it as an absolute standard is an easy way to fall prey to groupthink. From our studies of systematic biases, I think it would be wise for us to allow that edits should always be open to review, even when any two administrators agree that they are bad. Do you think that might even be wiser when one of the administrators in question has been repeatedly sanctioned for bias? EllenCT (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:Block evasion as that is the reason the ip edits were reverted. This has been going on since the original blocks by another admin back in 2011/2012 and has been discussed here a number of times. The person behind those ip edits is simply thumbing his nose at Wikipedia policies by jumping ips to make numerous rapid edits. The person has been told the proper procedures for requesting the block be lifted and chooses to ignore that advice. As always, you are perfectly able and allowed to make any of those reverted edits yours. Coming here and implying that "one of the administrators" involved is bad just doesn't wash and that should be retracted. Vsmith (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Vsmith: thank you for your response. I have reviewed the policies involved. As my description above shows, I agree with your characterization of the initial events. But I do not feel like the IP editor is thumbing his nose, and I don't think it can be productive or healthy for the community to make such a characterization. It seems to me that the effort and care involved is representative of taking a persistent and principled stand to draw attention to the callousness with which the community treats editors who put literally thousands of edits of effort in to trying to reform. Have you been able to detect any hint of bad faith, incompetence, or lack of a clear effort to improve the encyclopedia in the IP editor's work over the past year or two? I appreciate and am grateful that you don't object to my attempt to bring his work into the encyclopedia. I hope that such outreach may some day encourage both sides to set their animosity aside and work together productively. As for the implication that you want me to retract, I'm not sure what you want me to write. There is a group of editors who have been stalking my contributions for almost two years now, and of that group, Rubin is the only administrator. If I hadn't decided to study the group's history to perform a statistical analysis of how unlikely our contributions' page overlaps had been given the typical subjects that they edit, then I never would have learned about the IP editor in question, or that Rubin has been repeatedly sanctioned for issues pertaining to bias, which is an incontrovertible fact, is it not? EllenCT (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: So this isn't really about the ip, rather it is about your dispute/perceived problems with User:Arthur Rubin, that's quite odd. Anyway, if you are interested in the ip, here are a couple links for you to read [64] and [65] to gain further insight into the situation. Vsmith (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by NAEG

A. Ellen, before filing this ANI what resolution-seeking steps did you take?

B. On the substance
B1. I've followed this for 3 years and this IP was seriously in the way of my gameplay. See User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP
B2. Where you see better edits I see a wikilawyer making a superficial attempt to get around complaints (by me, among others) of external link spamming.
B3. If you get inspired to study any of the sources posted and then take the time and care to fold them carefully into our articles then bless you, dear Ellen and more power to ya. The IP just sticks in a bit here, or spams the talk page there. But they don't invest sweat to develop any of these ideas. They spam the link and move on, with or without just enough text to make the claim they're trying to improve things.
B4. I notice you take a dig at AR, describing him saying "one of the administrators in question has been repeatedly sanctioned for bias?". Is it possible you resonate with the types of sources the IP tries to add to articles in your watchlist? If you do, then we have that common. It might interest you, or not, that my politics appear to be very opposite Arthurs and I rather identify with the IP's apparent POV. But fact I like the type of external link spam coming from this IP doesn't change its nature from disruption into project improvement, and it doesn't negate block-evasion's "serious breach of community trust" as described in WP:BLOCKEVASION. NPOV means it should not matter what POV is behind the IP's external link spam, and superficial edits. Spam is spam, and block evasion remains a "serious breach of community trust". Speaking of trust, next time please start your resolution efforts with polite inquiries at user talk pages, and very slowly work your way up the dispute resolution ladder. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: A. My purpose for posting here was not to file a complaint, but to ask the questions that I asked above, and which have been answered. I was originally going to ask on WP:AN but the instructions which appear when posting there clearly indicate to post here instead, because the questions pertain to an ongoing incident. B1. Have you been able to detect any hint of bad faith, incompetence, or lack of a clear effort to improve the encyclopedia in the IP editor's work over the past year or two? B2. I can't believe that you want to call a bona fide improvement in editing behavior and contribution quality as "a wikilawyer making a superficial attempt to get around complaints." Doesn't calling someone a wikilawyer imply that they cite rules? Has the IP editor ever done that? B3. What do you mean by "invest sweat"? All of the paraphrases I've seen have not been close paraphrases, and don't we prefer a closer adherence to existing sources than further work which is more likely to breach WP:SYN or WP:OR? B4. Again, if Rubin had not decided to go out of his way to stalk my contributions, then I would never have learned of the IP editor or Rubin's repeated sanctions. EllenCT (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been reported for vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

By Returnnew here: User talk:Jtmorgan#JohnBlackburne is a vandal (Concord Production Inc.). Probably the wrong venue so I thought I'd better bring it to the attention of admins at a more appropriate venue. This is perhaps related to the SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charliewolf79 but of course I'm not trying to jump the queue and get that seen to early.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sumit naithani SD

Howdy, Sumit naithani SD appears to need some administrative guidance. Though prolific, they seem not to regard Wikipedia's copyright concerns, as they keep uploading images without providing proper attribution of the source, or copyright clearance. (Please note the litany of notices on the user's talk page.) The majority of articles created by the user seem to be unsourced (Sonik Omi, Woh Main Nahin, Ab Hoga Dharna Unlimited, M3 - Midsummer Midnight Mumbai, Main Aur Charles, Meeruthiya Gangsters, Harmesh Malhotra, Teen Chehre, Aapas Ki Baat, Sherni, to name a few), which is additionally problematic, because it is very difficult to establish notability if there are no sources, and because lack of sources runs afoul of WP:V. Looks to me that they're just flinging content at the wall to see what sticks, instead of making thoughtful edits with the community in mind. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Although the articles aren't sourced, they are also poorly written. I don't think they're "flinging content". I think they're just another in a long line of problematic Indian users who want to add content about Indian people and their films and who do so without regard for our policies or guidelines. As if we don't already have enough of them. By the way, you neglected to notify the user of this discussion; I've done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist with the ANI notification. Rookie mistake. :( Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It is really easy to establish no notability if there are no sources. There is none. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Harassment on talk pages

On December 12, 2014 at 16:47, I reverted an edit from Dairyfarmer777 because his edit contained improper grammar. He posted an angry message on my talk page shortly after (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KristyBarnes#Scooby_doo_reversion), saying that I should have just "changed his all his grammar myself." I replied, what I felt to be kind a message, apologizing and saying I didn't mean to offend, but that I didn't like how he was trying to get me to fix all his bad grammar myself.

Over a week later, he posted another message on my talk page, basically saying that I didn't know how to use correct grammar, and continued to critique that. While doing this, he was trying to all the fix spacing issues that I made on my own talk page (assumably to try to point out another way that I was wrong). I reverted this edit, leaving an edit summary saying "It's considered rude to fix errors/typos on other people's talk page, let the person who's talk page it is do it themselves."

Today, over two weeks since the original reversion was made, he left yet another threatening message on my talk page, saying "Fixed the errors on my talk page? Cool thanks I've been meaning to get to them you saved me the trouble." Just my opinion I guess.

So should I ask for permission to fix my comments above? Might as well. I ask for permission to fix my comment's indentations."

And then, he left yet another message less than a minute later saying: "Also can I fix the one above this?"

I realize that I may not have handled the original edit summary the best, but I don't feel there is any call for him to be leaving harassing messages on my talk page nearly two weeks since I reverted his edit. My personal opinion is that he should be banned from Wikipedia, since he has a history of doing this to editors, but I'll leave that up to the Wikipedia staff.

Here's another recent example of the multiple times he's done this to editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TL565&oldid=635553975

I asked for permission to fix my comments on your talk page after you reverted my grammar edits of my own comments. I asked for permission to add the indents (I have ocd and it bothered me) and noticed after I already prematurely submitted it that it had an error in it too. I did not know that talk pages aren't allowed to be edited by other users, even if its their own comments.

Him? He? Gendered pronoun?

That past incident, a first and single incident - not multiple incidents, was for a userpage not a talk page. Do they involve the same rules? Userpages I now understand are only for the user themselves. I understand what I did then was against the rules. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: KristyBarnes should sign their post here cause this is confusing. Nothing I can see at the links is remotely like harassment by WP standards. Some of us have suffered 1000 times worse with nothing done about it. Try WP:AGF Happy Holidays everyone. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac, thanks for figuring out who wrote this rambling complaint. You're right, there is no harassment here. And that "incident" was a month ago. In addition, KristyBarnes, your edit summary here is really asinine; the Dairyfarmer's grammar was hardly illiterate--I suppose that for you "illiterate" is the opposite of "proper, literate English sentence". If you want to fix something there, fix the grossly verbose and redundant "He's also known to have" which is all over such articles. Now, Dairyfarmer, I suggest you take a long break from KristyBarnes's talk page; to answer one of your questions there, I don't think you need to ask permission to fix something about your own comments. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP editor

IP Editor 46.22.133.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making legal threats and removing sourced content at Saburō Sakai. [66] "(→‎Back to civilian life: You contine to allow this unsubstansiated slander about Mr. Sakia to be continually published on your website. I have filed a deformation suit with the 9th California District Court against your allowance of this continued slan)" ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the IP what he thinks a "deformation suit" is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Corset and bow tie. NebY (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that various IP's have tried that same revert. The better option might be to ask for WP:RFPP semi-protection for a reasonable length of time. (Unless someone here does it first.) It would also be good to check the text in question and ensure that it's properly sourced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he just has a bad tailor :-)

Yes, this has been ongoing for several months, only recently has the issue of legal threats come up. The original sources for the material are in Japanese, and I have had numerous discussions with the editor who provided the material. Personally, I was against its inclusion, but what I want doesn't matter. It seems reasonably sourced, but I don't read or speak Japanese. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have asked a user, who I think knows Japanese, to come here and evaluate the validity of the sources in question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just passing through, but it seems like the claims are entirely based on a single source, this book. Seeing as the claims deal with controversial issues such as his reputability, being involved in a pyramid scheme, spreading rumors, etc., might it be better to remove it for now unless other reliable sources that support these claims can be advanced? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

RainyDayBooklover

Single purpose account who is deleting sourced information from article Julia Allison. Additionally, another editor 2601:D:CA00:1206:D8F3:AAFD:A876:D84C, did a similiar deletion. I have never seen an account without a name nor an IP edit before. [67] CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks like an IPv6 address. Jehochman ^Talk 09:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Joyce 00

Just looking through the recent changes log and came across this user. They...

• Removed warnings from their talk page: [[68]], [[69]], [[70]], [[71]].
• Vandalized my Talk Page: [[72]]
• Vandalized SmileBlueJay97's Talk Page: [[73]]
• Harrasses other editors who warn or talk to him/her: [[74]], [[75]]

Could Someone do something about this User Please? TF ^{{ Contribs }} 09:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like she's gone, but not for too long. I'll Keep an eye out though. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 14:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Joyce 00 (talk · contribs) has also made many nonconstructive edits to multiple pages including SM Entertainment and Red Velvet (band). I have reported this user to WP:RVAN as well.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  17:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have applied a block. Only short, because historically previous edits are ok; I will watch. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Drmies use of admin tools

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One main issue is that there is documentation of you assisting a user in removing warning templates, and acting in collaboration to issue threats. The corruption goes further in of your awareness of threats made to the reporting user (me) regarding retaliation and while allowing reformatting of my TALK page. Additional misconduct was an ethnic slur made by you used as insult in using your decision to block. And the block was to inflict punitive damage and obstruct seeking assistance from other administrators. Long term misuse of administrative tools are numerous and can be described further with quotes and links. VersoArts (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&action=edit&section=24
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VersoArts&action=edit&section=10 |VersoArts (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Obvious WP:BOOMERANG. For WP:CIR, if nothing else. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get an accurate reply out of OP before that. He's coming here in good faith, let's at least attempt to see his complaint through. Uh, User:VersoArts, what did Drmies do again? It's not really clear with your initial complaint. Tutelary (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they have come here expecting good faith (their talk page is full of insults about the admin cabal etc), and they've certainly not shown much. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is any evidence of abuse it has not been presented yet. Sitush may have a point. Chillum 21:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think we should start giving people a chance to say what is bothering them instead of immediately running to WP:BOOMERANG and blocking/banning them. --Biblioworm 21:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that. Have you read the talk page of the user? The competency concerns voiced are based on more than this ANI post. There is a greater context. Chillum 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Or just close the thread, it's clearly going to generate nothing but heat, no light. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; but Drmies never actually blocked this user, he simply turned talkpage access off after s/he abused it. And I'd like to see a diff of an "ethnic slur" used by Drmies - I think we can assume that didn't occur. I think the editor is here in good faith, but their failure to understand Wikipedia policies even after being reminded numerous times, together with not-100% English comprehension, is causing problems. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Worth looking at User talk:VersoArts . Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see what admin action of Drmies is disputed here. Support closing this thread for lack of substance. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The closest thing I'm seeing to a "ethnic slur" anywhere in those two links as someone accusing someone else of being a fan of the Alabama Crimson Tide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, after glancing over Verso's talk page, I have to admit that I don't see anything problematic with Drmies' actions...on the other hand, I see a lot of stubbornness and accusations on Verso's part. Support closure of this thread. --Biblioworm 22:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've just indeffed VersoArts as WP:NOTHERE, which actually doesn't come close to summing up all the reasons for blocking them. First, I removed an incredible amount of obnoxious drivel from Bgwhite's talk page. Putting aside the content of the material, Bgwhite had asked VA not to post to his Talk page. Then, I started reviewed the user's edits and his Talk page, and the evidence that he has no interest in improving anything here was overwhelming, as was the evidence that he attacks, distorts, and rants at every turn.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest exactly what you did, with any unblock contingent on displaying supporting evidence. "Ethnic slur" is a serious charge which can't be allowed to stand without proof. He's only been here 2 weeks, so he might be relatively clueless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism-only account User:Thattrollking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This edit and the username of the account don't give me any confidence that this person is here to contribute to the encyclopedia and I therefore request an administrator block them on the grounds of these two things alone immediately to nip it in the bud. Yoppy The Nurse (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Already indeffed. Next time you see a name like that, just file a report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention which is the place to do that, thanks. Jusdafax 22:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed topic ban of Martin Hogbin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Martin Hogbin has failed to get consensus that Scottish should not be considered a nation at Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell. He has failed to change policy to force people not to use Scottish at a nationality at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom. He was struck down when he proposed that, if people disagreed with him, then all references to nationality should be deleted at Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell#We_must_remove_all_references_to_nationality. His latest section? Talk:James_Clerk_Maxwell#Maybe_it_is_time_for_Arbcom.

This editor is, quite simply, becoming a disruptive, one issue account, and it's time he stops. I propose he is banned from all discussions of the various British nationalities, broadly construed, for one year, as well as any edits to change them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Read through the discussions, and it is quite obvious that the behavior is not helpful. But does it warrant a one year topic ban? Maybe a shorter period to see if he can contribute to the project in other areas? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: If the ban is appropriately construed, I can't see how it would block any useful editing. It would stop him from changing nationalities in articles, and opening discussions seeking to change them or the policy surrounding them.It wouldn't stop him editing anything else, unless he violated his topic ban and was banned from all editing for a time over the issue. The only possible issue is with new articles he creates, but even then, it wouldn't limit him very much. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the scope. But isn't a year a bit too much? - Cwobeel (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have done nothing whatever to warrant a topic ban except to disagree with one group of editors and agree with another in one article. Any admin who topic bans be because they disagree with me would be seriously abusing their position. I am proposing to take the case to Arbcom anyway. If they decide to topic ban me that is fine but to do so prematurely would be most improper. A topic ban cannot be used to push one POV.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: The reason is was brought here was to get community consensus for a topic ban - not for a single admin to implement one. Not sure it's "premature" at this point - might even be a bit late (read: I agree with a 3-month topic ban), and it's certainly not a case for ArbCom. You agreed to live by WP:CONSENSUS when you started editing - perhaps it's time to drop this battle (for now) and move onto something more useful and less painful? the panda ₯’ 23:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an outrageous attempt to suppress one (well sourced) POV in an article. I am not a lone editor with a crazy idea there are several editors who totally agree with me that the article is currently 'factually incorrect' as proved by several very reliable sources. There is a similar sized group who disagree with me. We are currently discussing the subject in a generally civil fashion to try to reach a consensus. I have now proposed a compromise solution that is fully in accordance with WP core policy, that we state no nationality until there is a consensus on what it should be. I have not edit warred that proposal but continue to argue that in the circumstances it is the right thing to do. What is wrong with that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

At present, regarding my compromise proposal, there would appear to be three editors supporting it and three against. Should we topic ban them all? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, Martin Hogbin hasn't been edit-warring or vandalizing pages. The timing of this report is troubling, as MH is currently considering the Arbcom route, concerning the situation surrounding WP:UKNAT. Let's be patient & let those discussions run their course. PS: Please note, there are editors who support his proposals. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a minority - he's been voted down every time he's brought it up. He's basically engaging in forum shopping, taking it everywhere. Threating Arbcom over a content issue is not laudable behaviour, that's part of the problem - he will not drop the subject when consensus goes against him, he his attempting to use every single process, from changing policy to forum shopping to threatening to take things to Arbcom in order to force consensus to overturn to how he wants it. That's not good. At all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

For those of us new to this conflict, can you provide some representative diffs as examples of the alleged disruptive behavior? Gamaliel (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd echo Gamaliel's request. From what I could see (looking at this for the first time), there was some edit warring recently but the amount of discussion on the talk page (Talk:James Clerk Maxwell, in particular the nationality section) in relation to whether the infobox should list him as (1) nationality - British & citizenship - none, or (2) nationality - Scottish & citizenship - British, or (3) nationality - Scottish & British & citizenship - none, or (4) nationality - none & citizenship - none, is excessive and utterly disproportionate to the reliance placed on such information in the infobox. Can Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) and FF-UK (talk · contribs) confirm whether they would be willing to take voluntary binding restrictions on this issue in relation to the article, and if so, the specific scope & duration of such restriction they would be prepared to accept? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there has been much discussion between myself and FF-UK on the question of whether the infobox nationality should be 'British' or 'Scottish'. This has mainly consisted of the presentation of sources and lines of argument. However, as neither of us has succeeded in persuading the other of anything, I would be happy to agree to cease this discusssion forthwith intil a suitable venue for achieving consensus is agreed.

Regarding my proposal to leave the infobox nationality empty until true consensus is reached, I firmly believe that this is the only option in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin:, thank you. Can you please also clarify that this would also extend to ceasing making any edits in relation to nationality/citizenship on the article itself? I also @FF-UK: to ask that he confirm if he is willing to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the same terms.

I did notice your proposal for the article when trudging through the overwhelming discussion on the talk page, but this was not agreed by others. As this is assessed as a GA, I don't think anyone here wants it becoming unstable over this disagreement, and policy does not always work immediately and absolutely in practice as everyone would have gathered by now. So as jarring as the latest version might appear to both of you, it was apparently made in an effort to compromise. Would you be prepared to accept that version until a properly constructed article RfC has concluded with a clear consensus? From both perspectives, the overall "harm" if any is fairly low in this version (bearing in mind the reason I specified above for characterising the relevant talk page discussion as disproportionate in size). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Any topic ban would be better aimed at those who, as ever, seem to see this issue as an opportunity to go into bat for their most favoured nation on an individual page (usually, funnily enough, their own and rarely anyone else's) rather than taking the broader view, looking with an open mind at how to present sometimes conflicting information and asking the simple question: "What would help provide consistency and clarity in a specific infobox field for readers across all pages?" And the opening claim in this thread is utterly misleading to the point of being deceptive: this debate is not about whether Scotland is a nation or any attempt to deny that. Yes, MH has zeroed in on this issue, but what precise evidence has been presented of actual disruption for the lynch mob to look at? It's this kind of agenda-driven, point-scoring behaviour, combined with the gang mentality, that makes so much WP content unreliable and/or meaningless and trying to edit here so pointless. N-HH talk/edits 12:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should also say this to be clear; in asking both Martin Hogbin and FF-UK as to their willingness to accept voluntary binding restrictions on the issue in relation to this article, this is not an indication that both editors are not making any positive contributions towards the article or the project. It is just that both editors have been the main players editing/discussing this issue exhaustively to the point that anyone with fresh perspective does not want to go near it, and the quantity of discussion between them is very disproportionate. There is little they can add usefully now which has not already been said by them. Hopefully this will assist in attracting outside input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am happy not to edit the Nationality field to 'British' until there is a clear consensus on what to do next but what I have proposed is a compromise. One side, including me, want the nationality field to be 'British' and the other want it to be 'Scottish'. My proposed compromise is to have nothing at all in the nationality field. (Nationality - Scottish, Citizenship - British is how the article was when I came; there is no disagreement about citizenship). I would not object to removing both fields until the matter is resolved but to leave it as it is is not a compromise at all.

Surely leaving the two fields blank is the correct thing to do as neither has a source and editors cannot agree what to put. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There's also a "Citizenship" field set to British. So your "compromise" is to remove "Scottish", but leave "British" in the infobox. "Compromise" does not mean, "give me everything". Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! this is not a compromise - it's another means to achieve the same outcome; As I have said to Martin on the essay page, when a particular avenue is closed, he simply tries another one - and always with the single intent of removing "Scottish" in lieu of "British". This "compromise" is just another means to secure Martin's intended outcome. FDCWint (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an update - I have left the a message on both Martin Hogbin's talk page [76] to clarify and asked FF-UK on his talk page [77] to clarify. If both agree, we should be able to move forward.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I said just above, ' leaving the two fields blank'. I have no problem in blanking the Citizenship field if it helps. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, thank you for your constructive intervention. I am happy to agree to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the article itself, as Martin Hogbin has done, however I note that he has not extended that to talk pages and has continued to edit there. I will not be initiating any new talk activity, but there are two issues which should be recognized.

1: it is not just MH but also an IP editor who reflects and supports MH's opinions. This editor started editing on the nationality issue on 30th October (as far as I can tell) and from then till this edit all edits were exclusively on nationality. So far he/she has sequentially used nine different BT WiFi hot spots, each for a few days at a time with no overlap. These IPs are 109.152.250.125; 86.145.98.85; 109.152.249.9; 86.180.32.141; 109.152.248.204; 86.129.126.155; 86.180.33.175; 86.163.109.109 and 86.180.33.60. In total they account for 158 edits. Adding that to Martin Hogbins's 263 edits on nationality since his first edit at James Clerk Maxwell gives a total of 421 (compared to my 115 on nationality).

2: Both Martin Hogbin and the IP have a habit of mis-stating the points made by others, misquoting sources, mis-using sources, quoting invalid sources (eg a bootleg mirror of Wikipedia for Schools and an outdated (by 100 years) version of Encyclopedia Britannica which not only describes JCM as British, but gets his birth date wrong by 5 months!), denying sources, even deleting valid references in the article! (eg this deletion from the IP, a deletion which was subsequently repeated by Dave_souza!). Both Martin Hogbin and the IP have generally displayed a disregard for the truth. I will not allow any further dishonesty to pass without remark. Otherwise I will refrain. FF-UK (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Updated IP edit history. FF-UK (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support per WP:BATTLE. Martin Hogbin has a long history of going to war in places where he finds a grey area, such as the fact that Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom was never elevated beyond an essay, even though it exists to help the community understand, as others have noted, the "flexibility" involved. Martin is anything but "flexible", and stubbornly takes one extreme and threatens to fight anyone who attempts to move to the center. I'm not just talking about this topic, this has gone on everywhere Martin Hogbin shows up. So putting aside the offensive nature of his argument (as it insults Scottish people everywhere by denying them their identity), the problem is Martin's penchant for black and white thinking in every discussion, and putting a virtual sword to the throat of anyone who disagrees with him. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the issue with identity, I am referring only to the nationality field of the infobox, which I suggest we leave blank until we have a true consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Martin your position is well known. On your talk page you said, "The essay that you point me to is nothing but the opinion of a few editors, with all dissenting opinion ignored. There is no nationality of 'Scottish' and certainly no authoritative sources saying that Maxwell's nationality was Scottish." The community disagrees with you on those points. We will never have a "true consensus" (does there exist a Martin Hogbin argument that isn't fallacious?) and the existence of the essay is evidence for this lack of consensus, and this has been pointed out to you many times. Your behavior is disruptive, and insisting that we all drop what we are doing and discuss this all over again to reach the same outcome as before is tantamount to lunacy. Adam is correct in trying to put a stop to this. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per above. Incapability to follow consensus and few other issues including the forum shopping. Noteswork (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose He is simply trying to make the articles accurate Flagators (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Martin is simply trying to keep articles accurate and prevent them from being used by pressure groups to promote their political causes. 86.180.33.175 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Martin certainly likes to edit controversial pages. He does this with care and thoroughness. Researches the sources, looks for consensus, follows wikipedia policy. We need more editors like him on wikipedia. Yes he looks for support when engaged in some controversy. Who doesn't? Richard Gill (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC) (Incidentally the problem in question is simply that the word "Nationality" has two quite distinct meanings, and both sides need to be more flexible, and admit the existence of an alternative meaning of the word. I see an equal rigidity of thought on both sides. The question needs to be discussed at a higher level eg through a RfC) Richard Gill (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It was. He proposed a policy change. It was voted down. There's looking for support, and forum shopping. Threatening arbcom because a vote goes against you goes beyond both of those. He's not threatening arbcom over behavioural issues, he's threatening it because people disagree with him. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I lost a vote on what I admit was a poorly worded and ill attended RfC on whether nationality should always refer to the legal jursdiction under which the subject falls. I think my poor wording was not understood by some respondents.

On the Maxwell article I have since proposed an obviously neutral compromise that, until there is a clear consensus, we should put nothing in the 'nationality' field of the infobox. That is what is given as the reason for my proposed topic ban at the top of this section.

I am not 'threatening' Arbcom I am going to put the case to them, because I think it is of vital importance to the integrity of WP. They will decide whether to take it or not.Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Martin is not the only editor arguing his side, there are others and therefore he cannot be considered an SPA, or a lone wikipedian fighting a loosing war. Oppose! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I've been watching the relevant discussions for some time and have deliberately stayed away because it's a minefield and a time-drain. But I find it troubling that we're now looking at topic bans. I don't entirely agree with MH's point of view, but I have sympathy with it. However difficult it may be to debate with him, I see editors on the other side who are equally intransigent. I see no behavioural grounds for a topic ban. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is very easy to lose sight of the facts as they become lost in the huge amount of text generated by MH, myself, and others. Firstly, everyone should be aware that neither MH nor myself have added any new material to the article. The disagreement is solely about MH's insistence that material should be removed, or changed (delete Scottish, add British). My point is that the sources we have clearly identify him as Scottish, the infobox (added by Canadian editor Je at uwo in 2006) originally stated that he was Scottish, and has remained so for most of the time since. My editing of this page is limited to reverting errors, I observe the guidance provided at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. I do this because I have a very strong interest in the subject, James Clerk Maxwell. I am actually a Trustee on the executive of the James Clerk Maxwell Foundation which owns and preserves his birthplace in Edinburgh as a museum. (However, my editing should not be taken as an official position of the Foundation.) Secondly, both MH and others who wish to change the infobox have, on many occasions, tried to suggest that the reasons for Maxwell's nationality being shown as Scottish lie with some sort of nationalist conspiracy. Analysis of Je at uwo's contributions to WP show an editor with a deep interest in science, and no obvious interest in Scotland, so it certainly seems unlikely that he had any political motivation to push a Scottish Nationalist viewpoint. I have declared myself to be proudly English, but living in Scotland. I am very pro-union and was an active campaign worker for the "Better Together" campaign opposing independence during the recent referendum. I have no interest whatsoever in promoting the nationalist cause. However, MH clearly has an inability to understand any motivation other than nationalism could lead one to support the maintenance of accurate Scottish history and respect for its culture. It is this cultural blindness that appears to lie at the heart of his campaign. FF-UK (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, again AFAIK, Martin Hogbin hasn't been edit-warring over or vandalizing any UK bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Noone ever said he was. The problem is that he's forumshopping, and will not accept consensus that doesn't go the way he wants. Particularly with a minefield topic such as nationalities in the UK (historically, somewhat oppressed), it's really stirring up hornets' nests to be threatening Arbcom - not over a behavioural issue, but in order to attempt force Scottish nationality to be listed as British - which is, of course, not a valid use of Arbcom, and to be suggesting it shows a complete lack of perspective on the issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Arbcom should be given the opportunity to accept or reject Hogbin's request. BTW, Martin Hogbin is not threatening Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Martin is most certainly threatening to go to Arbcom - I realise from your talk page message that you haven't seen that idiomatic construct before, so let's let this pass. Let's review. He started a thread on the talkpage, was outvoted. He went to Village Pump to change policy, was outvoted. He proposed a "compromise" that was no such thing - a previous compromise was "Citizenship: British; Nationality: Scottish"; he wants to remove the "Scottish" part, and only the "Scottish" part and is acting as if this is a compromise. He is now - without justification, threatening Arbcom on the heads of anyone who disagrees with him. (I trust I can use that idiom now?) Arbcom do not take content issues, but Martin has made it very clear in the threads linked that he will not accept any consensus that doesn't expunge Scottishness from the infobox; that's the problem: He will not accept consensus, and will not stop. He's forumshopping. He's presenting the same proposal in slightly different ways every few days, and he's attacking everyone that disagrees with him. In short, he's being massively disruptive. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Adam, please read what I wrote above. I am perfectly willing to blank both fields. Citizenship and nationality if it helps.

I am fully entitled to take a case to Arbcom. They will decide whether they wish to take it on and what the outcome will be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You are also fully entitled to take the case to the police. But you would be wasting their time, as sorting out content issues on Wikipedia is not what they're for, and threatening to do so shows a gross lack of judgement on your part. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't share your concerns, Adam. We'll have to agree to disagree, about whether MH should be t-banned or not. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC) :)

• Support - Identity within the UK is a volatile subject; and one which is subject to clear divisions of opinion - for some (such as myself), the UK is a united kingdom of equal constituent nations, and in that view, people are primarily English, Welsh, Scottish.. and also part of the larger entity, and therefore British. For others, British is the sole identity, and the constituent parts either do not exist at all, or are subservient to this enough to be not only not worthy of comment, but "incorrect". Naturally, this is the view supported by the UK government, which represents the British state and establishment, and Martin has therefore found UK government documents to support his position. I believe that adopting a "British only" position on nationality does not recognise the ways in which people living in the UK actually interpret their identity, but instead seeks to impose a single political POV, as legally mandated by a government as "correct" with other views to be removed. This does not feel like a reasonable position for Wikipedia to take. FDCWint (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

FDCWint, you explain why your point of view differs from Martin Hogbin's, not why he should be banned. You are welcome to your own point of view, but not welcome to attempt to ban editors of Wikipedia with a different point of view. Richard Gill (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You are quite correct, and I did not extrapolate to my point cleanly - my fear was that Martin's desire to continue trying to pursue this topic by any means open to him would result in the eventual adoption of his position whether consensus was there or not, which I felt was bad for WP. I realise that the discussion has moved on, and this is largely irrelevant now, but wished to clarify my position; I agree completely with your statement, and would absolutely not wish to see an editor banned from a topic simply for holding an opposing POV to me. FDCWint (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose' There isn't really a strong case here for a topic ban. I could drop some long elegant response here but that really covers it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as follows. Some high-profile editors polarize and divide the community. Attempting to deal with them at WP:ANI has shown that attempting to deal with them at community noticeboards is not productive; it merely further polarizes and divides the community. Such editors should either be ignored or left to the ArbCom. Other lower-profile editors polarize and divide that segment of the community that pays attention to them. User:Martin Hogbin is such an editor. It appears that he polarizes and divides British editors or at least some British editors. WP:ANI should not try to deal with him unless he is editing not only against the MOS but against consensus established for an article by the RFC process, or unless he is violating WP:3RR. As it is, leave him alone, or publish an RFC on an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps but it is the community's responsibility to attempt to deal with our own issues when we can. This has been the way for some time. I agree with the thought for the most part but there does come a point when your can no longer ignore a problem. We cannot leave editor issues to Arb Com all the time. If this attempt to discourage bad behavior fails and after time it has been demonstrated that the editor is so contentious that the community is so polarized that a consensus cannot be formed....then we would have little choice but to use Arb Com. I just don't like shutting down an ANI discussion because the opinion is that it just won't work. At least let it try to demonstrate that you are correct (which you probably are).--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – infoboxes are a blunt instrument, attempting to fit what can be complex situations into over-simplified boxes. The dispute is over such a case: the prime meaning of Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a country. In English, the same word is used in the sense of an ethnic group. Maxwell was a British subject in the legal definition of the time. While we don't know his own opinion, other sources identify him with Scottish national identity. Given the complexities, the current infoboxes are misleading and it's reasonable for them be left blank until the community agrees on improvements to the infoboxes. The proposed topic ban would stop such progress towards clarity, and give support to those unable or unwilling to provide verification of contentious article content. . dave souza, talk 11:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Viriditas and this diff, which I encourage others to examine. This matter is way too important to Martin. His involvement in this area has been neither clueful nor helpful. Fight your battles elsewhere, this is an encyclopedia. --John (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Concur the removal of talk page comments was inappropriate, but need more evidence to support a ban. NE Ent 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Check the diff again. He did not remove any "talk page comments", he deleted a long standing, community consensus driven section from the essay, which is in reality, a supplementary guideline. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This was a perfectly legitimate edit. I boldly deleted a section because I saw no consensus for it on the talk pages and considered it irrelevant. My edit was reverted and I left it at that. That is how WP is supposed to work. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Oh, sorry, missed that -- then that's no evidence of a need for a ban. Like MH he just said, that's simply a bold edit, already reverted. Essays are essays, not supplementary guidelines. (e.g. compare WP:DTR, WP:TTR). Now if MH was doing something actually disruptive, like posting to ANI without signing his posts... NE Ent 15:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Too much talk, not enough diffs presented here. NE Ent 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mutual voluntary binding restriction (result: withdrawn)

• I'd found that this month alone, there were about 17 reverts in relation to two words in the article's infobox - starting with an edit which I could at best label as a "bold edit" by Martin Hogbin [78] then reverted by an IP address user. This paved the way for the article becoming unstable with edit-warring: dave souza [79], FF [80], Martin Hogbin [81], Hertz [82], IP [83], FF-UK [84], CFindlay12 [85], IP [86], Martin Hogbin [87], IP [88], IP [89], FF-UK [90], Martin Hogbin [91], FF-UK [92], Martin Hogbin [93] followed by John [94]. Maybe it was luck that te GA assessment was not delisted after such instability. As for the talk page, the issue is not nastiness; the issue is (primarily) two editors debating 2 words in an article's infobox, and despite more than 27,000 words of discussion about it, disagreement between the editors remain. Unsurprisingly, no uninvolved editors want to go near the discussion which is so overwhelmingly long in size, and disproportionate to the content being challenged in the article. Both editors have said more than enough to make their views clear, and it's better left now to an article RfC where others can finally comment if they wish (without the risk of further exhaustion). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

One editor (FF-UK) was willing to accept the terms of this collapsed proposal if the other editor (Martin Hogbin) did. Unfortunately, since Martin Hogbin has indicated below that this is "not accepted" by him, this proposal is withdrawn. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd proposed a voluntary binding editing restriction for the sole purposes of deescalating the dispute, allowing fresh input, and so that the article talk page is not overwhelmed further about this infobox dispute. Both Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) and FF-UK (talk · contribs) accepted a voluntary binding restriction whereby they shall: Not edit in relation to "nationality" or "citizenship" in the article James Clerk Maxwell (in particular, the infobox contained in the article); and Not discuss "nationality" or "citizenship" further in connection with the same article anywhere on Talk:James Clerk Maxwell. The restriction should be: broadly construed - so that it applies to concepts such as "national identity" in connection with the article; enforcible - which is why we call it binding; and for an indefinite duration. A more suitable venue or method of discussion (such as article RfC to be commenced on another page) is to be agreed towards coming to a clear consensus on the issue, and at the conclusion of the discussion, the restriction will be lifted again (but we don't know how long that will be). Even though parties (and others) may be frustrated from the number of times this has gone on, this will be a final effort to resolve this issue and should provide sufficient clarity for those not involved to come to a view on conduct issues which may arise thereafter. In order for this restriction to be binding, the community will need to formally endorse the restriction so there will be no hesitation by uninvolved administrators in enforcing this if there are breaches. Once we have that, it can be logged, both users notified, and this ANI can be closed for now. Can we please have input from the community, especially uninvolved users? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Endorse as proposer. This covers the parts both users accepted MH: "I would be happy to agree to cease this discusssion forthwith intil a suitable venue for achieving consensus is agreed." MH: "I am happy not to edit the Nationality field to 'British' until there is a clear consensus on what to do next...." FF: "I am happy to agree to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the article itself, as Martin Hogbin has done...I will not be initiating any new talk activity...." Of course, it should be understood that any other users (be it throw away IP addresses or established editors) who disrupt the talk page or the article over this infobox dispute are gambling with their site-wide editing privilleges. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn per comment in collapsed box. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Not accepted. I have made it clear that I am willing to volutarily refrain from editing the infobox nationality to 'British' until a concensus is reached on what the field should contain. I have already stopped editing that field entirely of my own volition and intend not to edit it again until significant progress is made on this topic. I do intend to continue pressing for the obviously neutral compromise of leaving both the Citizenship and Nationality fields in the infobox blank until the issue is finally resolved. This compromise is in accordance with the fundamental WP policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V and to even suggest sanctioning and editor for just arguing that we follow core WP policy is absurd. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please show me where this proposal has been fully accepted by FF-UK? I see no sign of it here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above on the 24th (regarding the proposal from Ncmvocalist), with the tally of 'wandering IP' edits updated on the 27th:

"I am happy to agree to accept a voluntary binding restriction on the article itself, as Martin Hogbin has done, however I note that he has not extended that to talk pages and has continued to edit there. I will not be initiating any new talk activity, but there are two issues which should be recognized.

1: It is not just MH but also an IP editor who reflects and supports MH's opinions. This editor started editing on the nationality issue on 30th October (as far as I can tell) and from then till this edit all edits were exclusively on nationality. So far he/she has sequentially used nine different BT WiFi hot spots, each for a few days at a time with no overlap. These IPs are 109.152.250.125; 86.145.98.85; 109.152.249.9; 86.180.32.141; 109.152.248.204; 86.129.126.155; 86.180.33.175; 86.163.109.109 and 86.180.33.60. In total they account for 158 edits. Adding that to Martin Hogbins's 263 edits on nationality since his first edit at James Clerk Maxwell gives a total of 421 (compared to my 115 on nationality).

2: Both Martin Hogbin and the IP have a habit of mis-stating the points made by others, misquoting sources, mis-using sources, quoting invalid sources (eg a bootleg mirror of Wikipedia for Schools and an outdated (by 100 years) version of Encyclopedia Britannica which not only describes JCM as British, but gets his birth date wrong by 5 months!), denying sources, even deleting valid references in the article! (eg this deletion from the IP, a deletion which was subsequently repeated by Dave_souza!). Both Martin Hogbin and the IP have generally displayed a disregard for the truth. I will not allow any further dishonesty to pass without remark. Otherwise I will refrain."

I have, so far, adhered to this with the only edit which I have made on this subject being to demonstrate the falseness of the latest claim made by the 'wandering IP' on citizenship (which he still refuses to accept despite the clear source for disproving his claim). FF-UK (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed closure (result: declined)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recommend an administrator close this report, as a majority has chosen to not topic-ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree to closing. Martin Hogbin has made clear above that he has not agreed to Ncmvocalists suggestion to: Not discuss "nationality" or "citizenship" further in connection with the same article anywhere on Talk:James Clerk Maxwell. In fact, both he and the "wandering IP" who closely supports him (now using the ninth successive BT Wi-Fi hotspot - see list above) have continued to edit that talk page today. Martin Hogbin has also continued to edit on the subject at Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. This issue remains unresolved. FF-UK (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I agree with FF-UK here. Martin continues to obsess about this matter despite having his proposals kicked into touch at all of the many venues he has proposed them at. If he is unable to concede at some point, we will be back here again. I would rather nip this off now; a month of disruption is enough. --John (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• I agree. This thread should very definitely not be closed until it can be closed with the topic ban requested by the two editors above, who are are in a content dispute, funnily enough, with the person they want topic-banned. Natural justice demands it. FFS. N-HH talk/edits 00:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep discussion open. This is Wikipedia, not Martinpedia. He has to follow community consensus; we, however, do not have to follow him. Martin gleefully writes, "I do intend to continue pressing for the obviously neutral compromise of leaving both the Citizenship and Nationality fields in the infobox blank..." Stop right there. We are asking you to step away from this topic. Since you absolutely refuse, there's a pressing need for a topic ban and/or a block. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term hoaxer/disruptive editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Work number1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is virtually since the start he edits here only busy with hoaxing,[[95]],[[96]], frauding,[[97]],[[98]],[[99]], making extremely disruptive edits, [[100]],[[101]],[[102]],[[103]],[[104]], or doing combinations of all these things,[[105]],[[106]]. He/she already has gotten a warning for it,[[107]], but he/she obviously doesn't seem to care at all.

This is just a mere fraction of it, and it's extremely disruptive and obstructive to Wikipedia's content. Take a look at all the other thousands of editors who make an account to do such things and tell otherwise. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to consider these edits hoaxes. That's not a "this guy is fine" statement: I don't understand the situation and don't see a reason to make any conclusions about them. Would you please explain why they're hoaxes? I tried to source-check some of them, but everything I checked was sourced to stuff I couldn't access, all print resources aside from a books.google.co.in book that's not visible with my American IP address. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor certainly has problems with the English language and with violations of WP:No original research. He has been adding population figures that are not found in the cited sources. He should be cautioned against making further changes. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend, were you able however to check the other edits I linked? Perhaps calling it hoaxes wasn't clear enough on my part; Rather just all extremely disruptive on top of a large amount of frauding of articles. Per this edit [[108]] he changes a sourced edit that states "Indo-Aryan" and a dated historical time of the "5th and 6th century", into Bene Israel and 9th and 10th century, respectively while keeping the source and thus, falsifying it. Let's see some more. He adds self made pseudo-scientific hoax additions such as here [[109]], [[110]], adds self made numbers here [[111]]. He adds a self made bogus unsourced addition that Pashtuns are mixtures between Persian Jews and some Indian group [[112]]. Here he falsifies sources [[113]], [[114]], [[115]], [[116]], and here he adds more bogus pseudo-scientific stuff such as that the strategy of Baloch people are known like the Tatars from Russia. Their culture can be mixed threw South Asian, Iranian and Saudia Arabia as well. [[117]]. Do I need to continue? Have a further look at his editing history.[[118]] - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked a bunch of edits and ran against offline sources, so I figured that your conclusion (that he's hoaxing) was based on something more complex than citation fraud. Thank you for the additional explanations. I still don't see why we can say anything more than "it's unsourced" about bits such as the Pashtuns are mixtures edit, but you're definitely correct on the citation fraud: when you put text in front of a citation, it's a claim that "this is in the source", and when it isn't, you're making false claims about the source. I'll be imposing a block momentarily. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

He writes Peshewer when it is Peshawar, I just reverted this change[119]. His mixing of different cultures can be considered as pseudohistorical revisionism. 36 hours of block seems like a nice decision. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SqueakBox and porn again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per overwhelming consensus at #Proposed Topic ban for SqueakBox on all Porn articles (Votes), SqueakBox (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pornogrpahy-related articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

---

I reverted SqueakBox's blanking[120] of all the names of people involved in the video anthology Dirty Diaries. This included the name of producer Mia Enberg who is mentioned in several of the dozen or so references in the article. The article has a dozen or so references and none of the participants are listed as porn actors, but listed as directors (though some of them are performers as well). Two of them fairly notable, especially Ester Martin Bergsmark and to some extent Johanna Rytel. Besides obviously being listed by name in the actual films, there's confirmation of this at the film database[121] of the Swedish Film Institute. All of these references were present in the article at the time of the blanking.

I posted[122] a notice at SqueakBox's talkpage, but was then alerted to the fact that the user has been involved in controversial porn-related editing before and found this discussion. SqueakBox's editing is extremely heavy-handed and in this case, it's clear that there hasn't been even a minimal attempt to check existing references. This type of sloppiness is inexcusable. I'm not in the least interested in getting dragged into SqueakBox's contentious BLP drama on my own, so I'm posting here as a preventive measure.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note that similarly absurd edits have been made in articles about mainstream porn films.[123][124][125] The level of sheer bloodymindedness is aptly illustrated by the removal of the names of both Jenna Jameson and Briana Banks from the article on the film Briana Loves Jenna.

This has nothing to do with upholding the spirit of WP:BLP. Please consider a warning or topic ban unless this behavior stops.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the BLP vio that admins should be investigating. Removing unsourced BLP violations is not behaviour that needs to concern admins. Peter, you ned to explain why removing BLP violations "is absurd" and why removing them should be of interest to admins. I have not yet been censured for removing BLP violations, I dont believe I will be either as I am simply enforcing our most important policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never heard anything quite so absurd in my life. Let me get this right - you removed the names of Jenna Jameson and Briana Banks - both well-known pornographic actresses, the former one of the most famous in the world, from an article about a movie called "Briana loves Jenna", starring both of them (strangely enough), because you claimed there wasn't a reliable source saying they were in it? Despite the fact there are reliable sources in it? I have reverted you (and I am the third editor to do so - you are at 3RR). Your stance on unsourced lists and articles I could totally stand behind - but that example is simply disruptive. Really, stop now. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox How's that an BLP ? Sure doesn't look like one to me. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox, The wording in WP:BLPSOURCES is that material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced" is fair game for removal. No disagreement there. This is not the case in either Dirty Diaries or Briana Loves Jenna. The sources are properly given, if not repeated for every single time the name is mentioned. If this is a requirement, I'd like to know where this is stated, either in practice or consensus discussions. It's also unclear why a film itself, a publicly available document, would not be enough to establish the names of the actors or directors starring in it.

Your actions in Briana Loves Jenna speak for themselves. You are single-handedly manufacturing the contentiousness stipulated in WP:BLP, which is merely disruptive.

In Dirty Diaries, Engberg's name is mentioned in something like half the sources. Marit Östberg is even the author of one of one of those sources, and it's published in Aftonbladet, the largest newspaper in Sweden. Johanna Rytel is explicitly mentioned in one of the reviews, also in an established regional newspaper.[126] And so forth.[127] Under "External links", there's a link[128] to the film data base of the Swedish Film Institute that lists all of those mentioned in the article. Again, as if the film itself wasn't enough. You obviously did not bother to look up a single one of those. In fact, you don't seem to have read anything beyond the lead and the infobox. I know that because you were so quick to blank names that you left the list of the individual films intact with those same names.[129] You don't seem to even be thinking your contributions through. Fighting BLP violations does not mean you can leave any semblance of competence behind.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, this isn't ANI:List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films all over again, is it? That mess created A LOT of work for a great many Editors with little perceptible improvement to the average Reader IMO when all was said and done. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not limited to just the above articles

Unfortunately this is more widespread. User Guy1890 posted this list of articles on the Porn Project Talk page that SqueakBox has been rather drastically editing. What makes this especially concerning is the fact that the Notability of porn actor articles is tied directly to wins of these awards.

• 27th AVN Awards
• 28th AVN Awards
• 29th AVN Awards
• 30th AVN Awards
• 31st AVN Awards

I guess maybe this is the incident with the List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films all over again.Damnit SqueakBox, why start this up again without ANY communication first?? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban for SqueakBox on all Porn articles (Votes)

• I suggest that SqueakBox be Topic banned from such articles, as the mass removal of actor/actress names that are easy to verifiable is purely disruptive. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. The edits to Briana Loves Jenna (including edit warring) and Dirty Diaries are the worst in my view, but these[130][131] are essentially the same thing even if the actors aren't as obviously notable as Jameson and Banks. The havoc wreaked on the AVN Awards articles is also nearly meaningless, especially removal of the names of people like James Deen or Skin Diamond.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. I've seen enough disruption. Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose BLP patrol is important and a lynching because you don't agree with it would have a chilling effect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I kept an eye on this last time. While good faith could of been used last time, the continued removal of what appears to be well sourced content under BLP is just too much for me. Reluctant support for a topic ban from all porn-related articles. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support and Spartaz how about redacting the "lynching" part, that's very much an N.P.A. Bear in mind SqueakBox still hasn't answered how his removal qualifies as a BLP, he's just continued claim of BLP. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Spartaz, speaking of bearing in mind,[132] SqeuakBox seems to be extending the idea that just about anything related to non-normative sexuality is contentious and apt for immediate blanking. Like mentioning that Tom Goss has a song about bears called "Bears" in the article about bears (without an inline citation, God forbid). A statement about named actors in Glee made bear-related jokes was blanked in the same edit.

He also removed the name of Tori Black from the infobox in Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy,[133] but kept the image of a topless Tori Black on the cover image and left her name in three other places further down in the article. Same thing with Alexis Texas in Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman.[134]

Peter ^Isotalo 18:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo, Squeak is not alone in this belief, so please do not judge him too harshly or solely on this. This is a site wide problem that should be addressed by WikiProject Countering systemic bias and treated as such. Anything dealing with politics, religion, or human sexuality seems to bring out the worst in many Editors. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo, those covers are directly from the pornographic film itself. It seems with your comment that you're taking somewhat of an issue with the cover itself, when it's just a pornographic film. We're not going to use some other cover to illustrate the film itself. But uh, if I'm seeing it wrong--that SqueakBox is removing names where seriously, their name is in the article of the piece, then yes, that's outrageous and he needs to lay off. I'm a bit surprised however when this came up circa 2 months ago, there was -a lot- more people willing to topic ban him, but it wasn't actioned. Seems like he pricked a few wrong nerves or took it too far. Tutelary (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, I have no objections to the cover as such. I just noted the obvious contradiction between zapping someone's name but choosing to keep a topless image of the same person. The disconnect is striking. It's not just inappropriate editing, it's extremely bad BLP patrolling. Peter ^Isotalo 18:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, you have a point. I've said my piece.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support In prior occasions of this issue I felt this was not an issue. But this is getting out of hand. If there are BLP problems they can be handled by someone else as this user is not handling it logically. Chillum 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose or Support temporary TBan simply for the reason that I know from the previous incident that SqueakBox is well intentioned. But starting this up again on such a widespread basis and going after the core articles (the awards) of the project without any prior communication is just plain insulting to every Editor that productively edits these articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• BLP enforcement is vitally important, but requires a measure of common sense. This is taking things well beyond the point of absurdity. Perhaps SqueakBox will agree to voluntarily drop the stick and engage on talk pages. If not, then I don't see any other option than a topic ban. Even if he is acting in good faith, good faith is not (in itself) sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. SqueakBox has demonstrated in their reply here and in their edit summaries that they consider any involvement in porn to be a bad thing bringing the BLP provisions against defamation into play. This makes them unable to edit porn articles neutrally, and there was apparently extensive support for a topic ban when this came up previously. The editor still has this problem, and is damaging articles as a result. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit porn articles but it is very unreasonable to suggest it is a BLP violation to list an actress as being in a movie that contains her name in the title and naked body on the cover. Tyler Perry's House of Payne does not have a cite in the infobox for Tyler Perry's involvement either. Why is this taking so long to ban him from Porn, an area he claims to know little about anyway. Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as IIRC I did the first time around. ansh666 01:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I am not active on this subject area, and I'm pretty heavy-handed when it comes to BLPs myself; but there is literally no condoning this sort of behaviour. WP:CIR, and I'm not seeing any evidence of this. Removing names of the main actors in a self-titled film, regardless of the subject matter, is bonkers. So is removing names and leaving in the pictures. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• If I remember correctly, I opposed sanctions last time this came up, but this is rapidly turning into a competence issue. The edits do seem well-intentioned, but if SqueakBox is unwilling to bring his views into line with mainstream BLP interpretation, it looks like a topic ban might be necessary to prevent further disruption. It would perhaps allay my fears of further disruption if SqueakBox acknowledged the consensus in this thread. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on pornography-related topics. While enforcing the BLP policy is important, Squeakbox seems to not understand that their extreme view of the BLP policy is not supported by the majority of the community. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 11:58, January 1, 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I also support our BLP policy, but it is not a "free pass" for editing against clear consensus that no plausible BLP issue exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per Chillum, Cullen328, and others, while there may well be a BLP issue here, this particular user seems ill-suited to the task, causing more disruption than benefit. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic-ban from porn (as alternative to DE/TE block) as violation of BLP policy by Squeak, for long-term refusal to accept cites and reliable sources as meeting verifiability burden for biographical claims. WP:V is how WP works; removing cited and otherwise-obviously verifiably correct info as being unsupported is not how WP works. CIR-fail trumps AGF. DMacks (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are problems with the way this user handles these issues, but there are also significant BLP issues that need to be addressed here, and topic bans even for overzealous BLP enforcement may have a chilling effect on good faith attempts to enforce the policy. Is there any reason this user's disruption can't be handled with a few ref tags? Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly no. This editor is wholesale deleting obvious material like the actress's name in self titled films. They claim BLP reasons, but clearly nothing to do with BLP. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transphobic accusations at Leelah Alcorn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

AFD has been closed Snow Keep, and plenty of eyes are on the situation now. Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The Deletion discussion of this article has consended to unfounded accusations of transphobia[135] and proclamations to disrupt the projectincase their preferred outcome is not met [136] by Rubashkyn (talk · contribs). This Article needs admin attentions and probably more uninvolved editors as it is starting to get emotional. Editors should be able to vote in this discussion without having to fear personal attacks. Thanks Avono (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

'Accusations of transphobia' is not a synonym for 'transphobic accusations'. It would be helpful if you could clarify which you mean, and which user(s) you are levelling the accusation at. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I point towards Rubashkyn, who headed a proclamations with "LGTB Phobia", I removed the IP, from the evidence, because I misunderstood that as anybody who removes transphobia from the article is transphobic. Avono (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revenge edits/disruption from User:Pagesclo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pagesclo (just off a block imposed by Black Kite a few days ago), appears to be engaging in some revenge edits (apparently not the first time). After I twice reverted a problematic edit (which indeed seemed a good faith mistake) at Tor (anonymity network), Pagesclo's next edits were all to revert edits of mine on other pages which he/she had not previously edited (and all, it seems, without very good reason): Glossolalia, comparison of crowd funding services, Black Market Reloaded. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Crazinesses. I saw his editions were wrong, and corrected, all editions of this user are thereby. --Pagesclo (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits by IP 108.11.225.129 to King v. Burwell

IP user 108.11.225.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has engaged disruptively in repeatedly adding material about Jonathan Gruber's non-subsidy PPACA comments to the article King v. Burwell (see [137], [138], [139], [140]). There is a consensus that the non-subsidy comments are irrelevant to the topic of the article and should not be included. Similar additions of non-subsidy material were made using other IP addresses in November 2014, which resulted in the article being semi-protected [141]:

• 173.67.163.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147]
• 173.67.166.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [148]
• 173.67.170.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154]

Notice that these edits have very similar edit summaries that make me believe the same user is IP-hopping as part of the continued disruption. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The page has been semiprotected for 3 months, hopefully the IP gets the idea. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Denisarona

This user appears to do very little except revert people's edits, and as far as I can see they never leave an informative edit summary. I challenged them recently to explain why they undid two of my edits 1, and they responded by undoing a third edit for no reason whatsoever 2. They then removed the talk page discussion. 3 They further removed a warning to use edit summaries, making a personal attack as they did so. 4

This kind of behaviour is immensely damaging to Wikipedia. I hope someone will take steps to discourage it. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Most complaints of this sort are by vandals annoyed at being caught, so let me start by saying that 200.83.101.225 appears to be in the right. Denisarona, what is the matter with this person's edits? Why must you treat as vandalism an edit that clearly improves a header, for example? Even if 200.83.101.225 were a banned user's sock, you wouldn't be justified in reverting an obvious improvement. Why must you insert a quotation when it's been properly paraphrased? Remember that our fair use standards prohibit the incorporation of nonfree content when it can be adequately replaced with free material, and this IP had replaced it. Do not again insert an unfairly used nonfree quote. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that this user did not have the courtesy to respond here. There's virtually no community pressure or disincentive to encourage people not to behave as he did, and people who revert for no reason, to the detriment of the encyclopaedia, are very frequently encountered. For as long as they are tolerated with as little action as this case was, they'll continue to disrupt the encyclopaedia. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Where did you notify the user about this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just notified them in case no one else did (could not see where) Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I notified them when I posted this report.[155] They attempted to remove the notification but only removed my auto-added signature.[156]. The original notification is still there, just a little up the page from the second one. I am adding to this report now because I was sure I had experienced inappropriate reverting from this user on numerous occasions and I just chanced on another set, from two years ago: [157], [158], [159], [160]. Note the false accusation of vandalism in the last one. So this is a long term problem with this user. Again, I hope someone will take steps to discourage such destructive behaviour. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What should be done for pro-ISIL Wilayat type articles?

Many articles are being created which are Wilayat type and most of which are deleted or nominated for deletion, thanks Legacypac and to Spirit of Eagle for observing this problem. Now, should we wait for them to be created and then nominate them for deletion (because 99.99 precent of them are not notable and just self promotion or propaganda)? or should we stop their creation? How can we have them SALTed? Mhhossein (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mhhossein. For a start Wikipedia has long had a practice of translating Wilayat to Governorate of Province. WP:AT issues similar to those raised when the group called themselves "Islamic State" are raised as both elements of that title are disputable. A governorate, province or wilayat requires the existence of a state which in this case is not recognised either governmentally or in academia. A name such as Wilayat Sinai is suggestive that large areas of the Sinai have been governmentally controlled which is very far from the truth. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking hard and have only found one vague ref that says the ISIL linked group controls ANY territory in Sinai and considering the Sinai is nearly all desert, anyone could set up some tents and claim to "control" a bunch of ground. It is absurd to give them a name on WP that suggests they govern anything - regardless of what they choose for a twitter handle. Now how do we SALT exactly? Legacypac (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The articles have been deleted. If there are reliable sources that document that Daesh claims to have set up administrative units in various places, then I don't see why we shouldn't have articles to reflect that fact. Yes, they're absolutely horrible people and I hope for their imminent total defeat, but we're not in the business here of pretending the world is not as it is. I don't see enough of a problem with recreation at the moment to justify salting any article titles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

See Gregkaye's point - no State = no subdivisions of the non-State. It's not even about if we like ISIL or not. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As Legacypac mentioned this is not exactly about liking or disliking ISIL. The fact is that creating such articles is a clear self promotion and using Wikipedia for propaganda. As I understood, Lankiveil thinks that ISIL may be recognized as an official state by countries in future! If this is the case we should not do any thing for recreation of the similar topics. However I think it is not the case and ISIL will stay as a terrorist organization for ever because of its Ideology and beliefs and because their behavior show that they have problems with almost every one. I reckon two things might happen: 1) ISIL stays as a terrorist organization (because of above reasons) 2) ISIL faces a total defeat as Lankiveil hopes. In both cases we won't have officially recognized provinces of ISIL.Mhhossein (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Whether Daesh is recognised as a 'state' or not is irrelevant as far as we are concerned. If sources become available describing these entities, then we can and should provide coverage of some sort. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC).

No one objects to covering their activities in any part of the world, but not under article titles that say they are the legitimate regional government (that is what Wilayat means) of Baghdad, Raqqa, London or New York. If they declared a Wilayat of London (they want to raise the flag of Jihad on over Buckingham Palace after all) or State of New York would we start an article for Province of London (ISIL) or State of New York (ISIL)? Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Which sources will cover the official control of lands by ISIL? How is it possible? Why should we spend times on deletion process of such non-notable articles? New cases are appearing and we are still discussing here! Mhhossein (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The newest one absurdly gives ISIL the Algerian equivalent of Washington DC, ya Walayat Algeria is the real life 2nd level government containing the country's capital. It's even unclear if there is a group in Algeria after the government killed at least 6 senior members including the leader in two operations this month. The editor that created this and is now defending it does not accept community concensus very well. Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I deleted a bunch of them two days ago, but it does not mean I think there should be any special treatement for these. If there are sources, lets find a proper title and keep them, if not delete. Just as with just about anything else. And please, stay cool, there is no need to nominate for speedy deletion while 'regular' deletion discussion is going on. - Nabla (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources at the moment for most of these it seems, but I agree we don't need a separate rule for Daesh related articles. Our existing notability criteria and process will do nicely. Incidentally, we have plenty of articles on places that are claimed not to officially exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC).

Your examples prove the opposite point. The Republic of China article details the situation of a widely recognized country's current admin districts (just the parts they control) and a map of the 1945 situation showing the areas they used to control. There is no Municipality of Beijing (ROC) article today. Everyone agrees Transnistria exists as an admin unit and agrees which government is responsible for local issues, the question is if it is an autonomous part of Moldova or independent, as discussed in that article. There is no separate articles for Transnistria (Moldova) and Transnistria (Independant). Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lankiveil, Legacypac, Nabla, and Spirit of Eagle: I think the problem is clear; Some articles and redirects are being created. These pages makes the readers think that there are really some provinces officially belonging to Daesh, or at least there are really some provinces known to be that of Daesh while the fact is that there's not such a thing, is it? You can't find sources backing the self promotional creation of those pages. According to Nabla the pages can be kept if there are sources, but is it really right to attribute legitimate regional government to such a terrorist organization (recognized by many nations as terrorist)? Can we find third party sources verifying this (now and in future)? if the answer is yes, it means that it is possible for third party sources to recognize it as a legitimate governor which will happen only when some countries recognize it as legitimate. How can it be for terrorist organizations? Mhhossein (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The only sources claiming that there are ISIL Wilayats are ISIL and quotes by ISIL that appear in a small number of sources that are actually reliable, which include the quotes to inform readers of some of ISIL’s claims. Including information about how ISIL claims it controls Wilayats in the ISIL territorial claims article is in compliance with policy on primary sources. Actually writing articles about ISIL’s supposed wilayats when only primary sources are available is a pretty clear violation of policy on notability and on no original research. (Seriously, imagine how many articles on micronations we would have if the only requirement for their creation was that some person or group with a Wikipedia article claimed that they owned and operated their own country). In theory, we would have to create these articles if they actually started getting coverage and analysis by primary sources. However, in the present these articles are completely non-notable (and there is not a strong enough indication that they will become notable in the near future to invoke WP:IAR), so they should be deleted on sight.

At this point in time, I believe that the best solution to non-notable wilayat and redirect articles is to delete them through the normal AfD/RfD process, and then speedy them if they are recreated. I’ve been looking through many of the ongoing wilayat deletions, and most of the wilayats were actually created before the conclusion of the mass ISIL wilayat AfD. I fear that we may be jumping the gun a bit on some of these nominations, and that this may result in wilayats being kept because of technicalities. The best way to prevent this is to follow the letter of policy when deleting them. Most of the so-called wilayats have already been deleted in various AfD discussions, so I believe the best solution is to speedy delete any recreated wilayat articles and redirects and to nominate any new ones for standard deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Spirit of Eagle:. Why not stop their creation by having them SALTed? is there any reason for not doing this? Mhhossein (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:I normally like to wait for several articles to be recreated and deleted before requesting SALT since demonstrating that the article has been frequently recreated makes it more likely that SALT requests will be approved. However, WP:SALT does allow for pre-emptive restrictions, and you'll have my support if you make an official request. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of SALTing but there are various ways to spell Wilayat and the various city/regional names, Province is a synonym, title without (ISIL) have been created, al vs ar etc. so an infinite number of ways to skirt the SALTing of an exact title. A centralized updated list of deleted titles and deletion discussions is the best idea I've got right now. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

We could request that any article title that contains both the word wilayat/wilayah and ISIL/ISIS/IS/Daesh/ect be black listed. This would prevent a lot of wilayat articles from being created and would not prevent the creation of notable articles or redirects with the word wilayat in the title. We would still have to manually hunt down ISIL wilayat articles without the name of the terrorist group in the title, but this would cut down on their creation. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I could not figure out how to do that - can you? It looks pretty technical to get the result we need without impeding good articles. Include the terms "Islamic State" and "Province" if you can. And everyone be sure to vote on the newest titles below. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Black listing seems s a smart solution, but who will do that? Then we should be careful for hunting them down also for having the list below updated. Mhhossein (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Black listing is covered under WP:SALT, so I’m assuming that its requested the same way as ordinary SALTs at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wilayats of ISIL & related list

NOTE: Due to threat of 36 hour archiving I've moved this list to Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Related please watch that page

Please feel free to update this list:

Previously deleted through AfD, RfD or various speedy deletion criteria

1. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
2. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
3. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
4. Wilayat Baghdad Al Shamaliye (ISIL)
5. Wilayat Baghdad (ISIL)
6. Wilayat North Baghdad (ISIL)
7. Wilayat Salah al-Din (ISIL)
8. Wilayat Nineveh (ISIL)
9. Wilayat Al Janoob (ISIL)
10. Wilayat Al Barakah (ISIL)
11. Wilayat Al Kheir (ISIL)
12. Wilayat Al Badiya (ISIL)
13. Wilayat Homs (ISIL)
14. Wilayat Idlib (ISIL)
15. Wilayat al-Sahel (ISIL)
16. Wilayat Fallujah (ISIL)
17. Wilayat Haleb (ISIL)
18. Wilayat al-Anbar (ISIL)
19. Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL)
20. Wilayat al-Sinai (ISIL)
21. Template:Wilayats of ISIL
22. Wilayat al-Dimashq (ISIL)
23. Wilayat al-Furat (ISIL)
24. List of Caliphs of the Islamic State
25. ISIL Caliphate
26. Wilayat Hama (ISIL)
27. Wilayat Barqah (ISIL)
28. Template:Provinces of ISIL
29. Wilayat al-Raqqa (ISIL)
30. Wilayat ar-Raqqah (ISIL)
31. List of Islamic State Wilayahs
32. Wilayat Algeria (ISIL)

Closed Deletion Discussions and bans

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Dimashq_%28ISIL%29
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Barqah_(ISIL)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Baghdad_(ISIL)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL)
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Hama_(ISIL)
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Nineveh_(ISIL)
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24#Wilayat_Homs_.28ISIL.29
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_NOTHERE_except_to_promote_ISIL
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2#Template:Provinces_of_ISIL
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Raqqa_(ISIL)
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_1#Wilayat_ar-Raqqah_.28ISIL.29
12. Plus many speedy deletes under various criteria

Under Nomination for Deletion or Redirected (input sought)

1. Wilayat Algeria (ISIL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29#Wilayat_Algeria_.28ISIL.29
2. Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_%282nd_nomination%29
3. Category:Governorates_of_ISIL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Governorates_of_ISIL
4. Category:Areas controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2#Category:Areas_controlled_by_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

Related issues

1. Raqqah Problematic rewrite talking about supposed the ISIL government
2. Ar-Raqqah Governorate (content issues, title is ok)
3. Wilayat Algeria - redirected away from the ISIL linked Algerian terror group to the real place, a province of Algeria
4. Several creators and major editors of these have now been indef or long term (for IP) banned.

Pope Leo X and biased deletion of well sourced material.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all. I have a problem in the article about Pope Leo X (1475-1521). A member of the Medici family, he was the Pope who condemned Martin Luther's 95 theses. He had many enemies, he had several assassination attempts, and someone put graffitis in Rome saying "the pope is Gay". Now, a section of the article included this claim, citing an ex-priest, a novellist, and an antipapist writer of the XVIII century. They also mentioned as authoritative contemporary historians both Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540) and Paolo Giovio (1483-1552), claiming they both supported the allegations of the Pope's homosexuality. Over a year ago I went to the talk page and reminded them that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" (WP:EXCEPTIONAL).

Everything had a huge turn because a few weeks ago I searched again and now both Guicciardini's and Giovio's books are available online. It so happens that they deny the accusations of homosexuality. I wrote a lengthy post in the talk page including copypastes of the original texts. And then I proceeded to rectify the article. I was automatically reverted by User:Contaldo80 and later by User:Frimoussou. No explanation, they just reverted me because they wanted to. The latter user had never edited the article and he had been away from wikipedia for almost a month, but he promptly jumped in only to censor my edit. I assumed good faith and asked in the talk page what was the problem he saw in my modifications. He said I was not allowed to translate the Italian and Latin quotations into English because the translation would be an "original research". I addressed his issue (explain what the authors said without including my own translation) but then he reverted me once more, with a newly invented reason.

Guicciardini's book is right there: anyone can read it! There is no point denying his words, if we can all see them. So please, dear wikipedia administrators, would you advice me how to proceed? I don't want to be automatically reverted just because well sourced information does not fit someone's ideology. El Huinca (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

These books have always be "available". There's nothing new. They don't deny the homosexuality of Leo X. El Huinca quotes no recent reference denying the homosexuality of Leo X. That's original research Frimoussou (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested on Talk: Pope Leo X that the editors should stop the personal attacks (allegations of lying) and should take the content issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard for volunteer moderation. Administrative action should only be necessary if the editors do not take the advice to be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack in edit comment.

I would like this edit comment to be expunged please. The description of what I said is, of course, bogus.     ←   ZScarpia   12:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   12:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Hashemabucu120 and repeated advertising

This user needs to be blocked because he has created 4 pages with different titles but essentially the same content which are entirely advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kges1901 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Please provide wikilinked username and diffs of your claims so that the matter can be looked into. See above incidents. 208.123.223.74 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  You can't provide diffs to deleted articles (and an admin isn't going to turn this down just because the username isn't wikilinked - which it is now). Squinge (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

  Good job Squinge (talk). 208.123.223.74 (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly for reporting, Kges1901. The user has been blocked by Tokyogirl79. Bishonen | talk 12:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC).
• Definitely thanks for reporting, Kges1901. I blocked this guy, but sometimes people fall through the cracks for whatever reason so I'm glad that you're being vigilant. I know that sometimes I'll forget to block someone because I have to do a cleanup or because I'm deleting a bunch of pages or whatever, so I'm always glad to see that there are people coming behind me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Sock of Hashemabucu (talk · contribs), now also blocked, who created ten versions of the advertisement, compare this AN thread. Hashemabucu120 was created only four minutes later than the puppeteer account, and the accounts have been creating these articles pretty much simultaneously. Perhaps there are more out there, both socks and articles? Can versions of this name and this article be, hmm, blacklisted? I'm not good with this stuff. Pinging User:Kww. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC).
• Three additional socks blocked. Blacklisting of usernames happens at Meta, I'm not in a position to do so now but someone else can ask for this, or contact a steward/global admin who can assist. Risker (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

constant addition removals on any Greek related topic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

It seems like the user Alexikoua almost cringes anytime the word Persian is added to any article directly related to Greece, despite all additions I put in these statements related to it are fully sourced and well written literally every time. Look how many times he instantly removed my sourced additions, all of them only those related to Greece, with none of them having a valid reasons at all. ("IP disruption", no edit summary, and so go on) [161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171]

This is just a tip of the iceberg and just look at him hammering on any addition I make on Greek related articles. Anyway, the reason I brought it up here is not just the sole fact that his allergy towards additions related to my edits is extremely annoying, it's even more funny when he literally obliges me to, after reverting whatever he can revert, in order to make any of these additions to any Greek related page, I need to bring it to the talk page first(!) So I need to ask him permission basically to edit on any Greek related article, per his own words.[172] That's crazy and probably one of the most ridiculous things.[173][174] Not only did I make the first step numerous times and ask him on his talk page to mediate firstly with me if he really just doesn't approve of certain additions (which he just deletes instantly afterwards and labels it as "trolling"[175]) It just doesn't work like this, on top of the fact that it's very disrespectful and disruptive. I've told him so many times not to remove well sourced statements/additions without a good reason, or not doing any effort himself to thin the information down he think is too excessive, or at least writing me on my talk page before reverting everything (a very basic thing, really, but even that he couldn't)

I left him another note about this as well today, which he instantly deleted as well.[176] Obvious WP:JDL is obvious and this has to stop. Maybe I'm right and he's wrong, or maybe I am wrong and he's right, but this is just ridiculous in my opinion. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

All the specific edits clearly fall into wp:undo weight, as stated in the edit summaries, while the unlogged editor was welcomed to initiate a discussion in the correspodent talkpages. For example he insists that the "History of Greece" article should have an "Persian era section" [[177]], quite weird for a 1-2 year period that concerns the Second Persian Invasion (480-479 BC) to have a section, while the article concerns a total of ca. 4 millenia of history (not to mention that historiography usually prefers to term the specific events as "invasion" or "war" not as "era"). Same undo weight in the rest of the above mentioned articles, such as in Greeks, Thessaly and Classical Greece [[178]]. In the last article for an unexplained reason he inisists to add the map of the Persian Empire, while at the same time vital information about the Persian invasion against Greece is absent.

Although the unlogged user has been continuously asked to participate in the correspodent talkpages (in one case I opened a discussion in Classical Greece but still no response [[179]]) he just insists to post unacceptable comments in my talkpage simply accusing in general and ignoring wp:undo weight.Alexikoua (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

An "era" [[180]] in historical documents doesn't just always mean that a territory was part of another territory; it also can mean that a certain nation/political grouping/empire, you name it, dominated the politics and history of that respective nation for example. The Greco-Persian conflict and everything affliated to it lasted more than a century, and are exceptionally crucial for the rest of Greece's/Greek history and European history as well. It completely dominated both the former and the latter for a long time. Disregarding the "Persian era" as merely the era in which mainland Greek soil was occupied is an utterly redudant way of argumenting.

References

You "welcomed" me to initiate a discussion in the correspodent talkpages, after what, - reverts without either an edit summary/calling everything "IP disruption" and after a message I placed on your talk page suggesting to talk? (which he instantly deleted as well) [[181]] Quit presenting yourself better than you actually did.

Alexikoua made his first real attempt at mediation on 07:30, 25 December 2014 [[182]], while he had been on his ridiculous WP:JDL reverting spree since 11:30, 24 December 2014.[[183]] After this one on the 24th of December, he made another 13 unreasoned reverts before trying to look for a debate [[184]][[185]][[186]][[187]][[188]][[189]][[190]][[191]][[192]][[193]][[194]][[195]][[196]]

His attempts here to disort facts are not much more than endearing and sad at the same time, to be honest. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to initiate a discussion in the correspondent talkpages, going straight to wp:ani accusing coeditors isn't a sound approach. In general there was no era known as "Persian era" in Greek history & no wonder not a single reference given supports this.Alexikoua (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AlexanderRa and original research at Diversity Immigrant Visa

Despite attempts at discussion, I've been unable to stop this editor continually adding their own original research at the Diversity Immigrant Visa article. Back in the autumn they added this section, based on their own spreadsheets and analysis, which effectively argues "although the government says X, the real situation is Y." Another editor, JoelWhy removed the material and discussed it with them, requesting a third opinion which agreed that, yes the material is original research. AlexanderRa simply ignored the third opinion and readded the material. My attention came to the article when I discovered this huge link farm, which I removed per WP:EXTERNAL. AlexanderRa, however, keeps readding it, presumably because it contains links to the spreadsheet analysis which they want to promote. Attempts at discussing this with them have proved fruitless, as they simply respond with vandalism warnings ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valenciano&diff=prev&oldid=639942796 , [197]) and as they appear to be a single purpose account, there also seem to be WP:COMPETENCE issues here, as they simply aren't listening. Valenciano (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely not a link farm. Dozens of links were removed including references to laws, agency regulations (DOS, USCIS), articles by US law firms. All those links are very relevant to the subject of the article in Wikipedia and are definitely not a link farm. Repeatedly removing those links is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the original complaint was misstated. Valenciano did not complain about Original Research. Instead, he complained about External References and about link farm, and he removed dozens of links that could not be and cannot be classified as those. AlexanderRa (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I *did* complain about the original research here and here. This is what I mean about not listening. Yes, I did remove dozens of external links, because Wikipedia articles, per WP:EXTERNAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, should not contain dozens of external links. Wikipedia is not a directory. The guidelines are clear, links should be kept to a bare minimum. Even a quick look will reveal that links 4,5 and 7 are dead links. I'm sure they are not the only ones. Other links are invalid, such as links to spreadsheets created by AlexanderRa, which I suspect, is the whole reason why he is defending this massively inappropriate external links section. Others are for things like discussion forums, while four of them are veiled spam for a lawyer. There's also the issue of the huge original research section that he's added there, also contrary to our guidelines, and despite being told by three editors that this is material more suitable for a blog, not for Wikipedia. Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano is a distinguished vandal. First, he or she removed removed almost all the links from external references section without any explanation other than WP:EXTERNAL. I undid his contributions, and he removed them again, again without any explanation except WP:EXTERNAL. Only then I started warning about vandalism on the page. As he mentioned, he put WP:EXTERNAL explanation, not giving any details. He also complained about "link farm". He or she started complaining about original research only later, to make a cover up, when he or she realized attempts to vandalize the page under illegal WP:EXTERNAL were uncovered. His attempt to reclassify his vandalism under another clause is a cover up for his initial vandalism. Now, let's talk about his arguments he is stating now. Link discussion forums contains an important legal document that was posted to the forum by a distinguished lawyer Gregory Siskind many years ago when lawyers did that for free. Now those documents are available only for a fee from paid services. Another link four of them are veiled spam for a lawyer is an artile prepared by a very distinguished lawyer Ira Kurzban, and his website Ira Kurzban is in fact his real website. That could be seen by the ip address, that could be obtained by ping command. If you do not know how to do that, I could explain, I am a computer professional. He or she also tried to vandalize the page by removing a couple of dozens of other perfectly valid links. One can see how bogus Valenciano's arguments are. I am sure he is capable of creating another set of bogus arguments. The reason is not I am not listening. I am listening very well. He has not provided any arguments yet why his original classification WP:EXTERNAL was valid. It was not. His or her attempts to reclassify vandalism under another clause are not genuine. Just a cover up for his or her initial failure AlexanderRa (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"which I suspect, is the whole reason why he is defending this massively inappropriate external links section". No the reason is different. The external link section has several dozens links that were carefully collected and saved. Vandals like Valenciano should be prohibited from modifying wikipedia sources, because they act on bogus suspicions while modifying the sources, not according to logic. That is not how wikipedia policy is done. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Valenciano suggested to, and I asked him to file Vandalism report on behalf of Diversity Lottery Page, because it is not easy to do that for an occasional wikipedia user like myself. So I believe we are currently considering the vandalism report. If we are discussing anything else, that means he filed not what he promised to file. Then vandalism report needs to be filed ASAP. According to the name of this page I suspect he filed something other than vandalism report. about this page. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for over 9 years. If I am this "distinguished vandal" you accuse me of being, it's funny that I have never been blocked. Ever. I've already explained to the user that if they feel they have a case they should go to WP:AIV, though such a report is highly unlikely to be successful. Asking me to file a vandalism report against myself is just ludicrous. Wikipedia articles DO NOT contain links to absolutely everything ever written about the topic, per WP:EXTERNAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Distinguished lawyers are just as prone to everyone else to trying to spam us with their services. Those Wolfsburg links say: "having a good lawyer will help to ensure success in properly preparing the application. Should you wish to review your options, we invite you to contact Bernard P. Wolfsdorf..." If that isn't veiled spam, I really don't know what is, nor do I see why we need the link repeated three times. WP:EXTERNAL is very clear on that: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum..... In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website." I'm at a loss as to how dead links like this one, of which there are several, belong in the article. While some of the others are to official government websites, that's covered by WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: "Normally, only one official link is included."

Nor is there any attempt above at justifying the original research, which is what this is really all about. Several editors have now explained to them that the addition of their own analysis, based on spreadsheets that they have created is clearly unacceptable, but they just ignore this. A section which effectively argues that "although the government says X, the real situation is Y" backed up by primary sources created by the editor adding the material is against our WP:OR policies. Is anyone else going to weight in here at all? Valenciano (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had a fairly frustrating discussion with AlexanderRa regarding the concept of original research. Right when it appeared he was beginning to understand the concept, I became extremely busy at work and wasn't able to follow up. I had hoped he would have removed the material that clearly amounted to original research, but I now see that has not been the case. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The material is still there, as are the links he's added to his own spreadsheets in the external links section. I've tried to explain this to him as well, but as you can see above, he resists its removal, becomes hostile and starts throwing vandalism accusations around. We'll see if anyone else comments, but the WP:OR is plainly unacceptable. Valenciano (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree the original research and excessive external links need to be removed. I am going to start some clean-up right now. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of referencing Wolfsdorf's website with his articles was to make certain things available to the wikipedia readers that are never mentioned in official government websites. Like the fact that you could be chargeable to a spouse's country of birth or parent's country of birth not only in cases when the direct text of the government sources says (when your country of birth is not eligible), but in some other cases as well (for instance, when your own country of birth is eligible) that are dictated by case law. However, now I understand that wikipedia policy does not allow including those sources because they come from websites of distinguished lawyers. So I modified the wikipedia article to exclude those references and those facts as well (because I am not aware of any other references to sources of those important facts). Thanks for clarifying the policy. I did not object about WP:OR policy, however, I though it was an attempt to cover up initial clumsy explanation about WP:EXTERNAL. Now I understand that wikipedia policy just does not allow references to case law that comes from lawyer's websites, because of a dangerous potential to be "a veil of a spam for a lawyer". Thanks for clarification. AlexanderRa (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is we think differently. I know content and do not know policy. You do know policy but not the content. You remove my contributions with WP:EXTERNAL meaning something that I have no idea about, while I have no idea why you do not like my links. It is obvious for you those links are not allowed. While I made a research to find them to get the right info and had no idea they are potentially dangerous. I see someone attacks my contributions under a bogus reason, and I clearly see him as a vandal. Then he switches to WP:OR when not able to explain me why he said WP:EXTERNAL. BTW, I needed several different links of Wolfsdorf because each of them proves something special that is lacking in direct text of the law. The same thing originally happened 3 months ago when WP:OR policy was applied. Government said" there are 3 fruit on the plate, - one apple and one orange, totally three". Making my own conclusion that 3 is an error, and there are only 2 is WP:OR. I am saying, that is not obvious for the one who knows content but does not know policy. If you guys want to attack my contributions to the article, you need to give exact reason why. Not easy for me to understand that 1+1 = 2 is a violation of the policy. Not easy for me to understand that I cannot reference lawyer's websites because they are not trusted source. You should say websites of lawyers are not trusted, explicitly say that. Saying WP:EXTERNAL is not enough, because I know why I included those links, but do not know the policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think maybe wikipedia policy has important limitations that does not allow writing about anything other than extremely simple things. If so, you need to tell me so, I would not just try to write about complex stuff. AlexanderRa (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wolfsdorf 2007 Says "A Japanese-born national (Asia) who is married to a European-born national can cross-charge to Europe and automatically increase the prospect of selection ...". Wolfsdorf 2013 changes this example to "An Argentine-born national (S. America) who cross-charges to South Africa automatically increases the prospect of selection ...". If you follow the process you would know that both Japan and Argentine were always eligible. However, if by 2010 Japan would become ineligible, the first example would be not so much impressive than the second one, that is why I enclose both. At the same time official instructions Official Instructions say only "Can I still apply if I was not born in a qualifying country?

There are two circumstances in which you still might be eligible to apply. First, if your derivative spouse was born in an eligible country, you may claim chargeability to that country. As your eligibility is based on your spouse, you will only be issued a DV-1 immigrant visa if your spouse is also eligible for and issued a DV-2 visa. Both of you must enter the United States together using your DVs. Similarly, your minor dependent child can be “charged” to a parent’s country of birth. Second, you can be “charged” to the country of birth of either of your parents as long as neither of your parents was born in or a resident of your country of birth at the time of your birth. People are not generally considered residents of a country in which they were not born or legally naturalized, if they were only visiting, studying in the country temporarily, or stationed temporarily for business or professional reasons on behalf of a company or government from a different country other than the one in which you were born. If you claim alternate chargeability through either of the above, you must provide an explanation on the E-DV Entry Form, in question #6. " allowing cross-charging explicitly in case your own country is not eligible and saying nothing about that if your own country is eligible. I reference Wolfsdorf as a trusted source to prove the point that your own country being not eligible is actually not relevant to be able to cross-charge to spouse's country. I believe Wolfsdorf got an award for being one of top 10 immigration lawyers in the Nation, former AILA President, and won a lawsuit in US Court of Appeals (Kazarian). At the same time I was not able to find any other trusted references about being born in a non-eligible country is not relevant to cross-charging to spouse's country of birth. That is why I include references to this lawyer's websites, and that is why I included this reference twice - 2007 and 2013 (because examples differ). If when attacking my contribution you started by asking me why I included those links, I would understand the reason. Instead, you mentioned WP:EXTERNAL without any explanations, you used examples that are very relevant and were not a link farm from my standpoint to "prove" they are link farm, and you did not mention you consider those articles were biased. How on Earth could I know that you consider them biased? Of course, I considered them as an indication my contributions were attacked by a vandal, repeatedly three times without relevant explanation. The same about all other links I used. You should have stated instead that lawyer's websites are biased and are not allowed because of that (not because of WP:EXTERNAL and should have provided a direct link to wikipedia policy about lawyer's websites. Then I would not see attack on my contributions as a clear case of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 12:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC) AlexanderRa (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC) When you are saying I could file a vandalism case on my own, I am telling you that is not so simple as you think. It takes a lot of time to figure out how to do it. I wanted to start figuring out how to do that after the fourth occurrance of vandalism. I have never filed cases against vandalism before, because my contributions were never attacked without a relevant explanation. And you suggested you would do that yourself. Then you changed your mind after the fact saying "would you really think I would file the case on behalf of myself". Yes, I would, because you had offered so. I am still not sure how to do it and whether I could do it only after 3 occurances, not after 4. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I also think I do not know a lot of wikipedia policies and my contribution could be attacked again and again by other wikipedia users is the same manner that could be seen as vandalism by a layperson like myself in the absence of relevant explanation. I think it is not easy to contribute to wikipedia under this type of hostile environment. You are supposed to clearly say what exactly is wrong, not just refer to WP:EXTERNAL. As I said, when I figured out you did not have any additional ties to WP:EXTERNAL, I saw that you switched the case to WP:OR, when you read more about this page. Of course, I considered that as a persistent attempt to vandalize the page. Because if you cannot vandalize it under one reason, you make a research about the page in order to figure out what else is wrong with it, to find another reason to vandalize it. AlexanderRa (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Alexander, you're not a victim here. I notified you of the OR policy months ago. You seem like a bright person, yet you refused to understand how your work clearly violated OR. So I brought in a third party to review. And, that editor confirmed what I had told you. You seemed to understand at that point. I shouldn't have had to babysit the page to make sure you removed the offending material. But, even if you didn't remove it, another user did. The fact that said user may have provided a different reason is irrelevant. You had already had two other editors explaining why the material needed to be removed, yet you persisted. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

JoelWhy, my contributions other than those discussed in September on WP:OR policy were attacked in December by another user. Those links to Wolfsdorf's website were perfectly legal under WP:OR policy. Another user started from links that had nothing to do with previous discussions. That is how he detected the page and attacked it. He provided more and more arguments to attack material not covered under [WP:OR]], and those arguments seem all bogus under either WP:EXTERNAL or WP:OR. And then he switched to WP:OR to vandalize material. As I said, I still do not see a clear wikipedia policy prohibiting references to Wolfsdorf websites. And that is exactly what Valenciano did not like on the page. Even if the WP:OR material is removed, the links he did not like would stay. AlexanderRa (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I perfectly understand now that logic "1+1=2, not 3, and 3 is a mistake" is WP:OR. No problems with that. Referencing to either WP:EXTERNAL or WP:OR however, does not cover vandalising those links with case law explanations that Valenciano vandilized without adequate explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 13:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"If I am this "distinguished vandal" you accuse me of being, it's funny that I have never been blocked". I agree, that looks really funny. AlexanderRa (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

AlexanderRa: "I have never filed cases against vandalism...And you suggested you would do that yourself." Totally untrue. I never said anything of the sort. My only interaction with you was in this section and on your talk page and I don't see any such suggestion. Can you quote where I said that? You simply don't get the concept of vandalism at all. WP:EXTERNAL in its entirety is the reason the section was removed. Quite simply, Wikipedia articles do not contain an extensive list of links to everything ever written on the subject, they usually only have 2 or 3 external links as a maximum. You still don't seem to get this, despite being told several times. I see that you've now gone from one extreme to the other and are now removing valid links like this one. Please stop. Overall, there are two possibilities. One is that I am a "distinguished vandal" yet one who has never been blocked in 9 years and that means that Dianaa, another long term user, must also be a "distinguished vandal", again without blocks and that means that you are right and four other users with more experience of you on the project are wrong. The other option is that you were determined to publicise your own original research and were too stubborn to accept that this was unacceptable. I go by the principle of Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Time to accept that you got it wrong and move on. Valenciano (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the links like this one this link is that it is not directly applicable to DV lottery, or at least there is no direct reference explaining connection of this matter and DV lottery. I took it from one of Wolfsdorf's videos, and do not clearly remember which one. If Wolfsdorf was mistaken, or if it is a veil of a scam for a lawyer, or if I misstated the missing link by those 3 references, they do not belong here. Because in the sense of you recent explanations about Wolfsdorf's website I was not sure how those 3 links are applicable to DV lottery, I removed the references. As I said, I believe I really do not understand a lot of wikipedia policies, including why those 3 links are valid links. It also seems to me you are not sure about wikipedia policies yourself. That adds one more possibility to the vandalism hypothesis - you think that you understand the policies while in fact you do not understand them. I am totally lost why those 3 links should be present. However, you should not seem lost but it looks you are as well. I would spend my time and file a vandalism report for you, however, it seems to me I would not have a case because you vandalized it on WP:EXTERNAL only 3 times, not 4. An example how to file it mentions the number 4. I have never said Dianaa was a vandal, especially a distinguished one. She made only one correction, and that is too little to be a distinguished one, and maybe too little to be a vandal. Also, as fas as I understand the policy, if a page is vandalised 3 times by one user by doing exactly the same thing, and 3 times by another one, that is not enough to file a vandalism report for either one, even though the total amount of acts of vandalism would be 6. I tried to understand the policies, I would say I agreed on WP:OR one, but it looks like other policies you and Dianaa are mentioning are still beyond my understanding. I also agree one should not contribute to wikipedia without clear understanding of the policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I would rephrase my statement. You just included 3 links (or maybe even 4 links) that were not there before your recent change to the page. You also included a statement connecting those 3 or 4 links to ability to use spouse's country of birth even if your own country of birth is eligible. That is your contribution to the page, not mine. That information was not there before your latest change. I consider your latest change a violation of WP:OR policy, because I do not see any explanation confirming applicability of those links to DV lottery. If you disagree, please explain me why you believe those links are applicable to DV lottery. AlexanderRa (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

JoelWhy? , would you agree Valenciano included those 3 or 4 links without proper reference, and his latest contribution violates WP:OR policy? You seem to be an expert in WP:OR. Please comment. Two days ago I thought I understood WP:OR policy, but my latest understanding tells me that is a violation of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"I have never said Dianaa was a vandal, especially a distinguished one. She made only one correction, and that is too little to be a distinguished one, and maybe too little to be a vandal." AlexanderRa you're not making any sense at all. If me removing those links on the basis of WP:EXTERNAL was vandalism, then Dianaa removing exactly the same material was also vandalism, not "a correction." Either removing the info is wrong - in which case we're both vandals - or removing it was legitimate, in which case we're not. Which one is it? Do you accept that the large discriminate collection of links was wrong?

The point is, it was not vandalism. Did you even bother to read the vandalism page I gave you the link for? "removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." In this case, the content is clearly not legitimate and the explanation was given in the edit summary. That you're too lazy to read WP:EXTERNAL or WP:VANDAL is no excuse for your actions. By the way, you want to file a vandal report, as I've told you before, go to WP:AIV and if you still have difficulty, use the talk page and ask someone there to help you, or click edit, copy one of the existing templates at the bottom of the page and change the user name and details, using the preview button to make sure you got it right. You claim to be a computer engineer, yet can't figure out something so simple? Really?

"You just included 3 links (or maybe even 4 links) that were not there before your recent change to the page." Again, totally not true. They were there. You removed them with this edit. Are you deliberately telling lies or just plain forgetful? You also haven't provided the link to where I promised to file a vandal report against myself. I'm starting to think you're just trolling now. Either file the vandal report or move on, your constant complaining, because you're hurt that someone removed your original research is achieving nothing, so there's nothing more to say to you. However, I'll be keeping an eye on the DIV page to make sure you don't disrupt it any more. Valenciano (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Let' concentrate on those links you added last. Let's proceed to vandalism issue and EXTERNAL issue after that. I also agree I misread your intention to file vandalism report on behalf of yourself. You proved it to me you did not have this intention, fair enough. Now back to the OR issue. I removed those links because when I realized the policy better I figured out I had initially added them incorrectly, and OR policy was violated. That is why I removed them. I did not do that deliberately to violate the policy, but I did not understand the policy well enough at that point. So I removed them later to correct myself. Once they were no longer in the document, you cannot say they were there. Technically they were, but they should have not been there because I violated the policy when I initially added them. In order to reinstate them you need to prove either my initial insertion was not a violation of the OR policy, or you correction of my removal was not a violation of OR policy. In either case, you need to prove those links are applicable to DV lottery cases. Please do that with the help of Wolfsdorf's pages or without them, the way you prefer. Or you have to agree you violated OR policy be reinserting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC) AlexanderRa (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Dianaa vandalism issue and Okkam's razor there might be additional possibilities, like, for instance (among others) spending not enough time investigation the issues (they are complex ones) and whatever. Anyway, let's wait with vandalism issue or vandalism issues. Regarding me being a computer engineer, I could easily prove that if I want. For instance, by providing a LinkedIn page. I do not see your point challenging that, because I know well who I am. You cannot base your hesitation about accepting the fact that I am a software engineer on the basis that the idea of asking questions on personal wikipedia pages did not come to my mind. Yes, it seemed strange to me that I could not ask questions, but nevertheless, the idea of asking questions on personal pages did not come to my mind, true. I did not even understand the idea of personal pages until you said that. Yes, that gives me an answer how to figure that out. Anyway, at this point I want to concentrate on the issue of those 3 or 4 links violating OR policy and everyone here understanding the fact that OR policy might require removing certain information from wikipedia pages and making the pages less informative than they could be if OR policy is not followed. At the same time it is clear that OR policy has to be followed even if certain information needs to be removed. That is why I am going to prove those links violate OR, if you do not accept that at this point. AlexanderRa (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

AlexanderRa, I find your sudden interest in enforcing WP:OR curious, especially since you still don't seem to clearly understand it and you had no interest in enforcing it for several months, when you were defending your own addition of original research. Is this really because you care about original research or because you're angry that I ensured the removal of your own original research and now you're seeking revenge? You need to answer that honestly. Remember, you shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Valenciano (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Valenciano, how do you know I still do not understand WP:OR policy? I have an impression I really understand this policy well now. At the same time I am trying to learn other policies starting WP:EXTERNAL, as we will need to proceed to that one as you no longer have arguments against applying WP:OR to your latest change. My primary goal here was for the article to comply with this policy. But even if it were not, the policy needs to stay there anyway, right? Or are you making a statement that if someone is making a point, it would be better not to make a point by violating WP:OR policy? Please point me to that particular collision resolution. I also need to correct you on several points. I was not defending my own addition to OR, and I was not trying to enforce my original research. JoelWhy? forgot to enforce the policy and I forgot to make a change as well. On the other side I believe you do not understand some policies yourself, that is clear now. While making a "correction" on the page you introduced a WP:OR violation, and that is strange for a page patroller like yourself. That could be more appropriate for a layperson like myself. But it looks like I know this policy better than you at this point. Second thing I want to tell you before we proceed to EXTERNAL issue is that you feel everything that is going on the page too personally. You asked me too many personal questions and made too many personal statements during our conversation. It seems to me those things are not allowed. Are they? I'll give you an example. You tried to ironise on me being a computer engineer. I think it is not appropriate. Also, you made a lot of baseless guesses about the reasons of my moves (like revenge, being upset or whatever). I think it is absolutely not appropriate. AlexanderRa (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Usually when people attack me personally during a conversation, that means they do not have other arguments. Is that the case here? AlexanderRa (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You stated: "Removed references to info from a lawyer's website that could be interpreted as a veiled spam for a lawyer". No mention at all of original research, so that's like your claim that I offered to report myself for vandalism or that I added 3 links that hadn't been there previously. Totally false and you should have the decency to apologise. I reverted your edit on the basis that justice.gov, an official government website, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as spam for an individual lawyer. If you'd actually given the correct rationale to start with, we could have had a look, so again, that is your mistake, nobody else's. Valenciano (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That was not my mistake. That is some simple logic under the reasoning containing combination of two reasons. The logic is that if lawyer's websites are not allowed, then those links do not prove anything, because the sole reason why they were initially included was opinion of a lawyer (and, as I said, those links themselves were from one of his videos, I do not remember which one). So, it would not be an OR issue if I had a good reference to use on the page. Without a good reference it is an OR issue. I just did not realize you would not understand this logic. I think nothing to apologize, it was a misunderstanding on your side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC) AlexanderRa (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollback usage by Modernist

I allege misuse by User:Modernist of rollback to revert, without explanation, edits that do not belong to the cases in "When to use rollback". I replaced a low quality image on several pages with a high quality version and was rolled back several times. The editing history shows other recent uses of rollback ([198][199][200][201]) that do not follow the guideline because they are not fixing vandalism or widespread nonsense. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Without a word User:Hekerui began unilaterally removing an important Mondrian painting from several articles, frankly it appeared to me to be vandalism...Modernist (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing?! I replaced a Mondrian painting image on Wikipedia with an identical but higher quality from the Commons. By now an admin has removed the lower quality image as redundant. This is not vandalism. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? You were adding an inferior quality image to the articles; apparently you still do not realize that the image you added was in fact an inferior image...I spoke to the admin in question here [202] in which I explained that the image you removed was the better image...Modernist (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As to the Greenberg edit - I reverted to the original wording so as not to disparage an extremely well respected but often targeted art critic...Modernist (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not give an explanation when you made the edit? The word "disparage" is not by itself vandalism. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess you just don't know anything about the people who are constantly looking to disparage Greenberg...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The American Gothic edit was essentially vandalism by an IP who refused to read the reference used that clearly identifies the female in the painting, and who repeatedly made the same edit; the Cafe Wha addition that I removed while technically was someone's utterly unessential opinion about the article and his inaccurate opinion regarding his friends seems like vandalism of a sort and I added a coherent reference in my next edit...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP in my last example was a newbie, why not copy-paste their comment on the talk page and explain there? Instead you rolled it back. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the IP is essentially a newbie. A newbie whom Modernist chose to not WP:AGF, rather, to WP:BITE with these words at the American Gothic talk page: "Your opinion is not required. Find a source for what you are asserting or find something better to do..." (found at the following link:[203]). Apparently, in this case, Modernist's poor choices weren't limited to the improper use of rollback. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A little overzealous with the revert feature, perhaps, but the items you cite are all garbage edits which Modernist removed or repaired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

How was my edit garbage? I replaced a low quality image with an identical higher quality image because the image entered the public domain. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody called your edit garbage, he called the edits you cited garbage, re-read the above comment please...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note Hekerui, more pixels is not always synonymous with better quality. The image you uploaded of Gray Tree by Mondrian had several problems: its was apparently scanned from a book, catalogue or magazine (i.e., it's riddled with halftone dots of different shades and colors), the contrast was overpoweringly pushed, the paintings edges were significantly cropped, and the colors (tones of grey) were not accurate. I've replace that image with one that does not present these problems. In the future, if you do upload more images of paintings, by Mondrian or others, please check the website of the museum (or gallery) where it is located. They usually have professional photographers that attempt to reproduce the picture faithfully (which is quite difficult). Unfortunately, others often accentuate contrasts and colors (because they like it better that way) deviating from a true representation of the original work. Thanks for your comprehension. Coldcreation (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note too, I've also upload the Gemeentemuseum version: File:Piet Mondrian, 1911, Gray Tree (De grijze boom), oil on canvas, 79.7 x 109.1 cm, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, Netherlands.jpg. While the pixel count is lower than the work linked above, the painting is uncropped (i.e. the entire work is visible), contrasts are not exaggerated, and no half-tone dots are present (since not scanned from a book reproduction). So this is actually the best version we have so far, even though the pixel ratio is lower. Coldcreation (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

What you wrote is not a reason to roll me back and it's certainly not the reason given by Modernist. Modernist gave none, until I asked for one. That's misuse of rollback. "reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with" is the issue, a behaviour. Hekerui (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User Modernist did what anyone else familiar with the reproduction of paintings would have done. The image Modernist reverted to did not present the problems of photographic reproduction which plagued the version you uploaded. It has nothing to do with behavior. It has all to do with publishing faithful representations of artwork. Coldcreation (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

False, Modernist used rollback to achieve that. That's not what the feature is for. Roll back is for obvious vandalism, our own user space, your own edits, edits by banned users, and widespread/bot edits provided there is an explanation posted. None of this applies. Just because someone "guards" a page does not mean they can misuse a tool. Hekerui (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line - you added an inferior image removing a good image; I put the good image back; and told you on your talk page to discuss first before re-adding the image...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been solved. That questionable image of a painting by Mondrian has been replaced at Wikimedia Commons by one that more accurately depicts the work of art. Coldcreation (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that the better image was re-added to the articles. That was what I told User:Hekerui when he asked [204] and here [205]...Modernist (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is solved. I'd like an admin to give an opinion. Hekerui (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I do not see anything actionable here. Seems like a misunderstanding which has been resolved. --John (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I want to point out that even though Modernist's changes were justified, using rollback was not the best choice, and he should be more discreet in the use of rollback in the future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I want to propose a New Year's resolution: that Baseball Bugs edits articles instead of Admin noticeboard pages. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLUD on Talk:Battle of Chawinda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Battle of Chawinda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nawabmalhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday Nawabmalhi edit warred until the page was protected. During the edit war, he continued to remove the maintenance templates and misrepresent sources.

In order to keep bludgeoning the process, he started to accuse me of personal attacks and copy pasted the same discussions two times in two different sections.[206][207]

One user hatted his conversation, and was told to whether change or remove the same copy pasted text. He has reverted that move at least three times.[208] [209][210] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• His bad understanding of English language(WP:CIR) as well as his avid nationalism probably prompts him to misrepresent the references and his decision to avoid the discussion and repeat same argument includes the misrepresentation of policies. He is incapable of understanding the matter. I would recommend a topic ban. Another option is a temporary block until RFC is finished. He fails to understand what others have written and pretends that he hasn't read anything. VandVictory (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Nawabmalhi has already been notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. In case there is any issue of nationalist editing, this should be kept in mind. It is a fact that we do tend to see disputes about the results of wars and battles, even on stuff like the War of 1812, because it may not be a simple matter of fact. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Yes, a few weeks ago he was reminded of DS. I agree with above comments that there is issue with nationalistic editing and competence with English. On Battle of Chawinda, he is trying to prove that the battle resulted in Pakistan victory, by labeling words such as "blood bath" as "victory".[211] On Talk:Siachen conflict, he had discarded a reliable source published by Stanford University as an "Indian source which may also be subject to bias".[212] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please donnnot Muckrake I did not make any edit on the Siachen Conflict nor did I revert an edit when you said the source was reliable I reexamined it and ended the discussion. I stand by what I said either way an Indian source(meaning from India) should not be used to indicate a victory or defeat in an India related conflict and that is why I donnot use Pakistani sources to back Pakistani Victory stance, only western in Chawinda article-- Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have used WP:PRIMARY(statement of Pakistani commander) sources on Battle of Chawinda and misrepresented others. If the source is reliable you don't have to pinpoint the nationality of one author as a reason to reject. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

His discussions are uncalled for. His reply to my comment was indeed an attempt to joke or irritate. He was telling me about the same book that others had already checked and it seemed like he was supporting my comment, but if you see his few other comments you will find his misuse of this snippet for claiming problematic statements. That's how his discussions are becoming irritating for others. If he is blocked until the rfc closure, he will still come back to badger and continue same style of nationalistic POV on other articles just like he is doing now. Temporary topic ban on military subjects would be better as his ultimate aim is to derail discussions, not to gain consensus. నిజానికి (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if you got offended, but if you carefully read what I said that is not what I meant at all. Many people did not have the access to Fricker on Google Books due to copyright, through various searches on Google books I had a good portion of the page viewable. So when you said the conflict was largely affected by the cease fire I gave you a source which showed that the ceasefire was a result of the conflict and provided my new link so you could access Fricker and see for yourself. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nawabmalhi

To be completely honest this to me seems like muckraking seems to be a trend developing in OcultZones tactics and can be seen at the AE Archives quite clearly. Here is my point of view:

• The only reason I copied and pasted into the other section because OccultZone was repeating the same argument from the section above on the the Talkpage and just created another section to do it. I specifically wrote that I was doing this as a formality and this was already discussed in detail above and did not want to indicate that I was ignoring him or that I felt that his maintenance template sugestions, in my view, were correct. It is just that I always thought it Wiki ettiquete to reply even though the points raised are repetitive assuming Good Faith but he seems to like to assume Bad Faith to anything or any user he is disagrees with.
• I did not edit war it was just that OccultZone did not discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus before adding the maintenance tags and I said lets discuss on the Talkpage first before we add these maintenance tags and if you must add them keep the source I added and keep the link to Fricker that I added and then re add the maintenance tags thankfully an Admin protected the page this is verifiable by the edit summaries on the page history.
• I did not even edit the talkpage for over 16 hours and nor did I plan too until VandVictory decided to hat what I wrote as Misrepresenting the Source which I thought was blatant vandalism and something an Administrator could only do since he was tampering and misrepresenting what I said, which I removed it and told VandVictory to stop tampering with what I wrote. OccultZone took advantage of that to bring me here and here I am.
• Also before coming to the ANI today I did not even know what 'hatting' was, and I was not notified remove or change the copy paste section by anyone as OccultZone says. Furthermore if you read what I wrote it was not unproductive and was relevant, plus it was only 60% the same. Moreover VandVictory Hatted what I wrote and marked it as Misrepresenting the Sources as the tempelate title/display and did it to both sections instead of one which would be different. All I knew at that point was that he was tampering with what I wrote and misrepresenting something I thought only Admins could do.
• Majority of the people who responded to DID the battle lead to Major Pakistani victory? agree with me that the sources indicate Pakistani Victory or Indian Defeat, I am not in the minority. I have provided my explanation for why the sources clearly indicate that Chawinda is a Pakistani Victory instead of responding by giving their point of View OccultZone and VandVictory instead talk about my Grammar, call me incompetent, say that I am a Nationalist(which others will testify I am not), blatantly say I am misrepresenting the source without substantiating any evidence etc.
• I have NO interest what so ever in delaying or bludgeoning but I due feel that a stalemate is completely contradictory and Pakistani Victory is much more fair and correct understanding of the sources so when OccultZone presents his arguement or attempts to pokeholes at my arguements I rightfully and responsibly as an active member of the discussion respond to him and give my point of view as it is discussion. If my actions are considered bludgeoning (which I think is absurd) then by the same criteria OccultZones edits are also examples of bludgeoning but with more force. Honestly it seems that they want to take the credibility of my arguments by having me topic banned.
• Before I got involved with the Chawinda debate (which I tried to resist to the best by ignoring numerous pings etc.) I was able to do my normal editing on pages and was thanked by numerous users. Infact, the week before I got involved in this mess, I was thanked for my edit by Users Sitush and Faizan on edits related to Jat people and IndoPak wars respectively. Now my edits on actual pages is going down and affecting my real life by chipping away at my real life by eating away MCAT study time.
• OccultZone might be in the heat of the moment, assuming Good Faith, but VandVictory, from what I have seen, seen carries around a Battleground mentality and has tried to instigate an edit war with me and others (from Dec 17) on the Battle of Chawinda page.
• Interestingly enough VandVictory has not even edited the page before Dec 17 while another నిజానికి has never edited the page at all and the talk page before Dec 19 which was during the RFC. Also both of these editors donnot even seem to have any substantial knowledge of the Battle or IndoPak war of 1965(based on the user contributions), they also seem to have edited similar pages so I think they might be Sockpuppets. (sorry in advance if I am wrong). I think there should be an investigation in case.
• My view:

My view copied from Article Talk Page

1. Fricker says: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." Blood bath means massacre , disastrous loss or reversal according to dictionary.com as a note. This is important because it show that India suffered heavy losses, pakistan halts Indian Invasion and that the ceasefire was the result of the battle and helps justify the the term 'Major Pakistani Victory'. 2. Cohen, Dagupta call it a debacle which means a general breakup or dispersion or a complete collapse or failure according to dictionary.com as a note. They also compare the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. 3. Steven Zaloga calls the battle a defeat, and says specifically that the Indian 1st division(encompasses bassically all of the indian units) was defeated by the Pakistani 25th Cavalry which resulted in a UN mandated ceasefire. And also compares the Major Indian Victory of Battle of Asal Uttar to Chawinda where India is on the receiving end. 4. Canberra Times and The Australian both also say it is a Pakistani Victory.

I sincerely request you to end this Chawinda Discussion and pick whichever side you think is right as an administrator and close this case, it does not matter if they manage to get me topic banned or not, both sides are entrenched one saying Victory the other saying stalemate I think it is best, most fair, and efficient, if an administrator ends this. Whichever way a administrator goes everyone will listen, let go ,and move on.--Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You have copied and pasted the same WP:SYNTH over and over, when each of my reply was differently written. You actually want "evidence" for your source misrepresentation? Here it is,[213] no where these sources[214][215] state that there was any "Major Pakistani victory" or even victory for that matter. Obviously you are not going to consider it at all, and continue to misrepresent sources, cast aspersions and edit war. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your replies are formatted a little differently but they are pretty much that exact samething. If you want the last word have it, I have learned my lesson I am not gonna repeat myself for you! I am more interested on Admin opinion after talk Page look. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

They must be same because they reject your WP:SYNTH and misrepresentation? Yet you are copying and pasting the same thing. You are still doing it and even here[216] now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

For admin so he knows where I stand, better than him having to search through the Talk Page and it is not meant for you, this is not the Talk Page discussion.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Nawabmalhi you are actually wrong because I have edited before RFC, see this from 2 December [217] VandVictory (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I was specifically talking about the article which you did not edit till Dec 17, but I did not know that you were on the talk page before that because you had not edited article and RFC had not begun.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think Nawabmalhi is emotionally attached to the subject, may not be now but later is surely going to disrupt a sensitive topic again leading into edit warring, eventhough an RFC was going on in talk page I feel the edits made were unwarranted, would support either topic ban or article edit ban Shrikanthv (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not emotionally that attached: I have never even lived in Pakistan, although I am part of the Pakistani Diaspora. I belong to the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam a heavily persecuted sect in Pakistan. I am more pan-South Asian and value my Religious affiliation, Ethnic origins, and Canadian Citizenship are far more than my Pakistani Citizenship. I just think that a stalemate does not make sense what so ever and is not supported by the sources.

If I am given a article or Topic ban(as a precautionary measure before I do anything wrong) ,OccultZone should get a Topic or Article Ban aswell since we are responding to each other, because otherwise it would wrongly discredit the support side plus I have already made my arguments and I only responded after 16 hours after VandVictory messed with what I wrote and I think it is best if an Administrator ends the RFC as both side are heavily entrenched this is creating pointless hostilities now. Administrator intervention and RFC closure would help people move on. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hello. OccultZone is guilty of same WP:BLUD look at talkpage. He also wants to close RFC early look at his talkpage. This is not WP:SNOW debate how can it be closed after 5 days. Please allow RFC for 30 days time. Maybe OccultZone can be topic ban other user requested to wait for neutral user comment. Nawabmalli reply are using reference just like OccultZone but OccultZone should stop replying more and more. He did too much BLUD with TopGun then get him topic ban. He had final warning on Arbitration enforcement page. He is doing it again now. Nawabmalli is reported first time he maybe told to stop replying to OccultZone verbally. VandVictory has done more than 17 revert in editwar! ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can you show where I had any warning from AE? I had none. I don't control AE that I got him topic banned, case was carefully judged by the admins, he was topic banned for misrepresenting sources, edit warring, same thing that you and Nawabmalhi are doing. Since none of the debates are based on votes(though majority supports exclusion), we are more supportive towards the correct representation of WP:RS, none of the sources support the statement in question, now that you have mentioned WP:SNOW, then exactly, it applies here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

TST, have you forgot that you were indefinitely blocked for pretending to be an admin on this page? I can't understand what you have written, care to speak in English? VandVictory (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It was misunderstanding. I was talking about real admin Nyttend. It is removed. Your revision was on purpose 17 time. -TheSawTooth (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Still can't understand what you have written. VandVictory (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Read AE result discussion of admins. References by Nawabmalli are correct. Do not give summary of RFC yourself you are involve in dispute. RFC will show who is right it is purpose of RFC do not try to close it early like you say on your talkpage many users are disagreed. Let neutral users comment more for regular 30 days time. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Discussion" is not equivalent to "warning", you have made another unfounded claim and now arguing over it. None of the sources provided by Nawabmalhi are correct and by labeling them to be "correct" you are also misrepresenting the sources. Do any of them mention "victory" or regard Pakistan as the winner of Battle of Chawinda? None do. None of your arguments are policy based and they are only repetition of what you have already said before. Same with Nawabmalhi. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So when Zaloga says Indian 1st division was defeated by Pakistani 25th calvalry which also resulted in a UN ceasefire it is a stalemate?When Fricker calls it a blood bath which made the Indians go to UN he meant it was inconclusive?...... I am misrepresenting the sources? --Nawabmalhi (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

25 Cavalry is just a cavalry regiment that fought another regiment, but that is not about the whole battle or both nations. "Blood bath" does not mean victory or defeat either, neither he says that it made "Indians go to UN". Obviously you are misrepresenting sources. I didn't referred results as stalemate, and some other editors did [218][219] as globalsecurity[220] states that. "Inconclusive"[221] is supported by a reliable source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is a perfect example of your bias, the Pakistani 25th Cavalry led the Pakistani BlitzKrieg like attack against the Indian 1st Division took them by suprise which led to Indias defeat at Chawinda.....Defeat is the word Zaloga specifically used
• Here is the Fricker Quote again: "After the Battle of Chawinda, which proved to be a blood bath for Chaudhuris Indian Army. India pleaded its case for an unconditional ceasefire..." and you could view it in more detail through my link if you donnot own the book
• When other sources are saying it is a defeat, blood bath, Indian debacle, and an Indian Asal Uttar you should realize that your sources mean it is specifically inconclusive in the sense there was no significant change in territory--Nawabmalhi (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Major problem is with your WP:SYNTHESIS, that you insert your own flawed definitions and claim "Major Pakistani victory". You are still bludgeoning the process and spamming on this thread with your source misrepresentation. None of the sources claim any victory or defeat, I know that you will never hear, that's why topic ban seems to be the only solution. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ye they do! Did you even read what I said? To be honest I think you might be misrepresenting the sources, not me. Either way read what I said above as I am not repeating myself. This is not the discussion thread I only respond when you misrepresent my view and raise allegations and frankly if I am Bludgeoning (again absurd)than you are too with TheSawTooth.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Because they don't, repeating doesn't make it true. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Let consensus decide my friend. 25th and anti tank infantry was fighting India in this battle. Reference is saying defeated. Neutral users can read this reference and understand it. Why you respond every time to explain reference? I move that every one stop commenting on RFC let neutral users debate now. -TheSawTooth (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Performance of smaller forces doesn't count as results until the reference itself state that there were no other forces in the war. Consensus is different than what you are thinking, it doesn't means that 2 users with horrible English are allowed to misjudge sources and make unnecessary arguments without even understanding that what others have written. I don't know what you actually meant from 'Neutral users'. If you think yourself as a 'non-neutral user', I would agree. VandVictory (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read the Steven Zaloga reference from the article, it specifically says the Pakistani 25th Cavalry defeated Indian 1st division, not just that a smaller force faced off a larger force. Also please read WP:CIV and note most people who have responded to the RFC support some sort of Pakistani Victory. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You need to give up misjudging these references and learn English. A cavalry is not a country. 8 people opposed and 7 people supported the misjudgement of references, is that what you call 'most people' supporting your nonsense? Or you don't know how to count either. VandVictory (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The cavalry was Pakistani and the 1st division was India you are mixing the two and this is why Zaloga compares it to Asal Uttar

Actually only 7 people wrote opposed and one of them opposed a major Pakistani victory and wanted a local or tactical Victory. So 8 in suppport of some sort of Pakistani Victory and 6 opposed. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are mixing up the things because you don't know how to speak in English and then you have also got a nationalistic POV that is making you look even worse. A cavalry is not a country. One of the user wrote 're-word' and his comment was against your nonsense. Don't count the IP that has made no edits outside. So we are back to where we were, 7 support and 8 oppose for your opinion. VandVictory (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not my opinion it is a fact, it seems you used control F I have counted the results twice and you should review it on the talkpage instead of making a fool out of yourself, only 14 people commented and TheBanner wrote opposed but said it was a tactical or local Victory; which means I am right: 8 in support of some sort of Pakistani Victory and 6 opposed.. And your comment about the cavalry shows that you donnot know much about this battle and I have already tried to help you understand above. --Thank You for continuing your False Personal Attacks Nawabmalhi (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is just what you think. The Banner said that it is just his opinion and it requires better references, he also said that the battle actually stopped after the ceasefire. You can see that because of your misunderstanding of English you are incapable to understand the meaning. VandVictory (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban on Nawabmalhi and TheSawTooth

They cannot understand English,(WP:CIR) they have rapidly removed the issue tags[222][223][224][225][226] from the article without ever replacing with a reliable reference or solving the issue. Repetitive and repulsive argument as seen above can be seen in these diffs where Nawabmalhi makes counter allegations.[227] TheSawTooth has made an emotional response with some false accusations and incorrect acknowledgement of arbitration enforcement proceedings, he seeks for a topic ban on other user,[228] while forgetting that he was blocked 2 days ago for pretending to be an admin on the same page.[229] Their continued misjudgement of these references[230] [231][232] for promoting a 'Major' victory of Pakistan, is nationalistic and disruptive. An indefinite topic ban from the military pages about India and Pakistan would be the best choice. VandVictory (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I already explained this before you never discussed adding the maintenance tags and I already discussed this above in detail. Here is my edit summuray:

Reverted to revision 639089574 by Nawabmalhi: Please dont edit war, most people donnot agree that these need verification, I added link to Fricker and name pg.# for Zaloga it is best to wait till discussion is over to brand the sources. I also said on the talkpage if you must add them, re-add them seperatly but thankfully an administrator interfered, I only reverted it twice and had no plan on doing it again and I appealed an end.

You are combining edits of two different users to say I edit warred, or are you trying to prove that you edit warred since you reverted the edits?--Nawabmalhi (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean we need to discuss your edits, until you learn English? Not possible. VandVictory (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. VandVictory (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support The fact that ThSawTooth and Nawabmalhi engage in edit warring and then tell to world not do so, it is rather childish. Honestly, grow up! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Agree with @Shrikanthv:. This seems like an unstoppable campaign for posting same wall of text on every message. నిజానికి (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not post wall of text on chawinda. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose You have already topic banned TopGun. It is not fair to ban every one who disagrees. It is WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking. VandVictory revised the page 17 times deleting tags he should not talk of others editwar. I have not broken any rule. I do not wish to discuss or edit this page more due to these users they are acting so aggressive. Admin should read my argument and close discussion after 30days time. It does not need topic ban. Same users who give statement on TopGun case [233] have come here to ban us. Involved users can not ban other users. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• My note I was misunderstood when I was blocked. I did not misrepresent to be admin every one knows I am not admin. I was talking of admin action of Nyttend. I have not edited chawinda after I got unblock because I know this topic is under disruption. I should not be ban without breaking any rule. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support highly disruptive behaviour of both editors. The Banner talk 15:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • I have not made any edits to Chawinda for two days now seems like an attempt o discredit support side
  • I have already shown that I have not editwarred in any form and have given a detailed explanation above. Nor have I attempted bludgeoning the process but infact VandVictory and OccultZone have by stating nonsensical statements such as 'A calvary does not represent a country' not understanding that it was the small Pakistani 25th Cavalry that stopped the Indian 1st division(Bassically all the Indian Units) etc.
  • The proposer, VandVictory, is the only one on the page who has been blatantly edit warring from Dec 17 along with an IP address see page history he seems to be either a sock Puppet or POV pusher contacted by OccultZone as he has no association with the Battle of Chawinda and Indo-Pak 1965 war.
  • The only time I minutely came close to edit warring was when VandVictory kept adding a Collapse with the title: Misrepresenting the source which was blatantly misrepresenting with what I was saying and was tampering with what I wrote. And I thought, that editor at best could only do such thing and did not even know was before I came to the ANI.
  • Although these editor accuse me of repetitive arguements, they do it themselves, I had already answered all their allegations above and for a while they kept silent but now they have after a little while they raise same allegations again. All they're doing muckraking and doing personal attacks(OccultZone has stopped) but VandVictory is on a role
  • I am not even making any edits on the talkpage recently, and realistically neither will these 3, I think, they want a topic ban for me and now for TheSawTooth as well as, so they can discount the support side and freely Bludgeon article and successfully and wrongfully force the RFC to a Stalemate viewpoint.
  • This is a clear case of muckraking(see above) and canvassing (OccultZone was even advise not to go to the ANI) by them atlease 3 random Users ,who for some reason happen to be Indian and POV pushers with no prior conection to article, show up to the article Talk page. I just cannot see this as coincidental, through any form of logic.
  • If anything is still unclear please refer to the Nawabmalhi section where I answered these False allegations with more detail and is more comprehensive in general--Thank YouNawabmalhi (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Evident that they are unable to restrain themselves. After reading the statement of NawabMalhi and Thesawtooth, I would say that they are blaming others to hide their disruptive behavior. They are desperate to oppose own topic ban, while making the situation worse for the rest of the editors. Problematic language skills that are combined with POV-pushing and edit warring is still going to discourage editors from contributing on as many pages where they are contributing. Noteswork (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just unarchived this thread for a formal closure.[234] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)re-signed

• Support disruption after IPA DS notification given to both: TheSawTooth [235], Nawabmalhi [236] Widefox; talk 14:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

They don't take it seriously. TST spammed same message to at least 2 admins,[237][238] agreeable that he still don't understand the basics of Wikipedia policies and after so many discussions he still pretends that he know nothing. VandVictory (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion and Action Requested

• Now this should be closed? VandVictory (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I count 6 votes for a topic ban for both. The only oppose votes are from the editors that the proposed ban covers. I've not participated in this discussion so am completely uninvolved. Can an Admin close and topic ban please. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• 1 vote is from neutral user other votes are from dispute users. It is same weight as our vote. We should not be topic banned because dispute is in RFC. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• You don't know how to count. Yes you are a non-netural, but the rest aren't, are they? Your vote is nothing and there is no policy stating that votes of involved users are not counted, they are also important because they have problem with your editing. It has been proven that you have disrupted many other Indian-Pakistan military pages and then your problem with understanding language is also a big issue. VandVictory (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats at Satyananda Saraswati

See Talk:Satyananda Saraswati#Legal Implication of Adding Controversy/Controversies section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Which specific entry is a legal threat? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Adding a new legal section. In case the Controversy section is opened in a rush there are legal implications". Maybe not exactly a threat, yet, is it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what you're getting at. It might be the rumblings of a legal threat about to sprout. But do the complaints have merit? Is the "controversial" information supported by valid sourcing and does not constitute a BLP violation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugs, he died in 2009. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

If so, then BLP doesn't apply. Even so, the sourcing for whatever the controversy is, needs to be valid and notable. Be sure of that, and then you can call the other editor's bluff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Major Australian newspapers reporting on a hearing by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse . Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

hi Joshua,The comment was certainly not a threat to anyone and certainly not to the news papers as you have mentioned.(at least speaking of myself) but more for the wikipedia contributors to be mindful of sensitivity of the Royal Commission currently on.The interim report is not yet out. Adding a Controversy section and parts of that could be quoted by any party on both the sides to go after each other. Infact by adding new section we are making life difficult for both the parties( Parties mean the Australian Yoga center and the group of people who are aggrieved.) Protocol108 (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Protocol108 (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Protocol108 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Fed up

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article Weekly Shōnen Jump has seen a lot of censorship and removal of important content recently. Several editors have added useful criticism of the article to the page but it was reverted without reason and they were BLOCKED. This is a censorship attempt because Weekly Shōnen Jump now contains no criticism whatsoever of the article.

Examples of adding useful content that was later reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=631117453&oldid=631117298 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=627636001&oldid=627635836 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=prev&oldid=627635818 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=624912068&oldid=624804058 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=623682056&oldid=623666650 (reverted) without reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weekly_Sh%C5%8Dnen_Jump&diff=623385185&oldid=622169060 (reverted) without reason

I believe that editors who work at Weekly Shōnen Jump are trying to hide the true problems that have been exposed at their organization. This needs to be stopped, immediately! --Higher & Higher (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, toomerang... --00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

They were BLOCKED because they were SOCKPUPPETS of a VANDAL. See the SPI. Bobby Tables (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone is as naive as me, don't waste your time looking at the diffs. It's just Cow cleaner 5000 (talk · contribs) again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Higher & Higher isn't blocked yet, actually... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Is now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting speedy delete, but also a salt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, may I please request a speedy delete of Talk:Tarzan III: Tale of Two Jungles under G8 criteria (Talk page dependent on a non-existent or deleted page) and G5 criteria (creation by banned or blocked user). I'd also like to request a salting of the talk page and the article. Background: A persistent vandal from Vietnam keeps creating disruptions to Disney-related articles, and keeps creating this pointless Disney-related talk page. (Three times so far according to page logs) There is zero indication that this is a valid project, and the user keeps creating unattached talk pages where he stores hoax content, presumably to escape scrutiny. There is, however, an indication that it is some fan-based wishful thinking. fan project. Requesting salt on the basis that there is no likely reason for this article or talk page to exist for N-span of time. Grazie, and please drop me a note if you have any further questions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional username

Publicstep has been blocked indefinitely per the username and spam policies. De728631 (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Dear sir/madam

During my study of Wikipedia's internal infrastructure at MIT, I learnt that this page is the right venue for such queries. The following user @Publicstep: seems to have the same username of a copyvio page that he made Publicstep which I marked for CSD. According to the username policy "Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company" are not permitted. So could you please review this case and possibly ask the user for a change of username.NetworkOP (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: reported at [239] good luck with your project. Avono (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.NetworkOP (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the place to report these is not here but Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. That one has been reported by Avono and dealt with by another editor. Thanks, OP, for your efforts to keep things right here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm has resumed BLP violations

User:Vazulvonal of Stockholm (aka IP 213.114.147.52), after being automatically unblocked when the block (set by User:Black Kite for BLP violations) expired, has resumed his disruptive editing. In spite of warnings, he is still adding unsourced material to biographies of living people: 1 2 3 4 Please do something about him. 94.156.66.152 (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 94.156.66.152. VoS is continuing to push his agenda on adding unsourced info regarding "ethnic Hungarians" into BLP articles, either as a logged in user or the IP address. They've been contacted many times on their talkpage, but doesn't seem to want to cooperate. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct user name is: László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Black Kite, in the spirit of Christmas I blocked for only a week; I can see a NOTHERE block as well. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmies - please also block his IP that he often uses to edit unlogged: Special:Contributions/213.114.147.52 (he violated BLPs using this IP just recently) 91.201.173.103 (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the user is now using IP edits to push their agenda. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• User:Black Kite, can you help? I'm mobile and our adminterface sucks. Also, happy new year. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:KahnJohn27: Removal of referenced information

Issue #1: KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs). He has not been blocked even once for any of this:

Removal or corruption of referenced information: [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245] (referenced information changed)

Previous sections created at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive793#KahnJohn27 (behavioral issues, problems with sources), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#User:KahnJohn27 at Ariel Castro kidnappings (edit warring, civility)

Other incidents: Notices left for recent edit warring, "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material", disruptive editing and personal attacks

Issue #2: Unconfirmed but there may be a connection between this user and a previous banned user.

Account Creation:

• KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs) (account created 6 September 2012)
• Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) (account banned 10 days later on 17 September 2012 for long term editing issues). He had 65,000 edits and has his own cleanup template.

KahnJohn27 (Edit analysis, top 100 articles edited):

• List of best-selling video games — 27

Also he edits articles related to Islam.

Jagged 85 (Edit analysis, top 100 articles edited):

• History of role-playing video games — 320
• List of best-selling video games — 238
• (Articles related to Islam)

Issue #3: Is there no way to stop people from corrupting the content of this site such as removing or changing referenced information? It is sad that this happens so frequently on Wikipedia and some editors can maintain a presence on this website for years before they are stopped and many times the damage is not reversed. --Chrisonp (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chrisonp You are confusing me with someone else. My account is completely original. I am not Jagged85 and this is a legit account. All the users who complained about me at [246] have bern thmselves been reported at ANI and many other users have complained those users who complained about me of being disruptive. Additionally you forget to mention that I was I who made it possible the usage of [Boxoffice.com] as a reliable source for box office gross.

Now about the Jizya article, I only removed the referenced material because theyvweren't properly cited because page numbere weren't specifically mentioned in some book sources which immaturely caused me to think it moght be wrong information and biased. However it was a completely immature and wrong decision on my part and I accept that. I only removed it from the article Jizya only once or twice that too months ago and it was an immature decision on my part I accept that.

Also about this [247] edit where according to you where I changed referenced information on Muhammad bin Qasim, I actually had later added much more reliable and additional info about Al-Baladhuri's Qasim's death then there was earlier and you can see about this here [248]. You have deliverately ignored that I later added much more reliable and referenced information then there was earlier. Referenced information can be changed if new reliable information is to be added or it is incorrect. It is a shame that people on Wikipedia keep picking bones of the past and use strong arm tactis, false and incorrect complaints and bullying to impose their opinion.

I therefore request the administrators to close this thread since it has no merit and is based on false claims and past incidences and also doesn't mention anything about my my contributions in improving the content Wikipedia. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Also pleace notice how that User:Chrisonp whose account was created just yesterday makes his first edit about complaining me? Notice all his edits. How did he so quickly came to knew about my edits on Jizya? Additionally notice that he hasn't made even a single edit that isn't about me. Also notice how extremely skilled he is in editing Wikipedia. This is almost impossible for a new user. I suspect his account might either be a sockpuppet or he is from a Wiki on internet that lists info about a certain topic? And if it is user of a Wiki from the internet then I think I might already know who he is and from which Wiki he is and why he is here. This guy seems to be very suspicious indeed. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, you said that "I only removed it from the article Jizya only once or twice that too months ago and it was an immature decision on my part I accept that." So you've admitted some of your mistakes. Have you added that information back?

Regardless of your later edit, you cannot change information in a reference as you did here.. For example if we had this statement: Room A has 10 boxes.<ref>A reference </ref>, I cannot change that statement to something else unless the reference says that.

Could you go through the links I mentioned in the "Removal or corruption of referenced information" section and make sure you have added back all the referenced information that you removed? For example this edit that you made about 3 months ago. Information cannot be removed simply on the basis of being biased against a group. An experienced user like yourself may already know that. thank you. --Chrisonp (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisonp Yes I admitted it and I also said it was an immature decision. Besides actually the whole of my edit on Jizya was later reverted by Latifa Rafaat and I had already checked it. All of the information I removed had already been added back months ago.

Additionally you are completely wrong that referenced information can't be changed. I had added much more information to the Muhammad bin Qasim article. Referenced information can be changed. Besides the text that about al-Baladhuri's account of Qasim's death was actually very brief and also somewhat incorrect and I had expanded it and also corrected it. If the referenced information can be improved or expanded or new reliable information can be added to it or if the information is incorrect or does not match the txt in the reference then it can be changed. Room A having 10 boxes is not the same as historical account of a person's death. Parameters are different under different conditions. Also even Room A has 10 boxes can be changed. For example I can say "Room A has 10 boxes x amount of y material in each box" if they contain that material or I can say that "Room A has 10 empty boxes". Additionally it can also be changed You clearly do not know how Wikipedia functions. You should try to find out all the facts before reaching a decision and stop beating a dead horse by unnecessarily raking up events that only happened once that too months ago. Instead of having a discussion that only wastes time let us focus on improving the content of Wikipedia.

Plus would you care tell me how is it that you find out so much about me so quickly and how is it that you are so skilled in editing despite being a new user? You either seem to be a sockpuppet or one of those editors from WikiIslam who blocked me for absolutely ridiculous reasons. Your whole complaint is based on either mistaken belief, incidences that happened much back in past, lack of knowlege or false accusations. You have even portrayed my constructive edits at Muhammad bin Qasim in negative light. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, please note that I am saying you have misrepresented sources being cited without updating the original reference (such as this edit).

You said "Additionally it can also be changed You clearly do not know how Wikipedia functions." , you're a person who has removed entire sections of sections referenced information often without even giving edit summaries ([249], [250], [251], [252] etc) after two years of being an editor so your statement is like the pot calling the kettle black.

On your user page you mention "provide the reason for reverting in the edit summary box of the article", yet you choose to remove referenced information from the website and on top of that you dont give edit summaries for these vandalism-type edits ([253], [254]) even though you explicitly demand edit summaries from others yourself. Kindly apply the same standards to yourself that you expect others to follow.

As for me being an experienced editor, note that knowing how to edit wikis before joining Wikipedia or leaving the site and coming back later with a new user name is perfectly acceptable behavior, and your trying to attack the complainant rather than address the charges is a fallacy. So please focus on the work being done, not the person.

You have been warned here before about incivility multiple times ([255], [256]) but you have not understood the WP:NPA policy (which is a mandatory core policy to be followed, not an optional essay) and have continued to make recent offensive statements such as "I was here to edit not to get involved in a stupid edit war" ([257]) and "That is a very stupid rationale." ([258]). Please read WP:NPA which asks people to be civil to each other and this includes not making statements like 'your rational is "stupid".' Please be civil to other editors and refrain from making inflammatory/offensive remarks.

As for you being blocked on other websites I suspect it may be because of the same kind of editing behavior you have displayed here in the past (deleting referenced information or being offensive). But now that you have said those were "immature decision"s on your part that's good. Referenced information is what Wikipedia aims to be made up of so it must be treated with respect and care. I hope you will make better decisions in the future.

The summary of my message to you is: (1) Please refrain from removing referenced information from the website (2) Provide edit summaries in your edits (3) Remain civil and (4) apply the same standards to yourself that you expect others to follow. --Chrisonp (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes User:Chrisonp, I had already realized my mistake after my removal of referenced edits was reverted. I am sorry for displaying such stupidity. Additionally I do remain civil.. And the only real reason I was blocked on WikiIslam.com is because they thought I was a tine waster. Additionally they were also criticising Wikipedia but when I said unlike Wikipedia, WikiIslam is not neutral they said I was attacking the site. Additionally they didn't even listen to even my valid arguments of their being ridiculous mistakes on the websites. Additionally when I tried to contact them they said I had to either create an article about critique of Islam or an article about Islamophobia. I am not good at creating articles and all the Wikipedia articles I have created are not much good. However I did hekp them with other tasks. They still refused to unblock me. They did block me for completely ridiculous reasons. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please fully explain your reason for misrepresenting a source being cited without updating the original reference (such as this edit). This is a serious mistake and must not be repeated and you must understand why it was wrong and explain that here so you wont repeat it in the future. This edit of yours shows that you do not understand how Wikipedia works or how references work.

"Additionally I do remain civil." Using the word "Stupid" to describe the actions of others on this site is not civility (for example [259], [260]). Do not ever use the word "stupid" to describe the actions of others on this site. Do you understand that? It seems like you do not in spite of me pointing it out to you before and you think you are still being civil while using such offensive words for others.

I'm sure not sure why you are talking about external wiki websites here like Wikiislam or whatever site you are referring to. My discussion so far with you is only about your edits here, on Wikipedia so kindly refrain from talking what happened with you on other websites. Before responding read my reply carefully and understand the issues I have pointed out and the questions I am asking you. --Chrisonp (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely wrong. The rason I used the word "stupid" because their actions and reasoning were indeed "stupid" and irrational. You fail to notice that they kept reverting my edits just because they didn't wanted it to be people to thibk that Hinduism doesn't permit animal sacrifice. And this is biased editing which is not permitted on Wikipedia. My edits at Muhaamad bin Qasim didn't actually remove the source. The source is already there in the article and my edit only removed the <ref name = "xxxx" /> that is used to cite the same source multiple times in the article instead of writing the whole citation again. It's actually nothing because I or anyone else can simply add it back in a second. I will add back the source right now. As for future I will discuss a source before removing it unless ofcourse the text in the article doesn't match the source and I will mention an edit summary if you do thibnk I was wrong in my actions. As to why I did it because I only improved the article. And you really are making a big deal out of nothing. My action on Jizya was wrong but not on Muhammad bin Qasim. And you sir are making big deal out of nothing. Also you said I might have been blocked on Wikiislam for the same reason? Were you there when I was blocked? No.You are either being prejudiced or are just doing it for infaming me. Now please let's not waste pur time on an unproductive discussion. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, if I said "your edits are stupid" or "you are stupid", is there any difference between those two statements? Do you still not understand why that word is not allowed under WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL when being used in either of those ways?

"My edits at Muhaamad bin Qasim didn't actually remove the source." . Did I say that you removed the source? Once again you are having problems understanding what your wrong doings are. Also please spell check your talk comments before submitting them (your spelling of Muhammad was incorrect). Submitting talk comments and edits in a hurried hot-heated manner also reflects the kind of editing you have been doing here which involves removal of referenced information: [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266]

"I will add back the source right now." - So you had to wait for me to come here to do that? Please go back and fix all of your previous erroneous edits that you have done.

"that is used to cite the same source multiple times in the article instead of writing the whole citation again." - you are wrong. In your edit you changed the information in the reference and removed one of the reference (<ref name="Gier"/>). Look at your edit carefully and see what you have done.

It seems like in spite of all these statements I have provided you still do not understand the inappropriate edits and your uncivil behavior and do not want to take the time to look at your actions. --Chrisonp (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Also User:Chrisonp no you cannot leave Wikipedia and just simply come back to the site unless there is no option but to create a new one and you've talked it out with the administrators.That is sockpuppetry. If you forgot your password of your previous account then simply tell it to an administrator. If you come to back Wikipedia and already have an account whose password you still remember but have created a new account on purpose then it is sockpuppetry. Also if you were earlier blocked then you can simply not come back until unblocked. If you yourself had your account blocked and deleted then you still must inform that to administrators before coming back. You have not done so anywhere. If you did have an account before and forgot password then you must inform that now. If not that then you must talk to administrators. This is not Facebook. You cannot leave and create a new account at will. In case you are from another Wiki and never had an account from Wikipedia then welcome. But please clearly state and be truthful whether or not you have ever had an account before. You are too skilled for a new editor. I edited without an account for 5 years and even I wasn't near to being so skilled as you. Forgive me but you clearly seem suspicious. If you did have an account state it now and why you're creating a new account. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, I have addressed this before. I have no other active accounts here and I am fully familiar with the user policies here and I am in full compliance with them. If there is anyone who is not aware of what Wikipedia policies are or what is not allowed on Wikipedia it is you (removal of large amounts of referenced text, misrepresented sources being cited without updating the original reference, incivility 1, incivility 2).

Please address the points I mentioned above involving removal or changes made in referenced information ([267] and others) and also explain why you saying "this is a stupid rationale" to other editors is not a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --Chrisonp (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I had already accepted my mistake of removal of referenced text. So please don't bring that up again. Also here on Muhammad bin Qasim I already have many times explained that I added new information. That is no misrepresentation and adding more information is always encouraged. There is nothing wrong in that. Also you talk about me being incivil here and here. However I called their rationale "stupid" because their rationale was really not making any sense. Not only that they had started lying in order to prove themselves correct. Not only that they had been reverting my edits just to impose their opinion. I had to talk with them for days just to make them see reason. This kept happening for days. Do you know how tiresome and mind tiring this can be? I do not see use of word "stupid" as uncivil when people keep unjustifiably reverting edits for their own personal reasons. I removed referenced information for mistaking it for bias at Jizya but their editing at Animal sacrifice in Hinduism was biased. You do realize their mistake is much more serious than mine. If you really want policy violators to book then you should complaint about them too. You take offence at me using the word "stupid" but you clearly do not see that my contribution of freeing that article from bias and simply presenting the truth. Now that I have explained myself completely let us now focus on improving Wikipedia. You say you have no accounts so you are a new user. Welcome. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added back the Gier source to Muhammad bin Qasim's death. Now let's not waste time over it. If I would have removed the source completely from the article then you would have some point complaining about me. But you are complaining about me on incorrect reasons. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you for adding it back. If any of my reasons were incorrect you would not have said things like "I had already accepted my mistake of removal of referenced text" or adding back the information you removed so please dont make statements like that when it is you who has been at fault in this entire section. Working with other editors is not easy but you have to remain patient and follow the guidelines (WP:COOL which is an essay so I will point that out; it is still recommended to follow). At this point I have no further complaints. --Chrisonp (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Chrisonp I understand your point of being WP:COOL. At Animal Sacrifice in Hinduism they kept arguing for near a month and the discussion kept going nowhere beacause of either bias or because people didn't try to understand what I was saying. I never used the word "stupid rationale" to insult anybody. If I had insulted an user then it would have been incivil. The reason why I said "please don't bring up that again" because I had already accepted my mistake much time ago and it seemed like unnecessary harrassment to me. Additionally I am editing on an iPod since my computer stopped working some months ago and it is extremely difficult to edit on it. That's the reason sometimes I make mistakes in editing. Because of the small space sometimes it gets nearly impossible to notice my mistakes. Anyway thank you for the advice and take care. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion/citation evaluation, and uncivil conduct by user

Earlier today, I edited the articles about two Polish cities with what I sincerely believe to have been constructive edits. Here we can see a removal of substantial content regarding demographics of Gorzow Wielkopolski (Landsberg), for the supposed reason of the source being unreliable. user:Volunteer_Marek feels as though he does not need to explain his rationale to me, which I find to be both personally insulting and poor conduct on the part of the encyclopedia editor.

Here, the user falsely alleges that I am a sock-puppet of a banned user. When I brought these issues up on his talk page, he responded by deleting my entry, adding "aren't you banned?".

I then decided to log into my account ("bring out the big guns", so to speak), Vrinan, and ask for a third time for Volunteer_Marek to provide an explanation for his reversions. I also brought up his uncivil behavior and suggested that if he, for some reason, has a problem with me, it would be best to bring it to my attention. He has refused to do so, and I feel compelled to bring this censorious and rude display to the attention of the administrators. I hope we can all get to the bottom of this. Vrinan (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason you've used a source from 1906 to support a claim for "[b]etween 1249 and 1945..."? Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The 1906 source presumably explains the proliferation of Germans in the region from the 13th century to the 20th century. From 1906 to 1945, the population distribution of the city presumably became even more German, as following WWI, many Poles migrated into the revived independent Poland, reducing the extent of this minority population in the Weimar Republic. 71.169.181.208 (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that no attention has been given to these incidents. The user in question has been deleting content seemingly in the interest of Polish nationalism. Mainly, he is deleting content pertaining to the German history of towns that have been Polish since 1945. I really hope something can be done to prevent this flagrant historical negationism. 71.169.181.208 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP is most likely a sock puppet of indef banned User:Kaiser von Europa, who has a long history of disruptive editing and sock puppeting on both English and German Wikipedia (possibly others, I can't remember). There just aren't that many people in the world who are obssessed with the "German" history of Gmina Szczytno within Szczytno County in a corner of northeastern Poland. We're talking about a division of about 10k people. The use of the archaic (and unreliable) source also indicates that this is Kaiser, as that was basically what they did in their previous edits.

As to the merits of the edits themselves, the info is undue (the results of a 80+ year old and controversial plebiscite in a short stub of couple sentences, inserted as some kind of exercise in "territory marking" for a village of a couple dozen people) and the source unreliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The source (Max Meyhöfer: Die Landgemeinden des Kreises Ortelsburg[268]) is perfectly reliable. These stubs need to be expanded, it's completely absurd to remove information from a stub because it's a stub. That's just censorship because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. VolunteerMarek needs to stop his slander and editwarring. 80.136.85.134 (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that the book was written by a notable author and published both in Austria in 1967 with a second edition in 1971. The copy on Google Books is/was held by the University of California. It is quite possible that the book is biased (virtually all sources are). Describing a 1967 book as "archaic" is hyperbolic exaggeration. If Volunteer Marek thinks the book is so awful - then let him find some evidence in the form of book reviews, or other books that explain how wrong the book is, or something - then add this information to some articles.

Volunteer Marek has not taken this matter to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I wish that he would do so.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that many people are interested in the German history of Pommern, Schlesien, and Ost Preusen. Among them, the millions of descendants of German inhabitants who had been murdered and expelled in the ethnic cleansing of the land to open it for the Poles and Russians. Do I as an editor have a POV? Yes, because I happen to be one of those descendants. I find the deletion of valuable and well-referenced information regarding former German history in the region to be insulting to my family, who suffered so greatly in their flight from their homeland.

Since I have been open about my motives (preserving the memories of not only my ancestors, but the ancestors of millions of Volksdeutch), I would be happy to hear your motivations, Volunteer Marek. I do not wish to assume too much about these, but I feel the best option for the encyclopedia is to get it out in the open.

And for the record, I am no sockpuppet. I occasionally edit with the IP 71.169.181.208 , when I am logged out of Wikipedia due to OCD cache and browser clearing every night before shut-down. I have been open in the congruence of these two accounts, and since neither are banned, I hope we can agree that there is not real issue. Vrinan (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The user is pushing Irredentism German nationalist claims into articles using an obscure German author, and unsourced and false claims about Germans being "native" to Polish territories. In addition he puts forward information about a falsified referendum made under terror threats which would require extensive description far outside the scope of these small articles. Upon deeper review and though, I don't see these edits as salvageable.

"Do I as an editor have a POV? Yes, because I happen to be one of those descendants. " Then I suggest you stop editing these articles especially in view of your revisionist claims about "ethnic cleansing and murder of millions". "(preserving the memories of not only my ancestors, but the ancestors of millions of Volksdeutche)" No disrespect for your ancestors, since I don't know and don't care about who they were, but Volksdeutsche were overwhelmmingly pro-Nazi and significent portion of them(if not majority of capable males) were guilty of participation in Holocaust and genocide of Slavic populations. See Himmler's Auxiliaries: The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and the German National Minorities of Europe, 1933-1945 by Valdis O. Lumans --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC) PS:Now upon further review I see striking similarity to long gone user Kaiser von Europa who engaged in similar edits.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• It seems the author above user is using is connected to nationalist and Nazi related publisher [269]

[270] Publications by Max Meyhofer were made by Göttinger Arbeitskreis, Göttinger Arbeitskreis post-war was the refugee of nationalists Osftorscher who pressed territorial claims against Poland. "The activities of the Ostforscher had found a new institutional base in the Federal Republic in the form of the Göttinger Arbeitskreis Germany Turns Eastwards: A Study of Ostforschung Michael Burleigh - 1988. Kai Arne Linnemann in Das Erbe der Ostforschung. Zur Rolle Göttingens in der Geschichtswissenschaft der Nachkriegszeit on page 129 mentions that publications by Göttinger Arbeitskreis allowed former Nazis and nationalists to escape "political problems" when writing, and it was used among others by notorious Nazi Theodor Schieder(man responsible for planning genocide in Poland among other things). This obscure author seems to be too connected to Nazis and nationalists to take his claims about "nobody wanted to be in Poland, and Germans are native" as reliable. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I am continuing my research and he seems to have been also friends with notorious nationalist Fritz Gause, who stated that Hitler was "morally justified" in his war against Poland, this nationalist paper mentions this[271] along the fact that they worked closely together.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything MyMoloboaccount has said is a content issue, not a behaviour issue. It belongs in article talk pages, not here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nazi and German nationalist sources on Poland are not reliable and don't belong in articles. Putting nationalist and Nazi sources in articles is a behavior issue.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have also discovered further evidence that this is indeed a nationalist author. This German nationalist paper praises his book with confirmation that it was published by the Göttinger Arbeitskreis [272]. This Yearbook of German university(Jahrbuch,Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg i. Pr

1952) names Max Meyhofer as close co-worker of nationalists Gause and Rothfelds(bot of whom supported territorial claims against Poland and German supremacy)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

section break

I'd like to know how you have deemed German nationalist resources unreliable. Are there any studies describing their falsehoods or inaccuracies? Or is this some original research on your part? You seem to think that all Germans active from 1919-1945 were Nazis, in the worst sense of the word. This is disingenuous. Many Germans never joined the NSDAP, many never fought in the war, and the great majority did not participate in war crimes. It is in insulting gesture to defame an entire generation of people for the crimes committed by a relative few.

I am sure you can find many resources describing the extent of German settlement in the East in the several centuries preceding 1945. And I am sure you will also find many describing the complete disappearance of this historically and culturally important ethnic minority living abroad.

I hope you can appreciate my concerns regarding Volunteer Marek's wholesale deletion of valuable historically relevant passages from dozens of articles. It is important for me, and for many others, to honor their ancestors, and the lives they lived. We owe ourselves to them. So when I see censorship of an important and long period of (one of my) people's history, I become upset.

My POV is for the inclusion of all historically relevant information, regardless of its potential political incorrectness. I understand that there are 7 billion others like me, all with their own values and moral obligations. Many of us feel that the history and memories of our people are important, and efforts to destroy this history are understandably met with opposition.

It is impossible not to possess a POV, or a non-biased outlook. It is part of being human to have relationships with certain subjects. If you think the American and Polish researchers cited in encyclopedias like this don't have a point of view, I would suggest that you are wrong. Only by examining all points of view, and judging the accuracy of each (by more than 'guilt by association'), can we arrive at the truth. Even then, Wikipedia's job is to present the information from reliable and reputable sources, not the truth. I disagree strongly with the idea that all German sources sympathetic to Germans living in eastern territories are all unreliable or "biased" (though what isn't coming from a biased POV in historical literature?) If Volunteer Marek wants to delete these relevant passages from the articles, I suggest that he explain on the article talk pages why he feels they merit deletion. Vrinan (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, please take your debate about non-related subject to a proper venue, or "arriving at the truth". It is about publishing neutral information based on reliable sources. German nationalists with and publishers connected to Nazis are not reliable sources about Poland. I am sure you can find reliable non-nationalist related sources with the information you are seeking.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I should correct myself. This user: [273] (along with several other IPs) is most certainly a sock puppet of indef banned user Kaiser von Europa. I am not sure what Vrinan's connection to them is. It's possible I guess that after I reverted them on the Zielona Gora article, Vrinan looked at my recent contributions, saw that I reverted Kaiser's sock puppet and decided to revert me as "revenge".

I guess I can file an SPI against the other IPs. As far as Vrinan/71.169.181.208 goes there are several edits from these accounts which I find deeply troubling. For example in this comments the user seems to be alleging that a photograph representing the Holocaust has been faked. This kind of Holocaust denial is made even more explicit in this comment [274] (which I removed per WP:NOTAFORUM). While the user is entitled to have an opinion, they should not be using Wikipedia for advocacy of these kind of opinions, and frankly, I have no wish to interact in any manner with that sort of a person.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

IP NOTHERE except to promote ISIL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been aware of this Pakistan based IP User:175.110.139.126 for a while, but digging into their edit history I found this is a single purpose account engaged in editing to further the goals of ISIL. They are going against Wikipedia WP:OR (you can't create and delete countries for starters) and other policies. I can't see where they have added one source yet. They will not communicate on talk pages and don't use edit summaries. Because they tend to do a few edits in a row, I'll sometimes link to the reverts by other editors as its easier to see the effects of the IPs edits in one link. Here are the low lights:

1. [275] soft peddling the self-proclaimed wording
2. [276] and [277] and [278] and [279] changing away from rebel group to caliphate against hidden note. He was blocked for edit warring on this.
3. [280] and [281] removing Iraq and Syria from map description.
4. [282] Working on an article for a fake state of ISIL, adding a link to a possibly official terrorist site (facebook sure hates this site, deletes them every couple days)
5. [283] adding pro-ISIL template, now deleted.
6. [284] add ISIL propaganda photo of Sinai attack.
7. [285] add ISIL as an historical unrecognized state, wiping out another entry on list.
8. [286] wiped ISIL off the list of rebel groups that control territory.
9. [287] Added ISIL to List of states with limited recognition while wiping Somaliland of the list. \
10. [288] unsourced addition of Kurd deaths.
11. [289] broke Baghdadi infobox taking out the Rewards for Justice info and inserting crap about him succeeding the prophet.
12. Building [290] and inserting [291] and rebuilding and reinserting new Template:Provinces of ISIL to replace the just AfD'd Template:Wilayats of ISIL. The first template and the names in it were judged to be inappropriate under a number of criteria including promotion, manufactured etc.
13. [292] Removing a AfD tag on an ISIL article.

I'm requesting an indef ban under WP:NOTHERE. I have not notified the IP due to the pro-terrorist narrative nature of these edits and their complete lack of any communication in any talk page or edit summaries to date. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• SUPPORT: This is an easy case and a well presented incident. The IP is from Pakistan, btw. 208.123.223.74 (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And to save you looking, the above diffs are pretty much their entire contribution history. The rest is inconsequential little changes and fiddling. Legacypac (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wow, I'm surprised it's gone on for so long. Blocked for six months per POV-pushing and WP:NOTHERE. I wouldn't be optimistic about being rid of the type of editing, though; it's only too easy for dedicated individuals to jump to some other proxy. If you hear quacking, I'd say block on sight. Thank you for reporting, Legacypac. (Incidentally, for several edits in a row, you can show the combined real diff by using the Compare selected revisions function; it's not necessary to go via the reverts.) Bishonen | talk 11:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for the block and the tip - learned something new. No one gave me the block hammer just yet, so I'll leave that part to others. Legacypac (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know — in that sentence, I was addressing other admins, I hope some of them may be watching this. If you should see new similar stuff, Legacypac, please report here again, or on my page. BTW, I didn't indef because it's an IP (even though static), and we can't do that. It wouldn't stop the person, anyway. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

I agree with Bishonen's comment about the need for quick action given the heavy amount of editing on this topic. And support the 6-month block. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring between User:ChumleeS and User:Lackope

ChumleeS (talk · contribs) and Lackope (talk · contribs) are edit warring on a lot of articles (just look at their contributions). Both have received warnings (the latter removed one). This has been going on for weeks. Maybe someone can get them to stop? APK whisper in my ear 23:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I gave both users a final warning against edit warring and invited them to explain their point of view here. The amount of edit warring here really is unacceptable, and the only reason I didn't immediately issue blocks is that both users appear to be relatively new. Dragons flight (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the edits seem to relate to Serbia and Croatia, would this also be getting into an area where discretionary sanctions could be applied? —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Discretionary sanctions could be appropriate under the Macedonia case for disputes related to Serbia and Croatia. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Shit. I came across the pair at RFPP and blocked both of them. ChumleeS has been here since April but with fewer edits than Lackope who arrived in December. If anybody wants to change the blocking or remove it go ahead, it's fine with me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Since neither of them had edited after my "final warning", I went ahead and undid the blocks in the hopes these two would be willing to come together and explain what is going on. Obviously, if they return to edit warring then blocks would be appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dragons flight. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

SPA Rebecca1990, possible industry insider

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As you may clearly see in her User Contributions, User User talk: Rebecca1990 is a 19-month old WP:SPA that edits solely in pornographic discussions, and only (LITERALLY as in 100%!!!) in favor of pornography or a certain pornographic actor/actress. In Afds relating to pornography she always votes "KEEP." Like literally (again), she has NEVER, EVER, EVER voted "Delete" or against a pornstar page in the entire time she has been here.

Recently, users have picked up on her conduct and have begun suspecting her of being an insider for the porn industry who gets paid for AVN or some firm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_December_26 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eva_Angelina

One user said, "for the love of Buddha/Jehovah/Flying Spaghetti Monster, will someone take "Rebecca1990" to ANI and propose a topic ban already? If this editor isn't a paid shill for AVN or some related PR firm or whatnot, I'll eat my shorts." And another said, I would observe that you appear to be here solely to promote and defend pornography articles, as it's 100% of your activity, and so strong reasons exist to assume you're an industry insider in violation of Wikipedia:TOS.

That is why I open this discussion, If she really is an insider for the porn industry and gets paid to protect them here, then her edits violates WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:SPA, and WP:NOTOPINION. I think a temporary topic ban would help or a firm warning. At the very least this noticeboard can force her to explain her outrageous 100% pro-pornography, promotional-based edit history. BBnumber1 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you see the irony of creating a new account for the sole purpose of reporting a single purpose account? Chillum 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I will also mention that WP:SOCK says that Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Chillum 00:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If you look at their contributions, you'd see they are obviously not an SPA and that their deletion !votes are not a violation of policy. It seems the IP is taking issue with the fact that they vote !keep in certain afd discussions, and is attempting to get them blocked for that. That's not against any policy or guideline. The IP is also going on a witchhunt with the terms "If she gets paid" and saying that she is possibly in violation of WP:ADVOCACY. I think a boomerang is in order. Addendum: I believe that OP might be an illigitimate account of this user. This diff is what led me to this understanding as well this discussion. Tutelary (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  Agreed with this comment, this should go to SPI and the filing editor looks to be a sockpuppet created to hide personal disagreements with the reported editor. Weedwacker (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - members of the porn project tend to be passionate especially in defense of articles and subjects that have been so routinely on the receiving end (in a usually detrimental way) of, to put it lightly, very non-open minded attitudes. As evidence of this, I refer you to the recent discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#SqueakBox_and_porn_again. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: "...members of the porn project tend to be passionate especially in defense of articles and subjects..." ...which makes them no different than anyone else around here. They are granted no dispensation or special privileges to create a hostile debate environment by slinging ad homina. (Disclosure: I created the Eva Angelina AfD which the other user referenced above; this is its current state.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, I suspect the opener is yet another sock of infamous User:Redban who was banned less than two weeks ago. A SPI would be appropriate. Cavarrone 10:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be my surmise as well, but it should be addressed in a separate notice. I would like to see this one to resolution in an objective manner.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The pattern of abuse this user (Rebecca1990) and some of their apparent SPA WP:duck adult entertainment industry cohorts engage in is as follows:

• a) create a hostile debate environment with personal attacks, hoping the targets retreat or overreact.
• b) after overreacting targets are blocked, accuse newly-arriving editors of being sock-puppets of blocked users.
• c) rinse/recycle/repeat, and all the better if some of those editors are sock-puppets - anything to deflect attention off the arbitrary mess that is WP:Pornbio and the horde of unexceptional articles it has unleashed in recent years.

Examples of the pattern:

1. The submitter of this notice is called out above (and he may very well be a sock).

2. I am accused of being a sock three different times in three different places in less than 24hrs by Rebecca1990: 1, 2, 3.

--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. A bit funny seeing these accusations coming from you as your own behaviour is a bit questionable as well. You seem hell bent on reopening various discussions which already have been discussed “ad nauseam” and around which there is a consensus (see: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) vis-à-vis the Hall of Fame discussion, which you reopened a mere 5 days after a clear consensus decided not to change). And then you reopen AFD's (for instance regarding Brittney Skye) mere days after it's closed. One could accuse yourself of being a Single Purpose account as well as the majority of your edits since you registered in Nov. 2014 have been in AFD's. Which for a relatively new user is rather uncommon…

It’s peculiar to day the least, that various accounts have popped up the last weeks all with the same pattern and behavior, and all contrary to porn articles and hell bent on deleting them, even when according to WP:PORNBIO there is consensus to keep them. I’m thus not surprised that some people are questioning the appearance of these as sock puppits.

The allegations against Rebecca - that she is in the employ of the porn industry - are just that allegations. I've still got to see the proof that she's a Single Purpose account set up by the porn industry. She might very well be, but as far I'm concerned, until seeing such proof, she's just an overenthusiastic editor with a very particular niche interest in favor of porn articles/bios, which isn’t a crime. -- fdewaele, 3 January 2015, 19:25.

• Comment I am sickened by Раціональне анархіст's attack on Rebecca solely because she is !voting something that Раціональне анархіст does not like. Please stop with the personal attacks against Rebecca, else I am going to advocate a topic ban for your own disruption. Unfounded, unsubstantiated and repeated allegations in the topic area are very much grounds for a topic ban for pornography related topics. I find it funny that in a. you're accusing Rebecca of doing personal attacks against you, when you blatantly called her an 'insider' for the porn industry without proof. Either quit the disruption or get topic banned. Tutelary (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. That's nonsense. Rebecca's undeniably a porn-centric SPA whose likely COI editing has been raised as an issue by multiple users, and whose behavior in deletion discussions was characterized as "appalling" bad faith by at least two different admins. She's been accusing the editor you criticize as being the sock of a banned editor without any significant evidence, and keeps it up after the SPI you opened was closed without action and Checkuser was declined "in the absence of actual evidence". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• The editor who initiated this ANI has been found to be a sock for a blocked user. [293] I think this can be closed now. Weedwacker (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

QUESTION - Wasn't this closed by an Admin? Why is it open again? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP creating article empty article sections, editing disruptively after numerous warnings

For about a week, IP user 70.190.229.97 has been creating sections in various articles but leaving them empty except for the article improvement tags he leaves in each empty section he creates. He adds no content, just the improvement tag. He has been asked not to do so several times, has been warned that this equates disruptive editing and that he could be blocked for doing so. He never responds to any warnings or comments on his talk page, even after being advised to do so by an administrator, he just removes the warnings, occasionally saying "sorry" in the edit summary. He has stated in edit summaries that he understands the warnings and won't do it again, but then goes right back to the same disruptive behavior. His other disruptive behavior has been adding Ref Needed banners on articles when plenty of references are already present. He also has a history of edit warring and has been warned about it by editors as well as at least one administrator. After numerous requests and warnings, he continues to not use edit summaries. He has removed categories and established content without explanation or even an apparent productive motive.

• A few diffs and examples of empty sections added and inappropriate refs needed tags along with reverting all of it back after being warned on his talk page that the edits are inappropriate and disruptive:

Matthew J. Munn article: [294], [295]

Paradise Cay, California article: [296], [297], [298]

Mike Elliott (comedian) article: [299]

• Examples of necessary wholesale reversion of article edits when IP has removed categories, content, added extraneous content, and made strange, unexplained section changes:

Jim Meskimen article: [300]

Jason Lee (actor) article (previously had to be been rewritten due to the IPs strange edits, empty sections, and inappropriate subsections and undue weight added - it was all reverted back in today with the following): [301]

• Inappropriately adding references needed to article with an existing ref needed banner, but where plenty of references already exist:

David Cross article: [302]

• IP's talk page revision history showing warnings left and removal of warnings, including his apologies for edits and indication that he would not repeat the disruption: [303]

Edit warring comment from Drmies: [304]

These are just a few examples. My guess is there are more articles across Wikipedia where empty sections have been created by this IP. Either he doesn't understand the warnings and comments that have been left on his talk page or he doesn't care. It's strange behavior, to say the least. If he had an account and was looking to rack up edits, I could better understand his motivation (not agree with it, but understand). But as an IP account, it doesn't make sense to me, outside of intentional disruption and possibly now seeking to win. Some of his edits have been fine, some of it has been helpful, but the seemingly intentional disruption and ignoring of MOS and general procedure and policies is concerning and seems problematic. Perhaps a mentor is what's needed? But, until then, I expect the defiant disruption and inappropriate editing to continue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Again on Little Jimmy Dickens, btw. Connormah (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I just had a look at Michael Kittrell, where they were doing basically the same thing as they did before on Robin Williams, and I've blocked them for 60 hours. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threat by Jqadrij

Jqadri has been edit warring on Saman Hasnain. This is there latest edit on Saman Hasnain[[305]]. A couple of lines stick out "Anybody including Chadd who tries to alter thefactual content of this article without providingevidence should be criminally prosecuted"' and "Anybody who challenges these facts should produce evidence or Wikipedia is responsible"

I am not sure if this is a legal threat or if this is just the person saying they should be charge with a crime. Either way this edit does not seem to be here to build up wikipedia. Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 07:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a combination of attempting to intimidate, combined with poor editing. Probably just trolling. But if it continues, ask for an indef block. However, be sure any facts in question are validly sourced and do not violate BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The facts that she was charge are well sourced, however the lawsuits Jqadri has brought up, I cannot find any information on them. As you know often times after the initial news cycle about the charge there is never any follow-up as to what has happened with the case. I will revert and warn editor about edit warring. Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 07:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I am asking for an indef block on Jqadrij. This editor has been warned multiple times about edit warring, and saying people should be tried criminally for reverting them. There latest after I warned them about edit warring was this [[306]] Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 08:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a lawsuit: [307]. Jqadri is trying to make it appear that this lawsuit has exonerated the Hasnains. However it was dismissed before it even went to trial. There was no judgement in Hasnain's favour, and it certainly does not show that the charges against him and his wife are "false". Harry the Dog WOOF 08:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc has blocked Jqadri for three days for edit-warring. I discovered this while preparing to block the user indefinitely; mentions of potential legal actions are sometimes "watch out, or someone might sue us" rather than threats (see my comment on one such situation), but when the user's adding the warnings in the article as part of an edit-war, and when he's sending legal emails to Wikipedia and insisting that we therefore treat him differently, it's time for a NLT block. Since he's currently under a block, I'll not change anything, but if he keeps it up when the block expires, alert an admin (here or privately) for a NLT block. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The BLP in question, Saman Hasnain, currently uses a Daily Mail story as a reference, which flat out states that she is guilty of the crimes she is accused of, even though she has not been tried or convicted. That's garbage. I am not defending her or her husband's business ethics but countless thousands of people got caught up in the excesses of the mid-2000s mortgage bubble, and this BLP looks a bit like a coatrack to beat up a beauty queen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It is also clear that Hasnain and her husband vigorously deny the criminal charges, and the current version of the article fails to mention that, violating both NPOV and BLP. Jqadri is going about things the wrong way, but when legal threats are made in the context of pointing out egregious BLP problems, then those problems need to be addressed as forcefully as the legal threats. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Our BLP policy says "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured". As the winner of a third tier beauty pageant for married Pakistani women up to 45 years of age, I consider her "relatively obscure" and question why this section is even in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See my replies on the article's talk page. We should move discussion on how to improve the article there. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#What_is_not_a_legal_threat -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor / Parent

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Standard3 has simultaneously created three separate BLPs on the same minor child actor who will soon have a small role in her first movie (possibly in a misguided attempt to increase SEO): Ella Jones II, Ella Jones (actress), Ella Jones (raleigh). As fast as speedy deletion tags are added to these unreferenced and non-GNG articles, Standard3 removes them. Multiple editors have attempted to engage or counsel Standard3 on Standard3's Talk page to no avail. Editor has been repeatedly attempting to add this child actors name to The Disappointments Room cast list, despite the actor's very low-billing. Finally, Standard3 attempted to hijack the article of a different actor named Ella Jones by overwriting said actor's biography with one for this other actor. (see: [308]). DOCUMENT★ERROR 05:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it the same content as at the IMDB page?[309] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, word for word. Most likely this is an extremely zealous stage parent. DOCUMENT★ERROR 05:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Or at least "enthusiastic". Understandable. But not a candidate for an article. Unless she gets nominated for best supporting actress Oscar, or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal of RFPP decline for Douchebag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Douchebag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. On 14 May 2012, Douchebag was suggested as a target on The Oatmeal, a high-traffic website as a target for Vandalism
2. Since then the page has been the target for multiple drive by persons for vandalising it by following the suggestion.
3. The page has been under various states of protection including Full protection
4. The page recently came of extended full protection on January 1st
5. Shortly after the page protection lapsed, the same persistent vandalism recurred [310][311] and Joe Decker stepped in to add Semi-Protection for 1 year.
   1. This is less than what the page had previously
6. I petitioned at RFPP to have full protection restored and asked for Indefinite full protection citing:
   1. Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. - Over 2.5 years after the original suggestion, the idea is still being re-instated. The fact that the same signature of vandalism showed up less than 2 days after protection lapsed indicates that this still a venue for internet trolls to get their laughs. Included in this is the type of vandalism similar to "John Doe of Anytown" inclusions which are automatic BLP violations.
   2. Subject to edit-warring where all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e., in cases in which full-protection would otherwise be applied). - As evidenced in the original 2 year full protection protection applied by CharlieEchoTango who admitted Long-term full protection. This is unfortunate, but given the history of the page and the popularity of The Oatmeal, it's not likely to stop.
   3. Subject to vandalism or edit-warring where unregistered editors are engaging in IP-hopping by using different computers... - Being vandalized by both many fans of The Oatmeal as unregistered users, newly registered users, and established accounts. See the article history, Talk page history and archives, and special edit notices for the page.
   4. Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. - A regime was established to forcefully shut down any attempts to introduce Thomas Edison or any living person to the talk page (Please do not request listing any people on this page., Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Douchebag)
7. We had multiple inexperienced (or inept) editors (tutterMouse—Steven Walling—Callanecc—CambridgeBayWeather) attempt to shunt the discussion off on the grounds that the semi-protection applied meets the minimum necessary. I assert that the first vandalism coming in less than 48 hours for the exact same vector that the page was originally protected indicates that editors are still interested in Righting Great Wrongs.

For these reasons I appeal CambridgeBayWeather's exceedingly poor decision to attempt to shove this off the page as it's only pushing the issue down the road and even then only leaving enWP open to BLP violations and confirmed Oatmeal fans looking to score one for the right side. I cite as precedent the Malamanteau debate in which another popular site (XKCD) caused us to spend several days worth of debate as to how to deal with vandalistic edits suggested by popular media. Hasteur (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Users notified. CharlieEchoTango (the admin who applied the Full Protection) has since retired from enWP. Hasteur (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hasteur, if you hadn't named me up there you'd be blocked for personal attacks (and possibly the disruptive editing at RFPP). Administrators will almost never override the administrative actions of another admin based on the same or similar evidence. As I said there you need to discuss this with the protecting admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • See the abuse inherent in the system, Help Help, I'm being repressed! Seriously Callanecc do you really think we're going to have anything but one of the numerous sleeper accounts (which you should be aware of since you've taken clerking action with respect to the GamerGate case) that infest wikipedia is going to step in and do the exact same behavior. For shame that a ArbCom clerk and Admin can't see the writing on the wall and the precedent that is already established. Hasteur (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Furthermore Callanecc, Joe Decker was pinged multiple times and invited to respond, yet he didn't. This was not an override or reversal of an administrator action (which your objection of 06:46 seems to suggest is your burecratic objection) but strengthening the protection to what it already was. Hasteur (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Page was upgraded to Full page protection for a year by Kudpung. I think this tables the discussion, though I'll lay good odds that when the page comes off protection it'll be vandalized in the exact same manner within a week of the protection expiring again. Hasteur (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

StAnselm and Leelah's Law

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who four days ago nominated Leelah Alcorn for deletion, came across a related article that I created earlier today, Leelah's Law, and moved it to Leelah's Alcorn Law [312], claiming it is the actual title of proposed legislation. StAnselm then added a citation to the change.org petition and a Huffington Post article, to justify adding Leelah's Alcorn Law [sic] to the lead. There is a typo in the change.org petition call to action, and HuffPO picked it up, but the title of the petition is conspicuously Enact Leelah's Law to Ban Transgender Conversion Therapy. Almost all reliable sources call it Leelah's Law. (search change.org and "Leelah's Law")

Note: Alcorn is Leelah's last name, not an adjective. Ponder that for a moment.

I moved the title back to the original name, and dropped a note on StAnselm's talk page here and on the article talk page here. He made a series of reverts, ignoring WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO: [313][314][315]

StAnselm has a history of less-than-collegial editing on LGBT-related articles. He's has a history of aggressive edit warring. In view of this, the AfD, the nonsensical move, and the addition of Leelah's Alcorn Law [sic] to the article, I am left to conclude that StAnselm is trying to make a WP:POINT; perhaps that transgender people are illiterate, or disordered. His edits compromise the integrity of Wikipedia and, if intentional, are WP:VANDALISM. Since the article involves a recently deceased person, I believe WP:BDP also applies, not to mention WP:HUMANDIGNITY, WP:GOODTASTE, and WP:COMMONSENSE.

I am requesting the community's thoughts on StAnselm's conduct and, as appropriate, admin intervention to prevent further disruption.- MrX 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Smacks of trolling. Other than that, you've pretty much said all that need be said. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Tevet 5775 05:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Edit: Also, changed the last edit he made on the article, but I just fixed the name and took out the sic. 05:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Either MrX wants admin action against StAnselm for a history of persistent abuse of editing privileges, for which he is going to have to provide a compelling argument supported by a lot of diffs, or he wants a ruling on the naming of an article, in which case he should take it to WP:DR. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as no one else has bothered, and having now spent far too much time on this, I find for "Leelah's Law" 115,000 Ghits and for "Leelah's Alcorn Law" 3 Ghits only in the Daily Mail. Obviously an error on the part of the Mail's editor(s). I think we ought to give MrX the benefit of the doubt and perhaps ask StAnselm to cool it and have a bit more respect in the wake of such an unnecessary and tragic suicide of a young person. Closed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.